Scripturelink Sites Articles

Tuesday 22 July 2014

Why newspapers are dying and magazines aren’t: hint: it has nothing to do with glossy pages.

Why newspapers are dying and magazines aren’t: hint: it has nothing to do with glossy pages.

The old misconception between print and online: portrays it as a choice between yesterday’s news today, which you have to pay for, or today’s news as it happens. If that were why newspaper circulation has been dropping substantially: it would have happened with the introduction of 24-hour news television and radio. In fact, it would have happened with the introduction of the nightly news. The fact of the matter is that what people most like online is substantially different from the short articles which newspapers generally publish.

I sometimes like to comment on other people’s articles. What amazes me is that the most popular comments are generally not short or sweet comments. The popular type of comments: are those which we at SACNS call concise comments. If you have ever read an Oxford dictionary: you will notice that the concise Oxford dictionary is massive. Concise relates to fully encompassing a matter in as efficient a manner as possible. While newspapers have been dying out, their friend the magazine has been flourishing. I’m not talking about lads magazines, or the mass produced picture books that some think are entertaining. These are dying out. What I am talking about is the long form magazine. What I am talking about is concise reporting, the type of reporting you might read in the National Geographic magazine.

A look at which Internet blogs are the most popular will once again draw up a surprise. It is generally long form blogs and concise blogs which get the most viewership. These are services which make articles of at least 1000 words if not tens or hundreds of thousands of words their mainstay.

If I look at which of my articles are the most popular, factoring out the celebrity influence and niche markets: it is generally the long form or longer form article.

It might seem counterintuitive at first: that the most popular comments on any article tend to be long comments, and to take a while to read. The most popular online articles also tend to take a good amount of time to read.

The same strange trend goes for emails also. Emails which are short and sweet and use very simple language: are the least likely to be opened. Emails which are lengthy and utilise proper and good English: are surprisingly more likely to be opened. To a degree it does make sense. I am far more likely to share an article online that uses an advanced and interesting word that even I have to look up, than one which uses one step up on SMS language.

Which news websites, and news articles are the most popular? Surely websites such as Wired with their very long articles. Surely articles such as those that can be found in: the Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, the British Guardian. The articles these services produce are lengthy, detailed and often require scrolling down through long reams of text. Newsletters have also once again become popular. The type of newsletter which is popular is not short and sweet. It is the type of newsletter that is worth the effort and the nuisance of having another email in your inbox each day. The newsletters I subscribe to tend to be long form newsletters. They tend to require scrolling and much reading. The type of newsletter I have unsubscribed from and banished from my inbox: is the type which is short and sweet and uses simple language. I take no interest in that sort of email. It is not worth my efforts in opening it.

Imagine if newspapers instead of having a headline and five pages on that headline, did what many newspapers are attempting to do with online: had five small headlines on the front page, each with an article of only 100 words. Imagine if that newspaper only had one headline, with a big image: and only 100 words on the headline topic. Would you still buy the newspaper for the headline? After all old wisdom says that newspaper headlines sell the newspaper. I certainly would not buy a newspaper for the headline if the newspaper only had 100 words on the headline topic. 100 words are not enough to be worth the price of 5 Rand or 10 Rand to me. Certainly, there are newspapers such as the Johannesburg Star: which while each article is quite short, have such a broad basis: that in a sense the entire newspaper is one article, possibly worth reading cover to cover.

The question arises as to why people still listen to news radio when news television has come out. Why for instance might I listen to a podcast of 60 minutes of radio news out of America, where I can watch television news for 60 minutes instead? News radio flourishes for the same reason that long form articles have continue to exist despite a decline in news media. If I listen to news radio, for instance RFI, I gain a lot more detail and perspective on an issue. For the same reason that someone might read an entire book on an important event, and pay 100 Rand for it, or even 1000 or more Rand for it: people like to listen to radio specifically because it gives you more detail than other mediums.

If Twitter were killing newspapers: then the advertisements newspapers put on the streets, with headlines even shorter than twitter tweets: would have killed newspapers long ago. Open your average newspaper, there might be 50 stories in it. Open your average newspaper, there is a wide variety of news. Open your average magazine, are there perhaps 20 articles folded between the covers?

Why is it that short form film: that music video television channels are dying out or changing to other formats? Is it because the same music videos can be found on YouTube? Why then do television channels which show series and movies not also die out as quickly? Is it not perhaps because music videos are short and sweet? You might not go to most movies, at the cinema, but you probably watched long movies such as Star Wars, the Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and so forth. The short and sweet movies could not hold your interest enough to keep you there.

People often speak about the meat and bones of something. Information-wise it consists of a thorough telling of what in fact has occurred. Many newspapers have become lazy over the years. Their articles are short and sweet. They have ceased to point out spelling mistakes. They pay their journalists next to nothing and think that an uneducated, illiterate journalist is the equivalent of a master of the English language. They have based their news on a foolish and idiotic audience, aiming at the lowest common denominator rather than taking a stand and in fact investigating what has actually occurred in the world.

Some say that news media has taken a different role in the world of blogs and citizen journalism: that of verifying fact and disputing fiction. However, many blogs and citizen journalists have that very integrity that media often lacks. I’m not speaking of the social media idiots many people have come to know. I am speaking instead of human beings with integrity, the same integrity that many successful news organisations used to hold to.

Even though I mostly disagree with their viewpoint: I love to read the British Guardian online. They are more likely to tell me the sort of details that really matter.

As many newspapers are introducing pay walls, many are doing so to their own destruction. If all I am getting is a summary, I might as well find a summary for free. If all I am paying for is someone who will give me the exact same view as I hold: I am unlikely to pay for that. Certainly, these type of articles might get a lot of shares. They get these shares to prove a point, but if they add nothing new to my worldview than I might as well not pay for them. In the world of Twitter I can gain the view of a celebrity or world government that interests me simply by subscribing to them on social media. If media is to play any role at what our future is to be: it can no longer simply be repeating the words of others. Partisan media and media which is merely a mouthpiece for another, might as well cease to exist, as the source can easily be accessed independently. If I am to buy a newspaper or buy access to an article, it needs to have meat and bones. It needs to provide me with a sustaining meal that I cannot find elsewhere. This is why magazines continue to flourish. This is why short form newspapers continue to die.

There used to be a mantra that if a site took more than eight seconds to load it would be seen as unworthy of reading. It was a mantra that people have a short attention span. Unfortunately, the same people who are easily distracted by butterflies and bees, are only distracted for a moment or so, and can easily find distraction elsewhere. They are unlikely to even remember a small distraction, and go on with their lives having forgot that they even clicked on a link or loaded the website in question that took less than eight seconds to load and remained in their memory for even less time. The problem with things that only temporarily take up but a moment of a person’s time, is that often there is no sustenance in these. I will probably not go to a restaurant and sit down only to eat a very small, unappetising meal all alone. If you want your website to get a lot of viewers in the short term, or your newspaper likewise: go ahead, be sensationalist, and take up people’s time for just a moment. They will forget you existed tomorrow, and will not thank you for it! If however you are a media organisation that desires to respect your readers and to give them the full picture that they desire, consider instead gaining a long-term audience by writing longer and more concise articles. This article has already hit almost 2000 words, if you did not stop reading it upon discovering that then you’re not the sort of person who only reads short works. You’re the sort of person who probably still buys magazines every now and again. You are the audience who will still pay to read news, but not simply news summaries. If newspapers want to survive the next hundred years, whether behind pay walls or physically: they need to relearn the art of the concise article and of providing meat and bones to the audience. They also need to relearn the importance of being not a mouthpiece, or a mere bulletin board for the important. People will not pay to simply read one view on a matter when they can gain the full perspective from several sources for free. If newspapers want to survive they need to start adhering again to audi alteram partem: they need to give the full picture in a concise and effective manner, which informs and entertains their readers in a respectful exercise of telling of the truth and of informed and intelligent opinion. This is far more the sort of work which an individual is likely to pay to consume. Think of the most famous books and plays in history. Think of War and Peace. Think of the Lord of the Rings. Think of the Odyssey and Iliad. Think of just how difficult it is to read Shakespeare or Pride and Prejudice!

When you’re done thinking of these things, realise that the long form is here to stay. Concise news is a return to history, a history where news was worth paying for! A history, that can sustain newspapers which are dying not because of the Internet but because they are not worth paying for anymore or any longer. Unless their articles once again were to become longer, of course.

Friday 27 June 2014

Discovering Truth without losing trust.

Who will this article be of use to?

This article might be of some use to individuals engaging in fact finding, to journalists desiring to gain the truth out of an interviewee, to lawyers who are interviewing their own client or a potential witness, to people who desire to know how to interview or interrogate another individual in order to find the truth in a manner that is not rude or too cumbersome.

How to read this article to gain what is most useful to you? This article is written from the perspective of a lawyer interviewing their client or a potential witness, the second part relates to signs of falsehood or problems, while the first part of this article consists of advice on how to conduct an interview so as to enable the second part to be of use. Parts of this article are geared more towards the law, but can be easily adapted in substance or spirit to use in other professions. What is essential in the first part is how to take positive steps to avoid preventing the second part from being nullified by a lack of good interviewing in the first part. If you are not physically interviewing a person then the procedural steps to assist such would be of little use. In that case skip to the second part of this article below.

Why did I write this article?

I wrote this article to assist people who desire to effectively, courteously and efficiently enquire of the truth from another individual. It is designed to assist the person to gain specific clarity as well as some indication as to the real world value of what has been communicated to them verbally and nonverbally.

An introduction.

One of the first things they teach you at law school is not to confuse the law with your own moral standards. Saying that something is terrible or immoral does not get you marks in legal essays. I shall start with how you should not interview a client.

The origin of the modern lawyer in South Africa is not what you might think. In Great Britain matters were settled by duels to the death. At some stage champions were permitted. People were hired to fight duels for other people. Gradually the fighting became words. The words became arguments. The arguments became opening and closing statements mixed amongst the interviewing of relevant witnesses. A lawyer is a practical thing: they are an expert in fighting with the words. Their advice on whether or not an argument might result in victory or defeat is essential to a client. Like a good translator a good lawyer tells the truth and then advises a client on their best and other options based on the truth. The service you go to a lawyer for is remarkably different from the service you go to a barman or a psychologist for. It is also remarkably different from the service you go to a friend for and the service you go to a priest or pastor for. Lawyers used to be paid by the word: now lawyers tend to be paid by the hour or by the activity they engage in or by their results. When writing an essay for a lecturer an ordinary person might waffle. The art of interviewing a client consists of getting exactly what is needed from the client and nothing less than that while not wasting the client's time. While the interview of a client to gain instructions should by no means put off the client, it should certainly gain the facts as they actually are in order to assist the client and not hinder them. There is a fine line which legal practitioners must walk: between a good bedside manner which is appealing to a client and good for business, and the necessity of gaining information which will be of use to a client. Both of these aspects are essential and are not disparate but can be made to become complimentary. I often found that a client appeared to me, to be saying one thing until I properly interviewed them, and it is only upon this proper interview that the truth in such a case sometimes emerges. Clients also might not realise that they are protected by both legal privilege and confidentiality: it often takes proper interviewing skills to discover the real situation on the ground, which the opponent would certainly bring up in court, but which can be dealt with properly if the legal practitioner is properly informed.

Empathy can be useful, but too much empathy can prevent the truth from coming out and leave the client disenchanted and without a solution to their problem.

When I worked in the family law and divorce unit at the University of the Witwatersrand Law Clinic, I would always try to bring tissues with me for the client. I would also be certain to treat my client with human dignity. This is the useful type of empathy.

There is a different type of empathy that lawyers sometimes display. They might listen to the client go on and on about a story saying that something is 'terrible': all the while not understanding at all what the client's actual problem is.

An effective lawyer should ask incisive questions, questions which discover the truth of what the client intends to convey. You could well listen to your client speaking for half an hour about the problem while charging them all the while for the time: as they remain no closer to solving their problem. Make no mistake I advocate therapy and assistance for a client should they require it: but a lawyer is not a psychologist. Yes, have empathy. Yes, do not judge a client harshly. However, what a client goes to a lawyer for is not a shoulder to cry upon: it is a champion to fight a battle or a wise guide to assist them on the path forward.

Questioning a client and clarifying what they are saying while narrowing down on what their actual legal problem is and whether you can assist them with it can save both your time and their time. If you do not get the full story from the client it could be very embarrassing on the witness stand for both you and your client who might subsequently face perjury charges. The job of a lawyer is to find the truth and then advise their client as best as they can based upon this finding of truth. Have empathy, but make sure that you ask direct questions of your client which have direct answers. If your only words to your client are 'go on' or 'that is terrible' then your client could get the same service for free from their local barman. A client comes to a lawyer for legal advice that is what they expect. There are many things which you would tell your doctor which you would not tell any other individual. If your doctor asks you personal questions you are liable to give honest answers because these questions are necessary for them to assist you. Yes, a doctor with a good bedside manner is a good thing: yet that bedside manner should not get in the way of them healing you. This is the same fine line that lawyers must walk.

Lawyers are creatures of instruction.

Lawyers are creatures of instruction. If I sit across from a client and hear their story and write up their instructions about what the predicament is, there is a reason why they came to me. A person goes to a lawyer for advice and assistance. What type of advice am I to give them?

Some people might look at their client and tell them that they would be stupid to follow a certain path. Such a practitioner might well inform clients that they are making a major mistake and to follow their advice, shouting the client down like an angry father.

A better approach might be to inform the client of all the practical options including their nonlegal options such as mediation or dropping the matter entirely. The practitioner might then inform the client of the consequences which might come about from each of the actions and the legal principles which might govern their path forward. It would be advisable to inform a client both of the legal and the practical consequences of whatever path forward they choose. The difference between the first and the second approach is that in the first approach it is the lawyer who is instructing the client. In the second scenario the client is instructing the lawyer in an informed manner. It is the job of a lawyer to guide a client, not to parent a client. Clients have parents just as they have barmen, psychologists, and other professionals who are best able to assist the client in that manner. The lawyer is merely a guide, it is the client who determines their own path forward. A lawyer can always recuse himself from a client at an early stage if they believe it would be inadvisable to take the case further. The advantage of advising a client of the different options is that it covers a lawyer in the event that the client subsequently decides to litigate against them. If a lawyer believes the client is making the wrong decision they can inform them of this quietly and respectfully by informing them of the consequences of the decision and the likely outcomes: both verbally and in writing. In that event then the client if they go ahead with an ill-advised course, cannot say that the lawyer did not inform them of the consequences of their actions. There is a vast difference between informing a client of the consequences of their actions and making decisions for a client in contrast to the will of the client. The lawyer is a creature of instruction. A lawyer is a servant of the client. Yes, a lawyer is also an officer of the court and is bound by the ethics of the profession. The case is the client's case not the lawyer's case.

Thou shalt not deceive the court.

It is not entirely rare in South Africa that a client might bring a problem to a lawyer for the enforcement of something unlawful. A lawyer is an officer of the court. A lawyer may not deceive the court. If there is no legal solution to a client's problem the best approach is to inform the client of this, and why this is the case. Sometimes then a nonlegal solution might emerge to assist the client. If the client is in an illegal relationship it might be possible for the client to leave that relationship. Mediation might assist a problem where the law cannot enforce something.

However, assisting a client in deceiving the court is not only risky and unethical and patently illegal: it also prevents other lawful solutions to a problem from being pursued. The appropriate dispute resolution mantra has caught much ground in South Africa lately. Where there is a potent solution to a problem that does not waste the time of the court: a client should be made aware of this.
Lawyers have been punished by the courts for the action of taking matters which should have been mediated before a judge.

You're an officer of the courts before anything else.

Every now and then a client emerges, who believes that threatening a legal practitioner will get what they desire. Lawyers are protected by international law precisely because so many lawyers are executed or injured by untoward parties. If a client is unsatisfied with your advice then in that event the best approach is simply to be polite to them and cordial, and to advise them as any other clients might be advised. If they choose to leave as you are unwilling to compromise your integrity, politely allow them to do so. In addition it might be best to write the client a written version of your advice in case they subsequently become ill-advisedly determined to litigate against you.

There are also clients who might consider your good legal advice to not assist them in their cause, who might inform you that you have not assisted them afterwards: where there's nothing that you as a lawyer can do to assist them. The best approach is to be polite to the client, to wish them well on their way and to cover yourself in the event of litigation, by giving the client a written form of your opinion if necessary.

I stated that the first part of this work would focus on what not to do with the client. While I certainly stated what you should do with the client also: the purpose was to display the type of behaviours which would be inadvisable to engage in.

The second part of this work is about truth finding. It is essential in interviewing your own clients and witnesses that you discover what the truth actually is. A good understanding of the real world is a good start in discovering this. How far can a person see at night with perfect vision when an event occurred 100 feet away? What is the likely response of a person to another individual pulling a gun on them? How is a person likely to act after a trauma has occurred? How likely is an event to have occurred? These are all points upon which additional questioning might be necessary. If something does not feel right to you: it is often that your subconscious mind has discovered a hole in testimony. Discovering whether or not something might be a falsehood: does not mean for certain that it is a falsehood. For instance: pigs fly, they do: in the cargo holds of aeroplanes. What is essential is that if something comes up which might be a cue to your discovering a relevant deception: that an additional effort is placed on a particular point in order to wring out the truth of the matter. It is always advisable to ask enough questions and to clarify enough in order to gain a good mental picture of the events which might have taken place. It is also essential to ask what did not happen, and other such questions which a truthful person might easily be able to answer. Remember to trust your gut instinct: the gut instinct is often the working of experience and your picking up upon subconscious cues that something is not right.

Micro-expressions. There are only between 20 and 30 expressions which the human face is capable of making. You may observe images of these expressions from various studies. There are less than 10 simple expressions such as anger or contempt, and the combination of these universal expressions: such as surprised and angry or surprised and scared or surprised and happy: make up a mere 20 to 30 expressions. While most human beings have a good control of their own expression of emotion: these expressions nonetheless often appear for split seconds when a person is deceiving another as to their emotions. With practice an individual can catch micro-expressions. If a person should be feeling contempt for you but they are feeling anger at you: if a person should be feeling love for you but they are feeling contempt for you: or for another individual: this might go across their face for a moment at a time: and it certainly is an important cue to question the individual more on the aspect that they are speaking upon.

Consistency of a story. There's nothing more consistent than a madman's delusion. If he says that everyone is out to get him and you say: why don't we ask them if they are out to get you: he shall say that people in a conspiracy will generally not admit to the conspiracy. I read this logic problem years ago in the works of Chesterton. Looking for an internal consistency in a thing can certainly be helpful but it can also be distracting. If something is internally consistent it does not mean that it is true. However, there is a different type of consistency: whether something survives becoming big. For instance: why would these individuals have a conspiracy against the madman: that is to say how did this come about and to what purpose. Things such as motive and opportunity and the means to perform an action might certainly discount a false but consistent story. The desire of liars to tell consistent stories certainly assists in another matter further on, and getting a liar to tell the story in such a way that inconsistencies emerge certainly can be advantageous. It is the big consistency of a statement: whether it holds up in the real world that determines whether it is simply a false model of the world or the real thing that is being described.

Falsehood is generated in a different part of the brain than truth is. It also requires more mental energy than simply telling the truth. For some reason human beings do not like lying. A person is more likely to equivocate or avoid a question than lie. Often a liar might therefore take the approach of attacking the person who is attempting to discover the truth. They might also attempt to implicate someone else or else otherwise throw an unprepared or naive person off their track and onto a false track created for their own purposes. This approach is similar to the approach used by military forces to avoid tracking parties sent to discover their position: a false trail is set out quite clearly, so clearly an uninformed person might follow it into an ambush. Picking up the real trail sometimes requires more skill, experience and additional effort. A liar might also tell the truth in such a way that they know they will not be believed. This false sign of falsehood is intentional and there to mislead. When a person does lie it often causes emotions of guilt, sadness, powerlessness, shame, or other such negative responses within the liar. Lie detector tests are designed to detect fear via the autonomous systems of the human body. Not every liar experiences negative emotions as a result of their lie. Some liars might feel contempt, display superiority, or otherwise enjoy telling a lie. There are two approaches to lying which are generally adopted by liars: one which sees it as a last resort, as something necessary in order to avoid some evil or gain some good when honesty would not gain such a result. Such a person might feel weak in their lying. They might consider themselves to have been forced to resort to force. Such a person would be experiencing negative emotions. In contrast a liar might enjoy lying, they might take great glee out of misleading and manipulating other individuals. Such a liar might in fact unintentionally show positive emotions that should not be present or lack of negative emotions where these should be present.

While this is only a small model of the world and I am told it would not be comprehensive for psychological purposes: it is useful to turn emotions into mathematical models. Happiness objectively speaking should refer to a gain while sadness should refer to a loss. Fear should refer to the possibility of a loss or a lost opportunity while anger could well be a response to either loss or fear of loss: when an individual believes another is responsible for this situation. Frustration in contrast might refer to a situation similar to anger but where the other individual is not considered guilty but simply an obstacle. When an individual tells a story and their emotions do not match with what objectively should be there: this might be a sign that additional interrogation of a witness or additional instruction taking from a client is required. These sorts of emotions not only appear in speech and body language but additionally they also appear on the face of an individual by their micro-expressions in many cases.

If you watch movies on television you might notice that characters are separated by physical obstacles when they are at odds. A character who is weak might be portrayed as shorter. This type of visualisation plays upon basic human animal psychology. People have a desire subconsciously to separate themselves from their enemies and to associate themselves with those whom they like. This probably comes all the way from primitive man who had to avoid his predators and competitors, and gain advantage from his allies, and sought to bring himself closer to his prey items. A person who is lying might attempt to distance himself from the truth finder at points where they lie. They might attempt to avert their gaze, or place a physical object between them and the truth finder, or separate them from their self via the gestures of their hands. Expressions might also appear on the face of a liar at this point. A high-pitched voice has been known to be associated with the loss of control, while a voice which goes below its ordinary pitch suggests that an individual is attempting to keep control of their self. Again looking at basic psychology of human beings and animals: a liar is the enemy of the truth finder as far as the liar is concerned. They might very well be lying for the sake of the truth finder. However, their voice might betray this evolutionary response in as much as the placing of an object or averting of eye contact can be a cue as to falsehood in some instances. Direct eye contact suggests a lack of a barrier between two individuals. Language also picks up on this basic psychology. If someone is an enemy of yours you might refer to a task you did together as a task done by 'enemy and I' rather than as a task done by 'we' or 'us.'

Parts of speech are also vital in detecting a lie.
A truth teller is more likely to refer to himself or herself in a sentence. A truth teller is more likely to use the word 'I' or the word 'me.' The liar is more likely to refer to others than themselves. A truth teller might say that they locked the door. A liar however is more likely to distance themselves from their own actions. The liar might say the door appeared locked or the door was locked. The liar therefore is not in their false story which makes the liar feel more comfortable about telling the lie. If an individual equivocates or is vague it might be a sign that the equivocation itself or the vagueness itself is truthful but that there is more to the story which they desire to hide from the truth finder. If an individual attempts to divert attention such as via an intentional approach of answering a question via another question or by attempting to alter the topic or through avoidance or attack this might be an indication of deception. A liar not only attempts to distance themselves from the false story they are informing you of, they are also more likely to express negative emotions in the telling of their story in order to mask their own negative response to their own act of lying whether consciously or subconsciously, this can be discovered through the use of negative adjectives in the description of how an individual was feeling in a moment.

The tense in which a story is told can also be an indicator of deception. The part of the brain which relates to memory when accessed: usually comes to be expressed in the past tense. The part of the brain which relates to deception: however operates in the present tense. A person who is engaging in falsehood might tell a story all in the past tense until such points where they are telling a falsehood. A person also might accidentally through their use of the past tense reveal their belief that a missing person is in fact dead. Watching carefully and at all relevant times for the tense in which an individual person explain something in can often reveal a point which requires more interrogation or better instructions in, in order to avoid embarrassment at trial. A liar is also more likely to use simpler sentence structure: the lie itself takes up a certain degree of mental acuity which is then not available for the use of more complex sentences. For instance a liar is more likely to use basic action words such as 'walk' or 'go' or 'run' and less likely to use words such as traverse, or sentences such as 'I missed the bus and thus had to proceed on foot.' A truth teller is more likely to inform you of what did not happen. Words such as 'but' or 'however' which relate to what did not occur are far more likely to be used by a truth teller. For instance: 'I took Fourth Street rather than Fifth Street because there was a traffic jam on Fifth Street!' It is more difficult to lie about what did not happen than to lie about what did happen. The lie by its very definition is a false small model of the world. The lie might be very consistent within itself by the ingenuity of the lie teller. A lie or falsehood however is small by its very definition because it is a model of the world rather than a retelling of actual events within the real world. It is because of the vast brainpower demanded to create such a small model of the world with consistency: that liars sometimes contradict themselves and use simpler language and simpler stories. The mere consistency of the lie can sometimes reveal it to a focused truth finder. The liar needs to remember their lie and therefore requires a degree of consistency and simplicity in their story. A lie therefore often involves a scarcity of important detail. A truth teller might relay a full inventory of their senses. They might refer to the smell of something and the taste of something, the colour of something, the size of something and so forth. The liar has to be careful in how much detail they give. Practised liars might intentionally give detail in order to appear not to be working off a false model of the world. The false truth in such a case can often be brought to contradict itself through intelligent and thoughtful interrogation or gathering of instructions. As most people do not have perfect memories, their lies are often something which can be dug out and discovered.

Human beings often lie throughout the day. A lawyer is bound by their ethics to be a truth teller. A witness on the stand is likewise is bound to tell the truth. It is not a favour to a client to allow them to get away with the lie to you only to find that your opponent on the stand has succeeded in causing your client to visibly perjure themselves. It is essential that a lawyer discovers what the actual truth is. A proper but respectful interview of a client as to the facts is therefore essential. Awareness of signs of falsehood, and proper interviewing skills are an important part of the lawyer's profession. It is better to be prepared for bad news and to be able to better control the narrative, than to be caught surprised in cross-examination.

I find it essential to know the type of subject which emerges in a specific type of case. There are certain types of questions which you are required to know the answers to: to proceed with a specific type of case. Euphemism can at times be essential, but it can also create false impressions in the mind of the practitioner. Bedside manner is essential, but if it prevents proper fact-finding: it is not a service to the client but a hindrance to their cause.

These are just some of the techniques I use to come to the truth of a situation. The first part referred largely to the type of interview approach and bedside manner which is or is not acceptable if you desire to properly gain instructions which will be useful moving forward. The second type referred to fact-finding and discovering the truth, it is better that a client to be embarrassed in front of you than in front of the entire world on the witness stand. A non-judgemental but intelligent and honest attitude when you have discovered a falsehood the client has revealed to you could go a long way in preventing the breakdown of a relationship between you and your client.

In the information technology business in most cases what a client desires and what the client is delivered is not congruent. In law the same could also happen if a client is not properly interviewed. Clarification is essential, and discovering facts relevant to the case which need to be dealt with in a different way than other facts: is essential. It is better that your client admit to some weakness to you than have it discovered on the witness stand and your client be exposed to an opponent and possible jail time.

Parts of speech such as 'his' or 'her' or their can also cause a lot of problems.

Whenever an individual is speaking about an issue it is important to determine what objects are involved, what people are involved, and what part each person and each object plays specifically and separately from all other objects and people involved. While parts of speech such as 'he' and 'she' do in fact assist in detecting falsehood, it can be very necessary to ask a client to clarify. For instance: a client might say that a person known as 'he,' shot another individual. One might assume that he is a specific individual, it is advisable however to clarify who that individual is and how they relate to the events and to the client in question. If the client has personal animosity towards the person in question and a reason to lie on the stand: it could well destroy your case against that individual.

If something a client says does not make sense make sure to ask more about it.

If a person's story is not consistent this is often because they are attempting to hide something or brush over it: the thing they are attempting to hide may or may not be as bad as you think it is, but it is essential to discover what this thing is as it might have a bearing on the moving forward of the case.

When interviewing a client it is of great importance to not only get their full contact details and to verify these details with the client, but to get alternative contact details for the client, and the details of an individual they trust who can get hold of them if they are not available. It is also essential to gather the right information for pleadings, to satisfy statute, to satisfy the rules of court, and to satisfy the government statistics office. I find it especially useful to ask yourself the question: does what my client is saying make sense? If it does not make sense to you, you cannot expect to make sense to the court.

While paying due accord to the value of bedside manner in interviewing a client or a witness, it is important to make sure that the information gleaned is not only accurate but reliable and useful in further pursuing the matter with the client.

Lawyers might often simply make a summary of what they believe the client was saying to them. In some ways this is useful, but only if the summary is made in addition to extensive word for word notes. Systems such as Teeline shorthand notation, good typing skills, and the use of good interviewing skills can allow the making of a good record of exactly what the client actually said which can then be reviewed and investigated to ensure the client is served to the best of your abilities. A summary accompanying this would only be an asset adding to it, but the original instructions which the client actually gave might contain vital information that a summary missed altogether to the detriment of the client's case.

At all times a lawyer must realise that they are the servant and the tool of their clients: there is not a place for their own ego but only a place for their own integrity in dealing with a client. Staying objective on a matter rests upon this principle.

I hope that this article has been useful to you. It could be useful both to a practitioner of the law and to anyone hoping to discover the truth. An interview with a client needs to be a combination of truth finding and good manners and good courtesy and etiquette.

Thank you very much for reading this article. I hope it assists as a reference work for you in your pursuit of better interviewing clients and witnesses and engaging in fact-finding. These techniques are methods I've used both in law and in journalism. In law they are all the more important: the consequences of making a mistake can end your career for ever.

About the author and disclaimer.

At present I am not a practising attorney, nor am I a practising advocate. In accordance with South African definitions of what the lawyer is: I am a lawyer. A lawyer is everything from a paralegal to a judge, it refers to anyone who engages in providing legal services within the law. My time at the Witwatersrand University Law Clinic was as a student counsellor under the supervision of an admitted attorney. This entailed interviewing clients, writing documents and pleadings, and relaying advice to clients and so forth but while under the watchful eye of an admitted attorney. My experience of interviewing clients at present is mainly gained from journalism and from my time at the University of the Witwatersrand Law Clinic over a period of about a year and additionally of three weeks as part of compulsory practical coursework subsequent to my graduation, as a compulsory part of the Leadership and Development programme of the Law Society which replaces a year of articles with six months of coursework and exams. I took this position at the University of the Witwatersrand Law Clinic essentially twice: one day per week for about a year as part of a compulsory subject in my final year at Wits and subsequent to this I took the same position at the Witwatersrand University Law Clinic for a much shorter second time as part of a course requirement when I was completing the statutory postgraduate six-month practical legal training course at the Law Society. I hope to write the board exams in a month or two. Nothing I've stated is legal advice, nor is it advice on the ethics of the profession. It is simply the way in which I believe an interview should best be completed. Nothing I have said is to compare myself to other lawyers or individuals practising any type of legal service. I do not state that I'm better or worse than any other legal practitioner, I am merely relaying methods which I believe might well be effective in the correct circumstances. I do not guarantee that these methods are effective or the best course of action. I do not accept liability for harm incurred in following the above methods. This article should not be considered to encompass all aspects of an interview and is merely meant to add to your own extensive interviewing knowledge. External verification methods are still an important aspect of verification of witness statements.

Thursday 26 June 2014

Be highly cautious about crowdsourced services, criminals love them!

We have emerged from a world of the Venetian masked ball, to our current world where some people wear masks with their own face upon the mask. Simply because some people act in a trustworthy manner online and appear to have their own face upon the mask, does not mean that the same characters who previously used anonymity do not use the anonymity of a false identity to engage in the same activities.

AirBnB, and other applications are crowdsourcing all things from accommodation to lift clubs. To many this is a new era in social media, founded upon trust, transparency and open honesty.

The core of this entire movement however comes down to one word: that word is trust. People apparently use their real identities and thus are accountable.

Unfortunately in many cases there still exists a world of trolls, sociopaths, false profiles, criminals masquerading and other such things online. If credit card details are not safe, then systems using banking details to verify a person are not safe. If identity numbers or social security codes are not safe, nor are systems which use these to identify a person. As it is most systems use aspects such as a person's Facebook account to verify a person. It is very easy to set up a fake Facebook, and just as easy to populate it with false friends. In fact, studies show just that: a massive portion of Facebook accounts are set up by cybercriminals and untoward characters. Another important detail is that many people use weak passwords. Often genuine social media accounts are compromised and then used for nefarious activities.

We have emerged from a world of the Venetian masked ball, to our current world where some people wear masks with their own face upon the mask. Simply because some people act in a trustworthy manner online and appear to have their own face upon the mask, does not mean that the same characters who previously used anonymity do not use the anonymity of a false identity to engage in the same activities.

It is the same people who are honest and used anonymity as a protection who have come out of the woodwork and have decided to utilise their own birth names. The criminals, trolls and other undesirables have not determined to follow the same path necessarily. I certainly am not engaging in activities such as air B&B. The Internet remains a wild wild West: crime only continues to increase online. Such a movement comes down to one word: and that sole word is trust. Trustworthiness is an entirely different matter.

If companies hire individuals to write good reviews of their products online, and bad reviews of their opposing forces: why would criminals not do likewise? Due to a false sense of security individuals are opening up their homes and motorvehicles to complete strangers. Even relatively honest people steal towels from hotel bathrooms, or run off with scented shampoos: this is why hotels only offer tiny shampoo bottles. Gated communities create a similar false sense of security, which is why crime statistics show these to be high crime areas, criminals simply buy a house within the community or rent it and suddenly have access to unknowing victims. Holidaymakers have a similar false sense of security and are thus favourite targets for criminals.

Just as classifieds are used to post fake job openings to facilitate rape and murder, these other movements are inviting to criminal psyches.

Friday 6 June 2014

In South Africa, Unions have become intertwined with terrorism and organised crime? #NUMSA #Bombings

The Roman Democracy became a dictatorship because of the force of unions. The Plebeians would stop working and strike until their demands were met. To appease them the office of Tribune was constituted, the very office which would one day become that of emperor. Unions can be a great force for good if they look after worker rights, and interests while not destroying the employers of these workers financially, or the very economy of the country. However, when unions begin to make unreasonable demands and to use murder and violence to achieve these, they have ceased to be unions, and have become an other.

For years major unions have used intimidation to force workers to turn on their employers and strike. Streets would be filled with garbage, motor vehicles burnt, people would be beaten to death, children would be harmed and dragged out of school classrooms... but with the AMCU NUM war which started with murder and continues Today, and following that the Marikana clash between police and AMCU members, something has changed. Something has become more violent. Reports from Rustenburg have the miners wanting to return to work but absolutely terrified to do so for fear of being killed by AMCU enforcers, by people who did not fear to cut police officers and security guards into little pieces with machetes, and who ran at a police line armed, and unto death. We cannot say for certain that the deaths of people who get in the way of AMCU are done with official sanction, but the union certainly benefits from each death and seems uninterested in opposing the violence done in their interests.

Now, NUMSA (or their affiliated or unaffiliated enforcers) have taken a similar approach. Non-striking workers' houses have been bombed, and their cars burnt, in ten attacks against workers not participating in the NUMSA strike.

When a group commits bombings against people who do not obey it, is it not terrorism? When a group attacks people to inspire terror, is it not terrorism? When unions are used to blackmail employers: that those in charge must be obeyed or their staff will be terrified away from work, is that the intention of the law or is that closer to organised crime and blackmail under the guise of the law?

Perhaps it is time that the government stops pandering to such forces, which seek to kill, terrorise, ruin the very workers they claim to support...

Perhaps it is time the government finally heard the voices of business and world economists and change the laws relating to labour: to make it easier to rely on contracts with workers, to hire and fire... globally such freedom has caused other nations to spew out employment for the masses. Perhaps it is time government started treating South Africans as an asset to corporations rather than as a burden that companies must bare. Perhaps then foreign investment would not be so terrified as to avoid so much as touching South African deployment of funding.

Justin Bieber supports KKK in video obtained by The Sun.

One Less Lonely Girl... has had a remix, by its creator Justin Bieber, in which he changes the lyrics to 'One Less Lonely N@$$!#', and in which video he also suggests he would like to join the Ku Klux Klan, a white supremacist group.

The Canadian born singer is often labelled a punk, and is thought to often emulate the gangster culture often associated with so-called 'African American' rap music artists in his adoptive nation, the United States.

The ungrateful brat's mentor is a black man, and his former girlfriend is of mixed white and Latin American race. Justin Bieber has also been involved in alleged reckless driving, drinking, drug use, and multiple assaults on people in his proximity.

The punk singer just recently apologised for another racist video in which he used the same word and where he graphically fantasized about a black person running for their life away from a chain saw, something he found hilarious. His black fans and friends have come out strongly in support of Justin Bieber, perhaps showing just how little the Civil Rights Movement has come to mean to many in his adopted country, The United States. A cookery show host was recently dismissed for using a similar word decades ago, it is unlikely anything whatsoever will happen to Justin Bieber, who seems quite impervious to the rules governing ordinary men.

Source: The Sun 'Watch Bieber’s sick Ku Klux Klan N-word vid ' by RICHARD WHITE, Chief Showbiz Reporter at 12:47PM BST 05 Jun 2014

Why I myself would really and truly not want to work at Google at any future point.

Maybe it is because I am African, but to me when I burn the midnight oil... when I work, that is what I want to be doing. I would rather have that money spent on my future, my career development, or tools to better assist me to do my job.

I love to read business articles on the LinkedIn network. I really enjoy to read about all the sort of things executives do to improve how their business works and to advance their own career. What I find strange is the obsession certain groups of people have with Google, as though they were some kind of perfect employer, rather than one with a few gimmicks that distract from the sort of benefits an individual might better enjoy in the long run.

I certainly would not want to work at Google, and not simply because I am in law and journalism. My reason is simple enough: all of these 'great things' Google employees get to access are in their very essence like a politician's promise.

Free food? I would rather make more money. I could then eat better gourmet food elsewhere.

Sleep at work? No thanks, I would rather take a nap at home.

If you truly desire to use money on resources to aim at my motivation: You can put that extra bit on my pay cheque thank you, or better yet on the time it takes to give extensive feedback on my performance review. That way I can do my job even better and grow as a human person.

Such an approach of respecting employees as adults truly improves their actual position in the world. Bean bags at a work place do not.

We could even spend it on better technology and training to make me even better at my job.

Maybe it is because I am African, but to me when I burn the midnight oil... when I work, that is what I want to be doing. I would rather have that money spent on my future, my career development, or tools to better assist me to do my job.

All of these sorts of ideas about playful perks at work, seem to confuse work and play. If I am at work I want to be at work. Sure... have a nice coffee machine, but I would rather be doing something important and gaining something important than be catered to as though I were in kindergarten.

Research discovers: The perfect way to hold a hamburger, and not spill a single drop of sauce!

The Japanese are picky eaters. They eat strange and exotic foods such as raw fish, with unheard of methods of cutlery utilization. They are also the source of four months of research into how to eat the ultimate American food: The Hamburger, without resorting to American television's table manners.

Firstly take a look at your burger. What I usually do prior cutting it with knife and fork is push down on the bun to make it more like a sandwich. The Japanese say nothing of it, but I do think it will help stabilise the meal a bit. I pushed down on my burger as always, but instead of cutting it and eating via cutlery, I attempted to follow the method that follows. I am pleased to say my attempt was met only with success.

Onto the Japanese recipe:

Put your pinkie and thumb of each hand, on both sides below the meat sandwich / meat in a bun. You will note that in doing so you have created a stable platform for the foodstuff to rest upon. To prevent an avalanche on the top part of the meal, place all three remaining fingers of each hand like a bear trap over the top of the burger. All sides have adequate pressure, and now you are good for the eating. Place the food in your mouth while maintaining your human bear trap. Bite down and continue to eat. You will be amazed to have not spilt at all (one hopes).

I attempted this great method today, and I am glad to state that not a drop of sauce left the burger once I had it in this clasp. A horrible meal to eat, harking back to the days when mankind ate raw meat, has thus been converted into a civilised meal... thanks to research by people who eat raw meat.

You might thank me later. Try this method. It really does create great joy.

Thursday 17 April 2014

Ukrainian protesters armed with Molotov cocktails gunned down by soldiers in Ukraine's South East.

Both sides agree that at least 3 people have lost their lives. Both agree that all of these victims of the unrest, were pro-Russian in their outlook.

The Ukrainian government calls these people attackers, claiming they attempted to storm a military base. The pro-Russian citizen journalists however say that the crowd had merely approached the base and asked the soldiers to defect, rallying towards the base without firearms, but with words, and ordinary protest behaviour in hopes of convincing the soldiers to abandon their posts. This type of peaceful approaching of bases makes sense, as many soldiers stationed in the South and East are from those areas under government rules, and are likely sympathetic or empathetic to protest demands. Some Western Reports put the crowd at 300, and reports have about 5 dozen arrests, none of which match a dialogue of a separatist attack.

Russia's RT news service says that local media report that some of the pro-Russian crowd had been armed with Molotov cocktails, the same sort of weapon that the current leaders in Kiev got into power through.

13 people were also Injured, according to Kiev's Interior Ministry. It would appear they mean to say all 13 are pro-Russian activists. While uncertain that as many as 13 people were injured, the pro-Russian citizen journalists have also claimed that the injuries that happened were on the pro-Russian side.

Putting this together, if the Pro-Russians had stormed the base in an attack, surely some Ukrainian soldiers would have been hurt, especially if as the Ukrainian new leaders would have us think: the Pro-Russians were Russian special forces, among the best in the world. Instead, what both sides seem to agree about is that the Pro-Russians did approach the base, and only pro-Russians were killed and injured.

This story is similar to one Yesterday, where the Ukrainian New Leaders' Defence Ministry claimed that 6 Armoured Personnel Carriers or APCs had been captured, seized by force by the Pro-Russians, who they were sent to quell as 'terrorists', for doing just as the Maiden Protesters had in Kiev and taking over government buildings. The pro-Russian citizen journalists in comparison have claimed the soldiers manning the APCs, had laid down their weapons, handing their vehicles peacefully over to protesters. Reports later that day have women and children being photographed around the vehicles. It seems highly unlikely that the Pro-Russians could have surprised and forced out 6 APC units without any casualties or reports of a fire fight, if this were a capturing by force.

Also, the Pro-Russians in the East and South East hardly said much of a word that anyone might have noticed before the Maiden riots in Kiev ousted the democratically elected President of Ukraine, and saw him put on the new leader's wanted list as a criminal. Likewise, protesters in the east are called 'terrorists', and the West seems to support use of force against them: a far cry from its position in almost every other recent conflict. Is it not possible, as Christian Science Monitor found, that there is very little support for Separatism among the people in the East and South East, and even among the Pro-Russians. Is it not possible, that this is merely what they see as the safest way to protest against an unelected government, which has attempted to ban the language all business is done in: Russian (The new leaders' President vetoed a bill that the new leaders' parliament voted for: banning Russian). Is it not possible that these pro-Russian ethnic and national Ukrainians, are merely worried about the events in Kiev, and are thus ordinary voices of dissent, voices which are being silenced by force of death?

Thursday 27 March 2014

At least ten tigers killed, dismembered, for entertainment at private parties for Chinese rich, officials.

Nouvel Observateur reports the sad news. The news of yet another massacre.

A video has emerged, of a prisoner in a cramped cage, undergoing electroshock, and then being butchered. This tiger in the clandestine photography, is far from unique.

It is as though the world has jumped back to the age when the Roman emperor lit Christians on fire to light up his parties for the rich and famous. Chinese officials and the rich attend private events, to watch tigers massacred, mutilated, and then to buy the bodily remains such as bones, making sure the tiger was alive before they saw the medicine beast killed for their pleasure.

It is part entertainment, part a way to show off status and monetary position. The tigers are abused and killed, and the rich whether for superstition or for a show of grandeur, attend, and then are sure to buy the animal fetishes as medicine, though China Daily says in simplified Han Chinese, that the inspection itself is akin to a procedural formality for smugglers, the fetishes were already assigned to buyers well in advance.

The butchery parties are set up at plantations, in the woods or even in houses, China Daily reports in Chinese.

The combination of entertainment and superstition, particularly were hard hitting for French journalists. The slaughter of the animals alone was hardly the end of it.

'At least a dozen tigers were killed in a southern city of China, at private parties bringing together local officials and wealthy businessmen, the Chinese press reported, at the end of March.

'The beasts were then skinned and their fur, meat and their bones sold at exorbitant prices, specifies the newspaper "Nanfang", controlled by the Communist Party of Guangdong Province

'According to the newspaper, the beasts were killed in front of a public official and community leaders, proud to display their wealth.

'"The tigers were probably anesthetized during transport. But buyers ensured they were alive before their being put to death," said an anonymous source quoted by the newspaper.

'Despite official bans, there is a persistent demand in China for tiger products (bones, claws, whiskers, penis ..) [...]

'This fuels the poaching of this feline that has always been associated with high status in Chinese history and mythology.'

(Le Nouvel Observateur | 'CHINE. Des tigres tués et dépecés en guise de divertissement' at 27-03-2014 16h05 by staff and AFP)

The Nangfan communist paper continues the story:

'One of the suspects jumped from a building to his death while trying to flee. The police retrieved a number of weapons used to capture the tigers, tiger goods to be sold on the black market, and the tiger’s carcass, Yangcheng Daily reports on Tuesday.

'According to Zhanjiang Police, the 15 suspects are mainly from Baisha County, Leizhou; while the 16th suspect, who jumped to his death was from Shentang County. In total, 10 tigers were killed.

'In recent years, tiger meat and tiger baijiu have become quite popular in Leizhou, and can fetch a hefty price. Although unconfirmed, it is suspected that the tigers were smuggled into China from Vietnam. Typically, smugglers find buyers for the meat or bones before they smuggle the tigers from Vietnam. Occasionally, they make the trip to Vietnam and then quickly flee after the sale is complete. Tigers are slaughtered in a variety of places to avoid being caught by the police: in the woods, banana fields, or houses.'

(The Nangfan | 'POLICE BUST TIGER SMUGGLING RING IN WESTERN GUANGDONG' at 03/20/2014 1:00 pm by staff)

See also: SACNS version of this same article: At least ten tigers killed, dismembered, for entertainment at private parties for Chinese rich, officials.

Saturday 15 March 2014

Oscar Pistorius will not be acquitted, that isn't his team's strategy anyway.

Oscar Pistorius shot at a door either knowing or having the duty to know that someone might be hit and killed by his bullets. Whether it is a robber or Reeva behind the door is irrelevant: the Error in Objecto rule, where someone intends to murder A, but accidentally murders B, still results in a murder conviction. Furthermore, aberratio ictus or missing blow theory cannot negate guilt if the wrong target is hit with intention to murder another target: but this sister of Error in Objecto, would not apply here, as it is not a case of the wrong target being hit due to bad aim. Likewise, private defence, what Americans call 'self defense', in South African law rests not on perceptions of danger but on objectively viewed imminent danger to the person's self. Whatever Oscar thought: Reeva was no threat to him, it thus cannot be said to be private defence. Such is the view of long established and long enforced case law. The law can change, but that is what the law is as it stands.

Before we get onto the other factors, we must remember that in South African law: if you can foresee that it is a real possibility that something (an unlawful death) will result from an action, and nonetheless/recklessly proceed with behaviour risking that possibility (dolus eventualis), it is murder not culpable homicide. If the facts show you did not foresee that possibility but a reasonable person would have, then your actions are culpable homicide. A further aspect lies in that those heart strung jury arguments in the west do not stop a murder charge: they emerge in mitigation, even complete mitigation of all jail. It is not in dispute that Oscar shot and killed Reeva Steenkamp. It is not disputed that she was no objective threat to Oscar Pistorius. The only way he could be completely acquitted is based on temporary insanity in the form of 'provocation'.

So what are Oscar's team aiming at?

Either culpable homicide (what Americans call manslaughter), and maybe a year or three in jail if he is lucky.

Or Putative Private Defence (my bet would be on this).

Or provocation (from the French word for cause).

Culpable homicide:

- The law requires a warning shot prior shooting.
- A reasonable person would not have shot through a door without checking if it was Reeva.
- Shorter sentence, not murder but a competent verdict of murder.

Putative Private Defence:

- An established part of our law: applicable when a person believes they are acting in private defence but are not.
- This goes both for proportion of response and for factors which appeared true to the accused, but were objectively false.
- The accused is convicted of murder, but gets mitigated sentencing and possibly even no jail time.

- One must give medical evidence that whatever caused the actions was based on uncontrollable sane automation. This is to be done via medical evidence: since the Eadie case we use medical evidence to prove temporary insanity. A neuropsychologist might be the appropriate expert witness.
- Classic Provocation is no longer a part of our law since the Eadie murder conviction, as the Supreme Court of Appeal set forth at that time:

'[57] I agree with Ronald Louw that there is no distinction between sane automatism and non-pathological incapacity due to emotional stress and provocation. Decisions of this Court make that clear. I am, however, not persuaded that the second leg of the test expounded in Laubscher’s case should fall away. It appears logical that when it has been shown that an accused has the ability to appreciate the difference between right and wrong, in order to escape liability, he would have to successfully raise involuntariness as a defence. However, the result is the same if an accused's verified defence is that his psyche had disintegrated to such an extent that he was unable to exercise control over his movements and that he acted as an automaton - his acts would then have been unconscious and involuntary. In the present contest, the two are flip sides of the same coin. The judgments of this Court referred to earlier, as the highlighted parts of relevant dicta show, see it as such.

'[59] Whilst it may be difficult to visualise a situation where one retains the ability to distinguish between right and wrong yet lose the ability to control one’s actions it appears notionally possible.

'[60] The view espoused by Snyman and others, and reflected in some of the decisions of our courts, that the defence of non-pathological criminal incapacity is distinct from a defence of automatism, followed by an explanation that the former defence is based on a loss of control, due to an inability to restrain oneself, or an inability to resist temptation, or an inability to resist one’s emotions, does violence to the fundamentals of any self-respecting system of law. This approach suggests that someone who gives in to temptation may be excused from criminal liability, because he may have been so overcome by the temptation that he lost self-control - a variation on the theme: “the devil made me do it”. It is for this reason that it was suggested earlier that the use by Joubert JA in Laubscher's case, supra, of the word "weerstandskrag" was unfortunate. So too was the use of the word "drang" in Campher's case at 956 B, referred to in paragraph [32] of this judgment. These words suggest a resistance to urges or temptation. No self-respecting system of law can excuse persons from criminal liability on the basis that they succumbed to temptation. Against the fundamental principles restated by JM Burchell (quoted in paragraph [58] of this judgment) it is with respect, absurd to postulate that succumbing to temptation may excuse one from criminal liability. One has free choice to succumb to or resist temptation. If one succumbs one must face the responsibility for the consequences.

'[61] The time has come to face up to the fact that in some instances our courts, in dealing with accused persons with whom they have sympathy, either because of the circumstances in which an offence has been committed, or because the deceased or victim of a violent attack was a particularly vile human being, have resorted to reasoning that is not consistent with the approach of the decisions of this Court. Mitigating factors should rightly be taken into account during sentencing. When an accused acts in an aggressive goal-directed and focused manner, spurred on by anger or some other emotion, whilst still able to appreciate the difference between right and wrong and while still able to direct and control his actions, it stretches credulity when he then claims, after assaulting or killing someone, that at some stage during the directed and planned manouevre he lost his ability to control his actions. Reduced to its essence it amounts to this: the accused is claiming that his uncontrolled act just happens to coincide with the demise of the person who prior to that act was the object of his anger, jealousy or hatred. As demonstrated courts have accepted such version of events from accused persons.'

(S v Eadie (196/2001) [2002] ZASCA 24 (27 March 2002))

So, if Oscar's team can prove temporary insanity due to extreme fear: then he is in that scenario, acquitted and off the hook: for the murder itself: the problem is proving medical sane automation/ temporary insantiy. However that is not his likely intent. His likely intent is mitigation. Or change of law.

This article does not constitute legal advice. For legal advice, approach a competent legal practitioner with knowledge of your facts.

Friday 14 February 2014

British/Canadian International incident: the complexities of the Canadian tranny PRISONER'S DILEMMA.


A British gentleman by the name of Mr Avery Edison, was caught entering Canada illegally at Pearson International Airport. He had had an expired student visa listing him as male, which had previously allowed him to be within Canadian borders. His girlfriend of two years, was awaiting his visit, according to the Toronto Star. Avery is set for deportation, and will not be allowed to see his girlfriend, according to authorities and his lawyer. LifeSiteNews, however has a very extensive rendering of the events up to this point.

Avery Edison tweeted his girlfriend and common law partner, Canadian, Miss Romy Sugden, however that there was some confusion about his gender. He had taken to wearing a dress since his last visit to Canada, and his British passport had been ammended to list him as female, although he still had male parts and a girlfriend. Maplehurst Correctional Complex, is where he was being sent, a men's correctional facility.

Avery Edison, was then to be examined by a nurse to determine his gender.

As Avery Edison still had a penis, they determined he was male, his girlfriend Romy Sugden stated to media. In accordance with Ontario law and the Ontario Human Rights Commission policy document, Avery Edison would be referred to as a male until such time as he has cosmetic surgery altering his private parts to a female appearance. The prison officials for some reason changed their path in this case, not going by birth gender as the policy is, but transferring Avery Edison to Vanier Centre for Women, while he was to await his immigration hearing. He was to be kept separate from the general prison population.

The transfer itself, from a male correctional facility, and the keeping of the prisoner separate both could be in the interests of preventing the public relations nightmare of Avery being harmed by other prisoners. Another aspect is that another man identifying as female, was placed in a women's correctional facility and in December was transferred after he engaged in sex with female prisoners, this other gender bar bending event occurring in Scotland in the United Kingdom.

Ontario's Human Rights Commission's chief official recently wrote to a local newspaper. The chief official was much aggrieved by a something a woman had written within the newspaper fold, in which the woman complained that a naked erect man was sexually harassing women in a woman's restroom at a public space, which restroom he remained in under the guise that he self identified as female. The human rights chief, was infuriated with the woman for objecting to the man's presence, and made known that the woman must be deeply prejudiced to write about the sexual harassment. The human rights chief took the side of the man in a hotly worded letter to the press. The woman who did not like being sexually harassed by a naked, erect man, was much maligned by the human rights chief, who gladly took the side of the man in the event.

Wednesday 12 February 2014

Police Official: Fairland and Northcliff: safest parts of Gauteng Province.

Police, speaking via a high ranking official, a Brigadier, from Johannesburg, confirmed to a community policing forum today, held for residents of Fairlands, Johannesburg, that the Fairlands policing district, and Northcliff, remain the safest areas of Gauteng Province. Police and counsellors answered extensive questions from community members on a variety of safety and security matters. Police, via a high ranking official confirmed that hundreds of police officers yearly are caught by the applicable branch for corruption, and stated that the South African Police Service currently have about 200 000 members. Police also confirmed that there is no gang activity in Fairlands whatsoever. A SACNS journalist was present during the meeting between police and the community.

Saturday 8 February 2014

Western Journalist writes appreciation for 'wonderful', 'marvellous' 'SOTH African' alcohol advert...

ABOVE: a retro Bells Advert: not the one being raved about by the American journalist, which is included as a video below the story and screenshot.

Patrick Archbold is an established blogger and a journalist for the National Catholic Register, an American publication. His blog Creative Minority Report for years defined the word 'pithy' for readers... in case he thought to use it. He is known for his moral arguments, his political beliefs and his humour. Unfortunately... Yesterday some of his humour was a tad accidental, as he misspelt 'South Africa' in showing appreciation for an advertisement for Bells Scottish Whisky. The blog he got to know of the advertisement from noted it created meaning in a manner 'respecting' the soon to be alcoholic audience... unlike American Superbowl commercial advertisements...

One assumes this bids well for South African advertising agents... none the less, our country still seems a tad hard to spell after watching such an advert.

Notice the blog title like that on Twitter... spells the Republic of South Africa as 'Soth Africa'.

True to form and established humour, Patrick took our criticism with a shot of good humour, and informed us the article had been corrected. Fortunately, he only jokingly 'condemned' us to 'purgatory' for pointing out he misspelt the name of our beloved country after his appreciating an advert for Bells Scottish Whiskey.

Someone should give the man a bells;)!~ I assume that sentence makes all the difference... to the good advert starved American football audience.

To See the now corrected post by good humoured Mr Patrick Archbold (who really is quite a fun lad to read)...

P.s. The South African government is looking to ban advertisements such as the ones shown above, they believe such portrayals of alcohol promote alcoholism and must, like the now banned cigarette advertisements: disappear like the memories of a life drinking whiskey.

Wednesday 5 February 2014

Putin seeks endangered Persian Leopard...

Russian President Vladimir Putin, may be known for his photo shoots with every sort of manly scenario, but when a Persian Leopard needed a cuddle, he was more than accommodating. The Russian President visited Sochi National Park amid the Olympics, auspiciously to promote awareness of the endangered Persian Leopard population.

The Russian Presidency were sure to post a picture on Twitter, as were Russia Today (who's photograph our own editor, Marc Aupiais linked to on his Twitter [seen above]).

Article Written By Marc Aupiais for SACNS, and Adapted for Aupiais Wire by Marc Aupiais for SACNS.

French Media accuse man of animal abuse against a 'car'; 17 mag calls Selena Gomez a whore...

A caged animal must run? A caged car is a car that doesn't go fast enough? French radio station Radio France International say in their Twitter card preview that a man locked a motorvehicle into a cage and threw chemicals at it and thus has been convicted of animal abuse. They meant he did so to a poor little cat, but unfortunately that isn't what a reasonable read of what they wrote relays.

Selena Gomez is having a bad week, with all the accusations being made by Radar online alleged anonymous sources. To make things worse 17 Magazine gave Selena the cover, and in their Twitter preview called her a whore... and Selena Gomez linked to the article.

UK Telegraph caught red handed using false images in attempt to discredit Sochi olympics in Russia...

Above: Actual image by a Canadian journalist: our investigation showed this to be an original photo, unlike the hoaxes put forward by the UK Daily Telegraph and other media below.

Certainly some stories of Sochi may be true, but many are hoaxes or cruel sattire seemingly purposely put forward as though fact by biased Western journalists

Maybe accusations of painting grass green, and menu mistranslations are true, and maybe the Western bias is working at full speed ahead...

Here are some questionable items by journalists shown as though fact by the UK Telegraph, who wrote an article on journalists criticising Sochi:

These falsehoods we debunk appeared reported as though factual and authentic in a British newspaper: 'Shambles behind the scenes at Sochi' By Roland Oliphant, 'in Sochi' and Josie Ensor for the UK Telegraph at 10:43AM GMT 05 Feb 2014

Read more at SACNS

Saturday 1 February 2014

'Pro-Lifer' Steven Ertelt, an online spammer, unethical, and an internet troll!

Article continues below audio summary:

"Babies are dying and you're upset over a few tweets." - a more polite part from Steven Ertelt's wordy response to this article, our exclusive expose, which you can read below.

One account which continuously follows and unfollows my Twitter, and insistently tweets defamation about his competitors in 'pro-lifing' is Steven Ertelt.

Notice any commonalities (p.s. the tweet below to SACNS is quite upsetting and tweeted to many, the one later and above, shows he doesn't even know who he is haranguing when he does this)

His favourite enemy is reliable news service LifeSiteNews. Tweet an article from them, and he is sure to sweep upon you like a seagull upon the pope's peace doves.

His most recent trolling: the death of a pregnant woman:

After we made note of Steven trolling, he deleted the I don't know who you are Tweet to our editor.

To answer the question likely burning, yes, I know Steve considers his website to be just that, and not a blog: but trolling is quite a blogger behaviour, not something I expect from a news editor. After I noted who I am, he none the less chose not to continue his trolling this time, and decided not to dispute the nature of his activities or his website. Instead, he determined to troll someone else...

Despite us blocking his account, Steve replied when he saw our article:

To our knowledge we only wrote this article, I love his use of the word blog which we used above also, read on, to find out about 'blog posts', seemingly in plural, and more yet more, of Steve's response.

Steve then mentions a state employee taking a position on the nationally noted case, as his reason for tweeting many people about his objection to LifeSiteNews. The Attorney General, he argues is vindicated because a state employee made a stance, and thus so is his mass tweeting of anyone who tweets an article by his competitor LSN.

Definitely the case?:

Despite Steve quite a number of times now Tweeting me when I share their articles, and LifeSiteNews Canadian editor lamenting to me that Steve consistently did so:

This Article by Marc Aupiais for the SACNS News Service, originally appeared on 27 January 2013 on the SACNS, and is republished with permission.

Reply to us!

Follow marcaupiais on Twitter