Force of Destiny


2000+ Free world Best Books
click on the pics.


Logic Law


On the Public Service Ombudsman

Local Government Ombudsman Watch

Public Service Ombudsman Watchers

Local Government Ombudsman Watcher

A new book being released on how agitprop, and other target driven bodies all conform to the patter and pattern that identifies their course of conduct. Disambiguating the SPIN.

NEW. Have a look at this site, and the discussions at the forum on the right.
The Local Government Ombudsman's BLOG.........

AND the forum for discussing the awful mistakes, they WILFULLY make. The green forum.

There's NO mistaking, the design and purpose of the semantics confirming the critical path followed in the agenda. The new book makes it easier to understand the language of spin, and cut it's illogical fallacies. See left.

***** LGO watch news release *****

Are you
You are
Unless it's serious, - sorry!

being FRAMED?
Kennelled, Boxed, Fenced in, or
Ring-fenced out?

You are
Are you
Sorry, - if it's serious!


1. -The outward concept,



2. -the rewards of satisfaction


3. -you only have to enter the gates.


4. - Assault fence against mounted attack,







5. -Double barbed, behind façade.


6. -leading to perplexity & confusion.

NOTE: Wherever  you read the LGO's OWN terms ABOUT THEMSELVES, where they say:
"We are impartial or independent". Remember SUCH THINGS are JUDGED in the DEEDS not in the WORDS, AND NOT by the people describing themselves, but by others. ALSO they produce their own statistics as well as make decisions that are highly fallacious with a single common strand, being  the ability to choose which fallacies will serve prejudice best with less chance of detection. This are is a fascinating area of balk reasoning. They, LIKE other agitprop style quasi judicial organisations, inevitably fall into the trap of being unfamiliar with two principles of unequivocal determinations as to BIAS, AGENDA, and driven teleologies.
1. Unambiguous Contextual Inferencing.
2. Courses of conduct where Acts and Omissions cohere to serve design and purpose in agenda driven teleologies.
 This particular method of determining  culpability is  scientific in its precision, and without a doubt, the so called independent bodies shown on this site, are biased, prejudiced, and wholly NOT WHAT THEY SEEM or PROFESS TO BE.

Did you guess who,yet?Thou speak'st like him's untutor'd to repeat: Who makes the fairest show means most deceit.” Pericles - It is of course our “fairest show friends up in the clouds at 10th Floor Millbank Tower. You know, the LGO (Local Government Ombudsman).

Take a look at the pretty paperwork, postcards etc, and bear in mind that from a court, such things come in brown envelopes poorly presented. Read what they CANNOT do, and see how their system is a ring fenced syllogism, where when you have exhausted yourself with their semantic fallacious persuasions, then you have closed the alternatives to go elsewhere. THAT is Justice in the new (third) world of GLEAT BLITAIN for you.  You are presented with a brochure from PCA, IPCC, OFT, AUDIT Co-mission, PATAS, NPAS, Councils, send you to the LGO, in the full knowledge they are 'brothers and sisters in laws', on first named relationships, and then remember the maxim
that contradicts their entire 'raison  d'etre' .......    
"If it's too cheap to be true, then it's probably a fake."
If you wish to investigate their integrity further then see the other sites links here, exposing the fakes that cost NOTHING except the taxpayer foots the bill, last estimated at ELEVEN £million..... Nice jobs for former CEO exe-cute-ives from councils? 


Three stages of ambiguity, two of clarification and the final stage of truth. Ending up perplexed, confused and certainly dissatisfied.

Dismantling the Local Government Ombudsman, Standards Board of England, old Police Complaints Authority, Councils, Office of Fair Trading, Parking adjudicators, the whole lot! All using the same standard issue template, categorised ring fenced fallacious arguments cloaked in the sophistry and cant of semantics, packaged and delivered under the rubric of sanctimoniously delivered shibboleths like “Parliament is Supreme”, “The LAW must be upheld”, and “Working for Democracy”. ALL conferring detriments and subtractions to the individuals. Then if anything has been exposed afterwards, either doing nothing OR producing another standard template apology that an internal investigation and disciplinary action will follow, while again doing precisely NOTHING!

The air, is promise-cramm'd. You cannot feed capons so.”

But Foul deeds will rise, Though all the earth o'erwhelm them, to men's eyes.” (Ham)

Where did that little EU HR Protocol 5, Article 6, “a fair and public hearing” go? Oh, that's just for the EU I guess! Magna Carta Justice? Oh, that's too old, we don't have justice and retribution nowadays, we have appeals and remedies that are ring fenced. Did you miss that small print, sorry! Ring fenced appeals and remedies.

This analysis takes three parts.

  1. The structure, its public relations exercise, disingenuous framework of powers & discretion.

  2. The clear unequivocal contradiction they found themselves in.

  3. How they ignore the irrefutable and hope it goes away.

    Local Government Ombudsman's change of name to PSO

What's in a name? "That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."

That which we call a doze
By any other name would smell deceit.

I have the special meaning in mind only.....Doze OED, To stupefy; to muddle; to make drowsy or dull; to bewilder, confuse, perplex.

Oh! and By the way,beware of hearings, they're JUST hearings..... I was at PATAS recently in support of a friend. I asked politely if I could ask a question, YEEUUS was the hesitant reply. I said what is your view of boroughs penalising motorists for trivia, and trivialising their own offences. “I don't intend to answer that” was the reply, followed by a lengthy justification which I interrupted by saying, that's OK, you just answered it.

Conclusions: HEARINGS are JUST HEARINGS, not trials, You speak, they listen and don't respond. Same everywhere now. Local Government Ombudsman's response the same, I asked the boss Tony Redmond to reconcile a contradiction they got themselves into, His reply, “This is MY office, MY staff, MY decisions and so on” Incredulous? See here........learning all the time, as Benny Hill would say.

Just go to the syllogism and show me how frames of reference work.


All appearances look great, but beware, there's no correspondence with the conduct in reality,

never mind they have a way with words that will convince you otherwise, and leave you with a glozed 'feel good factor', after all we don't need to feel good any more, it's only the factor that counts, feeling good is the fantasy that keeps us of their backs.

Hence shall we see,

If power change purpose, what our seemers be.” (MfM)

If your one of the few lucky ones, you may not experience the path below......
  'All that glisters is not gold, Often have you heard that told; Many a man his life hath sold But my outside to behold.
  Gilded tombs do worms infold. Had you been as wise as bold, Young in limbs, in judgment old, 
  Your answer had not been inscroll'd. Fare you well, your suit is cold.' 
Cold indeed, and labour lost,
      Then farewell, heat, and welcome, frost. (MoV)

The structure, its public relations exercise, disingenuous framework of powers & discretion.

YES you are you being framed, here is how it's being done?


If you're involved in human exchanges, especially where structured like contracts or legal disputes then the most likely answer is YES you are being framed, BUT which frame is it, how do they get set up and can you see clearly the frame you're entering.

Some are universal structures

while others are particular strictures.

Corridors of logical inferences that lead to an abattoir

or else a cell, perplexity, distraction, and comedy noire.


How do the PCA, Councils, Adjudicators and LGO achieve this? Simple.

I will take the example of the Local Government Ombudsman,who investigate maladministration. Between it and the SBE (Standards Board of England) Nobody investigates maladministration in its own right. All nicely ring-fenced with mutually exclusive descriptions. It's time to unravel the semantics here, and dismantle these structures.

The framework is they only investigate maladministration where there is injustice. Injustice is brought up later, meanwhile suppressed. If in your case they deem there is no injustice then they don't investigate maladministration. Convenient?

SO maladministration can go on unfettered so long as there is NO injustice. By implication, and this is at this time a hypothesis, the councils could be using excessive levels of perquisites to aggrandise themselves and of course they may even deem that justice, after all, nothing is too good for the working man, as parts of the Communist manifesto implied.


It's really very simple, spend a few minutes now, imbibe the ideas, reject them if you don't see the logic, and uses them forever forward if you do. All that's required is the suppliance of the first premiss ( Major premmiss ) the rest follows necessarily.


It's essential you understand the principle of the frame of reference, as you are familiar with it in whitewash hearings where the frame is narrow, the lawyer, has no powers to look outside it etc, and the whitewash conclusion follows with validity of reasoning, except it conflicts with another universal frame you had in mind, like FAIRNESS and JUSTICE..

The principle is very easy to understand, but to those unfamiliar in logic, it needs to be focussed and clarified so you are sure of your grounds. Please take the time to read this and use it. Again, it's really easy...........


  1. The principle embodied in the syllogism is two premisses from which a conclusion follows necessarily.

  2. The usual form is the major premiss that is a universal, which uses the term ALL or implies it.

  3. The Minor premiss is simply AN INSTANCE of the major premiss. EG:

    1. All single men are bachelors. 1st major premiss,

    2. John is a single man. 2nd minor premiss.

    3. Therefore John is a bachelor. Conclusion.


Thus, the frame of reference is achieved by simply placing a major premiss at the beginning of the exchange. The Only major premisses we as citizens are interested in at the outset are those enshrined in the Magna Carta, Declaration ( Bill) of Rights 1668-9 and the Human Rights Act along with its counterpart in the EU HR Protocol 5, with a modicum of common sense and moral integrity that is. They are simple, and don't require dictionaries to be understood. Justice, not injustice, Fair, not unfair, Public hearing ( to protect the fairness ), not private concoctions. Problems? Yes major, 'de jure' and 'de facto', what's written in the law, and what's done in reality. Differences so glaring they are unutterably and ludicrously close to pure contradictions, but cloaked in delivery of words that act as touchstones to all the mind's associations of those elusive 'feel good factors' that we don't need, and should be ACTUALLY about BEING good.


SOUND REASONING from Universal to particular. ( From ALL to an instance of ). Remember the “to all particulars” in the tenet of the DoR ( Declaration of Rights 1668-9 [ That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void; ] ) ..... Yes then they were using the old form of syllogism, still valid today of course... If you wish to see how Parliament in its supremacy usurped that prerogative and abuses it today in derogation of our civil rights, it is on the main pages of http://www.logiclaw.co.uk Two contradictions, Parking tickets are delivered BEFORE hearings, ( please forget about that specious argument that OH! It's only a summons ), and Civil penalties are some special kind of detriment that's a gift not a subtraction. Reconcile how a civil penalty (belonging to the class of conferring detriments, or subtractions, can possibly belong to the class of conferring benefits or additions to the recipient. When we have found the genius that can cogently reconcile these two contrarieties, so poles apart as to be closest to the pure form of a contradiction, then I will be happy to entertain a debate on the remaining sophistry.

Now a pause to explain. For simplicity I gave you an example of a syllogism where the middle terms (single men) and its predicate (bachelors) were the difiniendum and definiens, (indefinable).

A more standard example would be......

    1. All men are mortal. 1st major premiss,

    2. John is a man. 2nd minor premiss.

    3. Therefore John is mortal. Conclusion.

This format opens the gates to fallacies, so one needs to be very focussed on the MIDDLE term. The conclusion, to follow necessarily MUST derive from the middle term. (men, man). The SOUND syllogism commonly used in abuse as a fallacy is;

    1. All men are mortal. 1st major premiss,

    2. John is a Mortal. 2nd minor premiss.

    3. Therefore John is a man. Conclusion.

The name John COULD BE the name you gave your dog, or the toilet.......

Now John the dog may be mortal, but John the toilet is unlikely to be.

This particular fallacy is Aristotle's affirming the consequent, they grow with increasing complexity and abuse the more they hide components.

I am at home, London. I am in London, therefore I am at home.”

An entire body of reasoning is produced by sophists and semantic plunderers of truth using the last format. Watch out for them, they're like the Martian body snatchers, difficult to recognise. Now look at a very complex structure, designed to LOOK LIKE mutual exclusives here......

Index of exhibits

You will find in these exhibits, there is nothing the LGO can do unless your complaint is SERIOUS, AND there is nothing they can do SERIOUSLY about it, other than recommend a remedy, issue reports, investigate, in effect they can only COMMENT. What a waste of time and money in seeking any remedy.

Advertising their great services. Exhibit 1, Exhibit 2, Exhibit 3,

This is what they SAY they do. Exhibit 4,

Which complaints will we refer for investigation? And we unlikely to refer for investigation? Exhibit 5,

The basic jurisdictions of the parties are as follows. (small print, buried, just an understanding anyway). Exhibit 6.

MORE exposures in the frame of INJUSTICE. Visit the 'independent and free', yes really independent. Local Government Ombudsman Watcher

The evidence for all this bureaucratic maelstrom is below here........

To examine what has been achieved, one only needs 6 pieces of evidence, that anyone can pick up from the web. All primary evidence at this time, unless they remove it. I have a complete unravelling in Winter V TfL and LGO on the main site links.

In line with the pictures at the top, Exhibits 1,2 & 3 are all how councils advertise that you can take your grievances elsewhere, just leave them alone. The offer is rewards of satisfaction when you enter the gates, and they are nicely dressed up. When you get inside, unless you are on of the lucky few that HAVE to achieve a result, simply because it's necessary to show in annual reports that SOME people do achieve satisfaction, then you are confronted with LANGUAGE, just that? Not quite, its egregiously invidious sophistry and semantics.

Having invested your time and reached Exhibit 4, where all is IMPARTIAL and FREE, now the TRUTH unravels. Look at Exhibit 5, more closely.

Look for keywords that are not triggers to touchstones of associations, like when we believe, it meets one of the following criteria:

Ah, now there's the rub, To sleep- perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub!” (Ham) Yes it's sleep time........ It's all when THEY BELIEVE..., NOT when IT MEETS the criteria and IS! Do you see, the keyword BELIEVE that is the fulcrum on which the decision hangs. Suddenly things now look slippery don't they. In my case, I pointed out, three times, a CONTRADICTION with a WARNING. THREE people couldn't see it, yet their site maintains it tries to be consistent, so they do understand the idea of consistency versus inconsistency, but when inconsistencies occur, they don't occur. I hope you understand. Three blind mice. All costing £11 million, and unaccountable. What a waste.

Now for the real laughter.........Of course only for people who enjoy schadenfeude. Look at Exhibit 6. brought up from below.

JUST when YOU THOUGHT THEY COULD INVESTIGATE MALADMINISTRATION NOW THEY SHOW YOU THEIR RING FENCED AGENDAS....... Look at items 3 & 4 on each area of jurisdiction.

Look closely at the keywords again.... Items 3 & 4 ARE separated are they NOT? That should mean they are mutually exclusive. They do understand the concept, that's why LGO and SBE are in SEPARATED columns, BUT it DOESN'T mean that, nor is a claim, sufficient to investigate, nor is Injustice anything to do with WANT OF EQUITY,which is the OED meaning for more than a thousand years.

Looking for your escape route in this little maze of a flowchart? Of course you are. Well,you want to have maladministration investigated. Compare the items 3 in each column. Clearly the SBE is not the choice for maladministration. So we're left with LGO (Lord God Only knows why).

Do you see how they artfully dropped the word administration in the left column item 4, saying simply can only investigate where.... The draughtsmen, { or schoolchildren } for this piece of text should ( if the real reason were to offer justice, be removed on charge of treason ).

Focus on the LOGIC. Either LGO OR SBE, that's a disjunctive proposition. It means, as anyone should know instinctively, and anyone with an inkling of matrix truth tables and the calculus of logic, will KNOW formally, that ONE disjunct, (alternative) is sufficient to make the whole proposition TRUE. The proposition that maladministration CAN be investigated is satisfied by either the left or the right of the disjunct's being TRUE. WELL we have the left one from both items 3.. Lets look closer in the left column. 3 & 4 are separated, or am I suffering from hallucinatory perception? Even if the boxes were invisibly bounded, they ARE numbered differently AS WELL. So just like the first proposition, the truth of ONE disjunct is sufficient to ensure the proposition itself is true, the LGO CAN investigate maladministration, well I have it in writing they can not. Unless there is either a claim, or appearance of injustice. What they mean here is just what is called 'shifting the goalposts', sorry jailposts. Just LIKE the disjunct between the LGO and SBE, the disjunct between items 3 and 4 are now bound together, not as formerly.......mutually exclusive. What on earth happened? It takes a little working out doesn't it? Because what we have here is sleight of hand, magic, illusion, mendacity, cant sophistry, semantics, fallacy and downright appallingly disgraceful bad faith and want of integrity. The façade and promises in picture 1,2 & 3 are now barbed wired fences in the Auschwitz picture. What happened is we rejected physical torture and pain, we've RISEN above that, ABOVE the shoulders that is, we now deliver pain and torture at the mental level. I hope you are still following the terms carefully here, because there is another leap of bad faith coming up. Look closely at 4. Can only investigate where complainant claims or appears to have suffered injustice. Claims OR appears, that is a disjunct isn't it? Well I see the word OR and that is the term for alternatives, in my language and the OED for a thousand years. Again therefore, it is sufficient to either claim or appear to suffer injustice. Well in my case, I DID suffer injustice, (want of equity) in avoidable time and trouble being teamed up against by a team of mugs, sorry thugs after £50, AND I claimed so. What on earth else was I writing about if not that? BUT NO AGAIN, the disjunct slipped away,they were only interested in appearances, and when I pointed those out,warning them of an impending CONTRADICTION, they couldn't see it. [ The contradiction was, in 2004. I complained against Islington for a contravention of 3.3 seconds, and the LGO “granted them an award” { sounds better } of maladministration, forget about getting my £50 back. Two years later I complained about Transport for London, where a warden unclothed 'no hat, no jacket' gave a Penalty Charge Notice, to my WIFE on the street, not the driver, myself, or on the screen. Witnessed by 5-6 wardens / supervisors and backed up by revenue driven zeal in the back office. This far worse injustice was NOT perceived by three separate reviews (what's a review at the LGO, if you time the response, timed as simply picking up another template refusal letter, no time at all. The only time given in each review, sorry reverie was waiting time, that time given to create the appearance of working time.

CONCLUSION. Neither the LGO nor the SBE investigate maladministration, full stop. Maladministration can go unfettered, unbridled and just as unaccounted for as the LGO is unaccountable to anybody. Forget about their being appointed by the QUEEN lending any integrity to their functions, IF she had anything to do with it, I would be vastly MORE confident that some vestige of moral integrity would be found in the structure.

Now for your final laugh. Since I could if allowed to goon, write a 60,000 word thesis on this deplorable state of affairs, just look at one small thing among the host of other things that could be crushed out of existence.

Which complaints are we unlikely to refer for investigation? Exhibit 5.

We are unlikely to decide that a complaint should be investigated if it falls into any of the following categories:

  • we believe it to be malicious, relatively minor, or tit-for-tat

Translate unlikely for will not., and look at tit-for-tat . A new term for remedy, the epithet that came in when to replace retribution. Do I really need to explain this? Well just this once. The one thing anyone feels when confronted by injustice IS seeking JUSTICE, by requital what has been delivered to one. What on earth is the symbol of those scales of justice all about if not to WEIGH the offence against a penalty. Modern times, having removed the death penalty, nevertheless finely tries to weight that penalty of custodial sentencing to include, retribution, deterrence, and living useless time.

What this tit for tat, reference is all about, is TRIVIALISING your seeking a remedy against the INJUSTICE you have received for trivia.

The essence injustice is not receiving injustice against intense provocation where one deserves a penalty, but say a parking ticket, for 3.3 seconds, ( TRIVIA) while trivialising the seeking of retribution. Now we should all be forgiving shouldn't we? Forgive a carefully administrated act of wilful negligence orchestrated over weeks, for revenue, against a trivial error in good faith? I thought the forgiving should have come from the other side. One can only say of this that it is contrary to good and just, and consistent with evil and unjust.



Local Government Ombudsman

Standards Board for England

3. Can investigate complaints of maladministration

3. Cannot investigate complaints of maladministration

4. Can only investigate where complainant claims or appears to have suffered injustice

4. Can investigate where there is no claim of injustice



From the syllogistic viewpoint alone, as shown above in major, minor premisses & conclusion..............

Propositions 3 on each side indicate only LGO can investigate maladministration, items 4 on each side refer to injustice ALONE.

On the left side, proposition 4 is separated from 3 deliberately misleading. Injustice can be investigated on either a claim or appearance of injustice. ONLY when asked, & I will pull up the reply, the LGO can investigate maladministration in 3, but tie the two together such that 3 can only proceed IF 4 is met. Such a connection MUST be explicit, and 4 should be included with 3, so that it reads.....

3. Can investigate complaints of maladministration ONLY IF complainant claims or appears to have suffered injustice. The middle term ONLY IF is suppressed, indeed missing. Want to confirm this? Click here.......

The conclusion in the fuzzy logic, deliberately using boxes to show disjunct, but where it suites, binding boxes as conjuncts means NOBODY can investigate maladministration 'per se'. If a stream of cash payers enter the parking ticket departments, the tellers can take the cash, destroy the documents, and keep the money as a perk or bonus, and this kind of maladministration cannot be investigated since there is NO injustice, just plain theft. Deplorable potential and reality for un-investigated maladministration. What on earth is the function of the LGO? Placing them in context of composition and statistical analysis, their function as an organ is to buffer and vent the outlet of public dissatisfaction, providing an expensive presentation of tokens to keep, and at best for the public, MAY admonish a council, like sending them a 'tut tut' naughty message, shrugged off as son as received.





Looking for your escape route in this little maze of a flowchart? Of course you are. Well,you want to have maladministration investigated. Compare the items 3 in each column. Clearly the SBE is not the choice for maladministration. So we're left with LGO (Lord God Only knows why).

Do you see how they artfully dropped the word administration in the left column item 4, saying simply can only investigate where.... The draughtsmen, { or schoolchildren } for this piece of text should ( if the real reason were to offer justice, be removed on charge of treason ).

Again focus on an alternative LOGIC. Either LGO OR SBE, that's a disjunctive proposition. It means, as anyone should know instinctively, and anyone with an inkling of matrix truth tables and the calculus of logic, will KNOW formally, that ONE disjunct, (alternative) is sufficient to make the whole proposition TRUE. The proposition that maladministration CAN be investigated is satisfied by either the left or the right of the disjunct's being TRUE. WELL we have the left one from both items 3.. Lets look closer in the left column. 3 & 4 are separated, or am I suffering from hallucinatory perception? Even if the boxes were invisibly bounded, they ARE numbered differently AS WELL. So just like the first proposition, the truth of ONE disjunct is sufficient to ensure the proposition itself is true, the LGO CAN investigate maladministration, well I have it in writing they can not. Unless there is either a claim, or appearance of injustice. What they mean here is just what is called 'shifting the goalposts', sorry jailposts. Just LIKE the disjunct between the LGO and SBE, the disjunct between items 3 and 4 are now bound together, not as formerly.......mutually exclusive. What on earth happened? It takes a little working out doesn't it? Because what we have here is sleight of hand, magic, illusion, mendacity, cant sophistry, semantics, fallacy and downright appallingly disgraceful bad faith and want of integrity. The façade and promises in picture 1,2 & 3 are now barbed wired fences in the Auschwitz picture. What happened is we rejected physical torture and pain, we've RISEN above that, ABOVE the shoulders that is, we now deliver pain and torture at the mental level. I hope you are still following the terms carefully here, because there is another leap of bad faith coming up. Look closely at 4. Can only investigate where complainant claims or appears to have suffered injustice. Claims OR appears, that is a disjunct isn't it? Well I see the word OR and that is the term for alternatives, in my language and the OED for a thousand years. Again therefore, it is sufficient to either claim or appear to suffer injustice. Well in my case, I DID suffer injustice, (want of equity) in avoidable time and trouble being teamed up against by a team of mugs, sorry thugs after £50, AND I claimed so. What on earth else was I writing about if not that? BUT NO AGAIN, the disjunct slipped away,they were only interested in appearances, and when I pointed those out,warning them of an impending CONTRADICTION, they couldn't see it. [ The contradiction was, in 2004. I complained against Islington for a contravention of 3.3 seconds, and the LGO “granted them an award” { sounds better } of maladministration, forget about getting my £50 back. Two years later I complained about Transport for London, where a warden unclothed 'no hat, no jacket' gave a Penalty Charge Notice, to my WIFE on the street, not the driver, myself, or on the screen. Witnessed by 5-6 wardens / supervisors and backed up by revenue driven zeal in the back office. This far worse injustice was NOT perceived by three separate reviews (what's a review at the LGO, if you time the response, timed as simply picking up another template refusal letter, no time at all. The only time given in each review, sorry reverie was waiting time, that time given to create the appearance of working time.

CONCLUSION. Neither the LGO nor the SBE investigate maladministration, full stop. Maladministration can go unfettered, unbridled and just as unaccounted for as the LGO is unaccountable to anybody. Forget about their being appointed by the QUEEN lending any integrity to their functions, IF she had anything to do with it, I would be vastly MORE confident that some vestige of moral integrity would be found in the structure.

Now for your final laugh. Since I could if allowed to goon, write a 60,000 word thesis on this deplorable state of affairs, just look at one small thing among the host of other things that could be crushed out of existence.

Which complaints are we unlikely to refer for investigation? Exhibit 5.

We are unlikely to decide that a complaint should be investigated if it falls into any of the following categories:

  • we believe it to be malicious, relatively minor, or tit-for-tat

Translate unlikely for will not., and look at tit-for-tat . A new term for remedy, the epithet that came in when to replace retribution. Do I really need to explain this? Well just this once. The one thing anyone feels when confronted by injustice IS seeking JUSTICE, by requital what has been delivered to one. What on earth is the symbol of those scales of justice all about if not to WEIGH the offence against a penalty. Modern times, having removed the death penalty, nevertheless finely tries to weight that penalty of custodial sentencing to include, retribution, deterrence, and living useless time.

What this tit for tat, reference is all about, is TRIVIALISING your seeking a remedy against the INJUSTICE you have received for trivia.

The essence injustice is not receiving injustice against intense provocation where one deserves a penalty, but say a parking ticket, for 3.3 seconds, ( TRIVIA) while trivialising the seeking of retribution. Now we should all be forgiving shouldn't we? Forgive a carefully administrated act of wilful negligence orchestrated over weeks, for revenue, against a trivial error in good faith? I thought the forgiving should have come from the other side. One can only say of this that it is contrary to good and just, and consistent with evil and unjust.

1. Fareham

Local Government Ombudsmen

The Local Government Ombudsmen investigate complaints about councils and the other authorities, with the aim of putting things right if they have gone wrong. They are unbiased and independent of the Government and Councils, and are appointed by Her Majesty the Queen. They have the same powers as the High Court to order anyone to produce information or documents for their investigations. Their investigations are carried out in private and there is no charge for their service.

They can investigate your complaint if:

  • it is about one of the listed authorities

  • it is about a matter the law allows them to look into

  • it is about 'maladministration'

  • you believe you have been caused 'injustice' (What SHOULD be said here is, maladministration BUT ONLY IF you have suffered injustice)

  • it has already been considered by the authority complained about

2. Cumbria

Building pride in Cumbria

Local Government Ombudsman

What if the issue is still not resolved?

If you are still not happy with the decision about your complaint, or you feel we have not answered within a reasonable timescale, you can complain to the Local Government Ombudsman.

Local Government Ombudsman
Beverley House
17 Shipton Road
York  YO30 5FZ

Tel: 01904 380200  Fax: 01904 380269

You need to make your complaint within 12 months of when you first knew about the matter.

3. Pembrokeshire

Making a Complaint - Local Government Ombudsman

What can I do if I want to complain further ?

If you want to complain further, you have the right to contact the Local Government Ombudsman, an independent person who is appointed by the Government to look into complaints of maladministration ( bad practice ) against local authorities.

The address is shown below. The Local Government Ombudsman will usually want to know if your complaint can be settled between yourself and Pembrokeshire County Council.


http://www.lgo.org.uk/

4. What We Do

The Local Government Ombudsmen investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies.

They investigate complaints about most council matters including housing, planning, education and social services.

It is an independent, impartial and free service. The Ombudsmen can investigate complaints about how the council has done something.

But they cannot question what a council has done simply because someone does not agree with it.

http://www.standardsboard.co.uk/Complaintsandinvestigations/Whatwewillinvestigate/#d.en.4021

5. Which complaints will we refer for investigation?

We decide that a matter should investigated when we believe it meets one of the following criteria:

  • it is serious enough, if proven, to justify the range of sanctions available to the Adjudication Panel for England or local standards committees

  • it is part of a continuing pattern of less serious misconduct that is unreasonably disrupting the business of the authority and there is no other avenue left to deal with it, short of investigation

  • in considering this, we will take into account the time that has passed since the alleged conduct occurred.

Which complaints are we unlikely to refer for investigation?

We are unlikely to decide that a complaint should be investigated if it falls into any of the following categories:

  • we believe it to be malicious, relatively minor, or tit-for-tat

  • the same, or substantially similar, complaint has already been the subject of an investigation or inquiry and there is nothing further to be gained by seeking the sanctions available to the Adjudication Panel or the local standards committee

  • the complaint concerns acts carried out in the member's private life that are unlikely to affect his or her fitness for public office

  • it appears that the complaint is really about dissatisfaction with a council decision

  • there is not enough information currently available to justify a decision to refer the matter for investigation

The clear unequivocal contradiction they found themselves in.

Detailed in FULL in the expose click here...

A synopsis however is straightforward.

  1. In 2004, I complained to the LGO concerning a 3.3 second CCTV camera enforcement in an empty bus lane. After several exchanges, and a near nothing conclusion.,the LGO awarded Islington Council with the badge of maladministration.

  2. In 2005, I was delivered a PCN for 1 2 minute stop, on double red lines AT A RED TRAFFIC LIGHT, while I took the opportunity of using that red light to exit the car, and drop an envelope in a bank, the trip took 12 seconds, and while I was waiting for a teller, I turned and saw the warden talking to my wife on the street, I immediately left, and moved the vehicle away, leaving the warden his ticket and my wife on the street. Let me stress, I was at a red traffic light, stopped in front of a lane of PARKED cars in bays, no congestion. Problem! Yes contravention undetermined, I HAD TO STOP AT RED lights, otherwise illegal to drive over them.

  3. The warden had just got out of a van with others, dashed towards the car, and while NOT wearing his hat or jacket, in contravention of the law in Statute RTA 1991, section 44 wardens apparel, wrote a ticket.

  4. In further contravention of the law in the same act section 66, he neither delivered the PCN to the windscreen nor the driver.

  5. FOUR contraventions on their side, one only on mine, as yet undetermined.

  6. I represented the ticket with the above explanation, and it was rejected on grounds of semantics, I said I stopped at red lights and used opportunism, they said forget that, the contravention occurred.

  7. Very well I replied, no semantics, no mitigation, pure strict law is what you want, that's what you shall have.

  8. I detailed the above 4 contraventions on their side, and stated all that was witnessed by up to 6 wardens / supervisors, and further backed up by an intransigent back office team of bullies. I compared my momentary contravention in good faith, with their, now SIX contraventions in BAD FAITH, perpetrated over a period of 6 weeks, while trying to bully me into submission. I said if they pursue this course of conduct I will seek protection from the harassment under the offence of Harassment Act 1997, which I stated they had knowingly breached several times. The case went to the Local Government Ombudsman, the TFL backed down, and released me on typical grounds that I was absolved, they had done nothing wrong. WHAT?

  9. I then had a number of exchanges with the LGO who said I had not suffered any injustice. ( want of equity ), that's to say, my six weeks of harassment, avoidable time and trouble, expense, research and revelation on the shear number of statutes breached was perfectly balanced by their doing NOTHING WRONG. Two wrongs don't make a right, and my wrong should be cancelled out by six of theirs shouldn't it? No we are talking here of their punishing me for a moment of trivia, as yet undetermined in contravention, in good faith, against trivialising their 6 offences perpetrated with wilful knowledge and mens rea, over six weeks. Unacceptable as a reasonable balance in equity. The LGO had this all explained but could NOT SEE the injustice, and ignored my claiming it was injustice, remember the bits in red above exhibit 5, how did THEY work it out that there was NO WANT OF EQUITY. What kind of un-thinking hat were they wearing at the time. Mr. Moriarty then brought up the 2004 instance, for other reasons of scoring points against me, to which I stated. You are inconsistent, you have two cases, on for a minor error on the councils part that gave them an award for maladministration, and this oen, a FAR more serious set of errors, , that even setting them aside, should be equalised in the same award. But you see, if you look at it, they will clearly have to show some statistical background that they DO GOOD, if that's what it is called. By giving councils a tiny admonition for trivia, no consequences, but all looking good on paper, where it STAYED.

  10. I warned him he was involving himself in a contradiction, ( a contrariety that is so close to the pure form of contradiction in the calculus of logic which he and his fellow workers know nothing about ), where he lets a far more serious injustice go, while conferring maladministration for far lesser in the past.

  11. He couldn't see it, then a specious review took place, and the reviewer OF COURSE couldn't see it, and then the BOSS Tony Redmond looked at it, and apart from banging his chest on HIS office, HIS staff and HIS decision, also couldn't see it.

  12. The lot,I compared and wrote so, that they were like KING CANUTES, all trying to defeat laws of nature, in their attempt to defeat a contradiction that CANNOT be reconciled in this world, any world at any time. ( For contradictions, see my logic pages, they are innate to thought, have nothing to do with empirical evidence, and cannot be reconciled. The modern formal notation of it looks LIKE ~( P & ~P ) which states that it is NOT true that a thing, and its own negation can be true simultaneously. Please remember, I was not referring to the self negation, but a contrariety which is close to the pure form, where it is CERTAIN that for constituency the two propositions cannot be TRUE, that one council for identical reasons or lesser, is maladministration, while another for greater reasons is NOT.

  13. THERE YOU HAVE IT. CONTRADICTIONS, and as fate would have it, it is the 13th point in this section.

How they ignore the irrefutable and hope it goes away.

How do they achieve this and on what do they rely.

Think on this.... 400 years ago.

How might she tongue me! Yet reason dares her no;

For my authority bears a so credent bulk

That no particular scandal once can touch

But it confounds the breather. “

Compare it with what Mr. Tony Redmond said:

This letter completes my consideration of the decision on your complaint and I shall not enter into further correspondence about it. If you do write to my office again this will be read by my staff and acknowledged only, unless it contains material new information or you wish to pursue a fresh complaint about another matter. In either case, my staff will reply to you as appropriate. See my replies HERE..... AND HERE....

Do you see the credent bulk, authority, and assumption that the breather of contrary words will be confounded? HE does NOT dismantle the contradiction, of course it can't be, but he doesn't even ADDRESS it in an attempt. THAT IS NOT AN ARGUMENT, IT is 'MIGHT is RIGHT' – A FALLACY, and if you wish to determine IF in a democracy that is true, then consider the argument, where might is NOT right, if reason has its way, written many years ago.


Might's not right, where argument's not treason,

Treason's his who's Might, denies good reason.”

He probably doesn't rationalise it but, assumes his word, being peevish cannot be challenged, and my word is blasphemy.

That in the captain's but a choleric word

Which in the soldier is flat blasphemy.”


NONE of these are arguments in the academic world, they only win where authority abuses want of equal knowledge in the same discipline.

I am not an expert on the derivation of previous employment, you will find all these statistics, showing which members of the LGO came from councils, and who in the old PCA, or even PCCI came from the police forces in linked sites like the one in Index To Exhibits above. The composition of the structure informs one immediately of its bent, bias and agenda. Like asking DAD to investigate his Brother and expose him,?

Finally consider how these structures, are paid for by ourselves, the taxpayer, to deliver justice piecemeal, in like fashion as taxation takes in pounds and refunds in farthings.

Someone at the top is happy to create such structures 'for the boys', all in the same club, divesting themselves of accountability, in the wonderful separation of powers, while remaining in control at discretion for promotion and elevation, there's the ticket, there's the carrot and incentive to remain controlled by the centre,where the purse strings are of course.


Coming up will be the PCA, OFT,and others including Adjudicators, nicknamed Judes, think of changing one vowel!



http://www.lgo.org.uk/standards_board.htm
3.5 Disclosure of Information
Section 67 of the Local Government Act 2000 provides for an ESO and an Ombudsman to consult if either of them believes that a complaint is likely to be of interest to the other party. In particular, the Act provides a dispensation to allow the Standards Board to disclose information to the Ombudsman . Similarly, the 2000 Act amends the Local Government Act 1974 to remove restrictions that would otherwise prevent the disclosure of information to the Standards Board by the Ombudsman . Both the Ombudsman and the Standards Board are therefore able to share information where this would allow the other to fulfil their function. However, there is no compulsion under legislation for either party to do so.
3.6 Summary of Jurisdictions
6. The basic jurisdictions of the parties are as follows.




Local Government Ombudsman


Standards Board for England

1.

Can investigate complaints against councils

1.

Cannot investigate complaints against councils

2.

Can investigate the actions of officers

2.

Cannot investigate the actions of officers

3.

Can investigate complaints of maladministration

3.

Cannot investigate complaints of maladministration

4.

Can only investigate where complainant claims or appears to have suffered injustice

4.

Can investigate where there is no claim of injustice

5.

Can investigate the actions of individual members in relation to allegations of injustice caused by maladministration

5.

Can investigate complaints against members alleging a breach of an authority's code of conduct

6.

Cannot impose sanctions on individual members

6.

Can refer matters to an adjudication panel which can sanction individual members

7.

Can recommend a remedy for the complainant

7.

Cannot recommend a remedy for complainant

8.

Can issue reports and guidance

8.

Can issue reports and guidance

9.

12 month time limit for complaints unless the Ombudsman exercises discretion

9.

No time limit for complaints (but complaints cannot be about matters predating the adoption of a local code)

10.

The authority must have the opportunity to consider a complaint first

10.

Complaint can be made at the outset to Standards Board





Local Government Ombudsman Watch Factsheet                                                          
August 2007

www.ombudsmanwatch.org
Imagine you have suffered a significant injustice at the hands of a local council, which has been caused by administrative error,
incompetence, or what seems like a stubborn refusal to read your correspondence and respond to it in a reasonable way. Perhaps you
really have in fact already suffered such a misfortune.

Sometimes councils refuse to admit error when they are obviously in the wrong, because the truth is too inconvenient, or too costly.

When you find yourself on the receiving end of local authority bad practice that they refuse to acknowledge or put right, the
consequence to you might well be great upset, inconvenience, worry and/or financial loss.

You might have complained about council tax administration, or a planning permission, social services, neighbour nuisance, housing
benefit or schooling issue - or an unfair parking ticket, or indeed anything that falls within the remit of a local authority's administrative
activities.

You have complained to the council, but they refuse to act, or refuse to admit error or fault, despite all the evidence. The council might
claim to have 'lost' or 'never received' crucial correspondence. You have exhausted the council's complaints procedure.

It seems that your only option now is to complain to the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO), whose office advertises itself as an
independent watchdog. Your hope might be that this office, funded by the taxpayer, will recognise the injustice you have suffered, and
ask the council to put things right.

However, would you be aware of the following facts about the LGO, on which you are now pinning all your hopes for justice?

1. All three current (2007) Local Government Ombudsmen were themselves previously Chief Executive Officers of local authorities.
Therefore, the ombudsman's ruling on whether maladministration has been committed against you by your council will be by someone
who himself/herself used to run a council that itself defended itself against complaints of maladministration. Would you feel confident
about this person investigating your complaint impartially, just because s/he is now on the other side of the fence?

2. The Local Government Ombudsman finds maladministration in less than 2 % (yes - two per cent) of the complaints within jurisdiction
that are submitted to him. This is far lower than the real level of maladministration in local government, yet maladministration cannot be
reported as such in the media unless it is defined as such in a ruling by the LGO. The LGO is therefore causing a very significant
under-reporting of maladministration, and allowing councils to give the impression of committing much less bad practice than is actually
the case. Of course, politicians and local councils are often very happy that this status quo has thus far remain unchallenged.

3. The Local Government Ombudsman finds that the council was at fault in a further 21% or so of complaints within jurisdiction. In a 2005
Parliamentary Select Committee hearing, the ombudsman admitted that these 21% of cases are also cases of maladministration;
however, the LGO does not report them as such, and so they are conveniently left out of the maladministration statistics. In fact, the
LGO does not report them as 'administrative fault' at all: instead, he calls them 'local settlements'. This is where the LGO decides the
council did something wrong, and asks the council to put it right. That might involve the council being asked to pay a woefully inadequate
sum in compensation, when one considers the suffering and inconvenience that has been caused to the complainant. The complainant
can refuse to accept the sum in compensation, but cannot refuse the 'local settlement': it is still reported as such by the LGO, and the
case is closed. Surely a strange kind of 'settlement', this, where only one of the two disputing parties agrees to it, and it is imposed by a
third party.

4. The Local Government Ombudsman used to commission its own MORI Customer Satisfaction Surveys, (1995 and 1999). The results of
these surveys were similar, and the files were available on the LGO website if you looked for them. Very interesting they were, too, for
those curious enough to read these lengthy documents. The 1999 survey exposed that 73% of complainants (within jurisdiction) were
dissatisfied with the outcome of their complaint to the LGO. Not only that, but even around 50% of those whose complaints were upheld
with a finding of maladministration were dissatisfied. So the LGO cannot with integrity pretend that the dissatisfaction statistics just
represented complainants whose complaints had been rejected. Something more serious is obviously wrong.

5. After Local Government Ombudsman Watch exposed the fact that the LGO was condemned by its own MORI polls, these MORI polls
were curiously discontinued by the Local Government Ombudsman, and replaced by a different poll that included far fewer participants,
and that excluded the questions about customer satisfaction that had produced such embarrassing statistics.

6. Many of the LGO's Investigators previously worked in local government. The LGO has been asked how many of his staff previously
worked in local government, but he has refused to answer, saying it would be too onerous to research this. One might perhaps wonder
just how difficult it would be to send an e-mail to his 220 or so investigators asking them to respond by clicking on a button to say
whether or not they used to work in local government; or how long it would take an administrative assistant to research this by looking
in Human Resources files. If you were taking a complaint against, say, the Police to a publicly-funded outfit that claimed to be
independent, would you expect the investigator appointed to be a former police officer, and the final adjudicator to be a former police
chief constable? Should we not have similar expectations from our publicly-funded local government 'watchdog'?

7. If you disagree with the LGO's finding after investigating your complaint, your only recourse is to seek a judicial review of the decision.
If you do so, your chances of success are minimal, and you may end up with hefty costs to meet. It is very, very rare for judges to find
against an ombudsman. Even if they do, they only have the authority to ask the LGO to go back and have another look at the case; and
the LGO may well do so, and still decide to stick with his original decision. So it is crucial that any local government watchdog is
committed to fairness and objectivity.

There is much more evidence of the social harm caused by the Local Government Ombudsman's office, and how its leniency towards bad
councils actively encourages bad practice on
www.ombudsmanwatch.org , at www.psow.co.uk and at http://lgowatcher.blogspot.com/ .
Local Government Ombudsman Watch has been campaigning since 2003 for better local government accountability, and more truthful
reporting of maladministration. Time after time, people have contacted LGOWatch to complain about how the LGO has found in favour of
their council despite overwhelming and watertight evidence of maladministration. The information above perhaps sheds more than ample
light on why such perverse decisions are reached.

The abolition of the Local Government Ombudsman, which has far too cosy and partial a relationship with local councils, and its
replacement with a truly independent local government complaints commission, where no commissioner previously worked as a council
CEO, will be a very positive change for the better. It will encourage councils to avoid maladministration, because for the first time, they
will have something to fear when citizens threaten to complain to the local government watchdog. This will serve the citizen well, and will
also have the effect of boosting the standing and reputation of local councils, as the new accountability will inspire more confidence and
trust in local government among the communities it serves.

The fact also deserves acknowledgement here that many local authority employees are decent, thorough and conscientious people.
Furthermore, a minority of members of the public can be gratuitously offensive, unreasonable and vexatious when dealing with council
officers, who may be doing their best to execute their duties in a professional and reasonable manner, sometimes in circumstances with
a heavy workload and modest remuneration in view of the importance of the work they are doing.

Council officers may also be under pressure to take instructions from senior staff with which they do not necessarily agree.

Council staff deserve fair play and decent treatment, just as much as the members of the public they serve. However, bad practice -
termed 'maladministration' in the Local Government Ombudsman's ('LGO's) literature, even if it is disguised in their reports - still
happens. Anyone can make a mistake, but so long as there is a willingness to recognise this and put it right, things generally move in
the right direction. The Local Government Ombudsman remains a major obstacle.

Gary Powell
LGOWatch

Please note that receipt of this factsheet, or its inclusion in any communication, whether in full text or as a hyperlink, does not
necessarily imply that the author of this factsheet endorses the content of any communication in which the factsheet/hyperlink appears,
or endorses any campaign associated with that communication, or that the author of this factsheet necessarily has any knowledge of its
inclusion or distribution. Only communications received directly from Gary Powell may correctly claim to be sent or published by Local
Government Ombudsman Watch, or to have the endorsement of Local Government Ombudsman Watch.

LGOWatch is opposed to discrimination in all its forms, including, but not limited to, discrimination with regard to race, ethnicity, national
origin, gender, sexual orientation, religion, age, socioeconomic status, marital status, language, disability, or immigration status.

© Gary Powell, Local Government Ombudsman Watch, 2007. This factsheet may be reproduced and distributed without prior consent
only if unamended and in its entirety. Please ask for permission if quoting selectively from this factsheet.