Calm your horses, before they trample you!

I wanted to run. I wanted to get up and rush to the exit, maybe I'd get away, perhaps if I sneaked. They said boredom never killed anyone, but I didn't want to take any chances. I am sure school assemblies were similar for you. Fortunately, neither of us raised our backsides from the chair and fled those monotonous voices... Not in high school anyway... in Grade 2 I had decided enough was enough, and landed in trouble. As adults, we know the importance of self control. Children don't quite yet have the potency of will.

In the adult world, though, the same sort of urgency is still common enough. It is just generally better justified, latent, or expertly hidden. People get this sense of urgency, urgency becomes desperation, and keeps its annuals in stress. Whenever I have done something I whole heartedly regret, that urgency egged me on. I am told I am calm in most emergencies... I certainly didn't used to be. I thought self control would be a useful skill to master. I didn't realise quite how difficult it would be until I realised that I had never been guilty of a faux pas without that nagging sense of urgency. Patience is not merely a virtue, it is the power by which self control has a foothold in our lives.

When you want to do something you shouldn't: to eat that creamy chocolate cake that calls your name during a diet, to respond to an insult when you just know it would cause a fight... to say things you really shouldn't say... have you ever done anything you regret that was not accompanied by an unusually potent sense of urgency?

There are times for urgency... it might be wise to run if you are late for an important exam. It can be pretty urgent to get out of the path of an elephant or of an out of control truck. Urgency has a place, but generally its place is limited. When I am about to make a mistake, I might not realise that I am being foolish at first. What is always obvious to me is that sense of urgency. I just have to do it... I must... When my thoughts become urgent, I take a slow deep breath and ask myself if there is any real reason to be urgent... usually there isn't, and once calm, I see the fault in my thoughts.

Some of the more famous saints of the Catholic canon are famous for doing all sorts of exotic things to maintain their self control. Scary things, like jumping into a painful thorn adorned bush to undo their naughty lusts. I imagine they transferred the urgency they felt to do naughty things, upon an urgency to jump into a nest of thorns. No doubt that pretty lady who wanted them, noticed their passion, and regretted asking a monk to coffee or a date. The same desperation for company redirected, caused the painful jump, and with their desires cleansed, they limped away from their floral friend. Thomas Aquinas, who every lawyer learns about, was among such saints... when his family hired him a prostitute against his wishes, he directed his excess passion to chasing her out of his chambers with a fire poker... yes, that Aquinas, every lawyer learns about. And yet, in a non-medieval society, it is not socially acceptable to jump into someone else's perfectly pruned roses, or chase our fellow man with a fire poker... Deep breathing exercises and logic will have to suffice for the modern professional.

They say the wolf you feed is the one which grows. Over the years, a focus on calm and patience has truly reduced my levels of stress.

Even when urgency might be warranted, I find a calm has come over me... the less you stress, the less you are controlled by it. A few years ago I was halfway up a steep staircase, and saw what looked like paper on the step above me. I started to bend down to throw it away... next I knew, I was a few steps up, staring down at a snake... no paper had rested on the stairs. My voice sounded like that of a little girl's, but I stuck it out, just out of reach of the serpent, waiting for help without letting it out of my sight. If I had not learnt to fight urgency in my daily life, I might have run... and lost sight of my nemesis, the snake.

There is a place for urgency, but it is a very limited space.

Next time you feel just a bit too much stress, the child of urgency, ask whether the urgency is warranted... if it isn't, take a few deep breaths, calm yourself down, and passively continue with your day. I find that when I shelve undeserved urgency, I get far more done during any one spin of the earth around its axis.

Easy statements: how to damage your reputation overnight.

The annoying song blasts from the speakers. Advertisers purposely use annoying tunes, in hopes an earworm will play their song as you sleep. Computer generated cartoons prance about as Budget advertises their insurance product.

Buy the wrong insurance, and when something goes awry, you may be left in the deepest of dark holes. People I know, people you no doubt know, have experienced this. Insurance comes down to trust in a provider to be that safety net. I don't know much about Budget, I am sure I could look them up at the CIPC, the FSB, or the Who Owns Whom database, but their actual business is not what I am discussing here. I will note that the unfortunately ruined people I know were not insured with them, however, with the consequences of any doubt in the reputation of an insurer, their advertisement makes a terrible mistake, which harms their credibility in a field where trust is everything... they make an unnecessary absolute statement, which is easily verifiable as entirely wrong.

It swiftly reminds me of a Nedbank campaign where a well-spoken voice, seemingly of a white male, tells you, and newly wealthy black Nedbank client, Eugene, to be 'more savvy' with your money... The phrase 'more savvy' is far from unused, and does appear in a number of newspaper articles. A search of all major dictionaries via a specialist search engine, only sees the phrase appear in quotations on news media (3 results) in one specific online dictionary, namely Dictionary.com, and in Wikipedia entries. A search for use of this phrase in the Oxford Dictionary of English, however, turns up no results whatsoever, suggesting it is not proper English in regular usage. Oxford Dictionary of English would have us use the generally accepted word 'savvier'... in their advice on word use.

Clearly the advertisers thought they were being clever, and maybe they were: people I met suddenly began to speak of being 'more savvy'... rather than being 'savvier'. As for the Budget advert... the dreadful cacoffiny of the horrendous commercial always ends with the same phrase: 'nothing rhymes with premiums'. Absolutist statements are fine if they are verifiable and correct. Unfortunately, very many words rhyme with premiums. I will list some of them for you a bit later, below.

Either way, many would be loath to do any business with either Budget Insurance or Nedbank... brands in industries requiring extensive trust from their customers... for the simple fact that they made statements which in hindsight should have nothing to do with their ability to do their business.

The world is filled to the brims with armchair experts, and bush enthusiasts. Experts are usually loath to give an opinion on anything they have not researched. The law changes so quickly, that unless you carefully monitor it, or have a specific area of practise, utter caution is often much needed. I pay a lot of money every year for access to up to date information of various areas of law, as do many in my field. A mere ill thought tangent can permanently damage your brand, even if it is an ill-conceived statement which is entirely unrelated to your field... This mistake has been made by many an architect commenting too rashly on car design, or lawyer - on stock picks.

Personally, one of my favourite things to do is to research and authenticate information. When I speak, I have usually read up on what I am saying. Often, I have consulted the word of an expert or two. The process of finding out the truth gives me a bit of a rush, especially if the real answer is unexpected. I have gained access to many specialised search engines, tools, programs and databases, some I have made myself... just to satisfy my own curiosity. A proper fact check via sources not every Joe knows how to access, can be mightily fun to do.

It is, however, essential to do some basic research into what you are saying before you attach your integrity and your brand to an ill begotten mast.

Below are two advertisements from the respective campaigns, and explanations as to some of what is wrong with their presentations.

Nedbank "Savvy"


URL for the video of the offending Nedbank advertisement: https://youtu.be/A4BY8m5A0Vs



The Budget Insurance advert, and below it, words that rhyme with premiums:


URL for the video of the offending Budget Insurance advertisement: https://youtu.be/gEgk5GNxP1I


Take a quick gander at a list of 31 words, which in British (and South African) English, rhyme with premiums (from the phonetics program, PhoTransEdit). I imagine that advertisers couldn't complete their rhyme, and so decided to make up their absolutist claim:

premiumsː ˈpriːˌmɪəmz

compendiums /kəmˈpendɪəmz/
condominiums /ˌkɒndəˈmɪnɪəmz/
craniums /ˈkreɪnɪəmz/
crematoriums /ˌkreməˈtɔːrɪəmz/
delphiniums /delˈfɪnɪəmz/
emporiums /ɪmˈpɔːrɪəmz/
encomiums /ɪnˈkəʊmɪəmz/
euphoniums /juːˈfəʊnɪəmz/
geraniums /dʒəˈreɪnɪəmz/
grahams /ˈɡreɪəmz/
graham's /ˈɡreɪəmz/
gymnasiums /dʒɪmˈneɪzɪəmz/
harmoniums /hɑːˈməʊnɪəmz/
honorariums /ˌɒnəˈreərɪəmz/
hyams /ˈhaɪəmz/
idioms /ˈɪdɪəmz/
mediums /ˈmiːdɪəmz/
moratoriums /ˌmɒrəˈtɔːrɪəmz/
museums /mjuːˈzɪəmz/
pandemoniums /ˌpændɪˈməʊnɪəmz/
planetariums /ˌplænɪˈteərɪəmz/
podiums /ˈpəʊdɪəmz/
praesidiums /prɪˈsɪdɪəmz/
presidiums /prɪˈsɪdɪəmz/
prosceniums /prəˈsiːnɪəmz/
requiems /ˈrekwɪəmz/
sanatoriums /ˌsænəˈtɔːrɪəmz/
sealyhams /ˈsiːlɪəmz/
stadiums /ˈsteɪdɪəmz/
symposiums /sɪmˈpəʊzɪəmz/
trapeziums /trəˈpiːzɪəmz/

Oxford Dictionary is clear on the related forms of the word 'savvy', 'more savvy' is not among them:

RELATED FORMS:

savvy (noun)
savviness (noun)
savvinesses (plural noun)
savvy (verb)
savvies (third person present)
savvied (past tense)
savvied (past participle)
savvying (present participle)
savviness (verb)
savvinesses (third person present)
savvinessing (present participle)
savvinessed (past tense)
savvinessed (past participle)
savvy (adjective)
savvier (comparative adjective)
savviest (superlative adjective)
savviness (adjective)

Our moral compass defines our identity (to others) - science.

It seems obtuse at first. As it comes into focus, it still appears somewhat off. People are shown other people - walking. Those who walk at the same pace as the crowd are seen as smarter. The slower and faster walkers are looked down upon. If I told you this was the basis of all laws, regulations, and of government itself, you might look at me slightly strangely. After a while - much against your better judgement - you'd start to agree.

When people are asked to judge another's intelligence, they tend to look at Emotional Quotient (EQ), not Intelligence Quotient (IQ).

People walk at many different paces. No crowd walks as one body. People's behaviour within the crowd is... random. When, however - a crowd becomes one mind, as they do during specific incidents of rioting... or some protests, its members can become as synchronised as a primitive tribe. When a crowd is walking at one pace, a custom is created. EQ is heavily associated with an ability to abide by custom. High EQ is also associated with the ability to intentionally disobey customs. The person who wears a shirt with the word 'costume' on it to Halloween is perceived as smart. The one who steps too far off the mark, or unintentionally flouts custom, is a different story.

Morality and custom have a lot in common. People who act in a predictable way, by obeying customs, are less likely to unexpectedly harm us. The man who opens the car door for his woman, and regularly buys her flowers, is more likely to be perceived as marriageable. After all, he obeys customs gentlemen might.

There is such a swathe of pseudo-science out there, I thought that what I am about to tell you - might just be that. It isn't. It turns out that friends and relatives of neuro-degenerative patients, only tend to feel that they no longer know the mind-loss victim, when their morals decline or their speech becomes impaired.

Researchers firstly did something abstract: something along the lines of... is your friend still your buddy old pal if they suddenly turn into a jerk. Many people would say no.

One might well add real world examples to that: Is your husband still the person you knew if he murders your sister? Most women would say no. The neighbours saying a serial killer was quiet and kind, are asserting their reliance upon neighbourhood customs. How could a good neighbour be a serial killer? Yet, every so often... they are.

Because we define others in a way that facilitates our own survival, it seems our judgements of whom other people are - centre not on their intelligence, their memories or so much else - but rather upon their moral compass. It makes sense. If someone wouldn't murder, they wouldn't murder us.

To get to know someone, is to know what direction their hidden moral compass points - whether we recognise its clear components, and how close to your own true north it rests.


It is just one study I am referring to from this point of the article. It is perhaps one of a kind, a fluke - it is walking in a different direction from the centuries old philosophy crowd. However, it makes sense, and as such I think it worthy of discussion.

The abstract of the study, appearing in the journal, Psychological Science, states:

'There is a widespread notion, both within the sciences and among the general public, that mental deterioration can rob individuals of their identity. Yet there have been no systematic investigations of what types of cognitive damage lead people to appear to no longer be themselves. We measured perceived identity change in patients with three kinds of neurodegenerative disease: frontotemporal dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Structural equation models revealed that injury to the moral faculty plays the primary role in identity discontinuity. Other cognitive deficits, including amnesia, have no measurable impact on identity persistence. Accordingly, frontotemporal dementia has the greatest effect on perceived identity, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis has the least. We further demonstrated that perceived identity change fully mediates the impact of neurodegenerative disease on relationship deterioration between patient and caregiver. Our results mark a departure from theories that ground personal identity in memory, distinctiveness, dispositional emotion, or global mental function. ' ('Neurodegeneration and Identity' by Nina Strohminger of Yale School of Management, Yale University and Shaun Nichols of Department of Philosophy, University of Arizona, published August 12th 2015 c.f. http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/08/11/0956797615592381?papetoc )

Nathan Collins, writing for the Pacific Standard ('Identity Is Lost Without A Moral Compass', Quick Studies Series, 18th August 2015), puts it this way:

'In previous work, she and co-author Shaun Nichols found that moral traits, such as empathy or politeness, seemed to be the most important component of identity. But that research focused on hypothetical situations—if a friend became a jerk, would he or she still be the same person you knew before? The new study "is an expansion of that work that aims to see if this privileging of moral traits extends to a real-world example of radical mental change, neurodegeneration," Strohminger writes.

"Contrary to what generations of philosophers and psychologists have thought, memory loss doesn't make someone seem like a different person."

Strohminger and Nichols focused on three neurodegenerative diseases: frontotemporal dementia (FTD), Alzheimer's disease, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, better known as ALS or Lou Gehrig's disease. ALS served as a control since it primarily affects movement, and not memory or moral behavior. Alzheimer's, for its part, primarily affects memory, but also has some impact on moral behavior. Of the three, FTD is the one most likely to have a moral impact—its symptoms include a loss of empathy, poor judgment, and increasingly inappropriate behavior.

'Next, Strohminger and Nichols recruited 248 people from online support groups for friends and family of patients suffering from FTD, Alzheimer's, or ALS, and they asked questions like, "Do you feel like you still know who the patient is?" using five-point scales. Friends and family of ALS patients averaged about 4.1 points on that scale, but the number dropped to 3.8 for Alzheimer's and to 3.4 for FTD, suggesting that morality was at the core of how people conceived their loved ones' identities, perhaps even more than memory.

'Following up with a more detailed analysis, Strohminger and Nichols discovered that symptoms of declining morality were strongly associated with the perception that a patient's identity had changed, while failing memory, depression, and more traditional measures of personality appeared to have almost nothing to do with a person's identity. The only other symptom that had any discernible impact on identity was aphasia, a language impairment' (c.f. http://www.psmag.com/health-and-behavior/identity-is-lost-without-a-moral-compass )

Women rape men... often - crime statistics. #Sociology #Demographics

Reading certain newspaper articles leaves a surreal taste. Perhaps it shouldn't. Inevitably though, it tends to. New statistics suggest that we shouldn't be quite so surprised when women rape men.

Perhaps it is that manly world view, which struggles to accept statistics from America of all places: where 38% of reported sexual violence incidents recorded in their government's National Crime Victimization Survey- were against men. Just maybe, it is a result of our men-are-tough mentality, that we ignore that 46% of sexual crimes against men in that placid western nation, were performed by women.

Some examples of alleged rape by women - appearing in South African media, might include:

Terrified men are reported as claiming gangs of rough and ready women performed unwanted sex acts upon them, before fleeing in getaway cars.

Strange tales of men being stalked late at night and forced to perform at knife point - by otherworldly not-quite-femme-fatales . The men find themselves ridiculed in comment boxes and on radio shows.

Rapes of men by women - also take place in social contexts, and in schools, colleges and in the home, the Pacific Standard is quick to assert. Use of alcohol or drugs by women to rape men, is even common enough to have historical references. Lot was famously raped by his daughters in a cave, if we are to accept the biblical record of his tragic life.

These sometimes almost sensationalist tales are the sort that make for headlines by the media, however - statutory rape of men, performed by older women is also a matter that evokes perhaps misplaced disbelief. Sober sources state that even if a relationship seems fine at first, long term damage can be done upon the underage gent. Abandonment issues emerge when the lax lass inevitably breaks the arrangement to shreds.

As legal practitioners and members of the public, sometimes we need to be reminded that rape is not a crime with only female victims. Men may not quite so often come out and say it, but they do report being raped often enough to the police to cause just a bit of concern.

As girls, women are as violent as men are. Society rather than genetics is responsible for reduced physical violence among women. Passive aggressive behaviour such as false compliments, and rumour mongering often replace aggression among women in socially sensitive scenarios. This is why men far outnumber women in jails. However, a statistically relevant portion of sexual crimes continue to be committed by women.

This article was inspired in particular by an article in an American sociological magazine, the Pacific Standard. That specific piece of journalism opens with the bizarre headline 'Young Men and the Unspoken Danger of College Campuses', and was written on the 10th of August 2015 by a David L. Bell.

http://www.psmag.com/health-and-behavior/young-men-and-the-unspoken-danger-of-college-campuses

Holster that pen... you scoundrel.

Write as you speak? It's what they said. They quoted so much garbled text, your mind quickly acquiesced. You knew no better. You obeyed.

Use short sentences, they uttered. Long sentences are a no-no, they said. And speak so a two year old can comprehend your dribble, they slyly added, as you fell in step. You looked at their many acolytes on Twitter, internet jet-set, and you dared not use that excellent word you'd saved to spread.

90% of communication, it is posited, is non-verbal. That is, it is not said. If you actually write as you speak, no one will understand a word that your heart's depths truly said. You can use emoticons all you want in a lover's text. Professional writing, however, should carry its own mood, and through nuance, and word choice, subtly show your truth.

Perhaps an example would convince you instead?

"The hunter and his acolyte crouched in ambush. Before them, the corpse-to-be, a young woman, casually walked. She floated joyously upon the road, as she softly strolled home in a yellow and black polka-dot dress. There'd be red polka-dots, below her throat, and upon her chest. A fashion crime she'd die with, the hunter and his acolyte both later said. Her shadow stretched, fleeing her form, as she walked naively to her killers, who meted out her death."

Or shall I write that as some-of-you'd no doubt speak?

"This guy, so, like, he and his pal, they are like serial killers, dude, and like, like, they attacked a woman, and killed her by the woods. Eish man, Yslike. Life is too short, man. You know what I'm saying?"

To be honest, I don't. You have communicated just ten percent of it, if that, and without enough information, most people will not feel too overly moved.

The pen might be mightier than the sword, but not in the hands of those who'd typically resort to a bullet or a blade. Good writing is learnt, an art lies in great literary words. Upon the page, with black and white, you can pen a watercolour, or the iciest snows.

Yes, I have used more words than these online language gurus have, but the words created such an image in your mind that you could swear you were there. You felt close to the victim. You feared for her life, your heart as heavy with dread, though you were not that poor innocent she. You perhaps felt vomit creeping up your throat, and sensed it, as she lost eternal control of hers.

Short sentences? A staccato effect. They have a place.

Better, though, is to gauge each word you write. Consider the image it paints, how words can cause an emotional and intellectual effect. Big words like acolyte, or thunderbolt, can be dynamite upon the page, if the context is correct. The studies where people thought users of big words were stupid had a nuance to them. The larger words were used where smaller words were good for the running. They added nothing to the sentences, no rhyme, no rhythm, no empty things hidden.

Short sentences, used for suspense, are good. Overuse, has another effect. Our working memories are only so big. That is why shorter sentences, and simpler words, these days, are so big. Reference, and another big word, allusion, however, turn a single word into an entire library of books. They, and the odd adjective, not only convey emotion, they make you feel it just the same. The mightiest pen convinces, as a killer's blood-soaked-murderous-blade never could. The difference between an amateur and a writer lies in how they choose to write. Sentences come naturally to a writer, through the shear volume of their extensive written work. Practice sometimes perfects, it can be said.

The next time you write a text, tweet, or something indiscreet, try to write without emoticons or slang. Attempt a game where you never use the same word twice. Paint a picture with your use of phrase. With practice, and a handy pocket dictionary, your future writing might cause some surprise, hopefully of the best kind... prayerfully that, and not something utmost worse - a study in wrong use of words, those sacred, sometimes ill-gotten, things.

I, artificial-intelligence-lawyer

Panic is ensuing. Lawyers are scared. Aren't they always? The same fears the Luddites had during the Industrial Revolution are sweeping many more industries than ours. In one sense, the Luddite mill workers were not incorrect: many lost their jobs, wages did not improve for them, and rich landowners benefited while workers did not. A hundred years later, wages had increased, and the improved efficiency of machines had created jobs no one could imagine existing. The job market grew because of machines, eventually.

Most large commercial aircraft could fly themselves. In fact, most of the time they do. In the age of Twitter, news media very seldom break a story. However, the news has not disappeared, at least not yet. Social media users fall prey to a hundred thousand different scams. The knowledge and skills of the journalist, in providing an authentic and verifiable voice, are indispensable in a world of disinformation.

Do-it-yourself (D.I.Y.) legal contracts had been available for years from Horters. Sage Pascal has now entered the same business, with their LegalWrite software platform, offering over one hundred contracts to laymen seeking to avoid a visit to the office of an average lawyer. I went through every one of these contracts in preparation for one of my board exams. As I read through them, I could think of a hundred scenarios where something could go wrong if a lawyer did not in the very least bit read through the final contract with the knowledge of the person's circumstances.

Many lawyers fear that clever AI (that is, artificial intelligence) will replace them as legal advisors, contract drafters, researchers, and as the writers of wills. And yet, for the same reason that large commercial aircraft companies still insist on pilots in their planes, and that news media still exist despite Twitter, artificial intelligence will not take the jobs of lawyers.

Laymen have drafted their own contracts for many years. Much of litigation is thanks to this practice. A nonlegal mind is often unable to adapt a contract to their inevitably very specific circumstances. Even if an artificial intelligence, or pro forma contract could be adapted to every circumstance, people would still require lawyers for the same reason that they require pilots. My suggestion is that artificial intelligence will not take our jobs as lawyers, but that it might automate some of our processes, speeding up our ability to do our jobs. People go to lawyers, because they want to be absolutely certain that their interests, embedded in their contracts, will stand the test of time. Even if machines land up drafting our contracts, legal eyes will still need to read over the contract, and edit it where necessary.

What once took a lawyer six hours, might, within coming decades, take a lawyer six minutes, with the help of a deep learning machine to draft the actual contract. However, the same product would be bought from the lawyer, namely an ability to properly interpret the law, foresee pitfalls, and ensure the quality of the contract, the requested will, or of a memo giving legal advice.

Just as the Internet adage goes, that a product which takes a person fifteen minutes to create, and cost an absolute fortune, is worth a fortune. What is being paid for, is not the fifteen minutes it took to create the product, but the many years of study, skill, and experience required to make the product in fifteen minutes.

What is likely to happen, is that, over time, legal services, with the help of deep learning machines, will reduce radically in cost. This is what happened with the Industrial Revolution, in relation to blue-collar jobs that did not require much thinking. What also happened, is that demand for the products of the machines increased. Every person wanted to own a cotton shirt, several if possible. If anything, the deep learning machine revolution, will allow legal services to be more swiftly and easily provided by expert lawyers. With less effort required by the lawyers providing the services, fees will likely go down. With fees going down, more people will be able to afford legal services, more of the time.

Economics being as they are, the advent of personal computers, meant to reduce the effort and work human beings have to put in, in doing so, increased their workload. If anything, with the aid of deep learning, artificially intelligent machines, lawyers will have more work than they ever have. The deep learning machine industry, furthermore, will impact all other areas of the economy, where human intelligence is currently required. If your architect does not have to draw the plans, but merely go over them to make sure that they are safe and accurate and compliant, more people will be able to employ architects. Intellectual services that once only were available for the elite, could suddenly become available for everyone. If anything, the future holds the potential of more jobs for lawyers, not less. It also holds the potential that what money these lawyers earn will get them further than ever before.

So fear not, my colleagues. The machines are not out to get you. Like a personal computer, and that brilliant invention known as email, they are merely here to increase your workload.

Smile if you want to be happy.

I am, alas, an unfortunate fan of sociological magazines, such as the much trumpeted: Pacific Standard.

Such high brow publications always talk about these obtuse studies, where people are asked to think or write about some distant past situation, in their short and no doubt meaningful earthly existence. The unwitting-subjects-of-these-experiments' subsequent decisions? They are compromised by these purposely engineered prior thought crimes, and sociological conclusions are quite rapidly drawn on everything from social exclusion, power and poverty to the effectiveness of game theory.


Think about a time when little old you were... gasp... socially excluded, and you, yes, you - with the crooked smile and the coffee stained teeth, are statistically likely to become... wait for it... more likeable.

Think about when you were weak, and you will gain empathy for those in a pinch.

People who think of others as their superiors - are better able to read their emotions. When told a picture is of an inferior, it becomes perplexingly difficult for the people - inevitably called 'subjects' - to read the emotions of the lads and lasses in those same pictures.

Think about yourself as smart, and you lose intelligence in subsequent test results, but think of your humble little muggins as trying hard, and always doing your best, and your results in tests somehow go up.


When, as a young boy, I moved to a new school... I moved from the government syllabus to the posh IEB, and along with it, to a school outsiders called... 'snobbish' - at the best of times. It was not a pleasant shift, needless to say.

One of the girls in my class once did a thoroughly boring prepared-speech on none other than 'happiness'.

She said that smiling itself caused the systems in the human body to magically release those special chemicals that cause happiness. I left that class with a fake smile, and faked happiness that day, until I was a happy lil' chap.

Life being as it is, I soon returned to blank expressions, and held to that for a few years, way back when... but c'est la vie, especially when moving to a different school.

Besides, I prefer to see my emotions as alarm bells, warnings of something that my subconscious mind has secretly picked up upon, and that poor old inobservant me just hasn't picked up yet... I would rather be genuinely sad, than peppy happy, any day of the week except Sunday. I do believe I am genuinely happy, but that does not mean a few thought crimes don't sometimes help me become better at what I need to achieve.


Actors will teach you something similar, they say that if you want to be successful, pretend you already are. Your posture changes how you view the world. It also changes how others view you in a given moment. The most annoying opponent is one who smiles when they lose a game. The absolute worst, is one who encourages you when you miss the ball, and insists on wishing you the best of luck.


Returning to those ridiculous, yet bizarrely effective, thought experiments that the inevitable sociology obsessives gravitate to...

Put a pencil in your mouth, so as to force yourself to smile. You will be less critical of what you are reading or being told at that moment... try doing so while reading this very article, and await that spinning wheel television shows portray as hypnosis. You will be an optimist, or more so, if you insist upon a breakneck speedy smile.

P.S. dear reader, you being less critical at such a critical moment, will not prevent your nearby colleagues from being critical of you, for your use of a pencil (hopefully your own): as what they might, for-some-unknown-reason, perceive as a chew toy.

Frown heavily now, and you will spot far more errors. I often enjoy a hardy frown, and a bit of bitter coffee... when it comes time to edit my tremendous or horrendous prose... it works wonders that a smile never could.


So, back to those lessons that unfortunate aspiring actors do get at sub-par-and-above schools of the arts...

By mimicking powerful or successful people, actors do something they don't even notice at first. Think of the first time a beautiful lass or two said she loved you (or, for the ladies, and those so oriented, the first time a lad did... mutatis mutandis, and all). Your posture will straighten. You will smile from ear to ear.

Just, as going to sleep at a certain time, will set and reset your biological clock, smiling from ear to ear, even without those champagne bubble memories, and standing up straight - along with that - will undoubtedly affect your internal confidence and happiness clocks.


The saying that you should treat everyone you meet as an old friend, in order to curry their favour (stop being so diabolical, dear reader) - also seems to ring true. What we think, and the way we behave, influences our mind and the behaviour of others.


So, if you are not feeling particularly confident, after you phoned up that first girl... or lad - who ever said s/he loved you - and s/he quite politely told you that s/he just isn't whatsoever interested in you anymore...

Pretend you are a puppet on a string, being held up by the top of your head, or that you are hanging on for dear life - by a wooden beam between your teeth.

Mind you, in the second example, don't put your teeth to the sky: have your face at exactly 90% from the ground... otherwise, it just looks a tad strange. In fact, so strange, that you might be socially excluded by your colleagues... priming you effectively for the coming example about social exclusion.


On that sour note, read on, to just another sociology topic...

When you next meet someone new, think of a time your were socially excluded from some portion of society - one that you so desperately wanted to be included with... statistics analysis suggests you will be more charming as a result.

Perhaps, you might be thinking to yourself - you should have done so before you called up that first lass/lad/etc who - once upon a blue moon - said she... or he... or s/he... loved you. Maybe you would have been just charming enough to reignite the inexplicable spark she... or he... once somehow - for no reason you can ever seem to comprehend - felt.


So, sit up straight in your chair, and pretend you love your day job as much as you love hearing other people say they love you. You might just become more focussed on your work, and you might just get that promotion you always wished you had. You might also not, but isn't it worth a try?

In the very least, you might find that you visit your physiotherapist or chiropractor just a pinch less, and are far happier now that you have that extra bit of cash to spend. Sitting up straight can, somehow or other, do wonders for your posture.

Medical council appeal posthumous death warrant!

A while ago, I wrote about a bizarre set of circumstances that led to a ruling which authorised what otherwise would be the murder of a supposedly dying cancer patient, a Robert Stransham-Ford. Capetonian advocate, Stransham-Ford, in a further turn of fate, was quite dead as the Pretoria based judge read out the verdict.

I referenced a case in the British commonwealth, where a court authorised the killing of a Siamese twin, to save the life of its equally young sibling, and where the court also sought to claim it was not creating a precedent. I thought the Pretoria Euthanasia ruling might not protect any doctor involved from actual prosecution, due to a concept known to lawyers as ripeness.

The court in the British case was the highest in the land, and it had the necessary constitutional authority to make the decision it had, to authorise a medical operation which would save one life and end another. In any case, the court specifically stated that it was not setting a precedent, and the death of the Siamese twin was never prosecuted.

The primary problem for me, with the current euthanasia ruling, lay in the court pre-judging a matter which was not yet ripe for trial, in that the killing had not yet taken place. I have little trouble with a court in a criminal matter developing our case law to allow euthanasia, after a killing has occurred, assuming it has enough authority to overturn the accepted practice of dealing with euthanasia in sentencing but still convicting of murder. This case however does not involve facts already at play, but facts which would not happen without the warrant to break with the current standing decisions of the South African courts, and to kill, issued by the court.

Any law student will be taught in Constitutional Law that the courts cannot be allowed to decide on matters that are as yet merely theoretical, and not yet arrived upon. My Constitutional law lecturer, was quite the activist type, he used to say that if you wanted a law changed, you should find someone prepared to break it, and defend them after the fact. The courts only have jurisdiction over matters which are already pressing, that is to say, over ripe matters. The judiciary furthermore, do not have jurisdiction over matters which are moot, that is, matters which their rulings will no longer affect.

The place of the courts, where there is established law, is reactive. It is not the place of the courts to judge matters which have not yet occurred. Were this not the case, I could at this moment ask the courts to decide the fate of the famed cannibals of the future: the Speluncean Explorers. They certainly can rule that certain laws are unconstitutional, but were the high court to do so, for instance, where a statute infringes on the constitution, it would need the endorsement of the Constitutional Court to back up its decision. Courts can also issue declarations on the law, or interdicts in accordance with it, but they cannot authorise its breaking ahead of time without invalidating the law for the rest of us. Even the law involving criminal informants who break minor laws, is heavily regulated by case law. In effect, the decision, by basing itself on facts as yet to occur, and contradicting set criminal law, was in danger of pre-empting a criminal law case, and one, what is more, likely in a different territorial jurisdiction.

One cannot imagine the nightmarish predicament the judge adjudicating a murder trial would find themselves in, had another judge already ruled in his matter before the facts had occurred. Imagine if the cancer patient had at the last minute backed out and told his doctor he did not want to die, and the doctor decided to go ahead with the euthanasia. This is a major variation of the facts, which would call into question the decision to authorise the killing, but were this or another variation to occur, it would hurt the perception of justice and make the job of the trial judge extremely difficult. Also, it would create a presumption that the cancer patient still wanted to die, even if he had decided contrary. Would the doctor now no longer need to prove that the man still desired death to the end? In Dignitas, a suicide clinic, the patients are asked if they still want death throughout their medically induced demise.

The practical problem with such a case as the present matter, would lie in a new authority created for the courts, to warrant the breaking of the law ahead of time, without bothering to set aside the law itself as unconstitutional... Not the Constitutional Court, but mere high court judges, and judges before whom the otherwise criminal act-to-be has not even occurred.
I argued at the time of the judgement, that any reliable precedent would only occur if there were a decision to prosecute the doctor who administered the suicide, and if a court in the jurisdiction of the murder were then to uphold the pre-emptive decision.
The decision in fact occurred and was given when the whole thing was already moot. As Hans Fabricius, the judge in the case read out the decision, after his spending much of the trial emphasizing his concern for the cancer patient's wellbeing - the cancer patient was already lying dead, allegedly of natural causes. Media state that Dignity SA, and the man's lawyers were unaware that he had passed away and did not purposely deceive the court of law.

In today's Stop Press, from LexisNexis Current Awareness, there is an update on this fascinating incident. It was already well established that the state would be appealing the unusual decision which sought to bar it from prosecuting what the standing precedent setting decisions of the courts consider to be a murder. Joining the state however, report The Times, is the Health Professions Council of South Africa, the body that regulates the medical profession. The HPCSA is quite upset with the part of the decision which would see the doctor not lose their medical licence for acting in what otherwise would be classed as unethical medical negligence and the intentional ending of the life of their patient.

'Robert Stransham-Ford, who won the right to die with a doctor’s help, was wrong when he said his terminal cancer had robbed him of his constitutional right to dignity.
This is according to the Health Professions Council of SA’s appeal against the landmark ruling that Stransham-Ford be allowed to commit doctor-assisted suicide.
Stransham-Ford, 65, argued that his slow death was undignified.
In appeal papers filed this week the council said: “The process of dying does not constitute an insult upon human dignity. Infirmity, incompetence, dementia and immobility, all of them of natural origins, limit human possibility. But sooner or later they are unavoidable, the products of inevitable bodily and or mental decay.”
An appeal has been lodged by the state and its papers, filed by the minister of health, minister of justice and the director of public prosecutions, assert: “Dying is part of life; its completion.”' (The Times | 'Medics, state line up to challenge euthanasia ruling' 27th May 2015)

Notably, Dignity SA is quoted as saying that they welcome the matter being appealed, and that rightly the Constitutional Court should be the court to decide the matter. Indeed, it would be, but for such a precedent setting case, why it wasn't approached as court a quo on an urgent basis is beyond me. As it is, we sit with a situation where a court of law states that it can authorise the breaking of standard law beforehand, and that each decision in such regard must be made based on its own merits. This is a scenario where two doctors both euthanise a patient, one with a court order and another without one, and where one goes to jail and the other does not. It is a strange scenario indeed. Perhaps it will become our standing law, but it is up to the Constitutional or other appeal court to decide that now.   Nothing in this article constitutes legal advice.

 
 

Pretoria Judge authorises “mercy killing" of Cape lawyer... doctors might still be prosecuted

The authorisation of the euthanasia of the cancer patient is not the end of it.

The life of a Siamese twin depended upon the killing of their sibling. In Great Britain, the courts were asked to authorise the slaying of the marked out sibling twin. The courts created something never attempted before, in authorising the killing. The judgement set out a judgement without precedent, a judgement that future cases could not reference as a binding authority. This is something the courts attempted, in an authorised, legal murder of a little child, to save the life of an equally little child.


The standing law in South Africa is that if you kill a person out of feelings of mercy to the victim, you are convicted of murder, but are given a minimal sentence.

A Pretoria judge, Hans Fabricus, has authorised the euthanasia of a lawyer, 65 year old Adv. Robin Stransham-Ford, who practices law in Cape Town. The judge attempted something similar to the British court, setting out that each future case must be decided on its merits.

News report that the judgement set out that the doctors would neither be prosecuted nor convicted, nor held civilly liable for their intentional killing of a cancer patient.

Therein lies the problem. It is set out by our system of government that it is the role of the National Prosecuting Authority to decide whether to prosecute. The law furthermore states clearly, through precedent, that euthanasia is still murder, that is to say, no matter your motive, you may not intentionally kill another human being without justification. Cases where people have sought legal advice and acted in accordance with it, while still breaking the law, have found the violator of the law still guilty.

Can a judge authorise a battered wife to kill her husband? Can it authorise a police team to assassinate a kidnapper or criminal? The problem with the judgement authorising the killing of the lawyer, is its shady quality. The real precedent if it comes will occur if the prosecutor decides to prosecute the doctors. Then, the courts will need to decide whether a judge can issue a death warrant by authorising killings which oppose standard law. Further, the facts are not at issue yet, the killing is not yet done, the judge might well have pre-empted an issue, and further his decision could be viewed by courts as merely legal advice, and thus not binding.

One would have expected a Capetonian judge to adjudicate such a matter, of note is that the judge is question is a Pretoria based judge, and yet, he is deciding on the fate of a Capetonian. Perhaps there is also an issue of physical territorial jurisdiction beyond that of basic concepts of jurisdiction. It would take a brave or reckless doctor to be willing to be the test case in this matter. Otherwise, we might find ourselves in a country where any odd member of the judiciary issues authorisation for any number of usually illegal activities, from killings, to burglary, to any number of cases. An attempt to pre-judge or authorise a series of events, certainly may not stand the test of time.

Ultimately the real case is yet to come. It will likely follow on police sirens, and the injection of a green substance resembling Spar Letta Cream Soda.

Nothing in this article constitutes legal advice.

Among the most despised gods of the savagely civilised ancient Greeks, was Kronos

Among the most despised gods of the savagely civilised ancient Greeks, was Kronos, the God of time.

It flickers softly, as the airflow passes through. Fire is not light. It is not heat. The fire is not the mere sacrificial smoke, or the altruistic, dead or dying fuel which feeds it.

Define it, the philosopher challenges our limited three dimensional minds. Define it, the philosopher screeches loudly. The fire burns destructively ahead of us, and yet we worship it for what it creates. We fill our churches, temples and synagogues with the flame of this magical, mysterious dead being.

The reason we struggle with defining fire is the same reason that we struggle to define life or love. Scientists say that we do not truly see the world. It is this reason that permits optical illusions, and allows colours to appear different than they are when the illusion of shadow is permeated through the mind. We see a very limited small part of the world, and even that the mind filters out, we see only what we need to survive.


It is easy to define a chair. The sky is less easy, the mind can easily comprehend it.

What we struggle to define, we the creatures who believe, in our major world religions, that God created us to name all the creatures of the world: is that which consistently changes, and that which itself is change. I am a sinner, I am a saint… The old popular music song brays against the world. Many authors of novels, of late, have come to despise the fiction art: refusing to believe that the caricatures of fiction can exist in real life. That which changes is hard to define. Fire itself is change. It is why we struggle with it.

Fire, ignites infinity. The basis of Buddhism, a spiritual suicide. The Buddha believed that life was suffering, and that Nirvana needed to be reached, that a being always coming out the birth canal as something different, is something that needed to be stopped. The God of Christianity calls himself I Am. He insists that he does not change, and that in the end all judgements will be final. Our major world religions circle around change. Repentance, reconciliation, and the criminal justice system depend on the concept. That which is most easily defined can never change.

Fire fascinates us because it is never the same, from the moment we look at it, from the moment we are born and from the moment we die and pass from this world. Fire is never the same, this fraying thread of a candle in the vicious and softly caressing winds.

It is said that if something is unexpected enough, the brain does not even perceive it. If it does perceive it, it does not remember it. And if it does remember it, it remembers it for ever, for whatever it is that it is deemed important enough to be remembered, despite being unknown, must inevitably have an impact upon our survival.

Whether baptism or a hallucinogenic spirit journey, guided by the beating of drums and the shaman's incessant whispering, the concept that a person can become something that they are not is the core of our spiritual being as human beings.

Change, the fourth dimension, is the foundation of the spiritual human person, and the basis of all of our religions. That is why we fear the unknown, it is why we dream and imagine and long and lust.

Life is the opiate of the scientific community, is what they seek to create with every discovery as they move forward. Life, change which directs itself.

Fire ignites our infinite intrigue, for it appears to mimic life, for life is change. And yet, the random flickering of gaseous flames is not alive, yet it somehow is still unpredictable enough to appear so to the human mind.

And fire is what differentiates a human being, from many of the beasts upon the plains and from the named and unnamed things hidden subtly within various mysterious forests, and from the creatures that inhabit the oceans that decorate and accessorise the ever fertile planet Earth.

To which change do you direct your aeviternal life? From the moment of our conception, we are never the same, and upon death our mortal body will decay, even in death our form will always change, and in the end there will be nothing left of us, we only exist for as long as we change.

Like the fire, we will never be the same, and even in death we will never be the same until we are void. To what do you direct your aeviternal life? How do you, a creature born of fertile earth – define yourself, if you only exist for as long as you are change? You're not fuel which feeds the fire, you are not the smoke, you are not the light, and you are not the heat. Like fire, you, life, at a cellular level, take in oxygen and fuel and release the smoke of carbon dioxide, and with it the energy that drives on the change, the fire within you that goes on until you are no more.

Fire ignites infinity, because like fire we may not truly be alive, we might simply be random chemical processes, a reaction as old as life itself. Fire ignites infinity, it is an analog for all of our spiritual lives, our strange and incessant search for meaning, for something constant and unchanging, for something as yet still alive, in the change that is our lives.

Why newspapers are dying and magazines aren’t

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.

Has immigration reform in the Republic of South Africa been motivated by hatred of foreigners?

Has immigration reform in the Republic of South Africa been motivated by hatred of foreigners?

Are the new visa requirements being placed upon foreigners intent upon entry into South Africa: a government attempt to accommodate xenophobia, or a reasonable attempt to secure our borders?

A few years ago the hunting industry were up in arms, releasing a bugle call through their accomplice, the media, in a desperate attempt to stave off South Africa’s still standing new firearms regulations. The industry claimed that the economy would lose at least a billion from its important GDP (gross domestic product) figures. The regulations went ahead nonetheless. South Africa very seldom bases its policy upon the interests of the various business or society lobbies.

With major international movies and television series being shot significantly, or largely, or exclusively in the Republic of South Africa, the entertainment industry, especially in the Western Cape, has seen a major boon. Like Costa Rica or Canada: South Africa had set itself apart as a cheap and easy place to film a major production, especially those set elsewhere. International actors could be quickly flown in and paid in full for the scenes they shot. Unlike Canada, where a good portion of actors have to be local, international companies seem to prefer to avoid the South African distinctive accent. For these filmings to continue we are told: these international companies should be able to continue fully importing their labour force, and merely using South Africa as staging ground. Perhaps then South Africans could have hundreds of thousands of jobs, feeding and serving these foreign actors. After all, international productions still do need lowly paid extras in nonspeaking roles and uncredited stagehands to ensure everything goes smoothly.

Just as was the case when the hunting industry made a call to arms: it is highly unlikely that the government will listen to the concerns of the film industry. The government has their own researchers and their own economists. It is rare for the government to rely on outsiders to make their decisions. Granted, South Africa is a participatory democracy. The government certainly must take account of the views of industry and civil society, but it is generally the case that the government goes with its own research. It is unlikely that any amount of campaigning will cause the government to about turn, even if hundreds of thousands of lowly paid jobs are lost.

America and Britain, similarly, have very strict visa restrictions. South Africa, previously known for the weakness or liberal status of its immigration laws has been ideal for international film corporations, who like to ship actors in at the last minute in accordance with a tight and dynamic schedule.

South Africa faces very few external threats that its intelligence organisations have not been able to snuff out quietly and effectively. What it also faces is status as a nation sometimes called the America of Africa. Immigrants from across the theatres of war which have overcome large parts of the continent, in hope to find sanctuary and safe harbour in a nation once only known as a harbour for ships: have been swift to latch onto low-paying jobs. They have always been quick as well to apply for government benefits that many South Africans did not know existed. Among the results has perhaps been the deep xenophobia that a plurality of South Africans have been diagnosed with. Most black South Africans according to recent surveys: have a deeply negative view of non-South-African Africans. This is especially so among those who struggle to eke out an un-lavish existence in rural areas and shantytowns. These people directly compete with refugees, and migrants seeking the betterment of their lives, from a place South Africans call ‘Africa’ or ‘Up North’.

Most of the temporary immigrants who come to South Africa to film are not from Africa but from Europe and America. Some critics have pointed out that simply applying stricter visa regulations to immigrants from Africa: would prevent the movie industry experiencing massive losses.

There is very little xenophobia among South Africans for people from anywhere but Africa. The same regulations in their laxity which have allowed the film industry to blossom: have also been a godsend for destitute refugees fleeing to South Africa.

As I have stated many times: GDP is a false indicator. Lumping all parts of a population together, and counting the wins of a small part as though they were the wins of all the population: is an artificial measure. Likewise: jobs which are lost are sometimes somehow replaced with better jobs.

It is easier for us who do not compete with foreigners for low-paying entry-level jobs: to condemn the xenophobia of those who do, and it is those who are best off in the economy who have the least proportional demographic of xenophobic individuals. We might well compete with foreigners on an international level. However, competition relates to something where one person bests another. That is to say that the person who is better at a thing or can do it cheaper succeeds over another who is less of an asset to those who consume the services of these individuals, while the less efficient, less cost saving or less effective competitor fails. The South African government did not step in to save the textile industry, when it allowed cheap imports from China and similar massive job losses were incurred. The government did not step in to save the hunting industry and the sports weaponry industry when it introduced new gun regulations.

South Africa is struck by a unique dilemma: to compete with other destinations for the filming of international media productions: these productions must hire foreign staff who are brought in through easy visas. Competition will always exist for South Africa. South Africans cannot do the jobs of these foreigners to the satisfaction of the foreign film companies. These visa restrictions make it harder for these productions to hire foreigners. As a result of which the industry believes it will fail. The industry does not believe that South Africans could do the same job as these foreigners do. It is therefore begging the government to allow foreigners to take jobs in South Africa: because it does not believe that if South Africans had to be relied upon as the labour pool for these organisations: that the industry could compete with other international destinations.

The industry has a very free-market approach as opposed to the protectionism that a visa affords. Ultimately a visa is almost always a protectionist measure. A government does not desire its own citizens to have to compete with the best in the world. As a result such a country becomes less competitive on the global scale and less attractive to business.

It is highly likely that the government is seeking to combat things such as human trafficking, drug smuggling, and many other criminal enterprises. It is equally likely that the government desires at least some of the roles of productions filmed in South Africa to be removed from foreigners who are brought in and that the desire of those in power is for these jobs to be placed in South African laps.

The argument of industry is ultimately this: international productions would not want to film in South Africa if they were forced to use South African actors. The visa regulations are likely largely in response to the massive rise in xenophobic attacks across South Africa. When lives are at stake in the mind of the government, a couple of job losses usually take a secondary position of importance. Whether the easy influx of foreigners and deeply liberal immigration laws of South Africa are the reason for the xenophobic attacks, or whether an alleged culture of violence and a deficit in the devotion of resources to security forces and to those engaged in policing are to blame: the new visa requirements no doubt will be welcomed most gleefully among the poorer parts of South Africa who have seen jobs they once made a living out of being taken by desperate foreigners who would do their job for far less.

Discovering Truth without losing trust. A guide to conducting a sensitive interview.

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.