Brinksmanship in the Ukrainian proto–war risks a globalised end–game destabilising many nations!

Brinksmanship in the Ukrainian proto–war risks a globalised end–game, destabilising what little world order exists today!

I pride myself on my ability to see through the fog of war. I also pride myself on not ultimately being a supporter of either side: but of peace and stability and a return to balance between the global powers. If Russia is pushed too far, the global order will certainly change and not for the better. A bit of perspective and the power of restraint is all that stands between the world we live in now and a new and dastardly highly escalated Cold War. Already the heightening of the tensions between Russia and America, has seen a massive increase in conflicts around the world, in marine expansionism by China, and a massive drop in business confidence in the future of the most populous nations of the world. An unstable world is a world where conflict and the rise of violent groups are almost assured.

Push the economy of a country to the brink, and war becomes almost inevitable. It was the sanctions against Germany which enabled Hitler to take power and keep it. Sanctions against South Africa's apartheid regime united South Africans behind the evil programme.

The Art of War, a favourite book of mine sets forth the deep importance of strategy in every action. Whether the author of the book was ever a general or ever executed the concubines of its patron: his works have guided China for over a millennium. It is utterly vital to know when to go to war and how to go about it. The American sanctions had been nothing but brinkmanship, and their escalation on issues where there was little hope of changing the mind of the Russians: has further polarised the world. If Russia has been supplying rebels with weapons, it is little different to America and her allies doing the same in Syria: except that Syria is not right next to America. The helicopters and planes which have, prior to the big event, been shot down by rebels: were transporting military personnel, or engaged in military activities against the population of Ukraine. The government of Ukraine only declared a ceasefire for just long enough to sign a European treaty, before ending the ceasefire and declaring there would not be another until rebels lay down arms or were defeated. It was a short time ago that a democratically elected Ukrainian president was ousted by armed rioting in the streets. Before this ousting however, Western media reported that Russia might invade Ukraine: when Russia had no reason as yet to do so. Western media have consistently gone with the narrative that separatists are pro-Russian and terrorists. As I have reported before: many of those fighting are not separatists and are not terrorists: they are certainly not pro-Russian either. What they are is opponents of the Ukrainian government. Whenever Russia has given them a public order to obey, they have directly disobeyed.

During the Cuban missile crisis John F. Kennedy was said to have informed the Russians that he did not control the American army: the Russians subsequently stood down and did not supply Cuba with nuclear weapons to protect it. While President Putin of Russia has become wildly popular through the annexation of what historically was Russian Crimea, and all the more so as sanctions have piled up: the truth is that Russia has next to no control of Ukrainian rebel forces. Russia could close the border, which has been flooded with refugees. Russia has consistently called for a political solution to the problem. Either Russia was being two-faced, and wants a major conflict right on its border: or it actually does not control what is happening in Ukraine. Russia's army, while one of the premier armies in the world: is not a uniform fighting force. There is much corruption in the Russian ranks. There is every chance that a Russian battalion fired a missile at the Malaysia Airlines flight MH 17. There is also every chance that certain elements of the Russian army have been galvanised into supplying weapons and assistance to the Ukrainian rebels. It is possible of course that Russia, with the support of Vladimir Putin is directly involved in events on the ground in Ukraine.

The problem with this is that Putin is not a king but a businessman. Russia is often connected with the concept of oligarchy. Putin has dedicated himself to improving Russia's business interests and thus his own business interests as well. Popularity is great but not essential for Putin to remain on Russia's throne. Russia could have cut off gas to Europe, it has not done so because it does not make business sense to. When JFK did not control the American army during the Cuban missile crisis: he did not publicise it but quietly informed the Russians of it. If Ukrainian rebels or Russian forces shot down the passenger jet: if anything it is evidence that Putin does not control them. The beautiful thing about countries such as Russia or China is that they are governed first and foremost by self-interest. Anything that harms Russia on the global scale is not something Russia is likely to pursue. If an airliner was accidentally shot down: as the Ukrainians in fact claim: then this is a sign that Russia does not control the rebels. Russia or Russian forces, notorious for corruption and the selling of arms: could well have supplied such weaponry, but an accidental shooting is very different from an intentional downing of an aircraft. The high likelihood, that rebel claims, that they had captured missile systems from the Ukrainian army, are factual, might suggest that a lack of Russian involvement in the conflict is to blame. If the plane was shot down by accident: it means those who were operating the missile system were not properly trained. It means that rebel attempts to get Russian forces to train them with the system, likely failed.

Just prior the downing of the aircraft, Washington had imposed essentially sectoral sanctions on the Russian economy. Massive sanctions on matters where sanctions are not effective, means that little more can be done on matters where sanctions are effective. Without already being under harsh sanctions, the business state of Russia would be unlikely to for instance invade Ukraine or for that matter Eastern Europe. If Russia is pushed into enough of a corner, it no longer has as much to lose! The more sanctions are ineffectually used, the less potential fallout Russia has should it take measures befitting the sanctions which have been enacted against it. Russia remains a powerful military and nuclear state. The actions of the Russian President Vladimir Putin have been widely popular among the population and the army of Russia. Putin essentially is a pragmatist. He loves his country but he also loves business. Putin has no interest in isolating Russia from the nations of the world. The Russian army on the other hand is driven largely by patriotism and the odd corruption here and there. Countries with weak economies are often countries which turn to violence. It is widely known that Al Qaeda has thrived in the nations which have weak economies. Fanaticism thrives among those with little to lose. Putin the pragmatist, has harnessed Russian nationalism to business ends. That same deep patriotism has seen his actions in Ukraine fully supported among Russians who might well even look favourably upon invasion not just of Ukraine but of all of the former USSR. For now Putin continues to pander to the West. Russia has not sent their powerful troops into Ukraine. Russia has not invaded its neighbouring nations and toppled the authorities there. Russia has found it beneficial to remain a part of the global community.

Sanctions against Russia now would add little to the sanctions already against Russia. Already Russia has responded by reigniting old Soviet alliances. It has punished its ally South Africa by insisting the BRICS bank be headquartered in Shanghai, China. South Africa is a non-aligned nation. South Africa has just signed a trade treaty with Europe. South Africa is the most Western nation among the BRICS, and in its home theatre of Africa itself. Russia has strengthened Cuba and reinforced alliances in South America. The old divide of the world was into three worlds: the first world which is allied with America, the second which allies itself to Russia, and the third being the non-aligned movement of which South Africa is currently a leading light. This divide is slowly reemerging over Ukraine and a few other issues.

Western politicians no doubt feel that punishing Russia for what has happened in Ukraine will bring them popularity at home. The problem is that Russia has become a business state, primarily concerned with the making of money. This is a problem which is beneficial to the world. What is problematic about it is that if you take away Russia's incentive to be a business state: you make it highly beneficial for Russia to resume its past as a Soviet state. There is a saying that when a leader survives an assassination attempt he is in power for life. Isolating Russia will only strengthen Putin among Russians. Russia, the nationstate, did not shoot down the plane, although someone somewhere did. Whoever did shoot down the plane did so in a war zone.

How should world leaders react to this scenario? Obama no doubt will fully support Ukraine as will his allies. Wiser nations such as Nigeria have called for a deescalation in Ukraine. This is the path the world needs to follow. Whether Russia is guilty or innocent of the downing of the airline: the consequences should they be punished are grave for the entire world. What needs to happen is a deescalation. It does not matter who wins or loses. Balance must be restored. The only alternative is this: a return to the conflict once called the Cold War. We as a world cannot afford to re-enter such a state. It does not matter who is guilty in the vile murder of about 300 people, or at least it does not matter as much as the consequences if their deaths lead to war and not to peace.

Russia has called for a ceasefire on both sides in the Ukrainian conflict. Perhaps if Ukraine were to offer to withdraw their forces in exchange for Russia closing the border: perhaps that would de-escalate a lot. As long as Russia are the only nation who are accountable for anything that occurs in their neighbouring nation Ukraine: it is unlikely the conflict will come to any resolution whatsoever. Putin at this stage cannot afford to lose face. He has always been a pragmatist interested in maintaining his own business interests. He does not control the rebels and he does not control Russian militia. When Germany faced massive sanctions, a government response of submission gave rise to the success of Hitler and his Nazi party. Russian nationalism is at an all time high. Foreigners are in danger on the streets of Moscow. Putin is not the enemy of the Western world but merely an opportunist. There are however plenty of enemies of the West sitting in prefabricated houses across Russia.

Brinkmanship, and standing in stadiums screaming out unlikely to be adhered to ultimatums and meeting out punishments: may well gain a lot of support among a population. What is needed now however is patience and a yearning for peace. It does not matter who shot down the plane in question, so much as it matters whether or not such a question is worth the destruction of the entire world should Russia no longer have anything to lose and should it subsequently only be able to gain its interests and the life of its people by means of war and unlawful activities.

Let us honour the dead by peace, by perhaps discovering who murdered them: but not by piling up the streets with yet more dead, through the brinkmanship of ill-advised self-serving politicians. The conflict in Ukraine must now come to an end for the sake of humanity itself and of the world we inhabit.

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.

World War I was not started by a single bullet or by the assassination of Franz Ferdinand.

World War I was not started by a single bullet or by the assassination of Franz Ferdinand.

It is about this time every now and again, upon the anniversary of the fateful beginning of things, that news media love to claim that a single bullet changed the history of the world forever. This approach is not however an entirely honest approach to an entirely complex matter. The assassination of Franz Ferdinand was no more the catalyst of the First World War than September 11, 2001 was the catalyst for the American invasion of Iraq. The American invasion of Iraq was based on the false premise, upon the propaganda, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The First World War was created through a similar opportunistic propaganda coup. Just as the September 11 was readily made use of to make war more palatable for the American cafeteria of voters, the powerful empires that went to war, merely used the assassination as an excuse to expand their own overwrought power upon the theatre of the global stage.

Certainly, with tensions stoked high, and alliances between empires holding a ready importance in a world prior to the United Nations, the assassination played a role often overstated in the beginning of the global war. But in truth, it was merely a convenient tool which the allies of the Duke used fully to their advantage.

Could the assassination of John F. Kennedy have been used as a pretext for America to invade Russia? Could any amount of assassinations by radical groups validly be called the cause of a war? What caused the First World War was not a bullet but a premeditated utilisation of a propaganda coup which ingenious opportunists found in the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand.

A single bullet is never the cause of a war. A single missile, or even a nuclear bomb is never to blame. The cause of the war is the decision of those high up in government to make a war. It is the decision not only of those who go out to war and invade another nation, but also the decision of those others to intervene or defend such nation. The assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand certainly could have further stoked tensions.

Those tensions were already past breaking point. There is a difference between a cause of something and a convenient scapegoat upon which to launch a campaign into the bowels of Hades. A refusal to accept recompense or negotiation, a refusal to lay down arms or find a solution, an attitude aimed at war are far more to blame than the bullet which ended Ferdinand. It was the choice of the nations of the world to escalate a small event and to continue to escalate ever growing tensions, with bullet upon bullet causing the war, each bullet like the ticking of the clock: each bullet continuing the war, each bullet the cause of the war for that moment in time! One bullet did not cause the First World War. A thousand bullets did.

Each bullet drew the war further in. Each charge, each digging of a trench, each launching of an aircraft, each poster for propaganda caused the war. A war is like a fire, it is a hungry thing and does not burn itself. A war must be constantly maintained and carefully stoked at every moment. The natural state of man is not war but peace. It takes courage and resources to fight a war. It does not simply happen. Human beings make a choice to go to war: a brave choice or a foolish choice, a good choice or an evil choice: a choice nonetheless. Archduke Franz Ferdinand did not cause the war. It is the world who decided to go to war, each single individual which fought. Treaties and the words that are of politicians are but that, they are words. It is not words alone or stylistic and useful events, but actions which sustain a war. War is not a natural disaster, it is a human choice. Wars do not naturally happen, people have to make them occur and it is people that are needed to keep the fires of hell well stocked with human remains. The death of one man did not cause the deaths of thousands by chemical weapons and bayonets, and through starvation and disease in the man-made trenches dug by those sacrificed by the empires whose rulers' propaganda gleefully put them there in pursuit of opportunity and loss.

Those who fought and died for their kings and for their countries, for the empires which they held dear: these men caused the First World War and continued fighting it bravely. Their sacrifice is a far more potent cause than the extremism of the wayward assassin. May the men and women on both sides of the devil's own war be remembered with the high and sombre, deep and lasting respect and honour which they no doubt deserve, may they rest in peace knowing that they served their countries whatever the motives of their leaders. It was not the assassination but that which preceded and followed it which undoubtedly was the cause of so many deaths of a plenitude of honourable men and women. May they rest in peace.

Discovering truth without losing trust. A guide to the soft science of 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 Legal Education 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.

Danger: Why you should reconsider using AirBnB and crowdsourced services.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The CIA has joined Twitter...

listen to ‘The CIA has joined Twitter... ’ on Audioboo

With an ominous start, the Central Intelligence Agency waded into the social media:

We can neither confirm nor deny that this is our first tweet.
— CIA (@CIA) June 6, 2014

Thank you for the @Twitter welcome! We look forward to sharing great #unclassified content with you.
— CIA (@CIA) June 7, 2014

That is all for now... And they seem largely just to be following their own government for now... Binding their time before tweeting anything actually excitingly declassified (a.k.a. Wikipedia minus the Snowden and Wikileaks leaks common knowledge stuff?)... Oh well!

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

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

However, when unions begin to make unreasonable demands and to use murder and violence to achieve these, they have ceased to be unions, and have become an other.

 For years major unions have used intimidation to force workers to turn on their employers and strike. Streets would be filled with garbage, motor vehicles burnt, people would be beaten to death, children would be harmed and dragged out of school classrooms... but with the AMCU NUM war which started with murder and continues Today, and following that the Marikana clash between police and AMCU members, something has changed.

Something has become more violent. Reports from Rustenburg have the miners wanting to return to work but absolutely terrified to do so for fear of being killed by AMCU enforcers, by people who did not fear to cut police officers and security guards into little pieces with machetes, and who ran at a police line armed, and unto death.

We cannot say for certain that the deaths of people who get in the way of AMCU are done with official sanction, but the union certainly benefits from each death and seems uninterested in opposing the violence done in their interests. Now, NUMSA (or their affiliated or unaffiliated enforcers) have taken a similar approach. Non-striking workers' houses have been bombed, and their cars burnt, in ten attacks against workers not participating in the NUMSA strike.

Post by Business Report.

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

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

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

An Error with our news topics Twitter service!

I just noticed now that a number of our news topic twitter services have not been publishing their contents. I hope this is now resolved. Please contact the twitter you subscribe to and inform us if this happens again.

Justin Bieber supports KKK in video obtained by The Sun.

listen to ‘Justin Bieber supports KKK in video obtained by The Sun.’ on Audioboo

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

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

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

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

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

Why Ukraine changes everything and nothing at once

listen to ‘Why Ukraine changes everything and nothing at once’ on Audioboo

I have always had a natural dislike of America's very badly done foreign policy, ever since they invaded Iraq on false pretences and proved that we were all wrong about them. When Al Jazeera came on South African Television, and we all discovered they were not the devil, many of us altogether swore off allegiance to the global conscience and its so-called and self-imposed smaller than it sounds 'international community'.

With my journalism work I began studying propaganda channels. I studied RT believing it was just that based on American portrayal of the channel. It reported on ethnic cleansing in Georgia and Russian troops going in to stop a genocide. Western media mocked this, until BBC news night investigated and found it was 100% the truth. Something similar was admitted with Syria: that it was a civil war from the start not protests. But by then I had realised that the Russians were not lying on Syria. In fact the Russian state media have won awards for unbiased coverage time and again. Whenever America goes into conflict mode, their media backs their politicians 100%. What was okay for America is wrong for other nations.

I had thought as a consolation prize that perhaps it was not just America permitted such freedom but Russia as well. Alas, it is not so. America created a coup d'état in Ukraine, overthrowing an elected President because the president supported Russia. What happens? A monstrous crackdown on free Ukrainians or anti-Coup protesters to use Western language, becomes an 'Anti-terrorist' operation. Putin is compared to Hitler for refusing to accept and endorse a coup. Russia has sanctions against its economy and dignitaries. And American media join the fray just as strongly as they did against Iraq, with no consequences. Like Justin Bieber's racist video, drink, drugs, theft, periodic assault of innocents proving that in American terms he is above the law, in the same sense American gunmen also are.

I guess what really is on display is that America and her allies can do any evil deed, and be forgiven instantly. They can spy on all of us. They can blackmail, they can lie, they can betray. They can call the sky red and green, and have it reported as so. They can get away with everything, because they are powerful, and because so many media outlets are nothing but their cute little fans, believing all the way. We live not in God's world, but America's world... no wonder America spends so much time and money trying to reduce the population of every nation but their own... think about their expensive initiatives for population control in the third world for a moment. We in Africa are not worthy of an opinion, or our own culture, or own point of view. We are not even worthy of democracy as Egypt and Somalia prove. Only Western nations have these rights. Like Justin Bieber, they are immune to criticism. We cannot say a single word that would have any impact on the pseudo-divine West. If they want to overthrow a government, it is those who support democracy who get sanctions, and criticism, and hateful treatments... It is Putin who is the bad guy... not Barack Obama the conqueror, who sees every non American life as not worth a mention in his foreign policy. Was the assassination of Osama Bin Laden not an extra-judicial killing? What right in the name of Heaven and Hell does America have to utter a single word criticising any nation on the planet for doing exactly the same with their own claimed enemies? After all, if extra-judicial killings or overthrows, or collateral damage, or bombing women and children with drones or other means is wrong or right: it must be due to principles, not due to the expediency of a nation that only ever looks after its own interests, and drops its allies like flies the moment they are no longer useful.

Ukraine changes everything in that sense. America does not keep its double standards with only weak pariahs. It has exactly the same game with world leaders such as Russia. And the 'world media' continue to believe they only exist to justify its every choice, the ultimate type of yes man crew.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

listen to ‘Research discovers: The perfect way to hold a hamburger, and not spill a single drop of sauce!’ on Audioboo

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

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

Onto the Japanese recipe:

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

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

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

About the SACNS: What is our editorial policy?

Our Editorial Policy

The SACNS subscribes to a number of editorial policies. Be International While we have South African roots, we believe firmly in presenting the entire world to the entire world. Our audience and our subject matter is humankind itself. The essence of our reporting is that all mankind are inter-related as a human family: as brethren in pain, suffering and in kindness, truth, fidelity, and the gains we as a human family share. We believe that what happens in some remote part of Africa or Asia or South America can affect the entire world. Even an unvoiced thought can influence history. We therefore are members of humanity and citizens of humankind first and foremost, while certainly having a diligent degree of patriotism for Africa and for South Africa. Do not Lie We believe the job of media is not to assist campaigns or be popular. What we do is see through the veil of lies and tell the truth. If the truth is ugly then that is what it is, but it is still the truth. We at SACNS believe in reporting the truth and nothing but. Yes, we believe in debate and argument as these can sharpen the lens through which we all see the world, but the essence of what we do is report truth. That is in honesty the job of a journalist: to be an expert in truth, and the lens which enables others too see better what that real truth of matters exists upon. A journalist is best placed to tell the truth, and thus has a duty to humankind to do so conscientiously. This also places a duty on a journalist to be prudent in what they report. A good journalist is not so much defined by what they place upon the planetary record as by what they do not print or utter for anyone outside their strictest confidence to see. The ability to foster relationships and hold a confidence rather than breaking a trust, and rather than reporting a matter which is best left in the netherworld, and thus not reporting even a word of a matter all for the sake of integrity, is the core of the journalistic profession. Be Patriotic True patriotism, is like true love: loyal beyond anything but also honest beyond reason. The French are the most patriotic nation on the planet, and with good reason. True patriotism is critical, it sees the flaws of those nations it attaches to and it highlights the flaws of these long lived manmade creations, and in this long winding process, it thus fixes the flaws of nations and of individual human men and women. True love is not blind. True patriotism shines a light into darkness and fixes the object of its love. SACNS is patriotic about South Africa, about Sub-Saharan Africa, and of their peoples and beauty and of their horrible flaws. We as a policy believe that patriotism towards every nation we cover is essential, and beyond this: love in the patriotic sense of every person we cover is essential. We believe it is essential that should someone we have never met read an article we write about them, they should feel shocked, they should feel the text is not text at all but rather a fluid and ghostly mirror, which perfectly portrays who they truly are beneath it all, despite their airs and illusions. We believe in asking the questions that cut the soul, for to truly cut apart the blueprint of a human life, is the only true way to insure it's survival unto eternity, both in memory and so far as whatever sense of religion or spiritual life a person might have. Human beings have inside of them a desire to look within and a desire to seek truth and then to conform to it. The as-though-a-gospel every journalist tells with every word, is a fidelity to the truth of this human held place, which can be found in and of this imperfect perfect human inhabited world. That sort of faithfulness to integrity is the essence of the great profession of the modern day town messenger, the journalist. Write with Hind Sight Many journalists aim to influence others with their views. A history book if well written certainly learns lessons of events, but its author is powerless to change the events already unfolded. At SACNS we desire to write from that sort of perspective. We seek to write as those who are powerless, as though we were the unspoken thought of a dying man who is mute and deaf and blind and in a comatose state. We desire as a service to remove our own interests from a story: yes to be as critical as a wolf's teeth are sharp, and yes to be as kind as a lamb's wool is gentle to the touch, but to write as though all is lost and all is gained already. It is only by honesty, by portraying both those we see as good and those we see as bad with all of their observable flaws, that we truly can come to see truth. If I believe someone is good but has flaws or is bad but has good traits, yet retain this view despite the discrepancies, am I not disrespecting you if I refuse to grant you the opportunity to see both sides of a person by misconstruing the person? An intelligent person does not change their worldview on whim simply because human being are frail. If I support a public figure, I am just as likely to bring up their flaws as show their goodness. Respect Privacy There is nothing as important as the privacy of ordinary people. Public figures are in the public view, and are fair game, but an initiative such as ours which has such power to ruin a life, should be very cautious in ever reporting negatively of ordinary people who cannot easily fight back. Such reporting must always be the justified exception and not the rule. Hold to business Ethics At SACNS we believe in acting with integrity, punctuality, and in treating our readers with respect. Professionalism is at the heart of good journalism. We aspire to always be above the fray and to maintain absolute professionalism at all applicable times. Stay Above the Fray/Be Noble At SACNS is we love to create debate, controversy, and to present arguments and views you might not agree with but grow mentally from reading, but we also believe in acting in a responsible manner in our journalism. We are spectators of events, we are observers of the world. We report, and it is vital that in our reporting we remain objective and honest. We write not for a fight but for the growth of the human consciousness. We write with respect, both to our own writing and to the people who we write about. Every human person deserves to be portrayed honestly, this is basic respect. Adhere to the rules of court. "Police say they arrested protesters for disturbing the public order." Imagine if that were all you had to go with. Often on Twitter that is all many journalists say, we even might say that. Imagine now a different statement: "Police say they arrested protesters for disturbing the public order, but the lawyer for one of the arrested individuals say they were merely a by-stander and had been going to the shops to buy baby milk formula." Both statements are true, certainly some protesters were arrested for disturbing the public order, but one of them were not. Perhaps in fact none were arrested for that at all, but only on that pretence. At SACNS we believe in hearing both sides, and in going through the extra written and other sources to come to the truth before we report it. Yes, we certainly try to break news, but we try to report the truth and to gain several sources to figure out from the words itself and from the best interests of witnesses what really occurred.  If we at SACNS say "The protesters were arrested for disturbing public order", we want it to be because based on the facts before us that is exactly what really occurred. In law there are two man systems of truth finding: the one where the parties control the narrative, and argue a matter our, and the one where a truth finder investigates to make their own determinations, taking into account the arguments of both sides and what is likely to be true. SACNS believes that the second approach is the honest approach. Certainly we might say what both parties say in a matter and investigate if it is true, but we certainly are not intent on being anybody's fool. We merely see parties to a matter as possible frail guides to the truth of a matter.

(Audio) Major News Stories You Missed Today but need to know of - report by Marc Evan Aupiais (10 Minutes)

Do you have ten minutes to go through a quick look at many of the major stories Today? We do, and we did. Based on our news alerts as reported on the Twitter account of our editor, we have recounted the major headlines for Today. We hope you enjoy the listen.

https://audioboo.fm/boos/2194047-audio-major-news-stories-you-missed-today-but-need-to-know-of-report-by-marc-evan-aupiais-10-minutes


Major stories today:

listen to ‘(Audio) Major News Stories You Missed Today but need to know of - report by Marc Evan Aupiais (10 Minutes)’ on Audioboo

Jacob Zuma inaugurated. Massacre of Santa Barbara, California. Malawi President declares elections null, but electoral authority says she has no power to nullify the elections. Mass murder in Yemen. Somalia parliament stormed. Hand back erotic pictures after a relationship ends in Germany, judge rules. Death over the matter of a candy bar in Georgia jail. Boko Haram 3 village slaughter. China arrest mass murderer. Was American indictment of 5 Chinese hackers short sited of the West? Aegean Earthquake causes mass injuries in Turkey, hits hospital. Female porn star commits suicide after sex scene: LifeSiteNews investigates link between depression and porn actresses' sex scene anxiety. Putin says Russia will not stop gas flow to Europe, calls it suicidal to. Reporter kicked out of 9/11 museum for asking a question. 19 Morsi supporters sentenced to 5 years in jail in Egypt. Thai army disband the senate. Earthquake damages thousands of houses in South West China. British Prime Minister David Cameron mourns the likely deaths of a British yacht crew as the USA Coast Guard finds their life boat unused. The French Land Army and former Seleka rebels have engaged in combat against one another in Bambari, Central African Republic.

(Audio) Major News Stories You Missed Today but need to know of - report by Marc Evan Aupiais (10 Minutes) https://t.co/z7vfi0N10R

— Marc Evan Aupiais (@SACNSNew) May 24, 2014

The Sudanese Woman sentenced to death over the faith of her father

Her father left in her early youth. Sharia law demanded that her father's religion hold firm along the family line. She was to be Muslim whatever she believed. Her orthodox Christian mother brought her up believing in Jesus Christ. None the less, under Sudanese Sharia based law, she was a Muslim. Perhaps if she had married a Muslim all would be fine, but Sharia law does not recognise a marriage between a Muslim woman and a Christian man. The pregnant woman, who herself is already a mother, is sentenced to death.

Her crimes are twofold: The strangest is that of her adultery: she is, it would seem, accused of having intercourse with the man she married. The second is her insistence that she is not a Muslim woman. Because she does not hold her heart within a faith that was never hers, she has committed a heinous apostacy, which Sudan's justice system warrants death for.

What of her husband and the father of her born child and her unborn offspring? He will be denied access to their then motherless born child, when this woman is hung up until her neck snaps or her breath runs out. The offspring is considered a child of adultery, under Sharia law. What will happen to the second womb bound child seems uncertain, the death marked mother is 8 months with child.

When Sudan split into Sudan and South Sudan, it was lauded as a masterful solution. The majority Christian South has since descended spiralling into civil war. As was forewarned despite the Western constituted quick fix of secession, the Christians who remained in the north became far more vulnerable. She is among these.

A picture of the woman is embedded below:

Post by News.va English.

South Africa's deep concern for those Nigerian school girls, is unfortunately disingenuous!

The African National Congress are firing out press releases at a rate a machine gunnery post would envy. The ANC women are putting all the pressure they can on world leaders. The ANC men are howling like an injured stray dog haunted by the sunlight. The South African government is telling everyone who will listen of those poor wretched, hapless school girls, those girls who were snatched from their classrooms like chickens grabbed by a most African Hyena or a jackal in collaboration with a fox. One could be mistaken for believing that the girls to be brought back were South African, or that South Africa had such sympathy and so deep an eternal empathy with Nigeria that they felt as strongly as though love for neighbour were the underlying truth at work in hearts and minds of political figures.


Alas, the tears might well be those of a weeping crocodilian. Analysts say that the Bring Back Our Girls campaign is most definitely empty, as empty as the campaign to bring Kony to justice. Despite American kill squads being deployed, Kony leaked through half hearted Western grasps for him and is not only alive but very well. Nigeria is in the predicament known as a low scale civil war. Large swathes of territory are now entirely within the heartland of Books Forbidden, a once peaceful group. South Africa has a lot to gain from highlighting Nigerian Plight, even as Nigeria has very little advantage from the hustle and bustle across sofas, couches, and keyboards and mice.

The girls have likely been separated, and are certainly being kept in a Nigerian forest the size of a small country, which territory is entirely within the merciless stranglehold of Books Forbidden, a terrible and most formidable Islamist terror tactics outfit. Books Forbidden emerged from a Nigerian government policy forbidding state jobs from Muslims in Jos. Highly skilled, unquestionably educated Muslim students began a protest movement. Their education could win them nothing in Nigeria's centre and South. Books Forbidden, Boko Haram was born. The government of Nigeria sent the shock troops forth, and massacred many of these highly educated students. Boko Haram, Books Forbidden: became powerful and learnt how to forsake peace. Much of Nigeria backed them fully, and the hearts of many a Nigerian at every level of society burnt with a fire of admiration and love. Books Forbidden killed, kidnapped, bombed, and hearts fluttered in hope, and others in fear.

It is a recent development, that the Nigerian government has begun a massive campaign against Books Forbidden. Books Forbidden massacred whole villages, and the government massacred Boko Haram, and allegedly fired upon civilians all too joyously. Hundreds or dozens dying in the Federal Republic of Nigeria, hardly got an inch or a centimetre of attention.

Books Forbidden saw an opportunity on the outskirts of their zone of military supremacy. A group of girls were attending school. The popular Islamists grasped unto little girls, and herded them off as though submissive animals. The announcement that the girls had been taken by Books Forbidden began to circulate. Before others I caught onto something in foreign language media: Books Forbidden were going to sell the girls, or have them in forced marriages and as slaves. It was such a clear move of calculation. The story spread as wildfire, and Books Forbidden had the recruitment campaign and global spotlight upon Nigeria that they so clearly sought.

How could the girls be regained? There are two ways: negotiation and force.

The first will only strengthen Books Forbidden. The second will devastate Nigeria entirely.

The international attention has seen massive pressure placed on Nigeria's president, the sort of Pressure that saw Syria turn into a failed state in its own fight against Islamists.

Experts and troops, more ceremonially than for any real goal have been deployed to find and free the girls from across the global territory. Like the Spartan army facing the Persians, these are less than half of what would be needed to cause real change. The girls are in a dark heart. A forest surrounds at all sides. This forest the size of a country is Indian Territory to use an American phrase: Boko Haram has a content hold of death upon this forbidden forest. Their support in Nigeria remains, despite it all, and their men are all the more armed and powerful. A real solution by force would be for Nigeria to invade their Forbidden Forest: Sambisa, a failed national park stretching 60,000 square kilometres. That move could only lead to outright war.

Amidst this quagmire, Nigeria has overtaken South Africa as Africa's largest economy. Granted, the size of its massive population is the reason for this. Much of its economy is in oil. None the less, Nigeria is one of the three major Subsaharan Africa powerhouses: Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa. Kenya and Nigeria are caught up in wars with Islamists. South Africa is experiencing social unrest.

Picture from @CBCNews. pic.twitter.com/pcm25a2qUX It is how girls could be saved. It would mean civil war in Nigeria. So very bad idea.
— Marc Evan Aupiais (@SACNSNew) May 11, 2014

Perhaps it is cynical to point out that no amount of light will scare out the darkness gripping Nigeria by the neck. If anything the light is forced upon those forces for order, and benefit the monsters which lustfully prowl the night. Perhaps it is terrible to say that South Africa and Nigeria are geo-political foes, fighting for the soul of Africa. South Africa is releasing press releases like a squawking parrot: and all of these words, surely draw attention to the predicaments facing its rivals, and keep the world from looking too hard at its own labrinth forward into a darkened future. A few murders and protests spotting the country like chicken pocks are hardly as worthy of notice as a couple hundred kidnapped Nigerian school girls.

North Korea has discovered the ability to resurrect the dead...

In ancient times a man named Lazarus was raised from the dead. Despite being buried and gone, he strode the earth again for a while.

It seems myth and truth have once again become entangled and intertwined in North Korea, a place of myth, a place of obscure war fog, which is difficult to peer within at the best of times.

Hyon Song-wyol is a regular modern day Lazarus. A year ago she was dead, killed by a state organised firing squad in North Korea, for that evil sin of pornography. By the magic of the morning sunshine, she is back and praising her alleged ex beau: Mr Kim Jong-un. Rumour had it that they had had a bit of a fling, just the two of them. Rumour South Korean Intelligence and news media reported that Kim Jong-un had had his sweetheart savagely executed by a wall of bullets. Her reappearance as a propaganda tool on North Korean state television has not met a response from the South Korean media, or the Western propaganda depots, which were so quick to avoid fact checking the story. One can only stand here quite baffled that reports of her death are a tad exaggerated, or perhaps Kim has come across the power of the ancient deity. The alternative being that it could be old video footage or worse yet a lookalike or computer generated graphics...

What is perhaps the less mystical explanation is to say that media across the West: were all to quick to become harbingers of another person's ruin.

'Kim Jong-un's ex-girlfriend appears on TV – a year after she was 'executed' http://t.co/E2NimdpJcc pic.twitter.com/gEm7ZLKnUZ ' / @Independent

— Marc Evan Aupiais (@SACNSNew) May 18, 2014