Easier Than Brexit

With all the energy that’s going into delivering what the people of the UK have requested, in #Brexit, you might notice how complicated meeting the request is.

There are a few things that may have seemed too complicated to change previously, but in comparison to #Brexit they may appear small now.

There’s a problem with the field of law called ‘dependence’ that delays and prevents law graduates from entering the legal professions of their preference.

#DavidWest28 would like to propose a new system which makes it possible for law graduates to pursue and gain their law profession independently.

The current situation is that to enter a legal career, a law graduate must rely on a qualified lawyer. The problem is that the need to rely on a limited resource means that a demand can never be met, leaving a majority without a way in to their first-choice-career, and, the need to rely on a qualified lawyer gives lawyers and law firms power, where that power is open to abuse.

It appears that a solution would be to switch the ‘must’ to ‘may’ so that law graduates may rely on a qualified lawyer to qualify for their careers, where other options are also available to ensure that they can achieve the same goal 100% independently of other lawyers if they choose to.

A new body for regulating law and offering its qualifications could bring about the changes.

The new body would cause a regulation of all legal professionals, to the standards that have been accepted up to this time.

The new body will offer training and qualifications matching the various legal-profession-disciplines.

Law graduates will approach the new body to purchase the qualifications that they require, and, upon qualifying shall be granted the opportunities to practise.

Qualified professionals will pay a tax to the new body, which is reasonable, and which is based on their earnings from the work that they carry out in the field of law, where that tax shall not exceed another reasonable amount, and where that tax shall count as an annual fee for the new body.

As the new body shall cover every existing legal profession, for regulation and training, other regulatory bodies for legal professionals shall become less needed, and acts for the new body to succeed all existing regulatory bodies for legal professionals should be given motion so that by a given date there shall be one regulator for legal professionals.

Dedicated schools and colleges for pursuing qualifications, across the country, and, incentives to qualified legal professionals to assist training where students and legal professionals are interested in working together.

The system will not upset the existence of the law firm or prevent qualified legal professionals from working together, but it will grant law graduates with more choices so that they can become a qualified legal professional without owing any favours.

How can we get the administration of law in the UK to be faster?  Is it more courts and judges, or more legal professionals?


Offering Rewards

The ‘European Union’ [EU] grants many rights to its citizens, but make no mistake about it, the rights were not provided without good calculations.  The laws of the EU were not introduced for the sake of having laws, or for the sake of people being able to say that they have rights.

The EU laws have been designed to deter and prevent situations that inhibit the economic activities of countries, for the benefit of each country of the EU, and for the benefit of the EU as a whole.  It’s almost like a sociological study of life in various countries was undertaken at some point, and the flaws that prevent economic activity in those various countries were noted, so that laws preventing those situations would be developed.

At the top of the list of situations that EU laws are designed to prevent, discrimination seems to be the one, but generally, the EU laws aim to help individuals within the EU to become economically active, for the benefit of the EU country, and then for the EU, with a single currency that aids the sharing of the benefits of the EU’s economic activity as a whole.

If problems like discrimination, privacy invasion, and the harassment of innocent persons by governments, can be eliminated, then individuals of those states where this elimination is able to occur, can be free to pursue economic activities and to enjoy life growing in the world.  This is a theory behind the EU laws.

#Brexit is a rejection of the EU laws and principles that the UK should benefit from, and looking back at how the Brexit ideology was advertised, #Brexit is based on racism, where the free movement of EU citizens exists for permitting economically active EU citizens to travel-to and remain-in other states of the EU (if they are economically active there), for the benefit of the EU state of their choice.  As the UK chooses to reject the EU on the basis of the free-movement principle, despite the economic benefits, what the UK is saying is that despite all of the economic benefits that individuals from other parts of the EU can bring to the UK, that it is nothing – because they are not original UK nationals.

In recent times there isn’t a more blatant example of racism by a state than the Brexit movement of the UK, and a racism that is exclusively beneficial to the original UK national is the kind of racism that will continue to effect all UK citizens that are not the original UK national, during the #Brexit discussions, after the discussions, and have probably effected the same victims long before the #Brexit movement was finally presented.

There are three laws offered by the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights that make it possible for governments and large companies (corporations) to be taken to court and discouraged from wrong doing in the lives of EU citizens:

“The freedom to conduct a business in accordance with Community law and national laws and practices is recognised.”Article 16

“Everyone is equal before the law.”Article 20

“Everyone has the right to respect for his or her private and family life, home and communications. “Article 7

“Everyone who has been charged shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.”Article 48

The laws above are for preventing governments (and corporations) from excessive and unjustified interference into the lives of EU citizens, and if these laws exist in a country outside of the EU, then they may be able to benefit citizens in those countries for the same purpose.

When it comes to governments intervening in the lives of ordinary individuals of their states, it is very easy for these governments to do so secretly, but in order to do so, they need to communicate with all the people of their victim’s life.  It might be the case that the individual is said to be a terrorist suspect, or a violent person, or some other kind of character, where this alarms the others in the victim’s life, towards co-operating with the government behind the victim’s back, but the question for such people to enquire of in such cases is, has the individual been proved guilty of the thing(s) that the government is alleging?  If the answer is ‘no’ then the “innocent until proven guilty” principle comes into play, and it could be unlawful for the government to interfere in that person’s life.

In practise, it is a regular thing for individuals to be under investigation for their whole lives; it is often justified by naming an offence that has never been proved, but which has been investigated for years and years, and could continue for the rest of the person’s life unless a government is checked.

In practise, it is possible for individuals whose privacies are being invaded by governments, to not know so for years, and then even when they begin to suspect and realise, they find it impossible to prove, but, in order for a government or corporation to affect an individual’s life in secret, as is possible, the government or corporation needs to communicate with other ordinary people – the same people that the victims of such breaches of privacy are communicating with — and through this avenue an opportunity to prove the breaches of the law becomes possible to show.


Offering Rewards

The laws are good and can be useful, but in order to be effective, they need to be capable of preventing the various problems — they can, but they cannot without co-operation.  A government could continue invading the privacy of its citizens, endlessly, in secret, except if there is a co-operation with every person capable of providing the victim with valuable information (the same people asked to betray the victim by the government or corporation).

The way to create a co-operation is to offer a reward for information.

How has the government become aware that you communicate with such and such people?

What has the government being saying to such and such people about you?

For how long has the government been breaching the victim’s rights to privacy and to conduct a business?

The reward should be for information which shows the intervention of others into the victim’s life, and whether those others are government or just clever nosey people, the said laws provide protection.

The offering of a reward is capable of creating a network for useful and valuable information with the same people business is carried out with — those that can be called friends.

With #Brexit on its way for the UK, can the government of the UK be expected to develop laws that promote and create economic activity?  Can the UK be expected to provide laws that protect individuals within the UK from excessive interference into their lives?  Probably not, because the UK has shown by #Brexit that economic activity and the prosperity of all its inhabitants, is not a priority.  With the UK’s simultaneous doing-away with laws that give improved legal effects to Human Rights laws, can the UK be expected to begin breaching Human Rights laws as can now be expected by the USA? Time reveals.

A #MeToo movement on the basis of the points made above.

For any questions in relation to the above, please contact us.

Yet Another Disgrace to the Government of the UK

You hope the Metropolitan Police will do the right thing, but if you’ve experience with waiting for the right thing from the government institutions of the UK, then you really ought to know better.  The correct word is “corrupt”, funnily, you never hear about governments from the west being corrupt – it’s always Russia and Iraq and North Korea, of course of course.

To get the right thing out of the Metropolitan Police or any UK government institution, you’ll need to call them out, and expose their wrong doing, as it were a conspiracy theory of some kind.  Why is it that we expect more from the UK when they have shown so many times their inconsistency with the law?  For some reason the world is blind to how corrupt the UK is.  No man could buy or sell, except he became corrupt too?

#DavidWest28 is aware of a situation that the Metropolitan Police will trip themselves up on, but waiting and watching quietly is what you would want to do.  The police are behind many things and you would not believe how many.

Observation has shown that when you have something on the police, that instead of admitting their wrong so that all can be settled and life return to normal or the way things are meant to be, they will work on creating a wrong for you so that they can have something on you too, instead.  They will conspire with the regular people that you come into contact with, promising them gifts for the betrayal of you.  Is that not corrupt?  There is already one person who has broken laws which means that she ought to lose her high-paying job and be imprisoned – she has disgraced herself, her ethnicity, her profession, and she has disgraced the UK for whom she works as a senior civil servant.

The MD of #DavidWest28 has become aware of plans to create a #MeToo movement towards destroying the business potential of #DavidWest28.  Apparently it is to be said that the MD lost his temper and slapped a female.  The MD has for long been aware of police-intentions to rely on false complaints for justifying never-ending investigations, so that they can say that they contacted and warned every female who might become involved with #DavidWest28 (to improve their business-sense and their business incomes).  The bottom line is that the UK is corrupt and wants others to be equally as corrupt before they can be free to earn their money.

The side-effect of a #MeToo movement is the general distrust of females.  The MD has insisted on mentioning the word ‘jealousy’ as he has noticed the re-arrangement of many females that work in places where they never have an earning potential close to that of #DavidWest28, nor will they be found professional for any level of networking with #DavidWest28.  For these kinds of people, a #MeToo conspiracy is the solution for maintaining their low self esteem.

For the time being the MD remains on bail for a charge that is false and which was maliciously engineered, and for which the police have had sufficient evidence of, so that the MD should never have been charged to appear in court or to be at risk of the intended perversion of justice that was calculated.  So the very first point is, the MD should never have been charged in the first place, but, being on a charge and case that will inevitably expose the police for a conspiracy against the MD, the police prey on further charges and accusations, to make their judgment to charge the MD look good.

The Metropolitan Police of the UK continually act to cause the disgrace of others, but on this occasion, with #DavidWest28’s MD, they have tied themselves up with their own rope; the hole which they have dug for the MD is a hole that they will fall into themselves.  The MD of #DavidWest28 has expressed that the police and those in under-cover positions, have for years and years conspired with others, behind him, to prevent his growth, so that it could be said that he is bad and misfortunate and a lazy person, but finally the opportunity to begin exposing their efforts and their lies, arrives.  The MD of #DavidWest28 does not hate the police or the UK government, but insists that if they had any real work to do, that he would be no agenda of theirs.

The UK government conspires to make people that have done no bad, look bad.  So when the UK government begins saying Russia-this and Russia-that, why should the UK be believed?  And if it isn’t the Russians then it’s the Muslims, and if it isn’t the Muslims, then it’s black people — but all these things are said and done to limit the economic activities of everyone else except the original white UK national.  Truthfully, who is left?  Truthfully, who do they hate to expose?


There are a few laws that the UK has subscribed to, that are so regular that they are overlooked, but they provide solutions for every day citizens, as protection from government conspiracies.  As ordinary citizens we overlook many laws that can help us, because we know no better.  Look out for an upcoming post that will explain how a government that is intervening in your life can be caught in the act, exposed, and dealt with in court — coming soon from #DavidWest28

Instructing a Lawyer

The process of instructing a lawyer usually follows a person’s request for legal advice about a situation that is very important to them. So that usually, the lawyer is approached by a person that has a problem and this gives that lawyer an exclusive ground, to decide the advice that they wish to give – whether they shall give any advice at all, whether to give some advice, and whether to give the entirety of advice.

A thing that most people remain unaware of but which a few people shall remain aware of, is that lawyers are running businesses and form parts of a business, and have interests in being paid, and all of this is true despite the obligations that lawyers have to treat their clients fairly and work in the best interests of their clients, where violations of these ethics and a few others can lead to a lawyer being penalised.

So, instructions to a lawyer will usually follow your request for advice, if you like the advice that you receive.

It is often smart to ask another lawyer for advice – to check that your lawyer is doing what they are supposed to be doing, and to check that they are working in your best interests.  You see, if a lawyer is not treating you properly, it is often by an outside eye that you could become aware of this – it is perfectly possible to receive perfect advice at your first request of a lawyer, but it is also perfectly possible to be mistreated by your lawyer and to remain entirely unaware of it.

Naturally, as ordinary people, regardless of what happens, we will want to act in our own best interests, correct?  If ‘yes’ then there’s a way of instructing a lawyer that may interest you.

Becoming a solicitor involves a very selective process, for example, it could be one person out of 500 with a law degree who is actually selected to become a solicitor.  This process of selection opens the industry of solicitors to politics, personal favours, and corruption, where solicitors may be less able to act independently, but the best position for a lawyer to be in is one where they can act independently.  It is quite possible that the industry of solicitors quietly suffers from a #MeToo movement that shall never be exposed, and the industry’s vulnerability to this possibility is one that may affect you as the approaching customer.

There is an understandable solution and a way of giving instructions to a lawyer, that can not-only save you money, but keep you secure from the politics and other vulnerabilities that the industry of solicitors and maybe all lawyers are susceptible to.

The solution involves receiving advice where there is a minimised risk of corruption, and then in reliance on that advice, instructing a lawyer to act on the strict basis of that advice, they verifying that your legal position is what you have been advised.

Reducing the costs of lawyer fees is also possible with an understanding of the various work carried out by a lawyer, for an understanding of what you need from a lawyer and what you can gain from elsewhere at a reduced cost.

In receipt of all the work that you need from lawyers, you may be able to stand up in court to represent yourself.  If you can complete a representation of yourself in court, just once, successfully, then your confidence to do the same in future shall be increased – you could understand that it isn’t too difficult once you understand what the court is interested in hearing – the law.

The barrister kind of lawyer is likely to be your favourite kind of lawyer, because they play to win.  And the reason why they play to win is because they are self-employed and rely on their personal reputations for attracting repeat business.  You might learn 10 things from a solicitor, but you will learn 100 things from a barrister.

So if you were thinking of finding a solicitor to resolve your legal problems, then maybe finding a barrister is the thing you should try instead.

To further understand the methods that can reduce your court costs, prevent you from the potential corruption within the industry of lawyers, including the possibility of increasing your confidence as a representative of yourself in court, please contact us.

The Benefit of Annoying Others and The Systematic Subtraction Game

There is something in annoying other people that some people come to enjoy, because society provides a reward for those who manage successfully to annoy others.  For an excellent example of this point please notice Jamie Carragher that Sky suspended from work in March 2018.

Is it right that society helps to reward other individuals if they can annoy another person into a reaction?  Is it fair that citizens of the society should be forced into tolerating the numerous attempts of others, to annoy them?  Human nature is such that every person has some form of limit, so is it right for society to permit individuals to prey on the vulnerability of human nature within citizens, towards the loss of those citizens and the gain of those people that only approach them in order to annoy them?

The outcomes of being annoyed that society comes to hear about are acts that can be described by the law as being ‘criminal’ in their nature. There is some degree of animosity that is summoned by the individuals who manage to annoy others, and there is really no other reason for the encounters and communication towards that annoyed person.

A way to notice what is occurring when individuals are being approached in order to be annoyed, before even mentioning that it is a form of harassment, is that it is a systematic approach towards depriving the victims of these situations of things that right fully belong to them — individuals that successfully annoy another person intend to rely on the law to act against them for a reward.

In the case of Jamie Carragher (which is one of the more recent that the media has highlighted, but which is an excellent example of the situations created) Mr. Carragher is an ordinary and decent member of the society that was minding his own business, who had no intention of committing a crime or doing an offensive act — UNTIL he encountered Person B.  Person B created Mr. Carragher’s annoyance and provoked his animosity at that time, which prompted Mr. Carragher’s reaction, and the rest, as we know, is history.

To enquire with Person B for what his intentions were when expressing communication for Mr. Carragher’s attention (at that time), it is unlikely that you could get anything except attempting to annoy Mr. Carragher for increasing his temperature.  Person B even had a camera phone on “record” in order to capture the very moment.

A deeper look into the picture that Mr. Carragher and Person B shared also shows that it was a situation where Person B had no ability to interest Mr. Carragher for something constructive — Person B could only create a situation that would be negative in its quality.

Generally, in the situations where a person is being targeted towards their annoyance, it is typically at the hands of others who are unable to interest them. Since these are individuals that are only capable of creating negative situations for their prey, so that their prey only stands to lose something or some things, there needs to be a terminology for describing such people.

Mr. Carragher performed an act that was criminal in its nature, but it was an act that was provoked by another person that had no other interest but to cause Mr. Carragher to have the animosity to react in that way or some number of other ways, as a consequence of the animosity calculated to become present.

If it was illegal for Mr. Carragher to have reacted in the way in which he did, then shouldn’t it be illegal for a person to have the intention of causing Mr. Carragher to react in that way as well?  If the law’s aim is to prohibit society from a particular act or particular acts, then why should it be okay for members of the society to induce the performance of those acts through someone else, or especially a person of their choosing?

On an analysis of statistics for crime figures, it can be shown factually, that had Mr. Carragher not encountered Person B, that the illegal act performed by Mr. Carragher would not have been carried out, which means that a discouragement of individuals who have no better thing to offer others except situations for subtraction from them, would lead to a reduction in crime — there would be less crime, and there would be more peace.

Should Mr. Carragher or others like him, need to hide themselves because others wish to annoy them everywhere that they go?  No. The law should protect people like Mr. Carragher from individuals like Person B, by making them equally as liable for the criminal act that their input helps to create.

The annoy-someone-famous-or-not-just-someone game is a feature of the culture in the UK, but it is also a feature of cultures around the world.  How useful is this feature to the societies that it is featured within?  As it stands, it causes people to be rewarded for causing others to commit crimes, and this in turn fuels the creation of crimes.

Beneficiaries of the culture of provocation include undercover police officers that no person is able to make a complaint against for never being able to identify them or prove that they are police-officers, and there is the journalist/news-reporter — perhaps there are more kinds of beneficiary.

The under-cover police officer is assigned to observe a person that is suspected shall commit crime X.  If the suspect commits crime X then all is justified and no time has been wasted, but where that suspect does not commit crime X or any crime, time has been wasted, and maybe that suspect isn’t interested in criminal activity at all.  What seems to happen is that the under-cover police officers become frustrated with the suspect, and instead of being interested in the performance of crime X, they become interested in the performance of any crime, and what follows is the annoyance of that person at the hands of under-cover police officers.  In the situations, the police officers are individuals who are unable to interest their suspects, and they are individuals that come to cause the performance of crimes that would not have been committed except for their input towards the person who commits them — the target of their prey. Later the police officers rely on statistics to show why their employment is justified — it benefits them to cause the performance of criminal activity.

The journalist wants to write a story or be the source of a story that is featured in as many media outlets as possible, because this is how they receive payment.  So, by annoying someone famous directly, or by causing the annoyance of some famous person, that person might commit an act that a story can be based on.  Again, there is a reward for causing others to commit crimes that if discouraged would reduce crime and benefit society as a whole.

People that are targeted to be annoyed should be seen as being victims, and people that spend their time calculating the annoyance of others should be treated as criminals by the law. The approach of individuals seeking another’s annoyance, is a systematic approach for the subtraction of things that belong to the one being annoyed, for the benefit of the one causing the annoyance — society should not permit individuals to be rewarded for causing the criminal activity carried out by others.

The above is not expressed to justify the actions of Jamie Carragher or any person who has reacted to perform criminal acts following their targeting, but it is expressed to highlight that human nature being what it is, that as humans we can understand human nature, and that what we need is for the law to accept and understand human nature also.

The Relationship Ring

Ask around and you will find that while most people may not be ready to get married, they are still willing to remain in a relationship with their partners for a long time, with the possibility of marriage somewhere in the future. For whatever reason, that’s the way it is.

The above gives an indication that there’s a phase of the long-term relationship that people feel is important, but which the world has not recognised. The stage can be noticed as being before a proposal for marriage and the engagement that precedes being married.

The world being what it is today, some people are not satisfied until a couple announces a split, and where a split is announced, for this kind of people, the game rewinds – they will seek another couple and another couple, to prey on, to cause their split. You would think that the grief to be experienced by two people in a love-relationship, following a split, makes these people happy. For whatever reason it is, that’s the way it is, and people in relationships will need to be capable of withstanding the goals of these kinds of people, to have half a chance of keeping their love-relationships functioning.

There are many examples of people that have been at a stage of their relationship that was quite serious to them, only for the vultures to prey on them to wreck what they might otherwise have held on to. There may have been something that these couples could have done to aid the preservation of their relationships, and maybe in future they can try something new.

The engagement-ring and the wedding-ring are signs, and they warn others that may have a keen interest, that the person they are paying attention to, is seriously involved in a relationship with someone else. At a stage within your relationship that you find to be serious, and that you wish for others to take seriously, you could rely on the ring for providing the signs to others.

The ring wouldn’t be an engagement-ring or a wedding-ring, but as it signifies a serious relationship, maybe it can be called a relationship-ring. The ring will provide a sign that respectful others shall have respect for, and it will serve as something to remind you and your partner that you both agree that between you it is serious.

The Value of EU Rights

Following the recent news of new rights for citizens of the European Union [‘EU’] in the form of the GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation), #DavidWest28 asked the European Union’s Commission ‘Question 1’.

Question 1, ‘If EU laws are not enforceable, then of what use are EU rights?

The EU’s Commission claims to exist for ensuring that EU laws operate properly and perfectly throughout the EU, which means that the Commission should have an interest in ensuring that EU rights are enforceable throughout the EU. In fact, ensuring that EU laws are enforceable throughout the EU should be a priority of the Commission and something that they should randomly test, as a part of their basic functions.

If EU laws cannot be enforced, it causes the problem of encouraging EU laws to be breached, continually, and it also means that in actuality, that EU rights which EU citizens trust in to rely on, do not really exist. If EU rights do not really exist, then news about new rights for EU citizens is of no significance to the people called EU citizens.

There are problems with lawyers rejecting cases that are based on EU laws.

There are problems with lawyers giving bad advice, refusing to inform EU citizens of claims that are available to them through EU laws.

There are problems with courts rejecting applications for hearings for the sole reason of those cases being based on EU laws.

Has it been forgotten that there are government organisations responsible for providing legal aid for EU citizens, that have refused to do so, or that have made it near-impossible for legal aid to be received where the legal matters to be resolved are based in EU laws?  Well, it is the case, and has been in the UK.

What is the EU Commission to do about the problems above? Nothing? If nothing then return to question 1.

Not long ago one member state of the European Union voted to leave the EU. If the EU citizens of that nation were more aware of the rights available to them through EU laws, because they could make use of those rights, is it less likely that a majority of that member state would vote in favour of leaving the EU?

So by allowing EU laws to be unenforceable, the EU may have helped to cause EU laws and EU rights to be of little value to a majority of EU citizens, so that a referendum in favour of leaving the EU would always have a good chance of being successful. The public perception painted by those in favour of leaving the EU is often that monies are paid to the EU in exchange for very little – the average voter would ask themselves what it is they are gaining from the EU.

EU laws are international in their kind, but when they are breached they are required to be enforced locally. If EU laws could be enforced internationally, this might prevent the problems listed above. This could mean that the EU requires EU lawyers – lawyers that are not tied to any nation – hopefully this would prevent the bias that helps to resist against the enforcement of EU laws. At the very least, the EU should have an observation for the enforceability of the rights that it is granting to its citizens who actually make up the majority of the EU.

As things stand presently, the EU is an institution that is promising rights to individuals that it calls its citizens, but the rights being promised are virtually non-existent because the EU has not been diligent towards ensuring the enforceability of those rights. Disappointing.

#ToleranceMeans Respect

Article 22 of the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights states, “The Union shall respect cultural, religious and linguistic diversity.”  It is a law for producing equality throughout the European Union, why?  Because the European Union is made up of many nations and citizens from even more nations.

In countries where people of different religions and ethnicities live together, the potential for discrimination is high, and so is the potential for conflicts based on the differences.  In such places an emphasis on the differences between the people, for preventing those differences from being an obstacle to unity, to peace, to prosperity, and to progress, is required — Article 22 provides this.

The way for preventing the differences from becoming a problem is for those differences to be respected.  This is a respect of the difference of religion, a respect of the difference of political view, a respect of the difference in ambitions, a respect of the difference of interests, and so on.  In practise, the respect that prevents differences from causing conflicts, so that people can live comfortably and in peace, is greatly appreciated, but some people do not realise that that respect is tolerance.

By tolerating others with who you have differences, you respect the differences instead of acting on them — which is disrespecting them.

A strange thing occurs where a country grants a right to free speech, and to free thought, conscience and religion, but then when the citizens of that country exercise their rights, they are persecuted by other citizens who have differences with them.  It’s an example to indicate, that some people do not understand that respect means tolerance — where rights are granted to individuals, the law simultaneously calls for those rights to be respected (tolerated).  Without a respect for the differences between a nation or continent’s people, a lack of unity for progress afflicts that nation or continent — things could be better there.

Change begins as an Idea that is Shared

Oh the nerve of being told about my untied shoelaces!  Can you believe that?  But why my wife and children couldn’t communicate this to me instead?  Better still, why they couldn’t help me tie them?#analogy


Change begins as an idea that is shared, discussed, and understood, but there are examples of people who have been killed for sharing their ideas.

There’s a famous story about a man who was crucified for sharing his ideas.

An idea for discussion during January of any year, could mean that by the following January a solution has been found, and that five years after being introduced as an idea, that a problem is being resolved if it hasn’t been already.

So where there’s a real problem, where do you stand in the situation for resolving it?

There are some people, and you might be surprised who, that do not want the good changes.

Translate »