Force of Destiny

2000+ Free world Best Books
click on the pics.

Logic Law

Arguments and rebuttals.

This pages is currently being assembled please revisit soon.?

Also look at MAXIMS and CASE LAW

Arguments and rebuttals, getting to grips with the art of deception and dismantling it......

A focus with purpose on language delivered with purpose.

A useful focus of applied thinking is found in a real live example of awful semantics in use for example with some boroughs, who rely on their Penalty Charge Notice “PCN” being substantially compliant, and place that in the context of the text below,and then show how the choice in the first word used, almost becomes a frame of reference to ensuing argument and rebuttal, BUT IT SHOULDN'T....... The focus and choice of one single word can deliver in itself the flow of thought, and one needs to be extremely sceptical when listening to those first terms.

You will see how, when Westminster called their enforcement regime,

as part of their commitment to operate a "firm fair and excellent" service." at

how all the agencies of 'alleged authority' use terms of self adulation and especially choose words that are soft.

The methodology of thinking is clear.

When they attempt to explain what they're up to, they describe it as “clarifying”...... a term used by those whose asymmetry of knowledge applies from superiors to inferiors like we are all 3 year olds at school, they drop the word that should be in its place, namely obfuscating.

Returning particularly to the point about substantial compliance, the essence here is derived from the meaning OED ........ Accord, concord, agreement;

When referring to their acts, they uses terms that don't jar.

When referring to our acts,the choice of terms differ, our partial non compliances with an alleged mandate from statute is called a contravention, whose stem is OED ...... Of persons: To go counter to; to transgress, infringe (a law, provision, etc.); to act in defiance or disregard of.

Thus when you compare our contraventions with theirs, the terminology splits down the middle, for them it is compliance, for us it is contravention.

I hope I have shed some light on the art of sophistry and casuistry here. When Russia went in to Czechoslovakia and the world called in invasion, they said, let's drop the word invasion, and switch to the standard western locution of “we were invited to come in and help”.

To dispel such derogations and influences one must identify the jarring term, and come up with its opposite, by two means.

  1. The negation, NON, form of the original, like substantial compliance MEANS partial NON compliance, and

  2. The antonym, like compliance v contravention.

Once you get hold of that structure you can even out the playing field.

SO their ( mistakes in ) substantial compliances has its equivalence in insubstantial non compliance,

and our ( mistakes in ) contraventions has its equivalence in insubstantial contraventions.

BUT even so the choice of word shows that a softening of contravention remains imbalanced in the scales of justice and fairness, to get an accurate balance, we need not weigh gold against lead, but should weigh gold against gold or vice versa.

To set the field properly even one requires the same terms on each side of the scales.

SO our trivial contraventions match their trivial contraventions, and now it is abundantly clear how such a ruling is biased.

A borough with a flexible ruling of substantial compliance enforcing insubstantial non compliances inflexibly shows in the full light of day, the prejudice delivered with NO equivocation.

AS I have said many times here,

They flexibly trivialise their contraventions while inflexibly enforcing our trivial contraventions.

NOW that's what AUTHORITY calls justice and fairness in hearings that are generally bullets going only one way.

That in the captain's but a choleric word

Which in the soldier is flat blasphemy.”

That's HOW they get away with it!

Part of some text of interest in divergent and convergent thinking, that may provide more useful thought is also here:

Much of legal education seeks to develop students' analytical and problem solving abilities by the use of 'fact pattern' type problems. This method, though valuable, leads to a focus on the 'pathology' of common law subjects and the judicial activity of interpretation in statutory subjects. It focuses on inductive reasoning.

Requiring students to attempt to draft simple statutes exposes them to a different set of intellectual challenges. They need to think synthetically and deductively and consider a prospective solution to a range of problems.

Put another way, the traditional problem requires convergent thinking. The best student answers will be very close to our own 'model', and the students will have 'solved' a specific problem, albeit while having to think about the current state of the law, its history and development along the way.

Drafting a statute, on the other hand, requires divergent thinking. The student must analyse the various factual situations to which the statute must be applied. This will in turn lead to a consideration of the social and political context of the legislation. Appropriate models must be identified and language used precisely and consistently. The student will, if the exercise is successfully completed, have provided a basis for solving the whole gamut of problems in the area, and have integrated the whole of the relevant law into the statutory context.