Force of Destiny
Philosophy,
Music,
Logic.


2000+ Free world Best Books A-Z Aeschylus, Aesop, Alcott, Andersen, Antonius, Aristotle, Aristphanes, Augustin, Austen, Bacon, Bastiat, Baum, Behn, Berkeley, Bible_1, Bible_2, Bronte_C, Bronte_E, Shakespeare. Shakespeare


Logic Law
Fighting illegal motorist parking tickets,
Statutes & Laws

( Left is a sculpture not a picture, click to enlarge and look at finger pressure ). Click Pictures for links, end pictures to enlarge.
As in other FREE pages available for cases on this website.

Provided by Tony, to assist in rebuttal arguments by British quasi judicial bodies that show aspects of being
pretenders, equivocators, purporters and subtracters. SOME of these are specially selected to riposte real arguments found excessively frequently with their exchanges with people unfamiliar for deceptive persuasions.

These complex fallacies are from Councils, Adjudicators, Ombudsman, Law courts, and quasi Judicial bodies in the UK. They are used frequently, and show purpose and design, in dismissal of individual cases that have class potential to uphold appeals belonging to a generic class. The first sign of design and purpose is to offer the rule that each appellant's case will be dealt with on it's own merit, and where a case has already a precedent, 'stare decisis' the adjudicators choose to treat it individually and te result is that precedent i completely overturned with rulings for like features being ruled for and against in cherry picking those which best can be dismissed, and create deterrent for others constantly maintaining a chance factor where a class ruling is perfectly clear and should applie.
Introduction to the nature of each form of fallacy, read first if unfamiliar, or look at easy examples first.
Irrelevant Themes, examples from real life case material, used to fool by word order and prominence in delivering, and holding on to fraudulent gains. HOW; with utter precision, they play keywords into a refusal, and make it look (falsely) like they can't because they do not have the powers of possession. Placing a sentence modifying adverb in word order prominence in a main or subordinate clause, to deliver and constellate associative complexes, and then follow; as if in small print, the admission. Pure 'contradictio in adiecto', contradiction in terms.

  1. Wayne V Buckinghamshire Council and Traffic Penalty Tribunal (TPT); new employees of the Joint Committee of councils. (Insight to deplorable bias, and false irrational rulings.)

  2. Medusa, Tony, Wayne, and others V Traffic Enforcement Centre, (TEC). (The deeming purporters, ignorers, and responders to questions not asked. Insight.)

  3. Tony v New / Old Mayor of London, Transport for London (TFL) and Greater London Authority (GLA). (The ambiguators and casuists, insight.)

  4. Tony v Office of Fair Trade, (OFT). Compared with the LGO. (The injusticers unless it's of public interest! Insight).

  5. Medusa, Tony - et al, v Camden Council. (The sophists and word smiths of London. Insight, sore sight! )

  6. Several, v Tec and Bailiff's, using flawed documents as purporters to warrants. (Insight to non compliant drafting, and the achilles heel they don't want you to know about.)

Tony's Complex Fallacies

Easy Examples

Begging The Question

Irrelevant Thesis

Crafted Amphiboly

Crafted Accent

Suppression Suggestion

False Cause

Formal Fallacies

Informal Fallacies

Conduct Fallacies

Amalgam Fallacies

1, 2, 3.
1, 2, 3.


Irrelevant Thesis --- complex cases.

The case arguments below, the context of statutes CPR and case law that governs this and similar cases. It is printed within the principles of the EU HR Protocol 5 Article 10, “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. “, and our standard disclaimer



Short index of main items.


  1. The one page that was put before the TPT, that had to bring the council (7 person team) to admit the bays were NOT prescribed. This admission means they were, remain, and continue to act unlawfully with knowledge and intent.

------------------------------------------

On Friday 27th June 2008.


This appeal, was won at the tribunal hearing. After a series of irrelevant exchanges, one simple question was asked of the council TEAM OF SEVEN. Their reply was to admit the parking bays in question WERE NOT prescribed. ....

(hence illegal, and hence fraudulently, AND they harass you with bailiff action to get it. TWO statutes breached wholesale, shirking their duties, and smirking while doing so. They have been knowingly covering up for some 6 years, and collecting unlawful enrichment.) YOU elect them, and where do you think they belong, a council building or another type of institution?

The case actually took about 5 minutes, surrounded by all the fluff and spin and distractions these tend to have. All the material is coming soon. The adjudicator for reasons YET TO BE seen THROUGH the masks and cloaks of disguises, deferred the ruling, to enable some fooling??. That will be interesting to see HOW they go about a 'damage limitation' exercise that will show without a shadow of doubt, the nature of collusion that takes place in this ARENA of 'JUSTICE' delivered from??? YES you have it, the first words in all their names are “We are independent”, they mean independent, from true JUSTICE, and adjudicators are independent from the tribunal, BUT paid by the 'joint committee of councils' and thus adjudicate for those who pay them, not for you. Of course some appeals have to get through, after all they need to show SOME massaged statistics to justify the conduct.

Neil Herron was there while the APPELLANT asked just ONE simple prepared question.

See how for months, the council have been arguing the most awful and common fallacy of irrelevant theses, or 'Ignorant refutation'.

JUST like think tank rhetoric, and neuro linguistic spin.

------------------------------------------


  1. Here is the council's synopsis.

  2. Summary of Appellant's Submissions

    1. The Appellant has stated that the bays are unlawful. ( legality is RELEVANT to arguments )

  3. Enforcement Authority's Submissions

    1. The Council has considered the points raised by the Appellant in his representations and subsequent correspondence. It is our view that the minor imperfections to which the Appellant refers are not to the detriment of any motorist. It is clear that the restrictions are, and clearly remain, parking bays. The Council therefore remains satisfied that the PCNs were issued legally and correctly, and that the Penalty Charges are due. ( views on clarity of markings are IRRELEVANT to arguments. )


Section 3.above is an informal fallacy with various names,

'Ignorant thesis', 'Ignorant refutation', 'Ignoratio elenchi' Red Herring, Smoke Screen, Wild Goose Chase


These informal fallacies, focus on an irrelevant topic presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to “win” an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of “reasoning” has the following form:


1. Topic A is under discussion.

2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).

3. Topic A is abandoned.


Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (TRSGD 2002)


This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim. The internal logic of the diverted reasoning MAY be sound. One obvious conclusion that follows in a simple 'reductio ad absurdum' test, showing its absurdity; while setting aside a key distraction word 'issued' meaning in context, simply printing anything in a back office, is this: IF PCNS are issued (and served to create a contract and allegation) legally and correctly, from the keywords 'considered', 'satisfied', 'clear', and 'remain' then WHAT ON EARTH does one need statute for? Throw the TRSGD 2002 Act into the shredder, and all other statutes and laws, because we can reach conclusions from placing the word 'THEREFORE' at the and of a sequence and before a conclusion; WORD order being all that's needed, based simply on the rising of the sun, being clear the next morning. Utterly ridiculous isn't it? That's fraud management backed with harassment, for you. When it comes to defending the fraud, use words, and irrelevant concepts, ideas and thoughts to stir the deadly cocktail, and serve the detriments to people under the maxim 'Ignorance of the law is no excuse'. When it's the surgeon's turn to deal with 'the breath of a fee'd lawyer' he should say 'Ignorance of medicine is no excuse', and proceed to remove the lawyer's brains.




  1. Initial comments in abstract form with case law on relevance:

  2. 2.a is a generalised synopsis, that deliberately blocks the specifics on legality, the council failed to address, and clearly shows avoidance. This is impermissible, and shall have to be addressed first, BEFORE moving on to any irrelevant thesis and other fallacies that remain, at the end of the topic. IF the adjudicator is flexible on this and strict on hearing their argument before they rebut cogently the Appellant's, then they breach the spirit of CPR 16.5 and the adjudicator shall be scrutinised for 'not furthering the overriding objective' in the spirit of CPR 1.1-1.4.

  3. 3.a is in its entirety, an irrelevant thesis, essentially argued on the clarity of the bays, wilfully ignoring their legality, and extenuating major design faults into minor imperfections, this argument is a false representation and misleading within the meaning of the Fraud act 2006, 1-4. The appellant shall not leave the hearing and permit a waste of time in traversing the clarity of the bays, since IF the bays are illegal, it follows that the irrelevance of clarity is a total waste of time, at best to reach a conclusion that from clearly painted lines some form of legality follows where it does NOT. That is why the legality must be determined first. Notwithstanding this, and just for the nonce, the council's fallacious argument forms of which there are at least 3-4 will be disambiguated, showing very confused and muddled reasoning, that in the Appellant's view is quite wilful, since he cannot believe the arguments have been constructed with wilful ignorance; that is a contradiction in terms.

  4. 3.a also contains a blurred fallacy of 'begging the question', as well as both an anti grammatical and anti-logical construction that show signs of anacoluthia, (broken thoughts reflected in broken or inaccurate grammatical forms) that has to be wilful while perhaps unconscious. This is entirely deceptive, and has been seen for what it is with utter precision.

  5. The fallacies of irrelevant thesis”, “ignorant refutation”, “ignoratio elenchi” are different names of the same form, and, 'begging the question', circular reasoning, or “petitio principii', are another type in the third sentence of 3.a. that also has further ambiguity by an anti-grammatical construction that reveals an anti-logical construction, that is minor, and both inconsequential since the avoidance of the dispute issue is unequivocally obvious. To the question “Where did you address the issues of legality put up by the Appellant?”, there is no controverting response, and only a quick passing comment in the generalised first line 1. a.

  6. To repeat, the structure and efficacy of 'irrelevant themes' and 'begging questions' has its efficacy in avoiding at all costs a proper rebuttal of the Appellant's argument on legality. If the adjudicator permits the council to not argue against the legality he will show complicity in breaching flexible CPR 1.1-1.4, and permit a waste of valuable judicial time on a theme that PRESUMES the bays are legal WITHOUT making a proper determination of that as a FACT. Equally an argument that this has to be determined by a higher court, is viewed as a fallacy of 'ad baculum' an 'argument to force', in stepping up costs, where the facts are as easily determined by an ordinary man as a High Court Justice, There are no mysteries to be examined here whatsoever. Where bays require TWO lines instead of ONE, the determination doesn't even require a tape measure, merely a glimpse of the photographs.

  7. To end here and commence the next, one is entitled to know why the hearing is on the council's premises, and who is therefor paying for it, does it come from the joint committee of councils or TPT. One would expect an 'impartial', 'independent' hearing to be held on neutral grounds. This shall be an additional focus, for subsequent public availability within the meaning of the EU HR Pr5 Ar6 of course.

  8. Equally noted as adverse comment to the council is their willful holding back the details of their own review of signs and lines, and this should have been ordered under the spirit of CPR 31.6 (b),(i). Its absence seriously prejudices this case. Although the bays are so obviously non complaint, the Appellant is content to dispose of their need if the adjudicator disposes of the legality issue as determined unlawful, non complaint and unenforceable.

  9. Finally the tribunal has a duty to include relevant and exclude irrelevant material. If this is reversed it will show design and purpose quite unequivocally. Excluding the relevance of illegality and including the irrelevance of clarity will be unambiguously a disastrous decision revealing bias, elective sampling, and hasty generalization. It is the observance of this duty that is the matter of initial focus since the last visit showed these codes breached with a decision on 'view, extent and clarity' that was clearly synthesised.

  10. To emphasise the council may not be expected to maintain lines and signs in “perfect condition” at all times is also an irrelevance, the signs MUST be COMPLIANT, and while minor imperfections may be tolerated, design faults that make it illegal are not. If substantial compliance is an argument offered, then that goes two ways, namely that if the Appellant has paid for 60 minutes and parked 65-68 minutes, he also parked in substantial compliance. Argue on substantial compliance and give the flexibility to motorists also, it's your decision, if substantial is the order, that goes both ways, and the decision maker will have to admit it, or show strictness for the motorist and flexibility for the council, namely bias, prejudice and partiality.

    1. These facts are well known to Councils and adjudicators alike, and it is typical of tribunals nowadays for an adjudicator to 'slalom' through a critical path of CPR, and where aversion, floodgate potential, and revenue are prominent, there is a very clear overriding of the 'overriding objective of fairness' in CPR 1-1.4, and where appetite for a 'win' there is a clear furtherance of flexibility for the objective that looks like fairness for the powerful body whose conduct breaches other statutes wholesale in the objective of revenue, ahead of justice and fairness. This is the face and form of 'dark' conduct, design and purpose that does not escape notice whatsoever. Instinct in the public shows awareness and that is reflected in the voting patterns that confirm it.

    2. All the tribunal is requested, is to order the council to SHOW the hearing members exactly where the bay markings; where the Appellant parked; are prescribed as explained below. VERY SIMPLE. If the council cannot do it, then they have acted beyond their powers, illegally. Not difficult to understand or DO. Perhaps the council would be kind enough to oblige.

        What the government says about defective signing:
        The use on Public highways of non-prescribed signs
        which have
        not been authorised by, or on behalf of, the
        Secretary of State,
        is illegal. Authorities who so use
        unauthorised signs
        act beyond their powers.

    3. Duty to exclude all irrelevant material.
      R v Director General of Telecommunications, ex parte Cellcom Ltd (1999) Justice Lightman "The Court may interfere if the Director has taken into account an irrelevant consideration or has failed to take into account a relevant consideration."
      R (on the application of Alconbury Developments Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment and the Regions (2001) Lord Slynn "It has long been established that if the Secretary of State ............. takes into account matters irrelevant to his decision or refuses or fails to take into account matters relevant to his decision .......... The Court may set his decision aside".

    4. Duty to consider all relevant material. (there are more.)
      R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Nelson (1994) "Not satisfied that the material before the Secretary of State was properly considered before the decision was taken"
      R v Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, ex parte Balchin (1998) "The relevant test .......... as well as a consideration has been omitted which, had account been taken of it, might have caused the a decision maker to reach a different conclusion"
      Recommendation Number R (80)2 of the Committee of Ministers (adopted 11 March(1980) In describing this basic principle "an administrative authority when exercising a discretionary power .......... observes objectivity and impartiality, taking into account any of the factors relevant to the particular case".


Since the council's arguments are deemed totally irrelevant, the issue has nothing to do with 'views on clarity', their disambiguation is at the end, since it is considered a waste of judicial time. Nevertheless the Appellant HAS addressed it, UNLIKE the council, in their NOT addressing the Appellant's. This shows principles and respect towards procedure.


  1. Here follow a few contextual matters that will show if this case and its ruling be compliant with fair public hearings, the spirit of the law, Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) and Case law principles. Disregard them and obtain the award of the most egregiously invidious adjudication to date, and go down in the book of records to show to the rest of the world how great? BRITAIN upholds principles of Justice in the 21st Century.

    1. CPR 16.5. a defendant who fails to deal with an allegation shall be taken to admit that allegation.”

      • The Appellant has alleged the councils bay lines are illegal and provided very detailed and specific grounds with photographs.

      • The council has failed totally to address any allegation in particular, and provided instead, an irrelevant thesis argument that has little or NO bearing on the allegations.

      • Within the meaning and spirit of 2. A) the council has admitted the allegations simply by default.

      • As such a ruling upholding their case is a NO response to the appellants appeal at all, and conforms to TEC procedure “NO response to MY appeal” box 3. of the P2/P3 statutory declarations, hence it will be brought to a county court and high court should it proceed, for a higher decision.

    2. Under CPR 31.6 (b),(i) there is a duty of the council to provide evidence of their recent surveys of the bay lines in question, and of relevance, and to date this has not been complied with in spirit or fact.

      • Standard disclosure requires a party to disclose only

        (b) the documents which – (i) adversely affect his own case; (ii) adversely affect another party’s case;

      • Ignoring this is a display of deception, in 'culpa lata' and shall confirm the VIEWS of the Appellant. For examination by a higher court, and or the public.

    3. Under CPR 1-1- 1.4 the court and any judicial body in like spirit, has a duty to

      • 1.1 (1) These Rules are a new procedural code with the overriding objective of enabling the court to deal with cases justly.

      • 1.2 The court must seek to give effect to the overriding objective when it –

      • (a) exercises any power given to it by the Rules;

      • 1.3 The parties are required to help the court to further the overriding objective.

      • 1.4 (1) The court must further the overriding objective by actively managing cases.

      • (a) encouraging the parties to co-operate with each other in the conduct of the proceedings;

      • (b) identifying the issues at an early stage;

      • (c) deciding promptly which issues need full investigation.

      • Ignoring this is a display of deception, in 'culpa lata' and shall confirm the VIEWS of the Appellant. For examination by a higher court, and or the public.

    1. If this or any subsequent court should make a decision to which the Appellant is NOT party to the proceedings, ie, behind closed doors, without permitting the Appellant to comment or controvert, then he shall be seen to breach a fundamental principle of law as per Justice Sedley's passage here.

      • R v London Borough of Camden ex parte Paddock (1995) Justice Sedley "The principle that a decision making body should not see relevant to giving those affected the chance to comment on it and if they wish, to controvert it is fundamental to the principle of law (which governs public administration as much as it does adjudication) that to act in good faith and listen fairly to both sides is the duty lying upon everyone who decides anything."

    2. Quote from Charles' Adjudication:
      "For a parking enforcement authority successfully to enforce a penalty, it
      must show that at the time of the alleged contravention the relevant
      prohibition, restriction or condition upon which it  was duly signed or
      marked.

      Not only must the traffic sign or Marking be present, it should comply with
      the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 which provide for
      every particular of permitted markings, including the type, size, colour and
      dimensions."


      "It is for the Council to maintain the regulatory signs and road markings in
      a condition sufficient to draw the attention of the reasonable motorist to
      the parking restriction contained in the relevant Traffic Regulation Order
      that applies there."

    3. Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (1985) Lord Diplock "By irrationality I mean what can now be succinctly referred to as Wednesbury unreasonableness ............. it applies to a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it."

      • A decision to dismiss the appellant on the basis of the arguments put forward that are devoid of relevance in irrelevant thesis, ignorant refutation, ignoratio elenchi. will be seen as irrational.

    4. R v Secretary of State for The Home Department ex parte Ahmed (1999) Lord Justice Hobhouse "The principle of legitimate expectation and English law is a principle of fairness in the decision making process................."

      • legitimate expectation is required at the hearing in all the principle of justice in the UK and EU HR convention.

    1. Bushell v Secretary of State for the Environment (1981) Lord Diplock "Fairness requires that the objector ......... be given sufficient information about the reasons relied on by the Department as justifying the draft scheme to enable them to challenge the accuracy of any facts and the validity of any arguments upon which the departmental reasons are based"

      • The Appellant looks forward to the frequently requested “sufficient informationso far not forthcoming.

    1. T A Miller v Ministry of Housing Local Government (1968) "The person at risk should have an opportunity to comment on materials being considered by the decision maker and to contradict them".

      • The council in this respect has failed to comment and contradict, by way of presenting irrelevant material and arguments. Admission under CPR 16.5.

    2. R v Commission for Racial Equality ex parte Hillingdon London Borough Council (1982). Lord Diplock "I do not think that in administrative law as it has developed over the last 20 years attaching a label "quasi-judicial" to it is of any significance. Where an Act of Parliament confers upon an administrative body functions which involves making decisions which affect to their detriment the rights of other persons ... there is a presumption that Parliament intended that the administrative body should act fairly towards those persons who will be affected by their decision."

    1. The council, and the adjudicators both have codes of conduct that include such very high aspirations as the adherence to principles of; Honesty, Respect, Integrity, Lawfulness, Truth, and many others. These principles are held up before the court, to assist in making a determination if, in this case hearing any of the aforesaid principles are breached in the slightest manner, bringing all the parties on that breach side into disrepute.

    2. The Appellant does NOT mind which decision is taken, Equally content to be upheld in the appeal or pay for dismissal with the testimony of how the case and its conduct managed the result, save to be sure that all parties are certain, any swerving from these principles shall be disambiguated, and dismantled logically for their anti grammatical structures that diverge from the calculus of logic, truth and correspondence with utter precision and published for the world to see the TRUE nature of adjudications in the UK today.

    3. CLARITY of BAY is NOTHING kin to its LEGALITY, a bay can be equally clear and illegal. Is that CLEAR? IF so, this appeal has to be upheld, or it shows bias, power supporting the strong against the weak, unsound reasoning, and any tactic whatsoever to rule in favour of a council who's conduct is not merely illegal but outrageous, and that will stain any body that is associated with their argument forms.

    4. As this is supposed to be a fair and public hearing, under (EU HR P5, A6) these details and exchanges shall be placed in the public domain under the EU HR Protocol 5 article 10.The case will not go away, it will be placed before the Lord Chancellor, and thereafter before the administrative court. Britain's has to show it HAS SOME integrity left, or else admit it has judicial systems worse than in ZIMBABWE. It's very simple. I find the fallacious arguments deplorable in spin. Just a comment.

  1. With reference to the arguments that have been put forward as follows:

    1. It is our view that the minor imperfections to which the Appellant refers are not to the detriment of any motorist.

      1. Please examine the following parking bays that show attributes of what are called minor imperfections, and are of detriment to motorists, when PCNS are served, both illegal ones are to be found NOWHERE in statutory regulations.

      2. 1028 and 1032 Legal and Illegal,. All very clear parking pays, some of detriment to motorist when served on illegal bays, others simply detrimental to motorists when served legally. There is no such thing as a PCN that is other than detrimental, it will be detri-mental to think that a detriment is an award as some councils argue.

    2. It is clear that the restrictions are, and clearly remain, parking bays.

      1. Please examine the following parking bay that show attributes of being a very very clear parking bay, AND illegal. multicolour, and no doubt unique.


Review of Case Number BO 05399C (and others?)

David Pilkington and Bolton Council


Authorities should not issue PCNs when traffic signs or road markings are incorrect, missing or not in accordance with the TRO.


It is clear that the failure to sign the Borough to prescribed requirements must therefore be a conscious decision. Further, as the Department for Transport points out to an authority provided with de-criminalised parking powers, you would be advised not to enforce defective lines and signs as they would invalidate the ticket issued, I therefore suggest that the decision to enforce defective restrictions must also be a conscious choice to act in breach of the law.

In conclusion, I do not accept that the parking restrictions imposed in on street parking bays in the Borough of Bolton were lawful, that the tickets issued in Cheadle Square and all other on street parking bays in the Borough of Bolton are therefore invalid and the actions of the authority are in full knowledge of the breach of law and their legal obligations.

Pictures from here, and links for MORE great help.
http://www.rmbconsulting.co.uk/


Illegal 1028 bay
TWO transverse lines with Morse code style short.


legal 1028 bay
ONE transverse lines with Morse code style short.


Illegal 1032 bay
ONE transverse line with 5 mtr road line.


legal 1032 bay
TWO transverse lines with 5 mtr
spaced apart road line.



THE KEY to bear in mind is this....
TWO transverse lines has a 5 mtr space between themselves.
ONE transverse has Morse code style dot – dash, between themselves.

SO PARK where you see..... a
ONE transverse and 5 a mtr space OR
TWO transverse lines with Morse code style
THERE, may be FREE, see..... ?

What the government says about defective signing:

The use on Public highways of non-prescribed signs

which have not been authorised by, or on behalf of, the

Secretary of State, is illegal. Authorities who so use

unauthorised signs act beyond their powers”.

More detailed examination, of the council's irrelevant argument on clarity, language and logic, that governs a hearing or SHOULD, unless you are familiar with logic, grammar, philology and law. A discipline in Law will be insufficient for the next part and the writer does not intend this to be didactic beyond the requirements of a cursory explanation. Of the council's arguments AFTER their address to the claimant's issues on legality. If the adjudicator wishes to place this part first, then the Appellant states he shall remain silent and not contribute until his arguments are addressed.


  1. Note the use of focus and palliation in the management of “suppressio veri & suggestion falsi” The art of suppressing craftily what is adverse to one's case, and suggesting what is often false, to ones advantage financially, or irrelevant to reaching a valid conclusion. This section deals with Irrelevant Thesis, but in this argument there are overlays of several themes.

    1. A worthwhile note here, are the thoughts contained in MfM Shakespeare, Angelo says....

      Your sense pursues not mine; either you are ignorant Or seem so, craftily; and that's not good.

    2. Clearly the thoughts are to disguise crafting sophistical and casuistic semantics, as close as to appear ignorant, that is the cloak to cunning in purpose and design.

    3. Note 1.a below, is a SUMMARY, and 2. below is far more detailed. (suppress the relevant and argue the irrelevance.)

    4. Note 2. below has the guise of a syllogism, with several premisses and a conclusion.

    5. In principle what may look like a valid conclusion, can be managed by crafting from premisses that are based on speculation or opinion rather than fact. This is the case in this persuasive, but irrelevant argument form that ignores the Appellant's argument ENTIRELY, and was supported last time by this tribunal. In each particular premise there is NOTHING that refers to FACT, or actual LAW. That is how this example is managed. The method of dismantling this fallacy and types like it, is to dispose of the validity of the premises on which the conclusion is derived. Premisses must be grounded in fact, not 'VIEWS', speculation or opinion. correspondence with FACT is mandatory. Eg; there's no point in saying 'the cat is white', in order to derive some conclusion that follows from whiteness, when IN FACT 'the CAT IS BLACK.' Not only is that a complete farce, for anybody to argue, but they need to return to classes for 6 year olds. Bear in mind that bodies who argue like this where revenue and class action potential exists, they will repeat their side, like a broken record simply because they have been ordered to do so, on pain of dismissal from work. The entire procedure is deplorable from a Judicial point of view. Bias will be the obvious result, and if that is as obvious as the argument above, then the appeal has to go higher to the highest courts in the land, or exposed in the public domain, where the adjudicator and body, who abuse power and discretion are shamed in the precess. It goes without saying that complaints should follow at the highest level.

    6. Next the presentation will be reprinted, with separation to make each examination more detailed. First the passages will be separated and highlighted for their logical parts.


  1. Summary of Appellant's Submissions

    1. The Appellant has stated that the bays are unlawful. NOT yet controverted, deemed as admitted under CPR 16.5.

  2. Enforcement Authority's Submissions

    1. The Council has considered the points raised by the Appellant in his

      representations and subsequent correspondence. This part is padding and a misleading representation, since they have not addressed any points that indicates and suggests they are admitted as above.

    2. It is our view that the minor imperfections to which the Appellant refers are not to the detriment of any motorist.

    3. It is clear that the restrictions are, and clearly remain, parking bays.

    4. The Council therefore remains satisfied that the PCNs were issued legally and correctly, and that the Penalty Charges are due.


Determination of legality of the bays is extremely simple and achieved by examining their features that are obvious, and are major design faults that in no way may be palliated as minor imperfections to avoid the issue. Two transverse lines instead of ONE is hardly minor. The appellant is NOT addressing perfection, nor sufficient compliance which is the obverse of 'substantial', argued about point 8.


  1. Failed attempt, to summarise the appellant's arguments in a general word (unlawful), without showing HOW the appellant reached his conclusion, with validity! AND without addressing or controverting the legality issue is all that should be necessary for a court of integrity to judge impartially, under CPR 16.5

    1. Here is how his, the Appellant's was argued.

      • There is a statutory regulation called The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, In it, there are specific details and measurements of how parking bays are drawn up, with details as to when transverse lines are either double or single, and other features. Eg a taxi bay is number 1028.2, disabled is 1028.3 and doctor is 1028.4 an example of a 1032 bay is here. CLEARLY the specifics for each bay are worked out in detail. An example of a ruling at Npas upholding an appeal is here.

      • The appellant did not argue with minor imperfections, but major non compliances, the bays are simply non compliant substantially by design fault. Ie; where a bay type requires TWO transverse lines instead of ONE, that is hardly a minor imperfection. It's the difference between one whole line and two lines, nothing to do with normal wear and tear and minor details at all.

      • Where the bay lines failed to conform to the statutory requirements set down in law, they were unenforceable, SIMPLY that.

      • Do the design specifications match the facts of the bays in question and shown in the photographs? Either they do or not, and consequentially they are enforceable or not. Does the statement black cat match the white cat we are looking at, it's as excruciatingly simple as that. Do two lines match one line? Usually a six year old would have no difficulty in making a judgement.

  2. Each council part shall now be examined in relation to either its TRUTH, ie correspondence with FACT, or else the grounds on which it relies. Before that however, we shall look at the disguised syllogism if that is what it is, at least it suggests it is.

    1. Here is what a valid deductive syllogism looks like;

      • All men are mortal,

      • Socrates is a man,

      • Therefore Socrates is mortal.

      • The truth of the conclusion therefore, is indisputable, because the first premiss is a universal (all) and the second premiss carries a properly distributed middle term (men), and the conclusion can be none other than Socrates is mortal because Socrates is a man, and all men are....mortal

    2. Look at the form of this alleged syllogism, and note the ONLY thing that suggests it is a syllogism, is the word THEREFORE. In every other respect it fails the test, it is neither deductive, inductive eductive, or abductive, for various and separate reasons. It's seductive, and perhaps abductive; in the sense of stealing reason, and atrocious. I shall leave digression as to the three other forms of reasoning ending with 'ive' as this is not the proper section.

  3. Council statement “It is our view that the minor imperfections to which the Appellant refers are not to the detriment of any motorist.”

    1. No hiding the fact this statement is a VIEW (an opinion), and has nothing to do with statute or bay correspondence between description and fact. The Appellant did not argue on minor imperfections, irrelevant thesis again.

      • There is no reason at all to consider a view, the only thing to consider, and the law requires it, is the statute, and the relevant bay markings. That should be clear. The minor imperfections alluded to, selectively and with bias, overlook the MAJOR ones, focus on trivia, and ignore the real issue does not address the real issue? And finally “not to the detriment of any motorist.” may be true IF there were ONLY minor imperfections but what happens when there are MAJOR non compliances and irregularities? THEN that is to the detriment of a motorist, and the latter IS the case in fact.

    2. It is clear that the restrictions are, and clearly remain, parking bays.”

        This is exceedingly muddled in ideas and thoughts that are expressed in the particular inefficiencies of language and grammar, as opposed to the logic in the ideas expressed. The sentence is very close to anacoluthia, in the thoughts being muddled and lost in the padding where the writer gives prominence to an attributive or qualifying word at the beginning, and tries to separate it, losing apposition and concord in the process. This is close to the cognitive dissonance pointed to in the CLCC to the lawyers and judge, to which all were silent, and tacitly in admission under CPR 16.5.

      • are, and clearly remain” should read 'were, and clearly remain', are and remain are both present continues tenses, it's like saying are and are, or are and still are. Totally unnecessary to separate the terms restrictions from the 'head word' bay, to which it sits in apposition erroneously. HOW? Quite simple, restrictions and parking are the attribute, predicate and qualifying adjunct words to bays. The sentence should read for a clear thought, “the parking bays have restrictions” instead of the restrictions are, parking bays, and then you will see the free adjective is floating about to be used as a noun. It is like saying “the earth is round, and moving the adjunct word to the front, for prominence and saying “the round is earthnow you can see the attribute is used incorrectly where indeed it should have read THESE restrictions are parking bays, but still remains confused. As there is no concord between the adjectival noun and the substance word 'bay'. It ought to have read, “the parking bays have restrictions;” that are disclose when reading the relevant signs. The struggle to make the attribute restrictions into the noun, bays is clear by saying 'restrictions are parking bays', which is what is being stated clearly, but it's the wrong way around. Their previous argument which will come here shortly shows the progression of re-formulation in the attempt to muddle the disguise to 'bays are clear', when bays are clearLY ILLEGAL.

      • Do remember Henry Sweet, para 501. “The word order of a normal declarative sentences in English is that the subject precedes the predicate.The correct way, was to say “It is clear that the parking bays, have restrictions that are printed on the adjacent signboards.”

        • (are 'and clearly remain,' being superfluous waffle to mix the witches soup of hallucinatory percepts ).

      • I hope you can see the mangled language that is delivered with authority's countenance wrapped in imposing settings bounded by people called 'officers' whose 'once time' education, now reduced to such a level that after years of being told to recite a piece and nothing else, is an almost empty vessel.(fallacy of appeal to fallacious authority.) This achievement took several months of trial and error in getting the SOUND just right. No intelligence behind it, just appetite and the goal to it. The 'Thorndike cat', in working out how to get at the food outside the cage THAT'S ALL!

      • To show this further, when entering a street, the first thing one sees is the 'head word', bays, and other signs. ONE CATEGORICALLY DOES not see the restrictions since that is an abstract noun being used adjectivally, as a diversion, and is anti-logical, it can only be discovered on READING the signs for the relevant bays. Which restriction applies requires context, and inference from other signs and further understanding what the signs mean in terms of the restrictions for any particular sign. That sentence is anti-grammatical, anti-logical, 'begs the question', on restrictions and sets aside the question on bays being legal, and showing broken thoughts. It is a hopeless muddle thought-wise, and for logic where attributes belong to substances and substance do not belong to attributes. Round doesn't belong to Earth, it's an adjunct word that qualifies earth with one of many attributes only. Restrictions likewise don't belong to bays, they vary for each bay type, and certainly for illegal bays DON'T have any restrictions at all. The attempt to redefine a restriction as a bay fails the test on all the above grounds.

      • IF specific restrictions WERE parking bays, even then the issue is irrelevant. As you have just been referred to doctor's bays, taxi bays, disabled bays, and it follows also that there are legal bays and illegal bays. While all of these types may well be CLEAR, clearness has little or nothing to do with the types or the legality. In this particular case there is only one thing that's perfectly clear. The ones under review are CLEARLY ILLEGAL on the grounds that they do NOT conform to the statute and regulations laid down for their being legal and enforceable,

    1. The Council therefore remains satisfied that the PCNs were issued legally and correctly,”

      • We have just been over the therefore issue, and will return shortly, but “remains satisfied is OBVERSE to the Appellant's argument and he is satisfied they are illegal BASED on the important and relevant details of statute, and fact in reality, NOT his views or his satisfactions. HOW does one make a determination?

      • LOOK at the statute and compare it with the FACTS, VERY VERY SIMPLE. The council don't want to go near those two issues, statute and facts, WHY NOT, afraid of the truth?

      • Issued, this term does not mean served.... as the council knows full well, one can legally and correctly issue any kind of document in a back office, but when it is served it becomes contractual and an allegation.

      • Finally that this has to be spelled out in such awful detail like tutoring a ten year old is a sign that the council are instructed to repeat their arguments like a broken record, and avoid at all costs, the issue of a ruling that will cost them many thousands of pounds. They lack the integrity to face a truth simply because of the overriding objective of revenue gain, even if unlawful, What stops them correcting their lines? Cant' be bothered to re-paint them, rather than prefer to formulate ridiculous and flawed spin arguments that compromise the integrity of adjudicators all for the fun of making false representations and getting away with it because power sides with power against the weak, and truth gets thrown out. Might is NOT right, where argument is not treason. Sound reason like this from the appellant is the overriding thing in a court of law, or else call it is a court o'flaw.

    2. What follows briefly, from all the above is the council have formulated an argument based on a VIEW, that a parking bay is CLEAR and is therefore legal. It's a 'non sequitur', 'it DOES NOT FOLLOW'


-------------------------------


Example of a standard way of rebutting the arguments, simply reverse the arguments converting the key terms, so their awful mental gibberish is mirrored back to them. They should understand it, they wrote it. THEN if you have time and inclination, translate it into proper English that a TRUTHFUL person would declare IF they had any integrity......


An early original argument that shows clearly the avoidance of he issue 'legality' an focus on irrelevant issue on EXTENT, what is that?


Original


We are satisfied that the bay markings are sufficient to make the extent of the parking bay clear”.


Nobody asked the question for this answer, the questions was “are the markings fully prescribed and compliant, and therefore legal or NOT?” Amusing how they treat such questions like a 12 year old in exam, who can't answer the question, and writes down the entire raining contents of his brain on OTHER issues.


The reply. (failed the exam.)


You made two errors, inflection of clear and overlooking the truth in omitting wilfully a qualifying word, here is the correct way to answer this. Mirrored and translated.


We are satisfied that the bay markings are sufficient to make the extent of the parking bay clearly illegal.


-------------------------------


Original.


  1. Summary of Appellant's Submissions

    1. The Appellant has stated that the bays are unlawful.

  2. Enforcement Authority's Submissions

    1. The Council has considered the points raised by the Appellant in his
      representations and subsequent correspondence.

    2. It is our view that the minor imperfections to which the Appellant refers are not to the detriment of any motorist.

    3. It is clear that the restrictions are, and clearly remain, parking bays.

    4. The Council therefore remains satisfied that the PCNs were issued legally and correctly, and that the Penalty Charges are due.

Mirror. (suggested.)


  1. Summary of Appellant's Submissions

    1. The Appellant has considered the points raised by the Council in their
      representations and subsequent correspondence.

    2. It is our view that the major design faults and non compliances to which the council refers are to the detriment of all motorists.

    3. It is clear that the restrictions are, and clearly remain, illegal parking bays.

    4. The Appellant therefore remains satisfied that the PCNs were issued illegally and incorrectly, and that the Penalty Charges are not due.

  2. Enforcement Authority's Submissions

    1. The Council has stated that the extent of the bays is 'clear'.



Mirrored and translated.

-------------------------------


A later advertising persuasion piece.


A number of signs have been changed in the Civil Enforcement Area to ensure consistency. The old signing was correct but in some areas we have been using the new TSRGD version. The Council is changing the signs to stop confusion to the public.


Opposition party piece. (suggested.)

    A number of signs have been changed, to comply with the LAW, in the Civil Enforcement Area to ensure compliance. The old signing was incorrect but in some areas we have been using the new TSRGD version, we are not telling you about, because it's the old version being brought up to date. The Council is changing the signs to stop confusion to the public. Because of our failings, the public are confused, We prefer to not disclose this, and deliver the presumptions that it's THEIR fault and they are punished for it, unless they can rebut it, but we can hinder that.


Mirrored and translated.

-------------------------------


ONE very simple, but long question that can be answer at the outset with a yes / no, unless the council and friends wish to try and find a way around truth, and manufacture a falsity that makes a win, untruthfully, and unlawfully; awfully and visibly.


A first point needs to be made, the council has been repeatedly asked to supply the report details of the review promised since March 2008. This is a clear breach of the FOI act 2000, multiply. Equally under the spirit CPR 31.6 (b),(i) -- Standard disclosure requires a party to disclose only(b) the documents which – (i) adversely affect his own case; (ii) adversely affect another party’s case. Such avoidance discloses a clear breach of duty to justice, truth and fairness, and the council visible non co-operation shows 'culpa lata' gross negligence the equivalent of deception. It is requested that the adjudicator is asked to address this fully, ensuring the omission is balanced in the Appellant's favour.


This is MY appeal of Thu, 27 June 2008 ref: PCN by Wayne Pendle

Back to index

  1. THIS, MY appeal has ONLY ISSUE for this hearing, that of the relevant bay, accurately corresponding with ANY particular prescribed bay in TRSGD 2002. JUST which prescribed bay number is a match please? I understand that a prescribed bay is lawful, and one that is NOT is unlawful, and cannot be enforced. I need your guidance. Please note I need to tick ONE BOX........May I have your help in ticking a box FIRST, before any other consideration, like extent, clear,

    1. [ ] Bay is a fully prescribed bay or fully complaint bay, OR

    2. [ ] Bay is NOT a fully prescribed bay or NOT a fully complaint bay.

      • I am unable to tick box a, if the bay is anything other than what it is namely a.

      • A substantially compliant bay, means NOT a, and YES b. VERY simple 2nd law of thought from 2300 years ago. I am happy to discuss substantial compliance, wear and tear issues, AFTER a box has been ticked. Any other issue is irrelevant to this; MY appeal.

  2. Question again. SKIP to 3. IF 1 has been ticked. Please show or explain to me; why I fail to find, and you show belief that the prescribed bay is a match to the bay in question to MY appeal. I simply wish to be pointed to; clearly and with precision, the relevant bay (pictured) the vehicle was parked in, which bay it matches in the prescribed bays in TRSGD 2002. Identify it for me please? Please and kindly, avoid fallacies of a variety of irrelevant issues,irrelevant thesis, and certainly not 'petitio principii'. Note, 'Deny everything admit nothing' the standard practice of avoidance of culpability, is a sign of deception, in hiding the truth 'culpa lata', or arguing a 'red herring' to an issue never asked for. The example below is a fallacy of irrelevant issue ruled by Justices in statutes 3. e, and 3. f, below.

    1. Please note that, last time, We are satisfied that the bay markings are sufficient to make the extent of the parking bay clear”. Answers to ONLY the questions, concerning “extent and clearNOT the question of being a prescribed bay, or a legal bay. The response to the question last time was;

    2. We are satisfied that the bay markings are sufficient to make the extent of the parking bay clearly illegal, or not prescribed bays.

  3. If you cannot, or refuse to admit there is no match, then under the spirit of CPR 16.5 you are taken to admit the bay is not one prescribed in legislation. An answer addressing a different question is an informal fallacy of 'ignorant refutation', or 'irrelevant thesis'. This simple question will get more detailed the more the answer is delayed, obfuscated or diverted away from its perfect simplicity. It will save judicial time if the answer were properly made with truth and candour, under the spirit of CPR 1.1-1.4.

    1. Either it is a 'prescribed bay' or not, either it corresponds as a true or false match, there is no middle alternative. IS IT the SAME or NOT the same? AN ANSWER is required under under the spirit of CPR 16.5 or else you admit the bay is NOT prescribed. An assertion that the bay is substantially compliant is a confirmation the bay is NOT fully prescribed or not fully complaint.

      • If you argue substantial compliance, then you have just admitted the bay is NOT a match, and consequently and numerically, substantial means some number between 75 and 99, you are saying that say 80 = 100, 80 purports to be 100, or 80 is deemed to be 100. What follows with utter precision is;

      • not only is it seen as bending the truth with egregious prejudice and bias; because the prescribed bay has two transverse lines, and the other side must be 5 mtrs, where this one is 2.4 mtrs, the bay fails the test of compliance on two MAJOR counts, with wear and tear arguments not even addressed at all yet. It fails the test on the design by two major failures. The pcn is illegal.

      • I am not addressing wear and tear issues, since I am being particularly tolerant of htem, and not pointing to any particular chink in the lines, this would be something I AM NOT arguing with, and accepting that lines have wear and tear within tolerable limits.

      • If you argue the lines wore in the middle giving at each end, two lines instead of the original 1 lines, then how do you account for the fact that your argument therefore admits the line is THREE times as thick as it must me? Lines do not have magical properties of stripping themselves down the middle, by divine intervention. They wear naturally in different places. That argument fails on the ground that if it were true, it shows design and purpose in its wear, and some supernatural force is at work, to blind the truth, and assist the council and adjudicator to manufacture truth by appetite for revenue.

    2. Also continue with the substantial compliance argument and you will be meaning and allowing all motorists to park in substantial compliance also, and overstay within limits, because the same principle applies both sides, and penalising for 3 minutes overstay of 60 minutes IS the same argument on substantial compliance. You have just ruled for the PCN to be cancelled due to the VEHICLE'S substantial compliance in parking. That is acceptable, and overstays will be published to all motorists as a future argument in these highly questionable arguments.

    3. Waiting for your answer, and will continue to wait until it is dealt with. If not then it is accepted it is non prescribed.

    4. If the decision is a rule in the council's favour, then the Appellant shall not disagree with it, the ruling will simply be disagreeing with itself; due to internal inconsistencies in logic, sound reason, and informal fallacies, of which there some hundred, and two have just been stated. The hearing is in such an outcome requested for immediate review, not for disagreeing, but for formal and or informal fallacies where there are many relevant High court rulings to the contrary of irrelevant arguments and others.

    5. If the ruling is adjourned, then the Appellant is entitled to see any decisions and / or counter arguments BEFORE any adjourned / postponed ruling is made, in order to be able to comment and controvert it, as per Justice Sedley's comment on being a fundamental principle of LAW. The adjudicator is relied on to pursue such an overriding objective of fairness under the spirit of CPR 1.1-1.4.

    6. If the hearing is suggested to belong to a higher court, this is the obvious 'ad baculum' fallacy argument of force by appeal to authority where none is needed; an ordinary child can determine that 2.4 is not 5, and 2 lines are not 1. It is clear the hearing can make a judgement on such very simple facts, requiring a very low, sub teen, level of numeracy, but is avoiding he issue, placing large costs before the Appellant. This is contrary to the spirit of CPR 1.1-1.4 and demonstrates 'overriding' the furtherance of the overriding objective of fairness.

    7. Finally why is this hearing taking place on the Council's premisses, and not neutral ground?


    1. Duty to exclude all irrelevant material.
      R v Director General of Telecommunications, ex parte Cellcom Ltd (1999) Justice Lightman "The Court may interfere if the Director has taken into account an irrelevant consideration or has failed to take into account a relevant consideration."
      R (on the application of Alconbury Developments Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment and the Regions (2001) Lord Slynn "It has long been established that if the Secretary of State ............. takes into account matters irrelevant to his decision or refuses or fails to take into account matters relevant to his decision .......... The Court may set his decision aside".

    2. Duty to consider all relevant material. (there are more.)
      R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Nelson (1994) "Not satisfied that the material before the Secretary of State was properly considered before the decision was taken"
      R v Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, ex parte Balchin (1998) "The relevant test .......... as well as a consideration has been omitted which, had account been taken of it, might have caused the a decision maker to reach a different conclusion"
      Recommendation Number R (80)2 of the Committee of Ministers (adopted 11 March(1980) In describing this basic principle "an administrative authority when exercising a discretionary power .......... observes objectivity and impartiality, taking into account any of the factors relevant to the particular case".





This is a response to the appeal titled

"MY appeal of Thu, 27 June 2008 ref: PCN by Wayne Pendle."



Statutory Declaration on Behalf of Buckinghamshire County Council declaration made by Mr/ Mrs ......


I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true, and by virtue of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835 (c.62)


No alteration to the question is acceptable, and this document must be signed and sworn for truth, notarised, either at the hearing, or later on in another court.

Please Note this question is / shall be submitted under a 'Notice to admit facts' N266 or later if not admitted / denied now, and shall apply retrospectively.

Please note that a declaration that is false is governed by the Perjury Act 1911, and may bring custodial sentencing of up to two years.

With respect to the TRSGD 2002.

  1. [ ] Bay is a fully prescribed bay or fully complaint bay, OR

  2. [ ] Bay is NOT a fully prescribed bay or NOT a fully complaint bay.


Any other information:


IF the relevant bay is not a prescribed bay, but is substantially a prescribed bay, then you may tick 2. above, NOT 1. above. Box 1, and 2 are mutually exclusive, the wording may not be changed. Where this option has been chosen, the council may argue substantial compliance in prescribed bays ONLY with substantial compliance in parking; ie a motorist paying for 60 minutes and overstaying 6 minutes, is as substantially compliant in parking, as the council is in substantial compliance with prescribed bays, and therefore this appeal has to be upheld for the same reason as the substantial compliance is based and chosen. This shall grant the same privilege in any future hearing on the same or similar arguments


Any failure to sign this form is regarded as an admission in the adverse sense within the spirit of CPR 16.5. No other format is acceptable.


A failure to sign this form or to agree with its principles at the hearing is an admission that the council is not prepared to respond to MY appeal, and as such a ruling on any other argument means likewise the ADJUDICATOR has not responded to MY appeal even if I receive a written response addressed to me, not addressing the issue of MY appeal; ie, I have not received a response to MY appeal.













var sc_project=1256077; var sc_invisible=0; var sc_partition=11; var sc_security="1c419b22"; var sc_text=2;