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 not merely 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, that 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, without them, exposure follows.
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 an economic true proposition, economically.
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.
I wonder if anyone has yet disambiguated this, and seen what the illogical ambiguity is likely to be. It's very difficult I know, for the average trusting person with no agenda looking for ambiguities, and for me, instinct was the first clue to what I call serious malevolence in this construction. Here is the actual sentence. Three stages for you to ponder over the weekend, while I prepare the complete insight.The accurate text is here, it doesn't detract from the form of the one I left beforehand, the FORM is materially equivalent.
“As we have not received a correctly completed application to re-register your XXXXX discount, your registration has expired.”
The sentence is ambiguous, and were it re-phrased as one would, if one had integrity it would be quite otherwise. I will show how a person of integrity should have written this had their conscionable conduct been of any importance.
“As we have { not } received a correctly completed application to re-register your XX discount, your registration has expired.”
The fist stage in any logical translation from a sentence to a proposition is to take the literal meaning, and then separate the elements of the molecular sentence schema down to the relevant atomic elements so far as is useful.
Here is the first stage. The logical primitives are subject, predicate, and, not, if then, and literal meaning. The rules of logic are strict in the primitive functions above, and their scope is CRITICAL.
not received a correctly completed application to re-register
stage two brackets provide the scope for the qualifying adjectives, they are CRITICAL.
not received a {correctly completed application to re-register}
stage three, see the three dependant terms at each level of dependency.
not received a ((( correctly) completed) application)
Look for the keyword that is the thrust. ANd in this case it was a complete misdirect, away from the TRUTH. that is actually a deliberate LIE when the focus remains on the distraction in the key word that has all the 'affect tones' of liability towards ME, as the gulity party.
I will leave this clue, before the explanation.
- What is the first question you would ask on calling them up to find out what went wrong?
-
Depending on their replie, that was silence, followed by a suggestion to immediately download a form and get it in the post. Would you detect the fault then?
-
The left hand side of the sentence has NOT yet been reduced for its atomic elements so the term NOT is accurately distributed.
-
What is the SCOPE of the term NOT, try bracketing it yourself and see what different results the natural language produces?
-
Getting it wrong, as this constructin may hope one shall, is actuallly close to, if not itdelf, criminal conduct, and fruadulent. The reason, when known, was worse than the face value here.
-
By the way, the fallacy this comes partly under is the fallacy of amphiboly.
An example of a variant of amphiboly is; No treading on the grass, or, NO! Treading on the grass.
Or "Politicians deceive their constituents who do not tell the whole truth.", The one above, by TfL is more subtle, and uses obversion to make it darker, they were heading for the High 'Caught'. see some of them at Logic Reasoning Thought Laws
I will give you a chance to work out what happened, and, how when convenient.
After a severe attampt to bury this party in procedural descriptions, bully, confuse,, and get him to pay and OBEY. They had to back down, cancel a £50 charge, and refund a £10 charge. All this will come here for you to see the FACES of janus, and mendacity. The most deplorable sight in written English using methiods that would defeat many who are too busy to examine and ask questions.
Another clue, is to OBVERT the sentence, that means turn it from negative to positive, making it ....
“...as we have ........received an incorrectly completed application to re-register your XX discount, your registration has expired.”
The key question should now be very clear. And when asked a second time, the silence was total. IE NO answer could come out. WHAT could that mean? Usually it means hiding and deception, unable to answer without admitting culpability.
More to come........
Promise
When you read it all, you will see that when this fault was realised, and the letter was NOT STOPPED from being sent out it amounted to pure evil to do so, it was an attempt at fraud in the worst possible manner of deception. The person(s) who knowing the facts in full, sent that letter out was knowingly behaving criminally, with wilful negligence.
Just a ONE LINER, from a spin liner, and bin liner, ??? bin laden liner. A pure trick in ambiguity.