Constitutional Renewal Bill Responses / Hegel - "Spirit"

I took part in the Constitutional Renewal Bill and have just come across the DLP published responses (all 92 of them): Really good read, I was not expecting "dung heap" as a Constitutional Renewal topic but there you go that's democracy or perhaps a need for it!

(Click Here) 92 Comments

Government New Year Resolution perhaps should be "democracy" and sorting out the judiciary mess since at least 1997. Nevermind the word "change", try "improve"!

I have also had an occasion recently to take a look at "Spirit" in the Oxford Companion to Philosophy and from there to read the reference to the German Philosopher "Hegel" which I find most interesting because he is to some degree in concurrence with my own philosophical(jurisprudential thought) and I find him true and accurate on several issues in alignment with my own knowledge, understandings and belief - I have neither studied Hegel outside this reference source. His reference to "Mind" is, I am sure is the same as my use of my understanding of the word "Good", ie if you were to read Hegel and switch the word Mind to Good you would be reading both of our understandings - to a degree. However, where I differ is that I do not believe "mind" (with a small m as in the body) is one and the same with the spirit" ie that is to say Hegel is correct that there is an essence of being which is the same in all humankind and that all humankind is linked in the Mind, ie he uses "Mind" and I use "Good" - I separate mind (body) and spirit. My "reasoning" is that our "spirit" is our essence of being and that it is always programmed good from the moment of conception to death. That the essence of being is tapped into a life source called good and it is not monastic but collective - we are all "essentially good" in humankind. (I am also aware Catholicism also promotes as a universal given that no matter how bad someone is they cannot eradicate good as a Christian discipline which ties in "spirit" with religion and theology for those of you who perceive the world via the religious which I don't). However, where I perceive I differ is that the mind (body) is not the source or link to the spirit or essence of being. My argument is that "mind as in body" can choose to do bad or good as an intellectual issue. My understanding is that "nature" of humankind is good and that good recognises good and that good recognises bad and recoils - for example, if you accidentally bump into someone - out pops the word "sorry" automatically, if you say something harsh to someone who does not deserve it, your conscience pricks and you think "perhaps I should not have said that" - then you choose whether you allow the reactive upset to exist or whether you extinguish it by apologising because it was harsh and the person did not deserve it, etc. Because we always know when we have done something we should not have done - we have conscience and it somehow automatically notifies us when we are "not good". Therefore "nature" and our essence of being our spirit is progressive when we follow good and destructive or disruptive when we don't follow good or nature. But because we have the ability to override our conscience, my understanding is that the spirit MUST therefore always be good and pure as a source and essence of being and that our mind (body) is therefore disparate in form and in function. To go further, an idea or ideas cannot be switched off (they are one way, you cannot send it back), they keep coming and therefore must be part of our essence of being, inherent to spirit. However, a thought can be telepathically transferred but does so via mind (body) but maybe perceived by people to be an idea when in reality it is a "thought" - there is a material distinction between idea and thought. Thought therefore follows that it is independent of spirit but that it may capably align with it, ie nature. If it can be tested, it would be interesting to see if all ideas are "good" and/or if all "thoughts" are good or bad. This perhaps is progressive for jurisprudence which also covers criminology. "Thinking" in criminal matters is important because only "conspiracy" theories are inchoate criminal offences where two minds "thinking" without "acting/doing" are necessary to fulfil the crime where there is an offence but there is no need to actually do or act towards the offence in a more than merely preparatory way. People can think criminally but never actually go beyond the thought and therefore cannot commit a crime (thought crime)!! Thinking a bad thought is therefore not the same as having a bad idea - and sometimes when we have a problem and come up with a solution /idea everyone goes thats a bad idea because - there ideas are better! But I doubt it would ever be possible to prosecute an "idea" if it derived from the spirit via Hegal and my understanding of our philosophy/jurisprudence. Also ideas can be triggered - if you give someone a problem for instance - most people will come up with a solution howsoever difficult based on some comprehension of the issue and will certainly say I don't know, I don't understand if the problem is too complex as a solution ie natural response.

For example or perhaps by way of experiment: if you took 100 people involved in the Israeli side of the current conflict and 100 people involved in the Palestinian side of the current conflict existant since Christmas - would it be possible for 200 solutions or for 100 same solutions or 50 same solutions or 1 same solution to surface and what could they/it possibly be. Put 200 global people in another room who are not Israeli/Palestine people and give them the same problem and what would their solution(s) be to the current Israeli/Palestine conflict. The word "interesting" is what I am thinking. Make it diverse - 5-7 year olds, 21-30 year olds, 50 years, 70-80 seniors and half and half male / female as groups.

Taking you right back up to the top of the page - the Government asked via various outlets for people engaged in those outlets to make suggestions towards the Constitutional Renewal Bill here in the UK - 92 comments were received (many by me (my outlet restricted suggestions to x words hence there appears to be typos/abbreviations to enable my ideas to fit) and people who I do not know and I have no idea whether they know me. You can see how my mind has worked.

Relevance to Hegel and Me - if the spirit (essence of being) is collective [and everyone is tapped into "good" which is pure] would such an experiment be capable of being proved - by 1st January, by my birthday 28th January, by the end of the month of January! [Problem requiring a solution - can you assist - there is a comments box (which is modified) below if you like].

Discuss

Belated Merry Christmas

Dear All

Somewhere North of Aviemore this year. You will have had the turkey or something you like, the cake will be sozzled too ... so stuffed we were the trifle is being dished out shortly : thought you might like a recipe called "Tipsy Laird".

Christmas Mass on Christmas Day at the local church interestingly referred to the subject of "logos" in the Christmas Sermon. Theology, Biology etc and the understanding of life.

Well as you know I positively think on these things: Pontius Pilate was a judge from Edinburgh. There should therefore exist "Judgments" of his caseloads of himself and his colleagues on the Scottish Bench - where are they? Whilst we have the biblical version as varied from time to time, there should also be a Jewish version as well as Italian version and there should be evidential references in the equivalent of "The Times" in all of these sources, including in Scotland and other countries given the case appears to have had such high profile in its day. Interestingly, there is also a place in Wales called "Bethlehem", how and when did it get its name as well as the Bethlehem we all know in Israel? Are we, indeed, blinded or deliberately decoyed to focus on Jesus Christ and his innocence, but not also focus on the person who really created (or rather in legal speak "discovered" him - Pontius Pilate, the Edinburgh born Judge on the Scottish circuit). Given the problems in the Holy Land, are we supposed to accept that there is or was any holiness there, even in the 21st Century - or, is it potentially realiseable at least until recently in the UK (prior to 1999), sometimes, or nowadays never. Our prayers: "The Lord's Prayer" at the House of Lord's Judicial layer in the UK, are known as Law Lords - who are the Bishops actually praying to (or over): the Christian prayers refer to the "seen and unseen"; the "visible and invisible" - real or escoteric? Many of the British judiciary are Masonic and therefore probably also escoteric - how much therefore is nonsense as opposed to sense. Jesus Christ exists in our world because of a Judge - it is time to enquire about the life of Pontius Pilate, his colleagues on the bench, his judgments and the people whom he dealt with as Plaintiff(s) and Defendant(s) prior to his journeys abroad, as well as also making legitimate evidential enquiries of his life pre-Christ, Christ, and post-Christ.

Discuss is probably not the right word, as many "believe" on the basis of "faith", but this Christmas' Sermon was about understanding ... so ponder. Thereafter, comes "knowledge".



(Click Here) Tipsy Laird

Happy Hogmanay too.

PS Diarise if you can, a Clan Gathering Event in Scotland in 2009 - google for updates.

Regards

Lesley

PS I would be interested to view the Judgments of Pontius Pilate when they are established as existing.

Misconduct in Public Office

You can run but you cannot hide:

I believe that this story is a farce and it is being manufactured, engineered by concerted and orchastrated practices so as to stop members of the Ministry of Justice and/or the Cabinet from being prosecuted for very very serious criminal offences against a democratic state:

"MPs continue to focus on arrest row
Justice questions in the Commons have been dominated by the Damian Green affair, and whether the offence of misconduct in public office should be a criminal or disciplinary matter." www.epolitix.com 10/12/08

As a criminal offence, I believe, but correct me if I am wrong, the penalty for misconduct in public office is life or 16 years.

The farce of the Speaker of the House not engaging in the formal process properly and the co-incidental (not) farce of the Police functioning without proper sanction or authority is just a wee bit too complicit for my liking: especially where my blog is concerned which is highlighting Professor Richard Susskind OBE as "doing" misconduct in public office. My blog also highlights that the "Access to Justice Act 1999" is misleading and that Lord Woolf has used a Japanese concept known as ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution / Mediation) sourcing from America via Jews, and my source is David Shapiro via S J Berwin & Co, and that I have been procedurally and substantively abused for 13 years across three litigations in the English legal system. My current case is ongoing, but on 27 November 2008 I received a "Permission Decision Refused" (Appeal Form 3) to hear my Appellant's Notice issued on or about 23 June 2008 before Mr Justice Hamblen. My court paperwork is crystal clear that I am experiencing corruption and abuse which has been onging for 13 years. Moreover it is not myself who is ducking the issues: I have now been proffered an "Oral Hearing" which I have requested occur sometime in the New Year. The consequence of Mr Justice Hamblen's Decision is that my civil liberty issue in England remains and is over 1 year now. I am not on any medication, nor have I ever been arrested or charged with a criminal offence. What the Judge is doing is protecting Respondents' solicitors from "contempt of court requests" and also Respondents from substantive prosecution. I have asked for the case to go to the Criminal Division in papers. The Appeal Court and Respondents' solicitors have a 4 page letter dated 2 December 2008 under which they have no illusion whatsoever of the seriousness of this case including the request for an article 6 hearing under the Human Rights Act 1998 : I am no criminal (and should be presumed innocent until proven guilty in any event) but Respondents' solicitors/Counsel and Respondents, Judiciary and others are engaged in criminality which is readily apparent from the documentation before the courts and is in PLAIN ENGLISH.

I am moreover surprised to read the Daily Mail's "Exclusive" headline that "Minister [Lord Straw] tells the Mail how he'll reform 'villains' charter': Human Rights : Straw to Get Tough" by Benedict Brogan, Political Editor 8 December 2008.

I don't have a problem with that if he is going to amend article 6 of the HRA 1998 to include prosecution of a judge for complicity to pervert the course of justice and misconduct in public office by adding into this civil act, criminal law legislation OR even to bring into line the HRA 1998 with international legal thinking at this time - Berlin trip - (eg: on the disappearing worker problem on the Employment Workshop - I suggested a solution/idea could be direct access to an international court without exhausting the national/domestic court process).

However, if the proposed changes to the Human Rights Act 1998 are designed to cover up corruption sourcing from the Ministry of Justice and Legal Profession that is another issue : Lord Straw needs to take the point the HRA 1998 was "necessary" because of the "modern", "contemporary", "alternative", "liberalised" nature of the Woolf Reforms (Access to Justice Act 1999) which deliberately utilised the judiciary and legal profession via Statute to undermine the application of the rule of law and uniformly. Justice is fundamental to a democracy and we currently appear not to exist in one because of a few corrupt individuals playing "Nazism" in the Ministry of Justice: yes, there were two holocausts - Japanese and Jewish, I would hope that WWII is not ongoing - Justice needs to be restored. Perhaps tomorrows headline in the Mail should read "Access to Justice Act 1999" obsolete. ADR may exist in a democracy "outside" the judicial and legal profession ONLY and "competition" is a good a reason as any between "litigation" and "mediation". I for one do not need to live in a "Hidden Society" nor do I need to "save loss of face". I do, however, require "light" to shine into the darkest recesses of my court case and others who may be suffering regardless of the Christian ideology behind the "light" concept.

Also, just a thought in the Christian discipline the Judge was "Pontius Pilot". He was born in Edinburgh. Was Christ the Plaintiff or the Defendant. We hear about Christ as a party to the case, are the Jews also specifically named and, in which case, where is the Judgment located - Edinburgh, Italy, Jerusalem : technically there should also be two pleadings bundles as well as the Judgment which should have survived history. I would not like to think Christ is an after dinner speech by an Edinburgh Judge doing a European circuit and his analogous/metaphorical best case scenario.

One further point, given the impact of the Woolf Reforms - concerning my cases x 2 involving S J Berwin & others, Respondents appear to have missed the point of the reforms or are taking a methodology that they really intended concerning these reforms over that which was represented as being the essence of the Access to Justice Act 1999 per se to the legal and judical profession. I point out to you I have been in the courts on 3 litigations over 13 years now. My human Rights are completely abused. Any Jew: I would not even raise the Holocaust topic anymore (and you certainly do not have holocaust exclusivity conceptually) because my mind is thinking your elite killed their own people in WWII - S J Berwin & Co are a Jewish law firm which also had a human rights department that appears to be defunct. Furthermore, I have worked in many of the Jewish law firms in London and I know that Jewish people do not behave in the manner I have been treated via these court cases. You may find this post distasteful, but I find the last 13 years in the courts not acceptable either as a consequence of working in two top 20 London law firms one of which is a Jewish law firm and current source of disruption in my life: there was always the option to settle - Respondents' never took the option on a realistic basis, but why should they then, if they take the risk, know the risk, avoid or evade the consequences: misconduct in public office is a penalty which carries a life sentence FOR A REASON - do not let this current farce in politics be sidelined to a disciplinary issue - the REASON is DEMOCRACY.

Berlin : Conference Notes

As promised, the notes of :

(Click Here) International Conference on Transnational Corporations and Human Rights - 9 & 10 October 2008 in Berlin

I sat on the Working Group - Inhumane Working Conditions and Labor Rights Violations discussing the 5 options below (and provided 5 solutions) :

(1) Corporate corruption in Latin American countries

(2) Disappearing workers

(3) Inability to say where child labour is used in production because company does not know source material at its process in production

(4) How to prevent textile industry using child labour in process

(5) Future of Trade Unionism.


On open discussions on the Conference floor, I raised the issue that only a judge can abuse your human rights: the parties can exploit, lower esteem amongst right thinking people, but you only have human rights when a judge gives them to you via a fair trial. When the judge fails it is no longer a "civil" matter, but a criminal one of (a) perversion of the course of justice; (b) misconduct in public office and issues ARE deliberate, not inadvertent.

People engaged in human rights need to be aware that creating a "civil law" ivory tower is not adviseable, when their is a perfectly capable criminal law system available and appropriate to include prosecuting the judge if needs must.

In a democracy, I believe, but correct me if I am wrong, a judge can be brought before Parliament on certain considerations to be made accountable and responsible to the electorate.

The alternative is some form of "Street Justice" or submission.

Discuss.