Friday, February 19, 2010

Unilateralism - Bilateralism - Mulitilaterlism

There are several "isms", along with "icity", "ness" and "less" that are add on to words that give them the appearance of importance.

For example "reciprocity", "timelessness" and "unilaterilism".

I see Gordon Brown MP did back the war in Iraq and I had for some time been under the illusion that he was behind Clare Short ex-MP's stance or supportive of it in any event.

I remember the newspapers reporting on Iraq as I was most concerned and alarmed that we had entered an "unjust war" due to my research papers on ADR entering England via the Woolf Reforms, then Scotland (and anyone who thinks Woolf did not get into the Gill Report is mistaken), and Europe via Arlene McCarthy MEP's anti-democratic processing of the Consultation Paper on the Subsidiarity Principle in relation to the Directive on Mediation - only 2 of 27 published responses were considered along with 5 experts she calls expert but I do not. She refused to interview me with the "competition model" which is correctly aligned to European methodology!

The term "unilaterlism" arose pre invasion because America with the support of the UK did not wait for the UN to decide upon the resolution debacle and went alone on the WMD sticky whicket.

In any event, Gordon Brown PM's current statements only digs an even deeper hole - it was for the UN to decide the outcome of their imposed resolutions, not America or the UK - why else have a UN if it is without merit or defunct of purpose.

Hans Blix report needed to be completed, that would have dealt with any intelligence issues and would have assisted Saddam Hussein and the people of Iraq as well. I am not trying to defend Saddam Hussein but there was in place a process, he was complying to some degree, but he had a battle on two camps - America chomping at the bit for war and the UN attempting peace and diplomacy - who was the bigger threat: you cannot expect a country and its people to always do the right thing, or the best thing ... but you can expect those who are posing a threat to be reined in and by their own intelligence services or the authority that is put in place, in this case the UN.

Bilaterlism and multilateralism would have been more expedient and that is why we sign up to Treaties, contracts, comply with obligations and the UN and other agencies NATO being another.

In hindsight it was a mess, it was deliberately designed to be a mess, that is why it is "unjust".

I was subject to a "unilateral" command many years ago - 16 to be precis, a life sentence - because a Professor of Law and Philosophy, did not engage brain and got his ass whipped by a legal secretary in a disciplinary appeal hearing - Cathy James has got a loud voice - when is Professor Susskind going to take responsibility for his actions whilst working for the law firm Masons, who have also not taken responsibility for Anne Molyneux and Siobhan Cross bringing computer related allegations in a specialist IT technology law firm, neither the Law Society, Bar Council or Judicial Complaints.

However, the act of "unilaterilism" that I was subjected to was "unlawful" in relation to my bilaterally signed contract. On appeal before Mr Justice Morison, there is no case precedent in judgment as the firm having gone down the route of corruption needed to hide their original case citation in relation to the ultra vires doctrine, ie outwith the scope of ... the contract which was a private law contract, had it been a public law contract they would have perhaps got away with it.

Notice the similarities to Iraq. Unilaterlism and America and the UK's operating outwith the scope of the UN resolution TOO! making the act of war "unlawful" or as is called in Jurisprudence "UNJUST". Why was Lord Goldsmith persuaded ... who did the lobbying ...?

But there are more issues, my LLB degree was graded 2:2 HONS - I received honours because of my dissertation which I had to argue against policy to do and succeeded. My dissertation was contrary to the Woolf Report and subsequently the Access to Justice Act 1999 - it had comprised within it Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). It is a Japanese concept used culturally within Japan. The version we got was American Jewish albeit Lord Mackay of Clashfern originally tried to bring it in when he was Master of the Rolls (or perhaps Lord Chancellor), ie Scottish.

Therefore, I find I am suing the IT Adviser to the Lord Chief Justice, Professor Susskind, and I am exposing academically the top law report in England, the Woolf Report by Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice. Oops!

You have in England/UK

The Queen
The Prime Minister
The Lord Chancellor (now Justice Secretary)
The Lord Chief Justice
The Vice Chancellor
The Master of the Rolls

Oops

Makes me a little bit special given I was originally a legal secretary of 17 years duration in Scotland and England, and then a fee earner paralegal of 3 years duration in S J Berwin & Co - where you get pay rises for doing no work, but no pay rise if your performance is 109% and profit costs £146k on a £120.00 charge out rate! That's Jewish for you! No something more sinister was occurring - Professor Richard Susskind's long corrupt arm of the law, which I can prove to a degree.

So now that Lord Woolf is outed and Professor Susskind is outed - what did the judiciary in England, or Scotland or Europe need with ADR in the judicial system and legal profession - what was necessary to be HIDDEN, or COVERED-UP - Justice is "PUBLIC", even arbitration still applies the rule of law privately!

WE WERE INVADED by a Japanese concept but directionally formulating from America and the Jewish people assisted by the Scots or is it vice versa!

Professor Richard Susskind OBE ("Professor DISobeDIENT") is Scottish. But he mistakenly believes that I am also Scottish, I was born in England, but have a Scottish accent and Scottish Father, William McDade.

Oops!

I have been covered up for 16 years for some reason: the judiciary and legal profession are knocked over, the Press - spin and are knocked over too, the military are knocked over - because I believe Iraq is a decoy because my research was known by 1997 and definitely by 1998/1999/2000/2001/2002 yet never made headlines - Professor Susskind holds public office, should have made front page when there is certain corruption in the Ministry of Justice or Lord Chancellor's Office - Lord Derry Irvine of Lairg did get sacked - why? Finally, awash with money and Clinton trips the financial sector finally goes down when Greenspan hits the shores of the UK - be it for good or bad reason: it was a short trip in any event, did not make for splash headlines, too quiet given he was head of the Federal Bank of America - did he stop for the lecture circuit!


Back to Scottish issues - this is a shocker:

(Taken from the backpage of a Historic Scotland publication Kings and Queens of Scotland by Colin Baxter)

*
Alpin
Kenneth I (843-859)
Constantin I (863-877)
Donald II (889-900)
Malcolm I (942-954)
Kenneth II ((971-995)
Malcolm II (1005-1034)
Bethoc
Duncan I (1034-1040)
Malcolm III (1058-1093)
David I (1124-1153)
Earl Henry
David
Margaret --------------and Isabella
Devorgilla -----------------Robert de Brus "The Competitor"
John Balliol (1292-1296) --Robert de Brus
Edward Balliol -----------Robert I (1306-1329) "The Bruce
--------------------------Marjorie
--------------------------Robert II (1371-1390)
--------------------------Robert III (1390-1406)
--------------------------James I (1406-1437)
--------------------------James II (1437-1460)
--------------------------James III (1460-1488)
--------------------------James IV (1488-1513)
--------------------------James V (1513-1542)
--------------------------Mary Queen of Scots (1542-1567)
--------------------------James VI and I (1567-1625)
--------------------------Charles I (1625-1649)
---------------Charles II (1649-85) and James VII & II (1685-89)
---------------------!--------------------------!
---------------William III (1689-1702)and Mary II ((1689-94)

(*this is a pedigree line for Balliol only)

The family of "Jermy" of Norfolk, England have a Pedigree from 1221 which establishes the family as "knights" from the 12th Century to the 17th Century.

Sir William Jermy 1221
Sir John Jermy m Marjery daughter of Roger Bigot Earl Marshall of England and his daughter married Thomas Bretherton son of Edward I
Sir John Jermy
Sir William Jermy married Ellin, daughter of King John Balliol, King of Scotland (1292-1306)
Sir John Jermy
Sir Thomas Jermy
Sir William Jermy
Sir John Jermy
Sir John Jermy
Sir John Jermy
Sir John Jermy
Sir Isaac Jermy
Sir Thomas Jermy

That is the Pedegree of the Scots but Queen Devorgilla of Galloway created "OXFORD UNIVERSITY" for the poor student - a veritable "Rose". King John Balliol was called "tomb tabard" or "empty surcoat". Was he defamed? Was Isabella green because her line did not succeed, but eventually did so via Robert The Bruce? Ellin was married to a Knight not a Royal House of Europe, she may have been furious and probably assisted the English King Edward II. Edward I had 20 children, Thomas Bretherton was the 17th child or brother No 2. Bizarrely, if you look at the Clan Crest Badges for Scotland, there is none for Canmore or Balliol, 13 challenged for the Crown under David I, but I do not know who the others were, but John Balliol was chosen over Robert the Brus (grandfather). It was whittled down to 6 of which Canmore, Bruce, Balliol were the top three. Balliol got it because Margaret was the oldest daughter. Isabella and Robert de Brus did they set out to defame Balliol - why is he empty surcoat?. Certainly the Clan badges do not form history of Scotland for Balliol AND Canmore (bizarrely) on modern maps !! (what was the Canmore issue), and the others? nor is there reference to a tartan for Canmore or Balliol in ancestry books on tartans at least none I am looking at?

Is this a real 12th Century Da Vinci Code?

My mother's name is Lesley Diane Jermy, she has a copy of the Jermy Pedegree only 300 were made - we know little else than that other than the Jermy lands were subject to an issue in Chancery by a bent judge who managed to secure them in the 17/18th centuries. The brief history of The Jermy Family of Norfolk and Suffolk shows the clan badge as a Griffen atop a helmet and shield with the lion rampart guardant with the message underneath "splendidum virtus insigne" on a ribbon. The book claims that all Jermy's of Norfolk are descendents and my mum was born in Norfolk. Amateur genealogy has thrown up a conundrum in the 17th century but .... I would like to know! Invitations to assist from historians with nothing to do OR perhaps a history graduate from Edinburgh University who may be out of a job soon!

Is this another "oops" which is causing a cover up of my court actions - technically I am English but have I been helping the wrong side.

Lord Mackay of Clashfern left comments on Hansard 18 December 1998 informing that history was being made: law is being made from the "Despatch Box" not the Woolsack. The issue is that the Queen enacted the Access to Justice Act 1999 BUT it does the opposite - Access from Justice. Moreover, the Masons/Susskind case and SJ Berwin & others cases going through the courts establishes the methodology:

law is not applied
law that is not applicable is applied
I await law is applied - I wrote to the courts yesterday again - they're not going to be ecstatic!

Concerning the Chilcot Inquiry my documents are ready to be inspected (a) history of the Woolf Reforms to the present day (b) legal cases for methodology not substance.

The Scotsman article on 19/02/10 by Eddie Barnes entitled "Gordon Brown: Saddam's defiance was real cause of Iraq War (Click Here)

Saturday, February 13, 2010

Social INJUSTICE

Social INJUSTICE is one of my bugbears and I have raised this one before in relation to crime.

Just as "INEQUALITY is something you subjectively do to yourself, UNEQUAL is something that others subjectively do to you. Objectivity = EQUALITY"

Social "injustice" is something the state can do to itself.

Currently there is yet another debacle in Scotland - SNP Minister Nicola Sturgeon has the appearance of being subjective in relation to a fraudster, Abdul Rauf, 59 who has committed several crimes but thinks he should not go to jail. He appears to have played the race card and his MP, Nicola Sturgeon has taken up the issue.

Perhaps we need to see the statistics in Scotland via a policy implemented by Kenny MacAskill MP as Justice Minister of not sending people to jail but to community orders. Some perceive it as "soft justice". I happen to agree with his stance to some degree.

Nicola Sturgeon MP appears therefore to some degree to be correct in requesting an alternative to custody for this person. Disregard the Muslim issue, and yes non-violent criminals should not go to jail at all, or perhaps half and half.

The reason : it costs up to £30,000+ to keep a prisoner in jail in Scotland and £45,000+ in England per year - a burden which serves little or no purpose.

It costs the state approx £12,000 - £15,000 to keep someone who hasn't committed a crime on state benefits, ie income support or employment support allowance + housing benefit. The SOCIAL INJUSTICE is apparent. Someone who has not committed a crime but for whatsoever reason is not in paid employment the state spends less on them than on a person who has committed crime. Potentially a £20,000 difference in Scotland, potentially up to £30,000 difference in the rest of the UK.

Under New Labour in the UK 3000 pages of new criminal law went on the Statute books and the UK prison population went up to around 80,000 with talk of prison ships at one point if it went higher.

Politicians need to go 'hold on a minute', the cost to the state of the prison population is 'x', the cost to the Legal Aid Fund is 'x' and the cost to the judiciary is 'x'. Reduction is necessary and Kenny MacAskill MP appears to have the solution in Scotland, perhaps needing to be put to the public properly along with the statistics of how he has been doing to show accountability and responsibility to the public purse.

For example and by way of suggestion - soldiers are released to civvy street and could facilitate community benefit orders for non-violent crime, such as:

clearing canals and ditches
clearing and maintaining graveyards
snow clearing in winter
dry stane dyking and repair
painting railings
painting housing schemes
gardening in housing schemes and site clearance/maintenance
gardening on roundabouts and maintenance

if they don't behave a fortnight gutting fish on a boat out in the Minch in a Gale Force 8 might do the trick.

It would also improve "family relations" and "employability" if those convicted of non-violent crime could do community benefit orders rather than being imprisoned.

That the criminal is Muslim, or any other religion, is irrelevant and Nicola Sturgeon MP is right to raise the issue of non-violent criminals going to jail, but is she subjectively wrong to deal with the raising of a race card - she will just have to provide the statistics especially in line with current SNP policy for more community based orders. I have no doubt she can make the case, especially if she separates out the two issues. It might also prove opportune for SNP to evaluate their policy and provide feedback to society and whether it is providing a benefit or needs tweaking etc.

The issue to my mind is "VALUE ADDED". Just as when you buy a recycled book or children's recycled book instead of a comic, as I do:

- the charity gets money for the cause
- the book is recycled, potentially further recycled and its environmentally friendly option
- it costs less than a new book, thereby effecting a personal saving

It is not just value added, it is value value added. Some might say it is thrift or Scots mothballs in the wallet!

Looking at society and the prison population and non-violent prisoners in a community benefit way could mean that cost savings are passed onto community projects benefitting everyone not a cost on one person.

Looking at your local areas which are deprived and showing signs of poverty because railings are not painted (ever), buildings are not painted, gardens are not tendered - potentially excess Council plants could be used for community based projects, some youth groups or older groups could use computers, some church grounds need tendered, some roundabouts need conifers, bulbs and rock.

For example, 10 non-violent prisoners could provide a cost saving of £200,000 - £300,000 in Scotland or the UK. That money would pay the wages of a soldier(s) responsible for community benefit orders for non-violent criminals. The project could be associated with other community projects ie, a local church group - funds to assist church repairs whilst assisting the community whilst assisting the prisoner by doing ground maintenance + assisting family relations and future employability. OR, a youth project could receive funding for computers, sports kit, games and trips a cost saving of £10,000 benefiting everyone in the group whilst also benefiting the prisoner doing community based work, + family and employability. Instead of someone being a burden, they become a benefit. It may also assist community relations if the neighbourhood is spruced up especially when CRIME DOES NOT PAY!

There are 800 volunteer organisations in Edinburgh all or some could be linked to the Sheriff Court in Edinburgh as well as the community and Volunteer Scotland could be provided cost saving funding too to assist implementation. What needs to be looked at in relation to Nicola Sturgeon MP's current debacle is SOCIAL INJUSTICE as well as THE RACE CARD - they are two separate issues! Statistics would no doubt assist.

There are plenty to do - no funds available in local authority coffers to do it. With some joined-up thinking there is a social injustice that could easily be used to rectify a burden to a benefit. You know it makes sense and a community benefit order may actually be more demanding than anything currently being done in prison.

Lastly, Abdul Rauf is 59 years old. How many 55+ are in prison who are non-violent?

The way I would look at this is a 5 year sentence is worth £100,000 @£20,000 cost saving or £125,000 @ £25,000 cost saving. That buys a lot of paint. What community project could not use the benefit of this cost saving passed onto them - surely he can paint railings!

The Scotsman 12/02/10 article by Tom Peterkin and Christine Mackie entitled "Alex Salmond dodges defence of defiant Nicola Sturgeon (click here)

Wednesday, February 03, 2010

Assisted Suicide OR Mercy Killing - Like for Like - Socrates

"Assisted Suicide" is topical at the moment. It is also being called "Mercy Killing".

In law case precedent is supposed to be processed on a LIKE FOR LIKE premis. This means that the "ratio decidendi", ie the reasoning of the judge which discovers the point of law is supposed to be similar in every case thereafter, ie it sets the standard of what the law "ought" to be. "Obiter dicta" is persuasive argument to be followed should the law require to progress in a direction beyond a historical case precedent which is being followed for its significant ratio as a point of law.

Law does go out of date, society does progress, sometimes there is a gap in the law or lacuna as it is called which requires to be "discovered" but not created. The legislature create law, the judges discover it (they have the benefit of evidence and pleading bundles to assist truth and the common good). Law is uniformly applicable to all. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but the Judges are facilitated with an ability to be subjective, ie act in their discretion via the doctrine of equity, one example of which is "in the interests of justice", which can be used where there is foul play by the othersides solicitors which is certain, ie removal of discovery evidence from agreed court bundles is an example - the judge is supposed to provide equality before the law to all parties.

The greatest suicide in law anyway, was Socrates. He was put on trial and eventually killed himself by drinking "hemlock".

Which brings me to the Assisted Suicide and/or Mercy Killing issues currently being played out before us, the public.

I can understand well the issue of assisted suicide, especially the need for dignity. I also read Terry Pratchett's article in the Mail yesterday* which was of some interest, but also threw up some questioning in myself. I also read Dr Sentamu's article** and was particularly heartened to read that any questionnaire of a broad range of the public should really be done by disabled people, as they know the issues that affect their lives daily and somehow they cope - would they kill themselves willingly?

Concerning Terry Pratchett's article (TP) his diagnosis comes within the mental health sector and he well knows that anything to do with mental health medicine has side effects. You should read the medication side effects list, it beggars belief that the medication prescribed is designed to assist you. You have heard the terms "chemical cosh". It is also very easy to appear to be ill when prescribed mental health medicine. I therefore urge caution in relation to any assisted suicide bill permitting mental health consultants to determine death issues. Many people do actually die in mental health hospitals, possibly as a result of side effects affecting underlying diagnosis - you can be invisible in a system too. How many people focus on the statisticss in relation to mental health hospitals and deaths, or which medication is given for the prognosis/diagnosis and who the consultant is prescribing and his death statistics? It is dangerous to therefore create a legislated pathway to death.

TP raised a very significant issue - quality of life. We are an ageing population in the UK, there is likely to be an increase in particular prognosis but not the facilities to go with it, unless significant breakthrough is made in prognosis. The money is going to have to be allocated more towards the mental health sector to ensure facilities due to the ageing population. Therefore, the issue is not quality of life - this can be manufactured by providing funding or not, providing training or not to nursing staff and others. The issue is "opportunity of quality of life": listening to your favorite music - TP refers to his favorite "Thomas Tallis" - how many elderly people do you see with MP3 players on wards! Ward radio system! Or more importantly, personal "notebooks" and "Skype" keeping in contact with family and friends - if this is not available if I go to older people's services, I will be most annoyed!! Currently in Edinburgh there has been a move (when I was Chair of the Patients' Council) to remove the age 65 cut-off between acute and older people services: just because age 65 is the official retirement age concerning employability, it should be mutually exclusive all other services! The issue is that there is currently a better service available on the NHS in acute than older people services and no one is going to notice if you have a cut-off impact, or very few - you are already invisible in mental health services.

Therefore, Dr Sentamu has got a very very real and serious point - that it should be disabled people who make the decisions in relation to Assisted Suicide in our current society.

The Daily Mail yesterday also have a further interesting article *** of which two paragraphs were of note:

"... In yesterday's report the MPs made a wide-ranging attack on Government counter-terrorism strategy, saying complacent civil servants could be putting the public at risk by settling for second best..."

... Some of these leading the national counter-terror effort are paralysed by a dangerous institutional inertia, the committee said ..."

This is an important issue, counter-terrorism is irrelevant for current purposes of this blog post, but words such as "complacent", "second best" and "institutional inertia" in our Government also exist in other areas of professionalism. TP's article presumes the best, not necessarily the average or the worst. Trust in authority should be done by degree only. Trust only yourself 100%.

Concerning legislation, other areas need to be considered in an Assisted Suicide bill. Joining up legislation included, such as the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 and the Human Rights Act 1998.

Issues to include are :

- LIVING WILLS and don't resuscitate clauses
- ORGAN DONATION and a tick in the box does the deed via your Boots Advantage card
- HUMAN GUINEA PIGS for medical trials
- CLONING - the Ewan McGregor and Scarlett Johannsen film "The Island" is futuristic, but how many movies become reality over time.
- STEM CELL RESEARCH and Superman - therapeutic science is in its infancy
- ETHICS AND JURISPRUDENCE - there is no jurisprudence in Scotland in mental health, and lawyers are not accredited so far as I am aware in mental health law, even although it is covered by the legal aid fund which accredits family lawyers and defence lawyers - the legal aid umbrella should have a minimal accredition scheme to include human rights and jurisprudence and ethics in mental health law.
- CODIFICATION OF EXISTING LAWS in relation to medicine and the NHS
- DATA PROTECTION - the NHS in Scotland is still paper based in mental health, bolt on databases are not procured, and Data Protection only facilitates a statement of accuracy to go on your medical record, not deletion of erroneous information : it is completely easy to falsify or fabricate mental health records - psychiatrists are not expert in everything but they do not reach out to expert fields external mental health. Admission, Care Plans and Discharge should all be working from the same version and this is better facilitated electronically with pick lists for key diagnosis and the avoidance of unreadable long-hand or code forms etc in simplified databases which would also assist statistical gathering and "unmet needs", ie the opportunity for the quality of life.
- PROFESSIONAL COMPLICITY, COLLUSION AND RUBBER STAMPING - it is easy for professionals to be complicit especially where you are deemed somewhat odd, a misfit, eccentric, obsessive etc.
- STATISTICS FOR MENTAL HEALTH IN SCOTLAND IS (1 IN 4) - this should make you think with clarity in relation to Assisted Suicide.
- TECHNOLOGY and MRI scans
- APPLICANCE OF SCIENCE - your prognosis will determine your medication diagnosis - there are usually more than one drug type in any diagnosis. Whether you get the right one first time is up to your Consultant. But you will be proferred medication to medicate the side effects over trying another drug which might assist. You can be a zombie quite easily in a mental health system assisting your appearance of being ill unnecessarily. People you don't know also fill in the forms, yet you are deemed "vulnerable" - the power of suggestion and the ability to influence for subjective reason is powerful but there is little check on the procedure. You can also be processed subjectively by family and friends with no objective check on their subjectivity.
-GENETICS and the ability to "know" a diagnosis prior to its event. Genetic genealogy is an area where genes can be identified through history and people do appear to have a right to this information and to participate in safe and protective investigation together with just society. This is likely to impact on insurance law.

Where I consider there is some merit is that Dignitas in Switzerland does exist. They surely capture statistical information - diagnosis, religious background, male / female / child / youth. If it is the case they do, then perhaps we should look there before coming up with our own option - caution is necessary in this area, which as I have shown above is largely "new" law and potentially wider on legal issues than is being promulgated at the moment under mental health legislation. Switzerland could assist drafting too wide to narrow on prognosis with evaluation and monitoring of impact and outcome on those who make the decision with further legislation to follow if needed. Specific prohibitions or permissions could tie in the Human Rights Act and the Disability Discrimination Act, and delimit to specific diagnosis in the first enacted Act, if legislation over case precedent is deemed the way forward. It is right to have the debate in any event - we are in the 21st Century and law must progress society to make it safe and just. Concerning Dr Sentamu's article - the natural law is facilitated via the reasoning of a judge only. Legislation is a political slice of time which ages, hence we still have statutes going back to the 16th Century. Case law which is ancient can be brought up to date by a new case = progress to what the law "ought" to be by discovery NOT creation in law. Dr Sentanu's understanding of natural law is in relation to religion.

An area which I consider needs repeal is the Mental Capacity Acts. If Stephen Hawkins can communicate with his considerable disabilities, so also can any human being. With the ability to make people appear more ill then they may actually be via mental health medication the virtue of "patience" over "capacity" should be the judicial issue - go to any disabled conference and you will get a judicial eye opener at peoples abilities in relation to communication : there is a governmental body the Office for Disability Issues - all judges and legal professionals could usefully attend a conference as part of their training. All people can communicate to some degree. I would therefore like to see "reasonable adjustment" as particularised in the Disability Discrimination Act concerning employability extended to mental health and disability or it could be added to the Human Rights Act under right to life and also liberty: there should be no such thing as incapacity in the 21st Century with government policy requiring social inclusion.

The publicity of assisted suicide is perhaps of note. Care has to be taken when writing about issues in relation to the mental health sector by journalists - the ability for libel, defamation, slander, misrepresentation, mistake, malicious falsehood all of which is high risk and costly. But that does not also follow that issues should not be made public especially where there are public interest issues when a person has a mental health diagnosis - people are not supposed to be invisible. Government policy also requires that people are socially included, assisted by anti-poverty issues, and equality and diversity issues, financially included, but the stigma of mental health is a very serious one.

Lastly, back to Socrates. He took hemlock. I rather thought that if my opportunity for quality of life was so poor, I would order a rather nice bouquet from a florist, and eat it. I do a bit of gardening, and have a 4 page list of poisonous plants with the symptoms and the words "can be fatal" at the end of each plant description.

Hemlock (Conium maculatum) : poisonous part - whole plant. Symptoms to look for : vomiting, diarrhoea, mental confusion, convulsions, coma and respiratory failure. CAN BE FATAL

I noted Monkshood (Aconitum napellus) : poisonous part - whole plant, especially the seeds, leaves and root. Symptoms to look for: immediate burning and tingling in the mouth, fingers and toes, numbness, vomiting, diarrhoea, convulsions and breathing becomes very difficult. NOTE: the poison acts very fast. CAN BE FATAL

Bluebell (Endymion) : poisonous part - bulb. Symptoms to look for: Gastric pain, diarrhoea and blood in urine.

(Choosing the plants would be the interesting part, you would not want to get it wrong. I could have them sent via a living will.

Bear in mind dehydration at above 20% will cause death, and also it is possible to be put to sleep and not awaken through hypnosis - I am not a botanist or medically trained so check these).

What I don't get is why all the fuss about assisted suicide/mercy killing legislation and its need thereof in today's society with trips to Switzerland occurring over local library and local florist or garden centre. I do get the need to look at "death" in the widest sense in the 21st century to capture ethics, jurisprudence and scientific research to protect, provide safe and just society and balance issues in relation to the mental health sector via legislation. Also, I would prefer to see people receiving permission to do assisted suicide or a mercy killing before a court, ie before the fact, rather than after the fact. In an ageing population this issue is likely to increase, therefore getting it right now may be pertinent to include narrowing the opening of legal floodgates!

Given the Greeks have the trial of Socrates embedded in philosophy and history, it is possible to turn to Europe as the trial of Socrates could provide the ancient case precedent for the progress of this area and the Greeks may have historical data or documentation in that regard. However, beware the "spirit" in relation to philosophy, mind and body. In times of cruelty, sustained negativity and harshness, the spirit is raised - sixth sense. Some call it "animism" and there are different forms "hylozoism" being one of them

Hylozoism (click here)

NB: Psychiatrists potentially may claim this to be psychotic perhaps, others may call it "Hex" or "witchcraft" or something else. But it could also be shown as a sign of life and cognition.

However, I have pondered some more on this one and my thoughts should be deemed speculative below:

There is a saying in law which may assist clarity. A lot of people hide behind the words "it's your opinion". In law "OPINION" can be held to be objective where it is based on fact as it has legal effect. Subjective when it does not and is premised on emotional colouring, ie bias, prejudice, emotion.

As such "Assisted Suicide" as a term of art would require professional objectivity, whereas "Mercy Killing" would not necessarily do so as it involves someone particularly close to the person who is suffering. What society appears to be doing at the moment is focusing the judiciary and law to make the decision - which where a judge is "reasoning" in case precedent sets a 21st century stance, which can only be overborne by a further case or by the legislature.

I want to focus somemore on Dr Sentamu's statement concerning Christianity and natural law in religion. Jesus Christ's message was "LOVE". And his concept of love was not physical in relation to sex. That is why people who are in love say: they "KNOW".

Therefore, turning this to the current situation in relation to "mercy killings", there are several factors:

Unconditional love as a child receives from a parent or guardian
The love between partners, usually signified by marriage
The love for close relations and friends in the absence of family

Concerning marriage, there is deemed to be a "union of the souls" and this is usually premised on love where religious based, especially certain Christian doctrines. Taking this as an exempler, to include longevity as a factor in older couples, I would argue, or at least speculate, that it is appropriate for a person to assist death in their other half where that person is significantly suffering and has no opportunity for a quality of life. The issue would be dignity which should be assured as a person's other half is also suffering - there is not just one involved but two or more. A person should die in peace and any suffering should cease in both. Love should be involved in a mercy killing and the act, should imply care and trust. The act should be deemed "good" as cause and effect in law as there would be balance and harmony in law - the right thing to do. There should be no act of killing by the state - in law safeguards are available, if it were otherwise than a mercy killing people could step forward with testimony, such as friends, relatives, colleagues, community to cause a sufficient check enabling safe and just society (there is therefore a need for a judge and law intervention on this topic). There is a difference from a negative state of mind and a positive one - there should be an absence of disruption. In Scotland we have a concept in contract law "consusus ad idem" meaning a meeting of the minds - people who are couples by marriage or co-habiting are "in union" as they are seen to be by society in general. As are legal guardians. The burden of keeping someone alive where the mind and body has failed is a tough call, and we all have our time even with the "spirit" seen as separate the mind and body - assisting someone is not taking away from Time, it should be seen as their Time. There is no reason to presume that a consenting couple cannot reach that decision together where there is an inability in another. Mutuality, reciprocity, respect will all exist in both because the souls are united. There should be no penalty Christian or lawful, where the other half of a union has to make a decision concerning the other's life and death. With technology it is now possible to show to a judge a person's life, and the extent of their suffering and quality of life and opportunity for a quality of life (which can also be safeguarded by a judge) and its impact on the closest person and others who may also be elderly and have health issues - the burden can be too great. If the issue is "out of love" then I cannot see that there is an issue.

*Daily Mail 02/01/10 article by Sir Terry Pratchett - "When the time comes I'll sit on my lawn, brandy in hand and Thomas Tallis on my iPod. And then I'll shake hands with Death"
**Daily Mail 02/01/10 article by Steve Doughty and Fay Schlesinger - "Archibishop condemns the push for mercy killings"
* **Daily Mail 02/01/10 article by James Slack, Home Affairs Editor - "Taxpayers £8m legal bill for terror suspect control orders".