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.

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.

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. 1^st major premiss,

   2. John is a single man. 2^nd 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......

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

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

6. 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;

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

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

9. 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.