Local Ombudsman, willful maladministration, fallacious reasoning, cant, chop-logic and sophistry,

by those supposed to investigate maladministration in local government.

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.

In short Analysing, Dismantling & Sanitizing SPIN for disposal rather than consumption. Don't be taken in.

A form of pre-action protocol to 'alternative dispute resolution' (ADR), or proceedings that is no better

than issuing a claim immediately,to save a great deal of time, and get the other party into an improved focus of attention.

Go to the rules.

Here is a typical invitation from a local council for you to complain, how inviting they are?

This preamble on the politics of power prior to the statement of rules for dismantling sleeze, sophistry and prolific mendacity that has become so common these days, will hopefully justify the reason why this essay & set of rules has even become necessary due to failures of reform in democracy. The government willfully fails to check the propensities of maladministration because it takes the pressure off themselves raising revenue and misdirecting resentment that should be properly justified and raised through normal channels.

The mask of democracy in its present formation is more akin to the tyranny of a few, using think tanks to create a continuous flow of subtle fallacies and massaged statistics deployed in the name of the majority (a tyrannous form when used against small groups and individuals) is rarely if ever properly served by oppositional government with long term periods in power. This occurs where the party coming in to power dismantles honour and integrity of voting procedure, combined with dominant media exposure, using substantial sums of money to advertise a political product that equally rarely if ever keeps the core body of its promises. All this is to prolong a stay in power furthering the aggrandisement of their positions. Leaving this unchecked is the responsibility of the voter not the government. The voter can check this propensity by changing the government without recourse the their success or failure, just as the baton is handed over in a relay race. Some will be better than others, but most likely all will not be as bad, as one left in power far too long. Additionally could can elect local councils on the grounds of policies that are from the opposition's policies to government. Having labour run councils and conservative government, or vice versa, switching in liberals for good measure would achieve an acceptable compromise and maintain the adversarial system in practice rather than have one system in both central and local government, working, colluding and behaving adversarially for consumption of gossip. Nepotism and sleaze will generally be stifled, The argument that the voter should not vote tactically is one proposed by a party based on the consequences of their failure in that election. There is no sound argument for prolongation of office since experience shows once in, the process of nepotism and collusion commences quite reapidly. Government should serve the country as the mind serves a healthy body, synchronising policies that respond sympathetically that will return a healthier mind, 'mens sana' in 'corpore sano'. To maintain a healthy thinking part, requires refreshing the process far more radically than every 8 or 12 years, 4 years may be the norm, while 1 year would prevent the settling in period required to fertilise financial lobbying, nepotism, self aggranisement, disingenuous semantics, sophistry in the use of perquisites or expenses, and power maintenance.

British history has shown consistently that the essential development and progress of the nation in democracy in its present form, is not radically and causally determined by any particular party but rather by the greater forces of determinism in growth and development by way of fusion, splitting and multiplication of groups, finances and ideas that make up the total body of the nation. While it may be true that some short periods of radical dictatorial government can accelerate this process in the short term, the time taken for groups in democracy to even reach some decisions, can be defeated elsewhere by state mechanisms where government decisions (avuncular, paternal, tyrannous or other individualistic form) are far more speedily incorporated into actions by a single cortical function, namely one individual with full power.

Many democracies of today, particularly the English model, suffer from what is best described as 'fatigue in the process' just like metal fatigue, and this is a degeneration of integrity that appears increasingly prevalent where to take one example, Council departments responsible for revenue collection of penalties are incongruous fortresses surrounded by iron barricades and security devices to protect the individual workers from the anger and resentment of their own fellow citizens. This is more akin to Communism, than a free democracy where the state organs should deliver the wishes of all, in direct proportion to the size of groups, well balanced by proper argumental forms. A group of ONE with cogent argument is as powerful as a group of 40 or more with fallacious argument.

What we are surrounded by at present is a plunder of the citizen's finances backed up by rules embodied in a sanctimoniously upheld law that IT IS AN OFFENCE PUNISHABLE BY A PENALTY OF £100 reduced to £50 (IF you don't argue and pay very quickly), as in a personal example TO ENTER BY MISTAKE AN EMPTY BUS LANE FOR THREE POINT FOUR SECONDS. I'm sorry this has to be the best example I could find of an obviously revenue driven penalty charge, not to be defended by the argument that if one is allowed to get away with it others will follow. A caution would be more proportional and appropriate. The case which went to the local ombudsman for reasons other than the particular best instance of mugging to be found on the high streets, was initially refused,as usual, but a sound argument persuaded them to reverse the decision, as you will read if you do not tire of it, that two years later was to bring them into a contradiction of their own making. The worst kind of law of thought to even attempt to reconcile and defend. One has to be either under a serous injunction, extremely gullible OR more probably working to an agenda, (by a hidden directing mind, whose consequence is the loss of ones position) to even try. This agenda driven culture is fine when transparent, but look with greater purpose as to the methodology in the workplace today. It amounts to having the consequence of harvesting the souls of good people everywhere by taking away their right to rationalise, think logically or even so much as dare to opine, by removing it behind the aforementioned barricades and fortresses that should never need to be defended in the first place were the governing policies consensual. Take a PCN representation into your local council, and see how the fine person, one who may have just taken a degree in economics, may not cast any opinion as to its probability of recognition as errant. This fine person is reduced to a functionary whose sole purpose is to photocopy the documents, stamp them and return the originals to the donor. Ask them any questions? They cannot answer, the paperwork will go to the main back office, as described above, usually a fortress building somewhere discreet and difficult to find, or else if it is a government building, then surrounded by police, automatic road stops, anti missile weaponry and small firearms. Not long ago we did not have any of this. people were trusted to use their judgement in the workplace, they made mistakes, but certainly no more than the teams of centralised literati supposedly exercising something called superior reasoning powers that are to be relied on and respected. Why do we now have all this defence of our superiors? Their argument is terrorism, and the real validity of that, is because the world is governed by various forms of so called democracies, that go to war on no mandate given them by the voter at all, relying on manipulation of the law, coercion in the workplace at civil servant level, and specious argument from that at senate or parliament level.

Its called reaching the conclusion before listening to the argument,applying group pressure or position in power to support the theory, then constructing the argument by way of major and minor premises disingenuously derived a set that may well and many times most likely includes one premise that would make the argument unsound, than getting a third party to de-select that argument, and qualify the conclusion by way of saying “based on all the evidence available to me.” to give the reasoning process plausibility. That highlighted bit is the flaw. No person given a review to conduct should conduct it on a fellow worker or peer in close association, its bad form, let alone the first clue there is a whitewash on its way. Nor may they have their terms of reference or powers limited to evidence they cannot personally order for disclosure on sanction of court procedure, verify and question,and all of this must not be a showpiece for a friendly chat and esoteric oeillades to meaningful understandings. Saying “based on all the evidence” requires thoroughness in discovery, presentation and understanding of the epistemological conditions of actually knowing that to be the case. This makes the writer culpable especially as an officer in local government. Reviews require the cooperation of the party or parties under review, and usually there is a third party in possession of some of the material. This makes it extremely dangerous to use the term all.

Lying is easily done, but it involves circumstantial vectors that guarantee secrecy, certain knowledge that it is indiscoverable, and that can only be done if the misdemeanor is totally private and secret. Then there is the matter of presenting it convincingly, where anyone with basic instinct will perceive truth or falsity by there being sense, and some ring of truth about it. These days, if put to the test, where it is serious enough, the polygraph may be used, or else the latest brain fingerprinting by Dr. Farwell's P300 brain wave responses , which appear impossible to defeat. Of primary consideration would be the question “is it all really worth the effort?”

The absence of consensus is at the heart of the failed equation. I have found myself in younger days of greater passion, deeply moved to anger and resentment at some of the invidious and unnecessary injustices served upon me without any moral integrity relying but on the strict observance of the law. This resentment is now considerable, widespread, and more importantly rising, as a result of laws that no longer reflect the mores and customs they are intended to codify.

Lying in day to day life, may be permissible if you can get away with it, but it is called perjury in court, where I have seen it, discovered it to the Judge without so much as his / her batting an eyelid. The lowering of standards of proof in court, has brought with it the correlative consequence that solicitors, policemen and many otherwise respected figures of authority don't even think twice about it, being so inured into their habitual frames the don't even recognise it in themselves. Centralised government, and even worse, centralised thinking, takes from the individual their very soul, turns them into pure functionaries, removes their dignity,and worse, over years of educating them, turns them into morons, some newly converted, some returned from whence they came. Creating a society of robots like this, in want of consent, is at the heart of the symbiotic resentment, despair and anger from those impoverished of property and mind, and the disrespect this brings from those better off, who are responsible for it. noblesse oblige, is all but gone, because those in transient power, like government hang on to it,rather than considering themselves fortunate enough to be chosen for a brief and finite period,might consider the task as one of pride in its doing, since it is a once in a lifetime opportunity. Changing the government every 4 years would improve this, even if it only served the purpose of checking the excess and arrogance that grows naturally with its longevity. The Romans had it well worked out where the senate was changed every year, and each person mounting the stand was more charged with the motivation to do the job well, even with excellence, then leave and hand the baton to someone else. The illusory and hallucinatory perception that only one person is available and capable to do the job is as misspent in a theory as it is in practice, and ridiculous, where fine ideals at commencement, disappear by being engulfed in the greater forces of wealth and power around that position.

I shall detail an appalling example of Local Government Ombudsman gibberish in disingenuous sophistry that in a better form might well leave many citizens bemused, dismayed and unsure even of their own critical abilities (but nevertheless dissatisfied because their instinct tels them they have been cheated of justice, which unlike goods, is too abstract to observe in its departure). This is because the argument is presented on a nicely printed letterhead, in deplorable succinctness and authoritative tones totally lacking in thoroughness, when all they are paid for is to rationalise properly, and deliver nothing much more than a worthless verbal sanction towards the errant body.

How do they do it? As easily as lying. BUT just as easily caught with the right equipment to hand, which has been around for more than 2000 years, and its free. It is simply proper sound reasoning, syllogistic reasoning, formal reasoning and formal logic. The earlier forms, sound and syllogistic reasoning are easy to follow. They are shown in the section marked syllogisms, below.


Section A for those with greater familiarity of logic.

  1. A real case example of judgement of subsumption and judgement of comparison.

  2. The local ombudsman applied the following rule in both cases.

      • Can only investigate where complainant claims or appears to have suffered injustice.

  1. CASE 1...The local ombudsman was given a case against Islington Council in 2004 where strictly speaking, an offence was committed by entering an empty bus lane for 3.4 seconds!

      • The code of conduct for enforcing such penalties is that evidence has to be produced showing both th vehicle & number plate, AND the context of the offence. No context was provided, and after repeatedly requesting the contextual material I was compelled to go to the office in the city to view and video the infraction. This was not merely injustice (the local ombudsman's terms being distress and avoidable time and trouble).

  2. After initially refusing, the local ombudsman recanted and stated that Islington WAS guilty of maladministration.

  3. CASE 2...The local ombudsman was given a case against Transport for London in 2006 where strictly speaking, an offence was committed by entering stopping at a red light, exiting the vehicle for the duration of lights changing to green, and drove of VDA, (vehicle drove away without having a PCN served properly.

      • The exchanges between myself and TfL were lengthy, they refused the representation, commenting that my argument was pure semantics, and the offence was committed strictly and had to be enforced. I examined their breaches of the law, and code of conduct equally strictly and with greater purpose. They were found to have breached 5 enactments of the statute RTA 1991. by 6 people willfully and knowingly and criminally over 6 weeks.

      • The local ombudsman stated that TfL WAS NOT guilty of maladministration.

      • In the review I stated the local ombudsman had to compare the two cases and reconcile the contradiction, telling them they would fail. I assisted their argument by stripping out the greater injustice of CASE 2, so they propositions were identical. I simply said, set aside the greater injustice and criminal conduct of the TfL case and compare the cases like for like as two cases of equal injustice under the same rule.

      • Judging a case under a rule is a judgment of subsumption, and comparing two cases is of course a judgement of comparison.

  4. Here is the set of propositions as a formal contradiction of the sentences.

      • It cannot be the case that proposition P and proposition Not P are true together. FORMALLY ~(P . ~P)

      • Under the same rule CASE 1 was GUILTY and CASE 2 was NOT GUILTY. But you cannot have two propositions jointly true and false together, the requisite law of thought being, the law of non contradiction.

      • ______________________________________________________________________________________________

      • Not the case that (Islington are GUILTY under the rule AND TfL are NOT GUILTY under the rule. Do you see the formal construction highlighted in red, ~(P and ~P)

      • ______________________________________________________________________________________________

      • The truth table of the classic law of non contradiction is shown in other pages of the website, link provided shortly.

  1. How were they going to reconcile it? I told them they could not, and there was only one escape to such a contradiction, but I stated they would probably find it too difficult a route to take.

  2. You will have to read their review reply and my response to see the full detail, tediously pedantic as it has to be, and how the matter ended. An initial index of page links and jump to extracts will be provided very shortly. But the final reply to the local ombudsman in its full text, names truncated for the purposes of privacy is HERE.

  3. The final letter to the TfL is HERE

  4. The main contention that flows from all this, when added to my comment from a previous letter,

    It will not make any difference how many ombudsman were to review a case where the result is a contradiction like that just shown. There is no comfort to be drawn from the apparent agreement and consequential tyranny of a majority, they will be ALL wrong if they support one conclusion and not condemn (the argument) of the other. Myself included.” In the highly likely event that the agenda to support a fallacy is so powerful as shown, ALL members of the ombudsman will support the decision given by Mr. Moriarty in CASE 2, as well as the review that exonerates him.

    If that is the case, then here is the first of a series of arguments that the entire body should be dismantled and set up properly with the members, employees or whatever labels given them are accountable to the public who they should be serving in the first place.

Draft section as at 10/04/2006 please revisit as necessary this section is being augmented every few days.

Section B for the comparative newcomer to logic.

  1. Begin with your instinct, if the argument feels wrong then probably it is, so re-examine it with greater purpose. Remember our great bard: “As there comes light from heaven and words from breath, As there is sense in truth and truth in virtue,

    1. If it does not makes sense then it is probably NON-sense.

    2. Focus on the argument, divesting your thoughts of any monetary considerations or emotional content.

    3. Look for the propositions in the sentences.

      • A Proposition in logic is “the indicative meaning of a literal sentence”. Sentences like 'all single men are bachelors', 'James is a single man', therefore 'James is a bachelor', are all sentences that can be tested for truth or falsity, unlike the sentence “hello, how are you today?”

      • Not only the reasoning in 1. above, happens to be true 'a priori' (the proposition is innately true by understanding the terms), but the conclusion follows from the premmisses as valid reasoning. This form of reasoning is known as syllogistic. (reasoning from major and minor premmisses to a conclusion. Whereas:

      • All dogs are faithful, prince is faithful, therefore prince is a dog, is not a valid form of reasoning, since prince might be a man. The class ALL, must have the instance, not the attribute that belongs to that class, since that attribute may belong to other classes.

      • The formal aspect makes this perfectly clear when substituting a variable for the sentences. If p implies q, p (being affirmed) leads to q as a valid form of reasoning.

    4. The main focus of your attention is drawn however to the three laws of thought, which as their name suggests are LAWA similar to laws of physics, but irrefutable, undefeatable. One may acquire technology and knowledge to 'as it were' to defeat a law of gravity, like flying, but this is not the same as defeating the law of contradiction.

    5. Take a cool look at a contradiction whose form is ~(P . ~P) which is a formal construction of the proposition “It is NOT the case that P and NOT P are true together (at the same time). I'll not dwell too long on the qualification (at the same time) simply to say that since the time of Heraclitus, it is understood that everything is n flux, so much so that one cannot step in to the same stream twice, nor be the same person so doing.

    6. Now lets look straight at the one the Local Ombudsman tried to resolve.

  2. The local ombudsman argued that they had to follow certain rules, (we shall look at these rules later, since they were assembled by either a person not thinking clearly, or while thinking clearly they set them up so that each word had a variable charge and meaning allowing it to span a world of different instances at different times. This is not the proper use of language, which has to have very clearly defines sense, and references). The rule we are interested in is that:

    1. They may only investigate a complaint IF some injustice had been done. Leaving aside the differences between the OED meaning of justice (want of equity or unfairness) and those used by the local ombudsman, lets us say injustice is better understood as we all know it, from the OED which remains fairly unvaried for the past 700 years.

    2. Consider that rule for a moment and then take the following propositions in good faith as true, since I am setting them down as true, they are true, I have the evidence to rely on to show they are true,and I am not a liar. I have no agenda other than having a passion for TRUTH and a distaste for mendacity, which I find degrading, and wish to not spend my time in exchanging with people who use it as their main diet.

    3. The local ombudsman was presented with two instance or cases where there was the possibility of making a comparison.

      • In 2004 I had complained to the local ombudsman about Islington Council, who sent me a recorded picture showing I had entered an empty bus lane for 3.4 seconds, wanting £50 for the pleasure. They sent it accompanied by a picture of the vehicle I used, showing its number plate. I could not remember where I committed this of fence if that is the correct appellation one should give to such an inhuman perversity of strictness in the application of the law, on which I have further comment later on. I wrote back asking for a picture of the context, not the number plate.

      • They of course, in their wisdom, sent me another picture of the vehicle straddling the single white line, and not showing the vehicle actually in the contravention code as described. I made insisted on my rights to see proper evidence, after all £50 for 3.4 seconds I think entitles me to see what they are basing their claim on., and several exchanges followed, whereby I had to actually take the time off to visit their premises, a fortress of a place barricaded against barbaric revenge attacks, like a bomb shelter in warfare. I saw and videoed the offence.

      • The complaint that followed, was that Islington, in their revenue driven desperation to collect £50 for anything amounting to an excuse for sanctimoniously affirming I had broken the law, had also broken the code of conduct set down for them by TfL which is to proved the owner with a picture of the vehicle and another in the context.

      • The local ombudsman, like most local and government departments, that invite one to complain, claim or seek a solution by visiting one of the several agencies set up for us to make redress complaints, or if you prefer, air our grievances on paper away from the main shop floor, not getting redress. Delivered a refusal saying as best I can recall while writing this, (the papers will be placed on the web shortly and corrected if I was wrong) there was insufficient injustice. I wrote back and pressed them further with more argument, and they recanted, stating that Islington was indeed guilty of maladministration. The best the local ombudsman delivers in such circumstance isa mere admonishment, and the council can of course take little or no notice which the do, since that date Islingtom has risen to the top of the local authorities list for revenue driven and remarkably prejudicial tax collecting by way of PCN's

    4. Therefore we have our first case of a council guilty of maladministration, because they caused me avoidable time and trouble, along with distress, (the local ombudsman's definition of injustice)

    5. Now I will try to cut the longer story very short. The next case was TfL (transport for London) who's warden ran towards the vehicle as I had stopped at a red light, and in the time intervening got out of the car to rush an envelope into the bank. On returning he had commenced writing the PCN while my wife was addressing him as to the particular want of humanity, since I was now already departing. I remarked at the inhumanity of his exigency and drove off parking a further 50 yard s away waiting for my wife. She had collected the PCN from the warden, all the time being observed by another 4 or 5 wardens and supervisors. On returning home,I had retired to bed, as the timeout was for medication required to abate an awful attack of sciatica. AQ representation was made on human terms for forgiveness. This was refused. I then researched and inspected the conduct of TfL and confirmed the warden was NOT wearing his hat, or his jacket (in such a hurry) and issued the PCN to my wife while I drove away. I discovered, and you can see confirmation in the full complaint pages, elsewhere, that VDA, vehicle drove away, in cases where the PCN was not given to the driver or affixed to the screen, have to be SPOILED on the same day of issue. It also was illegible.

    6. TfL had committed FIVE offences under the law, (RTA 1991) in trying to enforce my SINGLE momentary impulsive stopping.

  3. Look for inconsistencies, and bias that is fundamental to every argument. Stephenson's semantics focus on statements like: “ I love strawberries”, amounts to saying “I like strawberries, you do likewise”. What is your interlocutor trying to persuade you to do and why?

  4. If its an internal review or of a fellow member at work, peer group, or you do not know the composition of the review body, or his/her inclinations then assume it is a set up, since that at least ensures you will be sceptical.

  5. The government no longer trusts the citizens, they require proof of identity, proof of conduct, behaviour, and are distrustful of almost anything one says. There argument is “I don't know you, why should I trust you?”, Just because they appear frequently in the media, does not that familiarity ensures one knows them at all. In real life frequently the public persona is substantially different from the private one.

  6. Separation of powers works in some areas where there is supposed to be no interference between the various bodies concerned, but generally the party holding the purse strings has considerable measure of control over the parties receiving payment.

The first signs of fallacy in the mechanism is a general openness and readiness to review bad decisions, by the use of committees, review bodies and quasi judicial institutions set up and paid for, directly or indirectly by the perpetrators of those bad decisions makers in the first place. This readiness is combined with the agenda to remain in the position, or else for a brief period of excommunication to return to it, which is the first sign of want in integrity. A person guilty of poor decision making, especially those with detrimental consequences should, when presenting his actions for examination, be prepared and offer resignation forthwith, (a reasonable system of compensatory dismissal package being available) as a sign that the the position is to be vacated for a more capable person to assume the position. No one is indispensable being the first criterion for this procedure. The second is that the review body MUST be of a composition that is as freely organised as a common jury, (which present democracy wishes to reduce with economic arguments that compared with financial waste like the Millennium Dome pale into pathetic fallacy and gibberish.) If this rule is not followed then expect and anticipate a 'whitewash'.

The Conduct is misprision towards the taxpayer, and should be made accountable carrying custodial sentencing and severe penalties for what amounts to treasonable conduct towards the citizens embodied in a truly representative state machinery reflecting voters interest under a properly conducted democracy. The present UK machinery is designed to stealth tax and plunder the citizen's personal resources with sanctimonious styled sophistry relying on the credent bulk that is associated with cenralised power mechanisms.

Local Ombudsman,local ombudsman,local government, the local ombudsman, ombudsman,local,local council,Ombudsman, Local Government Ombudsman, Council, Local Government Ombudsman Spin, Maladministration,Transport for London, Transport, London, Government spin, Sophistry, Fallacies.

This quoted text is the typical invitation from a local council. The question is...... Why do you think a council is so open and inviting about its complaints procedure? Would it not be likely that they are just a little too confident your complaint against them will be handled in THEIR FAVOUR? Make a complaint and see how it goes.

If you are unhappy with the way the Council has dealt with you complaint, visit the website at www.lgo.org.uk

The Local Government Ombudsman is an independent person who investigates allegations of maladministration causing injustice to the person who has complained. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about almost most council matters including planning, education, social services, and council tax.”