Contributed by Wayne Pendle.
The Council seeks to ensure that tribunals and inquiries:
● are independent
● are open, fair and impartial
● are accessible to users”
This is fascinating when one puts the text side by side with the highly probable reality shown here in hide and seek, blindfold for amusement and getting paid for it too.
Comments from Medusa.
Question: “What are they seeking?”
Answer: “To ensure! Can't you read?”
The Council seeks to ensure that tribunals and inquiries:
“Oh I have it!”
Carry on the farce in qualifying, gerundives, and then verbal adjunct words; like gerund grinders, and they will end up where they started seeking, looking LOST!
“Seeking to ensure, that's a 'thought form' isn't it, not a 'fact form,' it never gets realised in reality?” Do people actually get paid for doing that, 'seeking to ensure' I mean? It's like those thought rooms they send you off to, the consideration room, the seeking room, the enquiry room, and the impartial room? You sort of go in, and come out confused, but the disappointment is extenuated by their telling you it was all an 'award', before you pay for the experience. Hmmm”
“Hey you aren't with it, these are the most highly paid jobs around, we set up these bodies, with the taxpayer's money and they pay us to consider their appeals that are really submitted from low to high,and when considered, they get to the waste bin; sorry first filed away for two years, then binned, if the appellant hasn't, as he should, passed out by the time it takes to manufacture a five minute review into several months. Silly boy aren't you?
Question: “Facts forms? what are they?”
Answer: “Easy. They're the opposite of principles, that don't grow on trees get it?” “Well I never”
“Great that's all very clear to me now........ I think.......... Can I slip back on the blindfold I can think better not seeing. Let's go seeking again?”
“Well...... I mean go back to HIDE and SEEK of course!”
“OK, Now, let's examine the subject matter.”
“tribunals and inquiries:”
“What I understand by tribunal is that it's a place of judgement or fudgement; I don't see how a place can be impartial but forget that: Enquiries are verbal derivatives, with a sense of being investigative, functioning as a noun, and this one is improperly qualified by context so it floats around with various senses like that of being a simple question. Why do they make it obscure? After all it's clearly not yet a stipulation or synonym? I think they're purporting to be smart.” The OED 3 would have said 'Court's of enquiry', but have it their way. Any word that sounds abstruse implies they're clever.”
“That's so that the subject matter, is as abstract as its qualities, qualifiers or predicates; are independent, are open, fair and impartial stuff. We don't deal in substances and attributes here.” In our lofty world of thoughts, the only facts are 'thought objects.' That way we avoid getting in to trouble with correspondence theory SEE.... clever?
“What on earth for?”
“Well it's designed to flood the subconscious contents with attributes of abstracts nouns, so nobody can verify if the subjects are for real. It constellates the feel good fact-her, delivered to the subconscious, we are promoting to make people happy after we confer their detriments to mental health.”
Question: “What are these enquiries then, are they places; I never heard of 'going to the enquiries', like 'going to tribunals', or are they people making them up, or just 'question words' floating about in the ether.
“Call the bouncer. Can't you get him out, he asks too many questions. “
“All right then, They just seek to ensure, that's all. We never let it get beyond that stage, because that would mean talking concrete, not abstract, and we prefer hallucinatory percepts... see clever boy?”
“Look at the subject matter 'Enquiries'”,
“Well what of them? “
Oh well what we are seeking is that enquiries are :
“independent, open, fair and impartial. “
“I don't see it? How does one seek to ensure that an enquiry is open or fair or impartial? Aren't the enquiries supposed to be uttered spontaneously by enquirers, or do you want to control them too? ELSE do you simply mean that the people with these enquiries come as independent impartial people, to an already prepared partial and biased dependant tribunal; with a frame -up of reference, to be examined by deemers and seemers, is that what it means?
“NO it's easy. Make sure the person making it, the enquiry I mean, doesn't get to make one, because he is so confused by all the visions that have little relation to fact.”
“If they do, then we usually 'respond' (which means a 'reaction to a stimulus,' got it?) with an answer that's close to the question; that can't actually be answered, but sounds coherent. That way we slip in a response to any appeal with a standard template slightly modified, it's more efficient and saves money giving a bonus to the person who can get as much fudge into the response, buried in pages of 'semantic primers' with the key thrust of a simple one liner, sorry bin-liner. We always call it a response, because that word has high 'intensionality,' containing the sum of all or nearly all of its attributes and thus the reader can't rationalise it fast enough. Clever stuff really.
“That way, when a person makes an enquiry he can count on it being accessible to users.“
“Loser's what do you mean?”
“Users silly; the enquiries need to be accessible to users, or get-at-able; but when close up, it is always elusive; don't try to be smart with me, I AM .......( just like.... HE is, ) an 'acting speaker.'” Ask anyone in those abstract places if you can have a copy of a vital adverse document, and the 'response' will be an 'ignoratio elenchi' in something like: “We do not have the document.....................to provide.” or else “We apologise, the box containing the documents has been lost.” See? Before you realise it, they have gone, and you can't 'revert' with something like: No problem, I didn't ask for the box, just the document will do?” Now that's how to outsmart them, leave them ignorantly satisfied, and not even confused. All down to natural forces at work, 'force majeure' and 'deus ex machina stuff, you know?”.
“But surely it's the users who make the enquiries don't they? Are you saying the users making the enquiries need to be accessible to themselves? I think I am getting there, can you take the blinds off yet, I am getting confused?”
Get him out of here, he doesn't understand gobbledegook. How can we speak to someone who takes us literally, we need people who understand that what we mean is different to what we say, that's our game.
Oh I have it now. It's either from Hamlet,
Hor [aside to Hamlet] “Is't not possible to understand in another
tongue? You will do't, sir, really.”
Or that one.....from MfM
“ Your sense pursues not mine; either you are ignorant
Or seem so, craftily; and that's not good.”
AAAH! Now I am with you, we are playing the game of seemers, deemers, crafters, purporters and semantic equivocators. Lovely stuff, but I'm leaving before I need the NHS, and they can't cope since their bill is already too high. One thing I do know for sure;
“King. How fares our cousin Hamlet?
Ham. Excellent, i' faith; of the chameleon's dish. I eat the air,
promise-cramm'd. You cannot feed capons so.”
AAAH so that's how they feed us, with visions and illusions in the abstract, never to reach reality's door.
PS before I leave, the watchwords from that 'document' are.
“But the watchwords remain
those of .........: Openness, Fairness and Impartiality.”
REMEMBER they're just words to WATCH, don't be smart. They're not for real, they're just surreal.