Continuing the analysis of

Anticipating, Understanding and Dismantling

the 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.

The Sunday Times

Clue, it has already been highlighted by the editor. Answer below,

Try to read the text first and see if you can detect it yourself, Its so easy.

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,,176-2136640,00.html

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.

Article being clarified for copyright +++++++++


Aristotle's correspondence theory concerning TRUTH.

Metaphysic book IV ch 7: 1011b 26-7:

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.”


Here is the phrase!

Alistair Darling, the transport secretary, has written to MPs admitting that many motorists’ complaints about the way they are treated “may be merited”.


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.

What 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.

  1. The 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.

What is 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.

The 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 council election.

I 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;

local authorities of employing wardens without proper training”.

OH! 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.