Wednesday, September 10, 2008

False dilemmas, threats and increasing costs.

A false dilemma is the fallacious argument used by Cheshire County Council when they imply there are only a limited number of alternatives to resolve their problems, when in fact there are many more. Threatening me is just a tactic used by Cheshire County Council in an attempt to get me to accept their false dilemma.

For example their argument goes like this, accept A or B or we'll have no option but to do C. This is an obvious false dilemma backed up with a threat.

Why should I accept A, a ramp on my land, or in the alternative B, a slightly different ramp on my land under the threat of C, a step at the boundary of my property just to get them out of their self created difficulties. If they have a problem they should resolve it without resorting to legalistic threats and intimidation in an attempt to get me to accept their plans without demur.

I am sure they wouldn't allow me to shuffle my problems off onto them to save money so why should I allow them to shuffle their self created difficulties off onto me just so they can save money.

If they need me to accept an infringement of my rights or a ramp on my land so they can finish the roadway to adoptable standards the last thing the council should be doing at this moment in time is trying to threaten and intimidate me. For all that's going to do is increase the eventual cost.

This problem could have been resolved legally in 1999 if they had accepted my offer to sell them the land necessary to complete the roadway without infringing any of my rights. For fun let's call that option D. They refused that option so they will just have to suffer the consequences, let's call that option E. They could even throw some money at me, let's call that option F. They could even try their luck in court, let's call that option G. They could even leave things as they are, let's call that option H (This is the option they chose for the last 7 years). They could even move the road, that's the option they originally went with up until 2001 (they dropped that option when they realised the costs involved), let's call that option I. They could even carry on pretending they can do the impossible and complete the highway to adoptable standards without infringing any of my rights, (the only problem is that they are already on record admitting they can't and they have never produced a plan to prove they can, hence the threat of option C without any supporting plans and there reluctance to let me see a cross section of the original plans). let's call that option J. They could even come clean and admit they can't resolve their problem without my help and start to resolve the problem amicably, let's call that option K. They could try and compulsorily purchase my land, for if they have the powers to force me to accept an infringement of my rights they must surely have the power of compulsorily purchase. Let's call that option L.

They could even read the proposal I sent them in 2002 asking them to review all the options available to them and then come back to me with a lawful and amicable solution. Ironically, I am still waiting for a response to that proposal. Let's call that option M. They could even do as Vale Royal Borough Council promised the Ombudsman they would do in 1999 and complete the works without any impact on my property. Let's call that option N. They could even attempt to collude with, or mislead, the Ombudsman in an attempt to pervert the course of justice. Let's call that option O. The list of available option to them goes on and on so why should I accept A or B when I can get 'much more' out of the alternatives.

No comments:

Post a Comment