Code: ctzreate swarb.co.uk Law discussion forum (UK)    FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in  PLUNDER. An awful mess in the history of JUSTICE Goto page 1, 2  Next          swarb.co.uk Forum Index -> Road Traffic Law         View previous topic :: View next topic   Author Message Tony Joined: 02 Jul 2006 Posts: 102 Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 7:23 pm    Post subject: PLUNDER. An awful mess in the history of JUSTICE coming in stages. have a look at the council's very own evidenc in pictures that went through PATAS, TEC and came to the court last week. Do discuss it, I wonder if anyone can find the excuse they put forward....... http://www.twtanb.co.uk/ YES YOU ARE PERFECTLY RIGHT! Quote: I nominate the Guildford 4 as a rather bigger miscarriage of justice. I should have qualified it better. ONE of the lesser awful messes in PCN justice, BUT you haven't heard the worst of it yet. PATAS, TEC, Council and Court. There is a worse one though coming soon. _________________ Tony Last edited by Tony on Tue Jun 19, 2007 9:34 pm; edited 5 times in total Back to top FH06URY Joined: 24 Jan 2007 Posts: 1568 Location: South (UK) Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 8:52 pm    Post subject: I nominate the Guildford 4 as a rather bigger miscarriage of justice. And that ref who disallowed Sol Campbell's goal against Argentina, St Etienne, 1998. Last edited by FH06URY on Tue Jun 19, 2007 10:43 pm; edited 1 time in total Back to top theycantdothat Joined: 17 Oct 2005 Posts: 1098 Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 9:48 pm    Post subject: It was disallowed for a blatant foul by Alan Shearer who was not villified afterwards as he did not play for Manchester United. Back to top Tony Joined: 02 Jul 2006 Posts: 102 Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 4:23 pm    Post subject: Just saw the updated next bit, on the £757.94 for a PCN where the contravention did not occur. It is just on its way to PATAS, June 2006. Comments on the procedure? http://www.twtanb.co.uk/ _________________ Tony Back to top Bakedalasker Joined: 06 Nov 2006 Posts: 1063 Location: South France Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 5:46 pm    Post subject: FH06URY wrote: And that ref who disallowed Sol Campbell's goal against Argentina, St Etienne, 1998. No where near as bad as that ref who gave Scotland a penalty against Wales after Joe Jordan had handled it. Anfield 1977. For those of you who dont know but Joe Jordan was the Scottish striker who handled the ball in the Wales penalty area and won the Scots a penalty kick. Back to top Tony Joined: 02 Jul 2006 Posts: 102 Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 11:59 am    Post subject: The site has just been updated at http://www.twtanb.co.uk/ I am advised it will continue updating over the weekend for those interested. Do re-read any sections during this period as links are being added. LAST LINE comment from there. The above, new pictures and text are being added, so when re-visiting do have a check over text already read, as terms refer to websites, and links that needed to be added, and have been 'in situ' for some time, anticipating this build up. Sorry I can't comment about Scotland, not a keen sportsman in that area, my loss no doubt. _________________ Tony Back to top rainmaker Joined: 06 Feb 2007 Posts: 80 Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 10:12 am    Post subject: Tony, You're text and writings are very hard to follow - they almost appear to be written in proze.. please can you write in normal English so that all may follow your arguments. Thanks, RM _________________ Illiud Latine dici non potest Back to top Tony Joined: 02 Jul 2006 Posts: 102 Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 11:55 am    Post subject: Quote: Tony, You're text and writings are very hard to follow I really do sincerely apologise. I am grateful for the remark, and will try to not be so cryptic. What binds me is an 'in and out' process of sub judice procedures. Not sure when to release info and how much. The only way I can make a point is by some collateral allusion, or indirectly by analogy at this time. I will try. This Plunder thread is the clearest in pictorial form that makes it really oversimplified. Does anyone have an argument that the contravention OCCURRED? I heard a farcical one, whose rebuttal is waiting for a next hearing if there be such. Any from here would be welcome. DID it occur or not? The 4 pictures are from the council's own evidence that was NOT in their bundle; and by implication the Court's, along with-out 5 on bailiff conduct. _________________ Tony Back to top Tony Joined: 02 Jul 2006 Posts: 102 Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 2:57 pm    Post subject: Quote: they almost appear to be written in proze.. Perhaps I should add, it is of course in prose, I wonder if you perhaps mean verse or poetry. I have a propensity to rhyme in some cases, as it happens to make a little more emphasis, but the main art I use in sentential structures is to formulate a sentence as close as possible to one that gives the immediate derivative of a proposition. If this is a bore and too offbeat for this site I will remove it. Just ask. I promise I will not add any more of this stuff, as I know it is somewhat abstract,I have only done it to explain my off beat epistolary style.. A short extract from some of my texts. Not to bore you, skip if of no interest, but a proposition in logic is the literal meaning of an indicative sentence. Its corollary in law is the golden rule of interpretation, ie; the sentence taken in its literal form. The advantage of constructions close to propositions is their greater immediacy for testing under a truth table matrix in logic. The raw primitives used are at the foot of the text below. I will give you an example; Frequently one sees constructions that blur the distinction between 'and' and 'or' this has been argued here before, now at; http://www.iamtony.co.uk/sw/swarb_co_uk%20%20View%20topic%20-%20DoR%201668%20&%20RTA%201991,%20parking%20fines%20are%20illegal%20&%20voi%200.htm This blurring is part of the art of 'suppressio veri', 'suggestio falsi' that can lower standards in legal practice, it shows when integrity bows to agenda. I have met it frequently with solicitors, but not with barristers. Twice with a Judge. A recent presentation of a fallacious skeleton that was too obvious for words. This involved serving the following documents. A)Penalty Charge Notice, B)Notice of Rejection, C)Charge Certificate, D)Statutory declaration. What this writer did, was to blue the distinction between a binding conjunct 'AND' and the disjunct 'OR' by leaving both of them out which is outrageous in my terminology. By doing so, he suggested that ALL were served, when involving means that only one had to be true to make the entire proposition true. I hope that is clear. If not then look at the truth table below. To say the above with EITHER A or B or C or D are true requires ONLY one sub proposition to be true to make the whole true, whereas to say that A and B and C and D are true requires them ALL to be true to do the same. Here is the matrix. T and F mean True, and False, and A-D are the sub clause propositions. As a disjunctive set. { OR } T.........F.........A.........B.........C.........D T....................T.........F...........F.........F If ONE disjunct is true it meets the test of sufficiency for truth, ie, the proposition is true. As a conjunctive set. { AND } T.........F.........A.........B.........C.........D ...........F.........T.........T..........T.........F If ONE is false it meets the test of sufficiency in falsity, ie, the proposition is false. I hope now you see how the above author wilfully constructed the whole proposition to suggest that ALL were served, when only one was served. The absence of service of any ONE critical document MEANS the respondent fails to respond, and then gets punished. I hope that makes it clearer the way I think comes through in the writing. Here is a page of an introduction to the treatise I am writing on the rudiments. Above and below are two of some 20 disciplines used in sound reasoning, and I still make too many mistakes! 1.One introductory page. Scientific Method in terms of Necessary and Sufficient conditions in Causation. Simply one sentence. IF there is one simple cause of life then: The presence of of oxygen is Necessary for life IF and only IF the absence of oxygen is Sufficient for the absence of life. ______________________________ That's got to be simple surely? If you have grasped this, you have the principle. You HAD the principle always, you just have the nomenclature to describe it better, that's all. Now build on it: IF there is one other simple cause of life then: The presence of of water OR H2O, is Necessary for life IF and only IF the absence of water is Sufficient for the absence of life. And finally: IF there is one further simple cause of life then: The presence of of Vitamin D is necessary for life IF and only IF the absence of Vitamin D is Sufficient for the absence of life. In each situation under a control condition, the last will be found to fail the test of sufficiency, in that the absence of Vitamin D is NOT sufficient to remove life. Its absence affects a condition in the quality of life, namely it is associated with the presence of Rickets. And further tests will show there is a simple relationship between Vitamin D and Rickets that leads to establishing that there may lie a simple cause and treatment for Rickets in children. In adults it can contribute to osteoporosis. Why did I say this Principle is understood by all life? Simple. Plants have a DNA structure that leads to seeking light and water in many of its forms. The presence of these two conditions is necessary for life, if and only if the absence is sufficient to remove life from the plants. It is in that sense that all life forms 'KNOW' these principles, or understand them. They are programmed to seek them out in order to survive. Belief doesn't come into it, There is no time for belief in life threatening situations, and an entity cannot KNOW a false belief, only that the belief IS false where there's a sufficiently high level of cerebration to make a distinction between instinct and conscious control. From this fundamental principle all life expands its forms, and utilises the concept in all construction, valid or otherwise. In Human language, many forms are created in the art of deception just as the forms of colour change in chameleons , fish and so on. These arts of deception are significant to the purposes of this treatise. Principles and their forms and universality come first, instances and statistics follow. I trust this initial example makes the nomenclature now less daunting, and immediately understandable for its innate cognitive apprehension if that is a form of knowledge, even for life forms that do not possess the level of 'self consciousness' in terms we would normally understand belonging to humanity. Notice the primitive functions in language used that were underlined in bold. They are essential to the construction of valid argument 'forms'. They are below with their customary symbolic notations in formal logic. Propositions P,Q,............................eg; P = ( This involved service of the following ) NOT ~ , ,..........................................eg; ~ P AND ● ,,..........................................eg; P ● Q OR ^ ,.............................................eg; P ^ Q IF É THEN,,......................................eg; P É Q IS ≡ or materially equivalent to.,.....eg; P ≡ Q _________________ Tony Back to top theycantdothat Joined: 17 Oct 2005 Posts: 1098 Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 4:14 pm    Post subject: What you say in respect of logic is of course correct so that if you have the propositions: If it snows or hails the crops will fail It is snowing The conclusion: The crops will fail is correct. But if the propositions are: If it snows and hails the crops will fail It is snowing The conclusion: The crops will fail does not follow. Logic is concerned solely with the validity of arguments, but is no help when it comes to trying to find the meaning of a single utterance. Take the statement: Red and green hats shall not be worn One can immediately see that this is capable of two meanings: Neither hats coloured red nor hats coloured green shall be worn or Hats coloured partly red and partly green shall not be worn and in both cases there remains doubt as to what the effect is of the presence of other colours. If the prohibition is phrased as: Red or green hats shall not be worn what is the position of a wearer of a hat that is partly red and partly green? These are the sort of problems that lawyers have to wrestle with. In such cases it may be decided that "and" should be construed disjunctively and "or" conjunctively. Back to top Tony Joined: 02 Jul 2006 Posts: 102 Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 9:53 pm    Post subject: Oh dear we've been over all this before haven't we? What have I started again, I should have been more circumspect? Never mind, for the last time hopefully, as I am already regretting it. But it's my fault so I take responsibility. You must recall us in: http://www.iamtony.co.uk/sw/swarb_co_uk%20%20View%20topic%20-%20DoR%201668%20&%20RTA%201991,%20parking%20fines%20are%20illegal%20&%20voi%200.htm Anyway this is the last time I will treat it, since it is repeating myself yet again, and you know we've been over it perhaps thinking its' new because it's in a different thread. I will deal with just a few. Quote: But if the propositions are: If it snows and hails the crops will fail It is snowing The conclusion: The crops will fail does not follow. Well of course not! The binding conjunct is the whole of the middle term for the syllogism. The logical form is If [ it snows and hails ] { then} the crops will fail You've crafted a sentence with an ambiguous middle term whose composition you dismantled to show me that it doesn't follow, but can't show how or why. Fallacy of composition in the middle term of a syllogism.! In the syllogistic form you are using the MIDDLE TERM MUST be properly distributed in the major and minor premisses; even if one is implied and no matter which order you put them in, otherwise a fallacy is the result. These primitives 'and', 'or', not', etc are just like * / + - in maths, if one doesn't bracket them correctly one ends up with a mess. No doubt a creative accounting mind will come up with an example where multiply means subtract, but it will always fail th test of cogency. So it is not accurate to say; as if it ought to, that Quote: The crops will fail does not follow. Nobody suggested it did, unless fallaciously? But the construction might just imply that I did!!! Primarily because it follows just like a false cause in 'post hoc ergo propter hoc.' The construction you put up suggests it ought to follow, and you should know that it doesn't and why not. I remember we had that { and or } discussion last time, and the rules that got you into trouble were none of these above, they related to the three laws of thought particularly that of the law of non contradiction, IF I recall it correctly. Quote: These are the sort of problems that lawyers have to wrestle with Of course! Now why couldn't I think of that? I would never have guessed since I set the example and showed its fallaciousness. The example I placed on the earlier post; 'involving service' to which your comment responds, was; AS you say quoted just above, OF an ambiguous construction that was artfully put forward in an unsworn testimony designed to deceive. Yours is of a similar 'class type inference' put forward to suggest I missed the point that I was exposing. Your are telling me about 'non sequiturs' that I just showed in the approach to dismantling them before they gain credence. It's typical of false cause argument forms. It also reproves my very own reproof that likens it to identity theft. I didn't yet place their sworn testimony side by side, to show precisely where the sworn truth shows the 'mens rea' corroborating the deception in their 'course of conduct' that was and is fraudulent. That was because this case may go back to court, where that part will then get exposed. In the fullness of time it will will be all on the original thread of this title at Edward's site. Quote: Logic is concerned solely with the validity of arguments, but is no help when it comes to trying to find the meaning of a single utterance. Sorry I disagree; but evidently I need you to teach me. Logic is not alone formal logic, or syllogisms, it involves all the list marked with * below and much more, ending most likely in 'unambiguous contextual inferencing', but: A single utterance can be very simple like FIRE! When uttered in a special tone, and yet it DOES have either a perlocutionary or illocutionary effect that is to say its meaning is likely to be. Look out, there is a fire, beware of DANGER! THERE is the most probable meaning of the proposition derived from a sentence as short as a single word, and I see worlds in such single words. BUT when I add tone, urgency and other factors like smell of burning the meaning is abundantly clear. The point is that the brain is designed to bring into play ALL these abilities in one convergent thrust that determines meaning instantly or else die. There is no real difference when GAIN of revenue or power is the backdrop, it's as obvious as the above example. See Stephenson and Austin in how to use words, illocutions and perlocutions that come from simply saying; “ I LIKE ice CREAM on my strawberries” meaning or suggesting with emphasis, to persuade --- YOU should do likewise. A logician, and a draftsman in LAW would be irresponsible in constructing an argument like that with crafted ambiguity. That's the whole point, to make oneself clear in speech forms especially in drafting or perhaps in some cases regrettably 'dafting' a statute. Quote: Red and green hats shall not be worn A clear speaker will say in the relevant tone of voice that separates the clauses. A clear speaker will make sure he communicates truly rather then effectively in persuasion that imposes on himself a moral responsibility, doesn't it? Clearly; Neither RED HATS nor GREEN HATS shall be worn else the literal interpretation is [ Red and green hats ] shall not be worn If you draft a contract with such ambiguity, I would say; as I did in the last lost, but recovered thread, you were involved in, above linked, that I will sign it with a loan of £5000, AND interest of £500, but when it comes to paying I will CHOOSE like a shrew, the OR construction and tell you that is what I MEANT, but you didn't clarify it at the time it was signed, that I would settle the loan with EITHER £5000 OR £500 and thus I CAN give you your £500 and say goodbye. The use of 'you' anywhere here is impersonal as in ONE. NOTE I am being careful to ensure that NO ambiguity arises by focusing on a shade of meaning that I choose from the dozen or so that may be in the dictionary for any word. The purpose and design of this is what is made clear by expressing myself more fully than with an economy of truth. Is, not doing that a kind of cheating????? The lawyer's art in dismantling the shades of meaning is a subtle and fine one, but in constructing them it is a want of the relevant Hippocratic or shall I say Hippocritic oath in usage. The good lawyer's skill is used to dismantle this art in others who come to court to deceive or do so in 'culpa lata'. If that is the case, then the Lawyer ranks very high, if not then he is in my personal view in want of character. It's perhaps better stated as an opinion, if you like under the EU HR PR 5 Art 10/11 or whichever. Or do you prefer to call it legal speak,and give it a false emphasis,and 'blur the grace and blush of modesty'? Shakespeare Ham. Or does that meet with a lawyer's integrity? I do not expect an answer in a simple yes or no?, here but would demand it in a court. A statute in draft has to be clearer than language used in everyday speech, and I doubt if you will come across too much legislation that shows such ambiguity. That is more the art of the writer in metaphors and similes, or sophist in trying to persuade with equivocation. When I see that kind of ambiguity I don't get hung up, I simply ask the utterer what he means exactly, and in a court room I do the same. If I don't have the chance because the Judge says, no questions, then I go over the text and clean out the alternative meanings and show where, if any , the cognitive dissonance lies, pun intended, revealing the agenda that has a perfect correlation with the clear will that has been shown in purpose and design, with ACTS and more especially those SIGNIFICANT omissions that; when added to the obvious purpose and design reveal the WHOLE truth. The agenda is part of another discipline where the structure and dynamics of the psyche is involved and gets added to teleology that is evidenced by acts and omissions where omissions have the advantage of cloaking and veiled positively characteristic acts, but as such people who so act shrewishly, these combinations are inescapable to the person familiar with unambiguous contextual inferencing. Here are two mandatory psychological functions that are observable in a course of conduct making the teleology as clear as that of a meteor moving through space under Newton's laws of Motion, the only difference is the INNER motivation that takes it off course from a straight line. This is the inescapability of the deterministic forces that govern each act that has a case. Precisely as stated in Laplace's theory. Culpability is a function of anticipation and expectation. Ted Honderich, my professor 30 yrs ago. Will is a function of purpose and design. Questor, Acts and Omissions are the whole truth in the principle of “truth the whole truth and nothing but, is best, while Truth and nothing but leaves out the rest.” That derogation and dilution of the old rules has brought into the court a gamut of economy in truths that is unacceptable, well for me an any rate. I call it clever drafting like the RTA 1991, where may should read must, but is laid there to exonerate authority from culpability, and lay it always on the party who the statute is directed to control It is called at PATAS, as I have it, a SCHEME. So they know what it is, but the motorist doesn't, he just thinks statute and authority. IS that the way we treat our fellow members of the community and tax by stealth? I am beginning to regret that I posted that bit, as it's likely to go off tangent, and spark another thread that will be divergent thinking from the issue. I apologise to the readers of this, but prefer to leave it there, not wishing to pursue it, as last time it was tiring. If they wish to go over what has been said in that past thread I think this AND OR issue was already thoroughly treated and while I see you wish to revive it, the arguments on my side will not change. That's the beauty of TRUTH and proper correspondence theory, TRUTH is TRUTH 'til the end of reckoning, Shakespeare MfM. It also has a kind of recognisable RING to it, that any clear headed person judge or otherwise apprehends on percept. I have no doubt you will differ, because if I recall correctly, you or another interlocutor found some American authority to rely on. I prefer to rely on the well worn and tested philosophy that has been honed with dialectic over two and a half thousand years. These are the disciplines I prefer. I don't wish to enter the art of casuistry, sophistry and spin, and TRY to persuade that AND means OR, when it doesn't, UNLESS there is a purpose and design to make it so............ Usually coupled with gain. Once one goes down that road one can end up like in Chamber's the BBC series where John Bird states I mean the YES side of NO. That's stuff for a comedy, not for building houses. Either I build this house with bricks or sand. When Both are required in a special mix. We all understand what's efficacious, otherwise our constructuions fail down don't they? And it's certain that ambiguity and equivocation IS efficacious on the gullible, and that's why it has gains so much currency in recent years, not to say it hasn't been around for thousands anyway. The chameleon uses it too! It's not the manners of a person who wishes construct a relationship based on truth and correspondence theory that can't be any simpler than Aristotle's; ”To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, or of what is not that it is not, is true.” What' so wrong and ambiguous in that I wonder? The only reason I would pay the ambiguity game is for gain, and that's the truer name of the game isn't it? A modicum of familiarity in some of the following would be helpful if such a dialogue were to be fruitful. As you saw above, AND OR are primitives of logic, as well as the laws of thought, and hence fundamental to rational thought. Remember Judgement takes two forms, subsumption and comparison, The comparative function OR in either this or that is 'a priori' and exists in the abstract, without reliance on empirical determinations. No language is even needed. One compares things in the form of either this or that where this and that are the empirical objects being compared in reality, but OR is the function itself. Destroy those and I think I said before, you must come up with some new rationale for logic that supersedes that of the past two and half thousand years. That's ALL. Are you offering one is the question? Finally, RETURNING to THIS THREAD, look back at the photos in this actual thread. There you see a council would bend reality and make green mean white, 6 mean 12 left mean right, and might mean right. Now we can all agree on a meaning of a word, but when one varies it from the agreed meaning, look at what you get. This council wants to convince us that a contravention occurred when one didn't. I have asked for someone to state if THEY think the contravention occurred and the silence indicates nobody wants to join their irrational semantics. It doesn't work on normal people does it? I will leave a future response open ended, so that you have the last word on this particular issue, since this looks more like pressing on down a road that has been over trodden too much already. * Culpability as the function of anticipation and expectation. * Syllogistic reasoning with either the classic major & minor premises or implied premises. * The three laws of thought that render judgments irrefutable in any time, world or space. * Their corresponding verification using matrix truth tables in the calculus of logic. * Judgments of subsumption and comparison. * Scientific Methodology and its substrate of necessary and sufficient conditions in nomic relationships. * Venn Diagrams and class concepts. * Frege's 'Sense and Reference', and Russel's 'On Denoting'. * Newtons 1st law of motion upgraded with the teleology of goal seeking entities, and observations of their employment in what is best described as the function of a goal and the critical path being followed in a course of conduct, that includes the management of personnel on a 'need to know' basis and precision manipulation to permit the parties coming to the front and stating truthfully they are 'NOT AWARE'. * Widespread use of economy of truth, and false emphasis in the art of 'suppression veri' and 'suggestio falsi'. * Cloaking assertions in the aforesaid economies of truth, and providing the context that gives them credibility and authority that is fallacious. * Classic fallacies, plus a new set of fallacies of conduct observed in widespread use, and underpinning 'spin'. References are also made to Heraclitus, theory of flux, Plato's forms, and Aristotle's laws of thought, where the chrono topology of the laws of thought is set outside the framework. * And the more objective correspondence theory that is intuitive in Aristotle's definition of Truth as opposed to Russell's that is more subjective. * Unambiguous and unequivocal contextual inferencing, a discipline that is not as far as the author can see, used widely if at all. It has its complexities and relies on aggregates of conjunctive and disjunctive propositions. Probably this is the more difficult to understand, but is was many times, and in a cause in action twice, to absolute precision in a determination, and established as very reliable at a high level in the balance of probabilities. Where possible, these will be explained in short sentences that give greater insight. _________________ Tony Last edited by Tony on Thu Jun 28, 2007 6:17 am; edited 1 time in total Back to top theycantdothat Joined: 17 Oct 2005 Posts: 1098 Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 11:46 pm    Post subject: Since my study of logic was only to an elementary level I cannot answer your long and interesting post. However, I would like to home in on this: Tony wrote: Quote: Logic is concerned solely with the validity of arguments, but is no help when it comes to trying to find the meaning of a single utterance. Sorry I disagree. It is a long time since I picked up a book on logic, but I seem to recall that the first pages of all those that I did explained that logic was concerned with the validity of arguments. I have turned to my dictionary and I find that the first definition of "logic" reads as follows: the branch of philosophy concerned with analysing the patterns of reasoning by which a conclusion is properly drawn from a set of premises without reference to meaning or context My first observation is that to draw a conclusion you must have at least two premises. Secondly, the interpretation of legal documents is very much concerned with meaning and context. Accordingly, on both those counts, logic cannot be of help in determining the meaning of legal documents which are not set out in the form of an argument. Whilst in a formal logical argument words such as "and" and "or" may have precise functions, you cannot follow those rules (or any other rules of logic) when interpreting legal documents. Please read this article in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_interpretation Of course it is different when presenting a legal argument, when it is desirable to reason correctly; there a study of logic helps to present your case and to spot any flaws in your opponent's arguments. Nevertheless, we must be mindful of the words of Martin Heidegger: "To invoke logic for the purposes of delimiting thinking is a questionable approach". Back to top Tony Joined: 02 Jul 2006 Posts: 102 Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 7:41 am    Post subject: Quote: Quote: Logic is concerned solely with the validity of arguments, but is no help when it comes to trying to find the meaning of a single utterance. Sorry I disagree; but evidently I need you to teach me. Logic is not alone formal logic, or syllogisms, it involves all the list marked with * below and much more, ending most likely in 'unambiguous contextual inferencing', but: A single utterance can be very simple like FIRE! Your contextual extract in this case clipped just a bit too much, so that you were able to as you say; Quote: invoke logic for the purposes of delimiting thinking is a questionable approach in the sense alluded to above where I said 'truth the WHOLE truth and nothing but is best, where truth and nothing but leaves out the rest.' You need to add back in, the bit where I stated, Quote: Logic is not alone formal logic, or syllogisms, it involves all the list marked with * below and much more, ending most likely in 'unambiguous contextual inferencing', To get the complete picture. Classes and immediate inference has nothing to do with reliance on TWO premises, it is more akin to the scientific method in necessary and sufficient conditions that relate closely to the function of acts and omissions. In Quote: spotting any flaws your opponent's argument as you say; Quote: when it is desirable to reason correctly I would say wherever possible, in all walks of life and at all times it is imperative to reason correctly or at least try. As you know, if one cannot be TRUE to oneself, one is unlikely to be true to others, which is where the Hippocratic, Hippocritic oath comes into play because; Every human activity based on revenue and gain, has its own professional malformation, and the short list of disciplines at the foot of my post show that as many of these as are required, must be brought into play when dismantling the latest forms of spin thought up by teams of think tank members working solely on putting a feel good factor into each derogation or penal imposition that is created to harvest energy from the mostly hard working and honest workforce. If one is going to rely on Wiki, then I prefer to take the easier route from wiki's text here Quote: Within the context of law, the Golden rule, also known as the British rule, is a form of statutory interpretation that says the words of a statute should be understood in their ordinary sense. "It is a very useful rule in the construction of a statute to adhere to the ordinary meaning of the words used, and to the grammatical construction, unless that is at variance with the intention of the legislature to be collected from the statute itself, or leads to any manifest absurdity or repugnance, in which case the language may be varied or modified so as to avoid such inconvenience but no further" - Becke v Smith (1836) 2 M&W 195 per Parke B. My point about holding in the mind the entire gamut of disciplines at one's disposal relates to basic instinct and draws a distinction between pure rationality and that part of instinct that is encompassed in the notion of 'balance' which is the essence of justice is it not? - Scales etc. To win, and kill in argument, despite or EVEN WHEN intrinsically wrong and immoral brings sleepless nights for those who enjoy integrity and quality of life. There are those in certain bodies that can remain unmentioned, who pursue revenue ahead of any human duty of care in tort,and this is what I call Plunder, and hence the title of this thread. Of course one cannot carry the list in one's head in verbal dispute, what comes into play is FAIR play. So that the List Trevor Nunn put together and imparted to me, below, I find useful only selectively where applicable. Quote: To invoke logic for the purposes of delimiting thinking is something I would consider outrageous and most contrary to do. I hope you are not, in continuance, adversarially suggesting that is my approach. Which brings me back to the origin of this thread, the evidence put forward by a council to take from somebody £400-£800 for something he didn't do. Does anyone have a comment, or is silence on this issue to imply as it does in court adversely, that nobody sanctions errant, peccant and hence mislabeled 'authority'? This is the interesting question for me, who prefers to not limit thinking to ONLY those rules set down in the statutes of the corridors of power, but seek truth and fidelity wherever possible. What impresses me, is that I stand with so FEW, who criticise this conduct, nobody else, as yet, wants to 'rock the boat'. Isn't that interesting? It's certainly familiar to me, adding certitude as usual. When I was present in a Romanian court many years ago, returning latterly, I was impressed by the comparison between it and what I thought then to be superior British Justice, I find more recently in a collateral comparison of cases, that there is less difference than I thought, and when I set aside the temporal differences, then and now, the Romanian system looks slightly better since it was less bound by the etiquette system of CPRs, that are used as props and essoins in their blocking functions of the pathways to truth and fundamental freedoms. That is a disappointment. FOR me alone I guess. I know! We must change things by voting, and work with what we have, but there doesn't appear to be any concerted effort to improve it, other than by re-describing it. I have in mind all the name changes recently the last of which are LGO to PSO, and DCA to MoJ. Ministry of Justice now sounds like the Romanian model. Sorry I know I am off on a tangent, but had some spare time. In all other respects, where I look positively, I find this response less abrasive and far more constructive than last time, I am pleased to say, we 'appear' to be finding some meeting points. partially from about 40-50, its is below. 1. Natural Justice. 2.Statutory Power: Duty to act fairly. 3. Statutory Power: True purpose. 4. Statutory Power: Limitations. 5.Statutory power: Discretion, duty to promote legislative purpose. 6. Statutory power: Duty not to act 'ultra vires'. 7. Statutory power: Unreasonableness. 8.Statutory power: Statutory intent. 9.Statutory power: Duty to act in good faith. 10. Statutory power: Discretion, duty to act reasonably. 11. Right to procedural fairness. 12. Duty to enquire/ ask the right questions. 13.Duty to consider all relevant material. 14. Duty to exclude all irrelevant material. 15. Right to see documents relied on. 16. Right to cross-examine. 17.Duty to consider evidence of probative value. 18. Right to sufficient information. 19.Right to legitimate expectation. 20. Duty not to adopt an unduly rigid policy. 21.Duty not to be irrational. _________________ Tony Back to top dls Site Admin Joined: 10 Apr 2005 Posts: 5826 Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 9:07 am    Post subject: Quote: What impresses me, is that I stand with so FEW, who criticise this conduct, nobody else, as yet, wants to 'rock the boat'. Isn't that interesting? It's certainly familiar to me, adding certitude as usual. When nobody agrees with you at all, perhaps this will be a ground for super-certitude. Back to top Tony Joined: 02 Jul 2006 Posts: 102 Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 11:32 am    Post subject: Quote: When nobody agrees with you at all, perhaps this will be a ground for super-certitude. Funny you say that. my father brought me up to think that the 'majority' view was always right. I believed it for 20 years. You couldn't be more right in one particular sense. You have it, and yet it is so fleeting it was banished by its setting and provenance, because it is delivered with a slur isn't it? Over 30 years ago, when doing my first degree, I answered a question in exams on the abstract ontological argument for the existence of God, which I saw abused 8 weeks ago in CPR 3.4.2. The whole class went to the professor and told him the question was framed wrongly because nobody understood it. He replied "Sorry, that isn't correct, one person got it right." From then on nobody in the lecture rooms wanted to talk to me, or my wife who was studying with me. We were happy together with or without. Then I realised what drives people to look for cracks and flaws making wise cracks and not looking at the'' sores. It requires a deep gaze in to the inner self, to understand the source of the springs and motives that drive people to do it. It never hurt since that day, because I understood. I wonder if anyone here does? For a person who looks a little deeper, when examining another's motivation and will, that is a function of the associated design and purpose, it is easier to analyse the course of conduct by their art in the use of 'suppressio veri' and suggestio falsi' particularly when embedded in context that delivers unequivocal inferences. This is where some other disciplines, like Classes and Immediate inferences, play their part. Unambiguous inference inevitably follows from ( context; that precedes percept. [ Empton ] ). Omissions and Acts, show design and purpose in Missions presenting Facts and Omissions that hide but support them. The function of Will manifests itself in purpose and design apprehended as acts and significant omissions. Omissions must not be underestimated. Those significant omissions that add value and re-enforce purpose to their counterpart acts, are most likely the culpable ones. Elementary purpose and design, results from external forces, whereas the aforesaid is even clearer in conduct and its layered presentment. [ Questor ]. Layered presentment can be considered as the veils that cloak real purpose. Those things that reveal design and purposes are the blurs and slurs do they not? I have been fascinated by those omissions, that add to the purpose of their corresponding acts. Today's news, a warden was nearly killed while issuing a ticket. I predicted this easily foreseeable event, eight month's again in one bundle that went to court, because nobody will reign in the out of control forces on the dark side of human nature that place revenue before integrity and lawfulness. Still no comment of derogation on this law site, only derogation for me, fascinating, and a cause for wider concern where nobody is really interested anyway. One thing is certain, Edward has little or no other support, but the game's afoot. I don't wish to be a last word person, so the next person to answer will have the floor for some time, I have another observation of due process coming up and will be in the speak of a recent solicitor, 'largely out of the' picture for a brief day or two and revert later. Such amusing phrases for being away for most of a day. Sun, 15 Jul 2007 I just returned from last week helping a young lady pursued by two banks for £15k credit card fraud due to their incompetence. They had five people one supposedly the best barrister in the country. He used RH at the House of Lords, and argued the balance of probabilities. Unfortunately he overlooked one key word in that ruling and built or tried to build his arguments on presumptions and assumptions with a witness that was good, but economic with truth as usual. Our side's witness; the young lady, was well prepared could not be dented for one simple reason, can you guess? She was telling the truth, and the whole truth, something people prefer to overlook in the reduction of standards of proof. Judge ruled in her favour, and awarded £16k costs. total loss at last week £31k. They didn't like it and couldn't take defeat at all, suggesting an appeal to fight the costs down. They are in discussion, but unlikely to bully her. I have been observing this one for two years. It's such a pity the powerful allow their integrity to enter commerce with their financial interests, integrity usually gets compromised in the process, and it becomes obvious. I think we may publish this when the wrangling is over. _________________ Tony Last edited by Tony on Sun Jul 15, 2007 12:45 pm; edited 2 times in total Back to top Display posts from previous: All Posts 1 Day 7 Days 2 Weeks 1 Month 3 Months 6 Months 1 Year   Oldest First Newest First          swarb.co.uk Forum Index -> Road Traffic Law All times are GMT + 1 Hour Goto page 1, 2  Next Page 1 of 2   Jump to:  Select a forum   General ---------------- Announcements Administrative Law Banking Charity Law Company Law Computer Law Constitutional Consumer Law Contract Law Criminal Law Damages Defamation Employment Law Equity European Law Family Human Rights Intellectual Property Law Land Landlord and Tenant Law FAQs Litigation Procedure Negligence Other Legal Topics Other Non-law Road Traffic Law Taxation Law Quotes Law Students Just Politics User Profiles   Case Law ---------------- lawindexpro cases   You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group