?

The Aldelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi story is interesting so much so for the spotlight that is on him and the floodlight that is on the victims. I use the "?" - is he innocent ?, an appeal would have been useful to determine this ?, especially given Dr Jim Swire, Rev John Mosey, former MP Tam Dalyell, Father Pat Keegans, Professor Robert Black and others "believe or understand or know" so ?. An appeal would have meant determination one way or another, however, there is no reason Libya cannot try him using diplomatic relations ?.

The floodlight however, remains on the victims - with all the focus on catching the bomber, have we lost sight of the fact that the plane or a passenger(s) or Scotland was inevitably the target ?. I have no doubt that Muslim intelligence did not just decide to plant a bomb on a plane to see what the consequences were: the risk was huge as were the intended consequences. Therefore, who was the target? What was the "need" for their to be a target? and consequently what was the "reason" for the target to be targetted in this transport methodology and not another form with less impact?. If the Libyan / Lockerbie bomber is innocent - then who is guilty "?".

By freeing Al Megrahi on compassionate grounds, rather than via Appeal court in Scotland or Internationally, there remains a huge "?" over his innocence and the victims who are still angry and hurt - BECAUSE the truth needs to surface and diplomatic relations between Libya, America and Scotland and any other country could raise the bar by (a) holding an appeal in Libya by their own people in their own methods, not the Western ways, to assist the truth of the matter, surely Libya would want to categorically rectify a "MISTAKE" which in law must be rectified as soon as it is KNOWN, and (b) the Scots could focus on the people on the plane to see if a "reason" can surface as to why they became the target and specifically who? (c) the plane needed to come down and not reach its final destination - why ? We should not be seen to have egg on our face for showing compassion ? the issue becomes why and Libya should be seen to provide an answer to the ?.

I ask this, because I am experiencing a cover up because of my research on Woolf/Shapiro and my cases Susskind(Masons)/S J Berwin & Co and others : 'Shapiro' is a name which appears to me to surface from time to time in relation to Jewish/American intelligence and there was a young woman, Amy ElizabethShapiro, 21 on the cosmopolitan plane list - eg, what do we know about her ? I am moreover convinced that if something occurs at Point A, it may be a decoy for something else occurring at Point B where Jewish/American relations occur - and this is relevant to my research because I do not consider the Iraq war a "Just War" on the premis that ADR entered the English legal system and has wiped out to some degree judicial intelligence and thus my view is that we are subjected to treason and invasion by a concept which is Japanese but is being used by Jewish/American relations which was deliberately disguised in entering the UK due to FOCUS on the Iraq War and our hands are up to a failure of intelligence in that regard. If you read my blog, Nostrodamus is relevant to my research - if Dr Swire and others are convinced of Al Megrahi's innocence - can they go to some degree towards the guilt or truth directed towards others and, if so, who? and thereby ascertain a mistake? I am being SPECTULATIVE in this last paragraph (and no-one should take any measure of certainty from this paragraph on an intelligence level without their own research and hard evidence to support it), but sometimes hard topics just need to be raised, especially where there is a claim to INNOCENCE without provision of a REASON which means that FOCUS needs to be directed elsewhere - I may be entirely wrong: diplomatic relations are perhaps necessary to deal with the "?".

All cases have a beginning, middle and end concerning evidence which can be direct or indirect: in this instance

Beginning : the plane - there had to be bookings and sufficient for the plane to take off - (a) how were the bookings made - access and knowledge of flight and passengers; check-in - affirmed the passengers; the bomb had to get on board. Issues relevant to an American airplane?

Middle : the flight took off, the bomb went off over Lockerbie, issues relevant to Scotland, who was a passenger on the flight and their potential as the reason for the plane to be blown up, ie a passenger or group of people were never to reach final destination?

End : where the flight was to arrive as destination, who was waiting, where were the passengers going on leaving the flight - home, conference, further journey, friends, holiday etc. This is necessary information as it would establish a target and reason for the plane to blow up - the contact point on the ground is just as important as the passenger on the plane as both are relative. Did the target have something with them or was it inherent to them, ie knowledge, persona, relative of, etc?

All of the above is "knowledge" and relevant to the enquiry - each end of the journey needs to be investigated, as the flight was targeted for a reason and will not be a random occurrence. Furthermore, an act of God is called a Force Majeure, ie lightening, engine trouble: a bomb on a plane is not or ever an Act of God but an act in bad faith by a human - lets get that straight amongst the religious 'believers' in all faiths.

The fluke issue in the system which you have to evaluate for a reason for a random occurrence - that the bombed plane was a decoy as a target to ensure the eye is directed to X so that Y goes unnoticed as a global event elsewhere. A bombed American plane would cause an X and Y situation.

NB - that the Lockerbie Bomber is released story is also potentially an X and Y event - anticipating everyone still has their eye on the ball of the Directive on Mediation which is due for harmonisation in Europe - remember, I participated in this Directive and only 2 out of 27 published responses were interviewed, upon my request to be interviewed especially as I was advocating a "competition" model contrary to the Woolf Reform model implemented in England via the Access to Justice Act 1999, which request was refused (even although I am the only published response in correct alignment of European modelling), 5 further experts from Europe were interviewed, none of whom are expert given my research as they are merely regurgitating the American/Jewish model as promulated in England via the Woolf report and David Shapiro, an American Jew who used to be a Senior litigator in America : R v Hennessy [1758] 1 Burr applies - ratio decidendi - "inciting a friendly alien to invade the kingdom" - obscure case precedent in relation to the criminal offence of political treason in the UK. A friendly alien to the UK is an American and/or Jew - an invasion is in this case a concept which is Japanese in orientation (ADR) and therefore Eastern operating as an invasion in the UK via the legal profession and judiciary as it undermines our Western idealogy of Justice - ADR is where the parties settle their dispute, it is not Justice but Compromise. Justice is wholly different and you can only get it through litigation and by a Judge's judgment with ratio decidendi, obita dicta and always applying a rule of law. You can only appeal on a rule of law. The Kingdom was England (& Wales is a Principality) initially, then Scotland, and now Europe except Denmark who abstained from the Directives process. My participation establishes that the process was completely undemocratic, yet the European Parliament passed the Directive. A Directive takes a minimum of two years to harmonise with existing national legislation. Be aware of X and Y events for this concept to go unnoticed and uncovered by the press into European society. This concept creates a "hidden" society and you will be gagged by confidentiality clauses - if the press get their story it will have to be via their own methods of discovery and not directly from source. There are also psychological techniques used in its process and both parties will walk away with something, ie win:win. Inevitably it will always be less than what you could have got if you won a litigation albeit remedies are wider ie apology, new contract out of a breach etc. Concerning my court cases: under the Woolf Reforms I was obliged to do a "letter before action" and proferred ADR on case 2 - no takers there then and I have been in the courts since 1995 on 3 actions - the Woolf Reforms also created "fast track", "multi track" and cost penalties if you did not avoid litigation whenever possible even with CPR rule 1 on the court procedure rules, ie parties to try to settle or whittle down the issues etc - not happening on my cases, especially not at 13 years. The upshot is that the Woolf Reforms are implemented in the UK but those who put them in place don't actually engage when the opportunity presents itself to them!!! All Respondents on my case are law firms facilitating the Woolf Reforms in the UK - you would expect them to use the reforms not pay lipservice and no action towards them. The Woolf Reforms are a load of tosh and all I am experiencing is deficient intellect, deliberate procedural abuse, organised crime and corruption, human rights abuse - art 6 and invasion of my privacy to include myself, family, friends, colleagues. If ADR is an Y event - and no doubt nobody in Europe has read anything about this concept in the press be it local or national outside of legal journals - the X event, I argue, was the Iraq War. Everyone focused on Iraq not the judicial and legal profession in England - you can see my point!!!

Because my research is known throughout Europe - and I am experiencing a cover-up of my research and my cases x 3 - this latest stage press event - release of the Lockerbie Bomber - is probably timeous of the directive on mediation - I have seen nothing yet via monitoring of political websites that the harmonisation is complete and national legislation has implemented this concept which at the legislative level will ensure complete bypass of the rule of law per se!!! Law is meant to be universal, not two tier. I don't have a problem with ADR outside the judicial system or legal profession where it "competes" in its own environment - I don't have a problem with the parties resolving their disputes themselves. I do have a problem when you issue writ and request the rule of law to be applied to your dispute : which is done to create safe and just society and you do not get the rule of law at all, or via a judgment or processed by lawyers who have studied upto 4 years as a law degree or any degree plus 2 years professional qualification plus 2 years articles to do "law" and then getting accredited in a concept to do the opposite - why bother studying law! What is professionalism and ethics about! What is the purpose of Jurisprudence as a science and theory of human law to create safe and just society. Don't folks want safe and just society or contrariwise individualistic hidden society! These are the choices, but the Woolf Reforms usurped choice - people issuing Writ are to be cost penalised and you have affirmation of my first case and methodology and how it is being abused to the House of Lords - this is not safe and just society, nor Jurisprudence in a positive and good way, nor professionalism and/or ethics - it is organised crime and corruption inherent in the UK via the Ministry of Justice / Cabinet. My cases also establish that UK society is lilly livered, deficient in intellect, sneaking and lacking backbone, acting in conspiracy (two or more mens rea), using escoteric means to bully and stress / blackmail / confuse / harrass and intimidate - at all times CPR Rule 1 enables settlement : Respondents' solicitors are risk taking their own careers and are complicit with judiciary when caught - hence the criminal element, lawyers cannot evade or avoid law, they know the risk, are taking the risk concerning their practising certificates, but do not appear to be being accountable and responsible for the consequences; ancillary agencies such as complaints bureau, SRA, Police and Police Complaints, Ombudsmen are refusing to use their authority and / or duty to deal - society appears to be afraid. On the issue that our society is actually Christian in orientation - I find a complete lack of Christianity or even with a small c, albeit folks are reading their bibles, going to Church. Politically, the Woolsack is vacant, legislation is occurring via the despatch box. Politics and legislation is excessive causing societal imbalance. Politics also appears to be an empty vessel with the dregs as political scandals and in it for themselves than the people they serve. There is a separation of the powers issue (affirmed by Romano Prodi to ex-PM Blair) and specifically relevant to the current incumbent of the Ministry of Justice - Straw: who is a politician exercising executive functions in the judicary where it should be a judge in the Cabinet. Academics are marking down papers on topic and academia is not supportive of career prospects. Lawyers appear brainwashed on topic and unable to see through the American/Jewish model or even keep their own counsel on topic, albeit there is a layer of lawyers who were against the Woolf Reforms but not clearly identifiable as a group. We have also gone into two wars, one of which is definitely unjust and we have our hands up to a failure of intelligence. The Press refuse to publish on topic for or against. People are debt saturated even without a recession and we are paying extortionate sums for building projects via PFI on buildings that are not going to last or stand for any length of time. We do not appear to be a Democracy ... but what we are in is not certain either ... and it is sourcing from America. Now if that is not "invaded" ... and we want to implement the Directive on Mediation and harmonise our legislation! ... why ?

I am not making any of this up: it is reality - when do we get to rock bottom. I did not cause this, but I know who did and/or thereabouts.

Al Mehgrabi is therefore a pawn : we did not give him an Appeal - the issue of mistake and innocence looms rather than illuminates. The target is what appears to be what we have failed completely to identify - the WHY ? - the REASON ?

On the issue of diplomatic relations, my father, William McDade, did his National Service in Tripoli, entering service from the age of 19 - he will be 70 this year. There were many lads from rural areas, and my dad was from a small mining village in Scotland, who entered National Service, and will be around this age now. My dad has an album of photos of his time in Tripoli, trucks in the desert etc, I have no doubt Colonel Gaddafi has pictures on file of what they all got up to too! If my Dad had not been demobbed in London, he would not have met my mother and I would not exist! Perhaps there is a need for a reunion of 'National Service' veterans and their host countries. "?" DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS "?".

Equality 'before' the law and Justice

Some of you may, like myself, enjoy TV channel hoping after 9.00 pm for such programmes as 'CSI' (brilliant for direct and indirect analysis of evidence / forensic science); 'House' (brilliant deductive reasoning); 'Law and Order' (brilliant analysis of judicial process and "independence"!).

Last night's "Law and Order" produced a statement there is a difference between "law" and "justice" and as usual I was launching a dialetic at the TV - minus expletives!

The answer, to my mind, was no there is not a difference ... because ... we have "equality before the law". As such, the process and the substantive trial are always subject to equality and therefore given law is a "Profession" where lawyers, when involved in the process, must be "educated and trained" to attain professional qualification to any degree from "trainee under articles/traineeship", assistant, associate or salaried partner and equity* partner (*which means the lawyer part owns the firm), all are subject to professional codes of conduct and ethics and have to have a licence known as the practising certificate to practise law. The only exception is a paralegal who may practise with or without a law degree or professional training so long as they are supervised by an assistant, associate or partner: as was the case concerning myself when I worked for the law firm S J Berwin & Co from 1995-1998: I have never done articles or professional training exams known as CPE or done any points based accredition which lawyers are required to do to maintain their professionalism!

Back to "Law and Order" - the difference they allude to may exist but should not exist between law and justice because of professional and ethical training. Where a writ/summons/originating application is issued on a court - all parties named on the writ must engage in the process unless settlement negotiations occur (known as settlement at the courtroom door) to not do so would be deliberate corruption and perversion of the course of justice (as in my Sex Discrimination case) . Where the case is not progressing the issue is (a) contempt of court; (b) obstruction of the course of justice; or (c) perversion of the course of justice - all of which are criminal in orientation and where there is judicial complicity (d) misconduct in public office. Unfortunately, many people subscribe to the "ivory tower" of Human Rights that, where there is a failure of a fair hearing, that article 6 means the issue becomes a "civil" human rights issue - for which we should provide mansions to those who practice human rights law. That is a digress of the rule of law as the issues are correctly criminal and will lead to and involve (a) organised crime; (b) corruption of others to include the judiciary who are supposed to be independent but not that independent! their function is to (i) apply the rule of law (thereby ensuring their independence) but currently engage in "stealing a march" tactics by complicity with lawyers to (ii) not apply the rule of law when it is applicable - issue of defamation, malicious falsehood when the case stated does not appear in the judgment and (iii) applying law which does not apply ie asking people who are not patients to become protected parties under mental capacity legislation thereby ensuring an appeal process and defamation, malicious falsehood on a party. So, there you have it - there is no difference between law and justice - the correct application of the rule of law IS justice and it commences upon acceptance of the writ in court which places both/all parties on an "equality" premis before a judge - to do otherwise is a criminal not civil matter and where a judge is complicit it will not be a miscarriage of justice which requires inadvertence or lack of evidence; it will be deliberate which will require the immediate removal of the judge plus prosecution and / also removal via the political domain for unsoundness of mind/ill. Equality before the law means that the outcome from law is justice and at all material times the independence of the judiciary means only the "application of the rule of law", not the ability to not apply the rule of law at all or to apply something not material or relevant to the case.

S J Berwin & Co released a statement on "Legal Week" last week which is false and misleading - S J Berwin & Co are and have been since 1995-1998 and through subsequent court proceedings fabricating information in the legal domain. I was specifically sacked by S J Berwin & Co for blowing the whistle on my then boss Julian Critchlow who was stated to be a "leading individual and thorough" in Chambers Directory a legal reference book which, if you are profilled, usually means you have attained some degree of achievement. Not herein the case concerning Julian Critchow - who had no client base - you cannot therefore be a leading individual as a consequence of having no clients or even thorough - I experienced sex discrimination and a complete lack of support from the department and law firm as a consequence of Mr Critchlow's lack of client work and low practice ethics to include his colleague Nicholas Carnell - both of whom were employed by SJB from Winward Fearon & Co who would not permit 'equity partnership'. For a top 20 law firm to enable two lawyers at "partner" level to exist for 3 years with little or no client work or client work suitable at the Top 20 law firm level is highly suspicious and the firm cannot claim they were not directly or indirectly aware of their and my situation in the firm - my charge out fee upon commencement of my not above board contract was £80 per hour rising to £120 per hour. Monthly, I received my statistical performance breakdown and profit costs value as did everyone else - my workload was manipulated. I was seconded to client legal team - Guiness in the £24 b Diageo plc merger with Grandmet and Louis Viutton Moet Hennessy deal for a year - my performance and profit costs were 109% and £146k but nowhere near this level when working for the Construction Law Department. I also worked on the £18m Sandline arbitration - Tim Spicer witness bundles specifically (you can sue if you like, that is SJB!!) for which my work was deemed above board by the Advocacy Unit. My experience of both these lawyers caused personal injury due to severe stress for which I have current proceedings in court on a personal injury case which has been illegally delayed for 6 years, to incude the previous proceedings concerning Masons and my then witness Mr Michael Ford, a barrister and lecturer at Birbeck College for which I also experience a stalking campaign, and the current proceedings are engaged in invading my privacy and others to include my family - the police have been regularly notified of issues and have completely failed to arrest the current judge and respondents' lawyers and deal with the ancillary issues. The Solicitors Regulatory Authority have also been asked to remove or suspend practising certificates, they are refusing to deal. My MP has on several occasions been asked to process the judge for removal from the bench before Parliament - he appears not to have the wherewithall or backbone to deal with the issues and claims to have little or no legal knowledge - ignorance of the law is an issue here at MP level. There are also "intelligence" issues which I have asked a Lord to place before a certain Inquiry and I have not received notification that that has occurred as yet. Concerning issues which may have escalated in Scotland I am experiencing a complete inability to secure legal advice in employment law other than clarification I am currently being defamed and stitched up : I have even written to and telephoned the law society notifying my concerns and Citizen Advice Bureau have had the complete run around too in attaining legal assistance on my behalf: what is going on! I am entitled to legal aid advice and I do have insurance cover to deal with Scottish issues!

For the record concerning the statement released by S J Berwin & Co to Legal Week : "S J Berwin have poor working practices which do not historically comply with good employment law practises or at all, even although they did have an employment law department and may still do so. Nor do they comply with human rights law for which they also had a human rights department and may still do so. Their then head of HR and he may still be in post Keith Wood, operates a clean desk policy and is completely abusive of employment law in the firm. S J Berwin moreover "knowingly" have and recruit problem lawyers at partner level and falsely represent their capabilities and client workload, David Harrell. Concerning my two court actions, rather than settle the cases for which they are fully aware they are responsible, S J Berwin ARE engaged in organised crime and corruption and human rights abuse over two cases in the English courts system since 1998 to current date - issues are escalating and I am experience judicial complicity with Respondents' solicitors acting for Insurers to incude a specific conflict of interest via their Counsel Tim Pullen in relation to Doughty Street Chambers and ex-academia at Birbeck to include Michael Ford, barrister of Old Square Chambers on both cases using three law firms and two legal teams. Mr Ford is engaged in stalking and invasion of privacy / possibly intellectual espionage practices and may also be stalking other ex-academia students in employment law. He appears to use "nocturnal activities" linked to his association with a Bats Society! Mr Ford operates out of London and Bristol and therefore is not naturally prevalent in Scotland/Edinburgh or Inverness or specifically any association to myself on a professional level and is only linked due to Respondents' solicitors and the Ministry of Justice and Professor Susskind on the Masons case and his activities via S J Berwin & Co and/or my ex-academic referee Dr Lindsay Farmer via Glasgow University. S J Berwin & Co are fully aware of the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 and that my case exists in the courts: there should be being monitored by the Health & Safety Executive - a change that necessarily should occur as a consequence of a case in the courts under the HSatWA 1974 above referred. SJB may also be carrying symbols of good working practices which if they are should be substantively checked via court actions against them in the courts!! ie Investors in People and Two Ticks - Masons had the "Investors in People" symbol when I was employed 1991-1995 but my court paperwork substantively establishes that they did not invest in their people unless they were completely incompetent for which they were deemed valuable contrariwise they preferred to sack competent staff in order to keep incompetent people in post. Perhaps this is something the Equality Commission needs to pick up on : HSE issues and Awards symbiology and cases occurring in the courts - it would certainly be a reason to intervene especially as court documents are "public domain"! A material change in the Equality Bill might also prove beneficial to society and to employees/non-employees(volunteers)/workers/casual workers/gender issues etc etc. s3 of the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 (specifically for S J Berwin and the (ex)-Senior Partner David Harrell and Jonathan Blakeley's benefit) means you may not physically or mentally impair an employee or non-employee (deemed to mean volunteer). Other than the Disability Discrimination Act and reasonable adjustment etc or the Human Rights Act 1998 there appears to be little or no "volunteer" - non-employee rights not even via Welfare Reforms and the Office of the Third Sector - currently a Scottish issue that requires competent legal advice/albeit I am competent to deal per se (Maloney/Chalmers/Henderson/Mills -Budd/Atiyah/Whalley/Robertson/Dobbie/Neville/Boyd and others).

S J Berwin & Co, Julian Critchlow, Nicholas Carnell and Ian Insley are using solicitors Beachcroft LLP - Alison Parker and Paula Jefferson: who currently refuse to correspond or progress the case before Master Leslie of the Royal Courts of Justice. Master Leslie has been asked to remove himself from the case, I have notified that I am experiencing contempt of court by Beachcrofts Parker/Jefferson which he refuses to progress and latterly he is involved complicitly with Respondents' solicitors on the case and that I am not prepared to comply with any part of his Order nor Respondents' solicitors acting complicitly with the Official Solicitor for England & Wales and my Consultant.

Criminology - an Introduction Essay

Psychiatrists assess people for Anti-social Personality Disorder (APD) against a 'clinical' symptomology set out in a diagnostic manual 'DSM'. The symptomology basis of diagnosis focuses on 'effect' of the patient's mental health issues in relation to conduct or 're-action' to cause. By processing symptoms, professionals avoid or evade 'causation' and the patient is victimised or 'unequal' in society, which may include 'inequality' when the patient's own inability to deal with issues themselves. Many people who are diagnosed with mental illness (and many are misdiagnosed) never commit a crime, but such is the stigma associated with mental health, especially 'schizophrenia' - a person might as well have committed a crime. For those who do commit crime, and the higher rates of mental health are amongst prison and substance abuse populations, the issue remains why is the association with low socio-economic status and urban setting. D Hare's key symptoms :

'glib superficial; egocentric/grandiose; lack of remorse or guilt; lack of empathy; deceitful and manipulative; shallow emotions" ...

apply more appropriately to the affluent/professional strata as they cannot avoid or evade knowledge and training: eg 'Fred the Shred' fits Dr Hare's profile, but currently goes unprosecuted. As a 'pinstripe hoodie' Fred the Shred has caused more social damage than a hoodie on the street, some £26 billion impact on Scottish and global banking, yet in the face of unsurmountable controversy refuses to give up his contractual right to his £700,000 a year pension. This has the appearance of psychopathic leniency as there is no emotional colouring which would appear to be an 'attractive' quality if affluent / professional but contra street crime as it is more likely this group will be caught, not due to better policing skills and training, but due to a bias/prejudice subjectivity in society of criminal policy making to focus effort at the low socio-economic urban setting rather than white collar criminals.

Pyschoanalysis was developed by Sigmund Freud. Again, it is a symptom based diagnostic based on neurosis not psychosis. Psychodynamics is based on three areas of psyche between conscious and unconscious - id, ego, superego. Freud claims that the id and superego are in conflict placated by reality - ego. He claims the id is 'desire' and pleasure whilst superego somehow regulates by reprimand.

I do not concur with Freud's analysis. My knowledge is that the 'id' is good and 'nature' and therefore harmonious. If this is true then all three work in harmony not conflict when a person is 'good'. Why would your ego not accept a reality of being good? Why would you superego reprimand you for being good? What Freud is suggesting is that your 'id' can be bad. If 'id' is innate, then there cannot be choice, it is inherently good or inherently bad. I accept as valid 'id' is inherently good because we are meant to progress and not be disruptive in society. Therefore choice occurs at another level, but 'conscious' - for me the id is 'spirit' but the mind is not spirit but intellect. You cannot send an idea back once you receive it, therefore 'thought' is not 'idea', as that can be transferred and / or changed from good to bad. There is a material difference which has to have a reason. Freud's defence mechanism eg displacement - blaming someone else for your own fault - is a good example of why the 'id' cannot be in conflict as it would have to be innately bad per se. Freud states the defence mechanisms are 'ego' based in reality therefore it may be clever to blame someone else, it is not intelligent to do so - because it is disruptive of nature / id / good. The issues concerning crime relate to consciousness 'ego' - 'circumstances create consequences' which means choice located at ego not id. If the superego reprimands it does so because of ego, not 'id'. I have serious concerns in relation to Freud on psychosexual development. 'The little one's do what the little one's see'. Nature is inherent, therefore Freud's psychosexual reference is entirely normal child development as experience which I doubt bears any resemblance to anything other than every normal persons upbringing and is contextualised as hypothesis rather than based on informal analysis. Freud appears to be suggesting 'id' is responsible for crime, I disagree - 'ego' may be responsible for crime by conscious choice to do or omit doing, due to circumstances only.

Maslow's hierarchy based on degrees of need in relation to crime are that they occur when our needs are unmet. Why then can a person steal an apple but be processed as having stolen not the lamb but the sheep? New Labour put 3000 crimes on the statute book since 1997. Crime is formulaic and must be an 'offence' in law either based on a politically posited statute or judicially based in common law, ie murder.

The formula is:

A (mens rea) + B (actus reus) + C (offence) = Crime (full)

OR INCHOATE

A + 1 + C = (conspiracy) half crime

B + C = (attempt) half crime

Where crime is concerned it may be self preservation and I follow Thomas Hobbes (Philosopher)

The first right of man is to follow peace
The second right of man is to defend himself

Therefore under Maslows 'needs' hierarchy premis we are good until our needs are unmet, at which point we are motivated to commit crime - I cannot agree with this, if a person has no food, stealing a lamb is acceptable but stealing a sheep is not - the will to survive is strongest where the need is basic. However, raping someone because there is a desire for sex does not correlate to need but to self-restraint - therefore the crime is heinous because of a lack of need. There is always a choice, riot is not necessary in society where you can lobby your MP democratically, riot is therefore a social construct which is designed and concerted over another choice and methodological non-violent approach - Hobbes rule 1. Moreover esteem needs and self-actualisation needs, a person who has been harmed by activity which is a criminal offence is as much in the spotlight as the perpetrator - 'inequality' is not doing something which 'needs' to be done, ie reporting crime, turning up as a witness: whilst 'unequal' is what others do to you, bent cop, bent judge etc. Esteem and self-actualisation where they are wrongly premised will ultimately be exposed because the 'truth always surfaces'.

I disagree that you can be 'motivated' to commit crime mainly because crime must be a regulated offence and what is a crime today is not a crime yesterday or necessarily tomorrow. All crime is subject to judicial reasoning and judges are provided 'equity' to act in the 'interests of justice', an element of discretion to differentiate subjectively where the harshness of objective reality stealing a lamb when it was possible to steal the sheep (metaphor) that taking of nature's bounty is at all a crime in time of need as a 'natural law'. There are three things that are inherent needs, breathing, food and water - there should be no issue of crime associated with a motivation of need to survive, other than 'defence of self'.

Psychological Social Learning Theory relates to conditioning or learning. Learning by association as in Pavlov Dogs experiment where expectation is aroused by external stimuli causes me concern that a negative state of conduct would be used to induce a 're-action' and thereby be used to a designed 'harmful' purpose which is not normal. In the case of Pavlov's dogs it is normal to salivate at the prospect of food, but not a bell and no food. Crime relates to 'circumstances and consequences'; therefore to design the crime, implement it and await the expected 're-action' is social construction. 80,000 people in prison in the UK costs approx £31,000-£45,000 each. A person on the dole costs approx £12,000 each. That the social injustice is apparent and can actually be a reason for crime is a socially engineered societal negative, rather than socially engineered societal positive leading to good, safe and just communities. If you build a ghetto housing scheme should you be surprised if you have a ghettoised crime community because of an inability to be architecturally aesethetic!

Concerning Skinner's experiments rewarding animals or birds for learning a conduct is normal life behaviour, if you put your hand in the fire it gets burned, you do it once, you learn not to do it again, you therefore learn 'good' and self-restraint through reason and what is bad. Vice versa if you reward bad conduct, as currently seen in our upper echelons of society in the UK, at some point there will be consequences ie fat cat politics (greed) = global recession by design or even war if society goes completely savage. Fortunately, there are more good people in this world than bad.

Likewise, observational learning through modelling - Bobo dolls. Following orders is wholly different from learning by observation. Again, circumstances equals consequences and observing crime and getting away with it may lead to further criminal acts unless reprimanded but does not explain re-offending. People are fickle and inherently good. It is circumstances that dictate the consequences and if they are socially constructed, by subjective concerted and orchestrated practices it should not be a surprise at the resultant consequence. Where there is a real societal problems is (a) misplaced focus on 'effect' not 'cause' and (b) failing to apply offences which are criminal objectively to all societal strata.

Essay Word count 1586 - June 2009


DISCUSS

Light

There have been some interesting issues surfacing over several months now, and as we all know "the truth always surfaces" especially when there is "light" on the subject. Darkness is where corruption and organised crime dwell and the sooner the light of day is on the issue, the better for everyone. In this post, I am going to focus on light but from a religious perspective and I anticipate my efforts will not be offensive or too offensive and that they will be taken in the spirit of their intention - light.

First Issue: Christianity

The Head of the Catholic Church is Pope Ratzinger - he was recently denouced in relation to Nazism and found to be involved in the Hitler Youth movement as a young person. The interesting issue is that the Catholic Church appeared to me to have appointed Pope Ratzinger specifically concerning his nazi association (for which my perception is relative to "compromise" in legal systems across the globe and integrated into the UK in 1999 via the Woolf Reforms which I perceive to be nazi in orientation - why do we need a Human Rights Act 1998 in the UK? when our legal system provides "equality" (fairness, impartiality and justice) before the law and any issue would be a crime relative to perversion of the course of justice rather than a civil HRA issue! (But then we also got "contemporary equality", proportionality, expedition and economy via Woolf/Jews) - rather than the Pope's spiritual being. Whether there is truth in the issue requires investigation from the Church but he did not resign indicating that whilst he has this historic issue his spirituality is not at issue.

A universal truth held by Catholics - no matter how bad someone is, they cannot eradicate good.

Daily Mail article 20/10/08 "Row erupts out after Israel's ruling party issues picture of Pope in Nazi uniform" (click here)

However, in today's Daily Mail there is an article based on several articles relevant to Pope Pius XII

Daily Mail article 17/08/09 "Vatican plan to honour wartime Pope Pius XII would be 'severe blow to Catholic-Jewish relations" (click here)

Second Issue : Judaism

The Daily Mail article above is informative from the perspective "where was the Jewish resistence" in WWII. We have the French Resistence and my French teacher Madam MacFarlane put her hand up to being involved, resistence from other countries and it would appear resistance via Catholics and Pope Pius XII. Our school history lessons in the UK, and I attended a Scottish Academy for my secondary education, fails to document Jewish resistence, in any depth. Given my court action below, even I sent the judge on my case a letter informing him he is the "village idiot" and I am refusing to comply with his nonsensical order so why would Jewish people go into concentration camps and gas chambers without any appearance of resistance from themselves or their kind. I need to put this into a hypothesis : did the Jews "cause" WWII and therefore accepted they needed to sacrifice their own kind in this way (possibly escoteric command) - the issue being a 6 million sacrifice for themselves but an even greater world sacrifice of others, ie an indirect issue. Given my court case and the extent of the detrious I am experiencing from a Jewish law firm (S J Berwin & Co and others) (and I have worked for many Jewish law firms and never been treated in this manner) - which also had a Human Rights Department and Employment Department to which I attended a whistleblowing lecture and duly whistleblew and regularly complained concerning treatment to HR - I find it unacceptable that the Jewish people use the "holocaust" PR to make Jewish people look almost lilly white as a race, when I have been in the courts for 13 years and my dissertation exposed a fundamental flaw in a top Law Report in England - the Woolf Reforms : my concerns are justified given CPR Rule 1 exists in the court process.

Third Issue : Muslim

The news last week informed that a Muslim wedding had become the centre of a PR event as a politician had used his invitation to do "political" rather than "social" engineering. Yes, I agree that where men and women are segrated on religious grounds concerning the Muslim religion that any other religion does not need to comply and that on the premis of equality an area for non-muslim people wishing to not be segretated should exist in Muslim settings. This may be something that could usefully be discussed by the Muslim Council as an improvement in interfaith relations - it may already exist. However, even I found it offensive that a politician would hijack a persons wedding for political gain.

Well I have gone this far, might as well raise the bar a little further - the Muslim religion was reported recently in the UK on the premis of public executions and I have also read stories relating to stoning. The issue appears to me to be that these are very primative ways to do justice in the 21st century. There is room for improvement. Hypothesising again, the US can also be seen to be out of cinq concerning Death Row inmates who can get the electric chair or a lethal injection. There are states in America who do not accept this as a satisfactory measure to deal with Justice of serious violent criminals. In the 21st Century using technology it would be possible to log all of the statutory crime and case precendent crime State by State and to come up with a "uniform" - "United States" of America legal system. That would create much change but such a system would enable a complete codification exercise to a 21st Century level of law and standard in the global world. The Statutory Crime itself would highlight State by State what is "prohibited" in X state but "permitted" in Y state. They may be doing this already: and joined-up legislation is probably a good thing in itself (per se). Bear in mind that the United States is completely dissimilar from the European Union which has "member states" which I particuarly find annoying when we are really "member countries". In the European model - a "regulation" impacts across all member states uniformly in law - something that may be worth noticing in a "Dis-united States of American legal system".

Lastly:

I was watching a documentary on TV last Saturday on Sir Isaac Newton who attended Cambridge University. He allegedly plagiarised another persons work in accurately determining his own scientific material in relation to "light" studies. I found the documentary interesting especially the issue of the lack of knowledge of Sir Isaac Newton per se in his own experiments which indicated to my mind that he was indeed guilty of plagiarism - as there is a gap in his knowledge - which could only have come from someone else's work - Professor Robert Hooke, a poor students, work. That Professor Hooke was expunged from most of history only establishes Sir Isaac Newton's guilt - he would not have done so for no reason. What is more important is how the Royal Society or other sources, possibly Cambridge engaged in expunging Professor Hooke from history, ie the power behind the man.

Wikipedia on Sir Isaac Newton (click here)

A thought: Queen Deborgilla of Galloway of Scotland created Oxford University for the poor and gifted students, hence you have Balliol College, Oxford. King John Balliol was King of Scotland1292-1308. I have a pedigree 1221 showing that King John Balliol's daughter Ellin married a Knight, Sir William Jermy. The Jermy family were knighted from the 12th Century to the 17th Century.

Sir John Jermy
Sir William Jermy m Ellin Balliol, King John Balliol's daughter
Sir John Jermy
Sir Thomas Jermy
Sir William Jermy
Sir John Jermy
Sir John Jermy
Sir John Jermy
Sir John Jermy
Sir Thomas Jermy
Sir Isaac Jermy

There appears to be little or no history concerning Ellin Balliol or the Jermy knighted line - has it been expunged!!!

Aung San Suu Kyi : Our Prime Minister appears happy to send Birthday Cards in support of her cause in relation to politics in Burma and she is a beacon of hope and resistence for the oppressed and currently is deemed to have violated her house arrest. As you may or may not be aware, my grandfather Kenneth Jermy fought the Japanese in Burma in WWII. Given my 13 year trog in the British courts - I am wondering do I get a birthday card next year from the Guinness Book of Records or the Prime Minister who is abundently aware of the issues concerning my case ... I would prefer the arrest of Professor Richard Susskind, John Bishop, Anthony Bunch, Neil Biggs, Mike Orton, Anne Molyneux, Siobhan Cross and Cathy James possibly Brian Gegg to include Bruce Carr, Michael Ford, Sean Brannigan, Jeremy McMullen QC and Geoffrey Roberson QC (Carr / Ford using McMullen as intemediary) : Case 1 - Julian Critchlow, Nicholas Carnell, Ian Insley, David Harrell, Keith Wood and legal team Marie Van Der Zyl, Susan Kelly, Paula Jefferson and Alison Parker, Tim Pullen (Counsel/Geoffrey Robertson QC - Ford/Farmer/Weait/Lacey ex-Birbeck academia : Cases 2 and 3 and all judicial members for (a) perversion of the course of justice, (b) misconduct in public office including conspiracy and complicity to DO so, the issues are escalating, I am experiencing harrassment and intimidation on case 3 to include trespass, invasion of privacy, assault and esoteric assault and there are more people getting involved in criminality re respondents and others - where it would be more appropriate to liaise with Police and/or myself directly: I am happy to permit inspection of documents upon request or you can utilise the "publicity of the courts" - my pleading and evidential bundles are in!

Devil's Advocate

In Scotland, junior barristers are called "devils", and their practise "devilling" from Barrister sets called "Stables". Unfortunately, my English law degree does not permit me to become a "devil" unless I do a Scottish law degree as well. Scotland has a distinct jurisdiction for its legal system apart from the rest of the United Kingdom - which follows English law. I did, at one time, apply to the Bar of England and received x4 rejections and have never done my professional qualifications in law - albeit I am deemed by an English judge to have the experience of a practising solicitor - I wonder why?

So, playing "Devil's Advocate" rather than "Wise person" :

I was interested to see Harriet Harmon is temporarily in place as Deputy Prime Minister in Gordon Brown, Prime Minister's absence on holiday. What a hoot - how about doing what Romano Prodi, European Commissioner requested of ex-Prime Minister Blair, some years ago, "separate the powers" : what about a Lord / Lady Chancellor on that "pretty vacant Woolsack - not a lot of nouse in the House at the moment" [NEEDS A JUDGE] and correspondingly a Male/Female as Minister of Justice [NEEDS A POLITICIAN] : of the two posts - one male, the other correspondingly female as Executive Functions in Cabinet. The issue of relevance would be "meritorious selection" from Male/Female ability with responsibility!!!! FP8 could usefully be "flip a coin" policy - the stats would be interesting especially if they "improve" meritorious selection criteria of both male and female opportunities - why would you potentially positively discriminate/action a bad apple or dimwhit!

Gary MacKinnon case - this is a very seriously important and hard case. I do not consider the argument is or should be a human rights argument which I do consider to be weak in any event. Gary MacKinnon would, I consider, have the ability whether with or without a mental health diagnosis to hack a computer system (something I do not have the knowledge or ability to do). His capacity would therefore not be an issue, in my consideration.

However, the case is extremely important and "cause and effect" most relevant to the issues which is correctly a "jurisdiction" issue: I do not consider Extradition is at all relevant as there is relevant domestic/national legislation substantively fixing the case to either Scotland or the UK/Europe prima facia on the premis of "natural law" which requires reason to discover the jurisdiction issue relevant to intellectual property a priori the criminality issue which are domestic/national legislation in any event!

(a) In order for Mr MacKinnon to access an American based computer he must first use his UK based ISP or some other route. In which judicial jurisdiction of the UK is it established is the causative route where his computer enabled access to the American sites?

(b) This establishes "cause" as everything relevant to cause has a natural process in time. However, there are intellectual property rights to consider relevant to jurisdiction (and as you are aware I attended a Human Rights Conference in Berlin last year relevant to "international rights and multi-national layer" which is largely unregulated at the moment). Concerning the intellectual property rights - there are three issues : (i) the hardware of the computer and any associated equipment and (ii) the software and (iii) whether it was his own ownership of those two items or others. The hardware could be "made in China" but the piece that enables him to route to America could be inside "made in Scotland or India, etc" and is a relevant "jurisdiction" issue because without hardware he could not access America at all. Then there is the distribution rights via "licensed" software - which also have legalistic jurisdiction issues of relevance. Then, it is necessary to establish he used his computer or others and whether there are any issues of conspiracy requiring only mens rea + offence requirements in the UK. The jurisdiction issues are wide.

(c) Furthermore, routing through an ISP or other means as a server/gateway was it UK/Scotland to America or via Europe or India or China or a Satellite or another method, etc - all jurisdictional areas of relevance once established what the methodology and process is. But for "causation" relevant to court's jurisdiction - as opposed to potential jurisdictional rights in law/intellectual property law, 'cause' starts at Point A and 'effect' Point B"!!!! And it starts with methodology re computer system and not UFO's etc re substance.

(d) Therefore if point A is Scotland or UK then the Computer Misuse Act 1990 is probably the relevant and prevalent law in this case, which means any Extradiction issue is irrelevant to prevalent law in the UK which would or could/should ground the case here: it is therefore necessary for Gary MacKinnon to be arrested and charged here as having committed a crime before he can be extradited to America - everyone in the UK is presumed innocent before being found guilty so far as I am aware - however, that does not mean that the current facts surrounding the issue of computer hacking are not true and accurate or any misrepresentation, defamation, libel or slander against Mr MacKinnon has occurred: it may be the case Mr MacKinnon would plead guilty in any event if he had the opportunity to do so.

Computer Misuse Act 1990(click here)

(e) Other UK law is also relevant - (a) Mental Health legislation; (b)Terrorism/Anti-terrorism - re "effect" but not cause and possibly Human Rights but in very minimal sense. As Mr MacKinnon is effectively "caught" his mental health is an issue after the fact but is unlikely to be relevant to capacity given he has an ability to hack computers and thus must be deemed to have a degree of knowledge and expertise and also the ability to know how to access knowledge etc.

(f) International law - to my mind, would be the safest jurisdiction for this case to be a test case for justice at the international courts on the premis that it is not necessary in "computer hacking" cases of this complexity and where the "effect" is outside national/domestic courts jurisdictions for the case to exhaust domestic and national courts. (The ECCHR Conference in Berlin I attended wanted to look at behaviour relative to "multi-national" organisations where if the 'parent' causes a problem, the 'subsidiary' can be used to deal with it or vice versa thereby ensuring accountability and responsibility in an area which is largely unregulated by law). (This has been seen to work as in the case of China and the babyfood problem ensuring justice and press interest via New Zealand releasing necessary information so as to raise standards and ensure safety/protection of people via the multi-national layer of corporate responsibility: at the ECCHR conference I sat on the employment workshops and topics were diverse concerning trade unionism, child labour in products, inability to know from raw materials natural source to synthetic the labour process in a product and its points of distribution / transportation (shipping) to end destination if there was child labour involved etc, disappearing workers, etc). Computer hacking, as in this case, would be relevant to an international forum and this is where I would argue the case should go, if outside Scotland or the UK. I anticipate President Obama Barack will appreciate the argument especially given the public domain of a litigation with a very public "discovery" bundle!! and the issue of a potential 60 year prison sentence in the US, relating to Mr McKinnon on process and substance.

(g) In all of this very serious legal and judicial conundrum Gary MacKinnon must at all times protect himself - Best of Luck - you have more power than you potentially know. You alone have your objectives re intentionality - you can use it for good or bad its your choice - you are a risk, you are also a pawn in the judicial/legal process, but whether you continue to be is your choice concerning risk aversion.

My Grandmother always said "look for the good". I have written to my MP re your case and he has affirmed his action on your case re the House of Commons. I will write to him again shortly.

Cop shows

I did not intend to watch "Cops with Cameras" on Sunday Night on ITV 1 but someone else wanted to view it - I was quite shocked that the current police are handing out £80 fines and that everyone was being given "cautions" even the chap who was caught with large amounts of drugs and £10,000 cash. Where do the Police in the UK have the right or duty to "judge" a criminal? and more importantly the drugs haul with cash should have meant proceeds of crime legislation was relevant which necessitated appearance before a judge plus legal team. What is occurring appears to be a complete failure of the English judicial system relevant to criminal law and/or a lot of Thames Mead Police Officers needing to be hauled before the IPCC as caught on their own camera show!! The "duty" of the Police, so far as I am aware, is to investigate and hopefully timeously, pass the evidence to the DPP (prosecution) but NOT ever to judge! Civil rights everybody.