Please bear with me a day or two.
I am just completing the analysis of the fallacy of independence, impartiality, and account -
ability at
http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/Injustice/independent.html
Worth a re-look now.
Many rulings at PATAS, LGO, and similar
indendant bodies are not without some fallacy or another SO FAR, I haven't see a clean one.
In the above one by TfL
They used an obscure form of reasoning that is where
a true conclusion can be implied by any false premiss, and to re-enforce it they used it in the negative, ie the obverse of its contrary to COVER up the hidden fault.
I will give you the SINGLE line that was the obstacle.
Off the top of my head, without double checking, it will be done properly.
I received a letter saying
in one of its lines “because we have not received a correctly completed renewal application form, your exemption has expired!”
After a week of not knowing about it.
That sentence was a true proposition in the calculus of logic.
How does one tell a truth and cover a lie?
That's the interesting bit. How to prepare sworn statements of truth for a court, that cover implied falsities, and not get caught, except by the very perceptive looking at the
argument forms of the propositions, and the play on sense and reference in similar terms (Frege) from their literal sentences.
That is being shown in the other case, that reached 700 pages, cost the council £4k and has not finished, despite their withdrawing everything, and asking to cancel the proceedings, which was refused.
A prepared short 8 page case, was sent to TfL, ready for the high court, and the EU if necessary, since there is far too much evidence of the trail of this thinking mendaciously through all the lower courts
when a case is against a body with some .gov.uk at the end.
It's first line, the 8 page prepared traversal, was;
"A procedural impropriety occurred, it was concealed".
It continued. in effect with "
YOU look for it in your telephone recordings and exchanges."
I warned them I had not finished, after their backing down that was a disgrace taking nearly two months, cancelling and refunding, as I wanted to show two entry traps, and receive an apology.
Since they are NOW themselves out of time I gave them, I will prepare the insight for others to understand and use, but as I said
it is difficult to perceive, since the proposition from the sentence delivered, was a true proposition.
Manufactured by
subtle overlays of implication.
They will probably not repeat the same phrase, but understanding the logic is essential and probably too difficult for many here.
Hence I need to simplify it as a common fallacy to be found in many legal arguments used by councils today who are out of control with prerogative powers.
That is also being exposed at
http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/Injustice
One letter with some
ten contradictions to start with only in three separate lines.
I have given you the two key sentences, in blue, and as you will see upon superficial examination, there is nothing discernible in the language, of sem-
antics that discloses the deception. Consider it as a rubic cube type puzzle. See if you can guess what is being covered.
It is a form widely
used, and people leave the hearings and courts
confused, not surprisingly that's why we have a growing mental health bill, because the neuro linguistic spin is out of control too.
Shameful London C Charge website ! 
