THE KEYWORDS THAT ARE AN INSULT TO ONES INTELLIGENCE.
the analysis of
Understanding and Dismantling
egregiously invidious, deplorable, reprehensible and disingenuous
sophistry in Government, Local Councils, and Pseudo agencies
purporting to deliver justice but returning precisely the opposite
to the voter and taxpayer.
it has already been highlighted by the editor. Answer below,
to read the text first and see if you can detect it yourself, Its so
At 4/17/2006 12:27:37 AM
the text below was copied from the web document
Traffic wardens told to
be nicer - Newspaper Edition - Times Online
Separately there are
highlighted words / phrases that, when combined ,show the entire
piece to be most likely a wilfully leaked exchange designed to raise
hopes, but do nothing of course, just prior to the local elections.
being clarified for copyright +++++++++
correspondence theory concerning TRUTH.
book IV ch 7: 1011b 26-7:
say of what is that it is
not, or of what is not that it
say of what is that it is,
or of what is not that it is
not, is true.”
is the phrase!
Alistair Darling, the
transport secretary, has written to MPs admitting that many
motorists’ complaints about the way they are treated “may
I should say
that was the grossest understatement yet to be seen from a Minister
of the Crown, and deserves the ire of all motorists. Now you
have read the language of a Minister of the Crown.
Consider for a moment if that figure of authority, the credent bulk
(Shakespeare refers to when Angelo has committed virtual rape, and
thinks truth can be suppressed by his authority) now qualifies
for the assumed attributes customarily leveled at Ministers of the
Crown, such as integrity, truth, sincerity,
justice, equity, fairness, logic, duty of care, such duty towards
the taxpayer that it is misprision of treason to omit to reign in,
check or intervene. No sensitivity towards the irate and angry
victims on wardens going around now in gangs, and where the council
offices are barricaded like fortresses against the backlash.
we get is a piece of overheard gossip, that the minister has
admitted, not to the public, but fellow ministers, something we
should not hear about, that the public anger MAY
HAVE MERIT. Surely this piece of work is the output of
calculating minds who must be laughing all the way to the bank if
the British public swallow it as remotely true. Then we get the
blame merchants, saying the wardens are to be told, (When? Next
election?) to ease up on their petty habits.
Really? I never thought the wardens were being petty, it is the
directing minds that are being criminal. This sounds more like a
statement which corresponds with the facts. Facts don't have to
proved in all cases, in these cases 'Ipsa Res Loquitur', 'it speaks
for itself' is far more than sufficient to determine if there is any
correspondence to facts.
stated facts, wardens are being attacked, need police protection,
stab proof vests, 13 attacks, angry and irate motorists. How does
that impress our intelligent Minister? We are told complaints
MAY BE MERITED.
So the public at large have no complaint, just like the local
ombudsman says, there's no injustice in an invidious PCN given for
being 3.4 seconds out of time, as in my own case.
required for correspondence theory is the term IS
merited. This conduct, is
a policy of wilful omissions, (the omission to check and
reign in this illegal conduct – NOW!) for a period of time,
sufficient to enable councils to attain the requisite bank balance.
So reprehensible it is, that public resentment will sooner or later
lead to the death of an innocent warden to stem this tide of
plundering the nation for stealth tax the government will not
provide to councils through proper legal channels.
documents referred to A) has
written to MPs, and
B) A memo between the transport
departments, indicate this was NOT for
public consumption. How did it get into the public domain?
Deliberately leaked, to enhance its flavour, and make it seem like
internal tittle tattle to encourage schadenfreude. Rarely does a
minister deliver a speech from the top of his head, so you can
reasonably assume most of this detritus material is choreographed
for its effect, - to raise hopes and resolve indecisions, prior to a
cannot for time and space go throught this awful gibberish section
by section, but just look at the material from the point of view of
an cynical exaggerator. You could begin with;
authorities of employing wardens without
so that's the problem, they weren't given enough training? Fixing a
PCN on the screen or handing to the driver requires training now
does it? Anything to redirect focus away from the wilful negligence
of the government to check and reign in this criminal behaviour,
that has no redress in the RTA 1991, sections 63-67. They plan to
submit to committee suggestions on new new statutory guidelines, but
be certain there will be no redress for motorists to remedy offences
committed by the councils and their wardens for their offences. See
my own complaint to TfL where I served notice of impending
litigation (under the offence of harassment act 1997 section 40), if
they issued an NTO while breaching 5 offences, over 6 weeks by more
than 6 men, knowingly and wilfully. It was almost regrettable they
retracted the PCN.
What we have above is
that A. Darling has merely written to MPs. Matters are only
at an early stage of an exchange of views. The next stage may be a
consultative document, followed by a review, then an inquiry and all
this time the revenue still flows in without sanction. Its all
postponement, just like loans for favours become written off, and
gifts later on.
There is no sign of
robust volition found in the terms of SHALL and WILL, all is “are
to be”, “might consider”, “open an inquiry”,
investigate and so on. The lowly paid wardens are blamed for their
orders and incentivised systems devised by the directing minds who
are responsible, but government and local authorities rely on the
notion of separation of powers to abrogate their responsibilities.