[
N.B.none of the following should be found as any legal advice given]
The mathematics of being an individual alone is irrefutable and incontrovertible. There is no need when so knowing this at step one of day one, of the affair, for the appellant to ever conscienate the possibility that in bad cause he would refuse. He would want to have either been pretty dumb or to have sold out principles which are not his, but God's, to give away, for it to have had been bad cause.
1. Right to work: constitutional right to hire his own labour, unprejudiced in its availability to hiring the self as being precedent, and not antecedent, to others in so doing.*
2. Right against slavery: constitutional protection of his lawful preference in training is by the appellant, as argument, maintained.*
3. Onus: the onus on convincing any parties to change a position is with those who urge change*
4. Nature of incentive: the carrot and stick is not aptly applied in any dignifiable appraisability.*
5. One man task: a one man task is only ever going to be a one man task, no matter how much intervention upon it is argued
6. Individuality: the futility of acquiring self-referencing qualification: no piece of paper will tell him sooner to hire his own labour.
7 Business sense: Own business as he sees fit; don't change horses in midstream; steady as she goes, etc.
8 Initiative: The nature of work is a one man game and suited to its getting done that way rather than explaining all of its inspiration motivation and impetus away to others who won't either listen when told but instead rely blindly upon law to do their thinking for them.*
9 Experience: Ten years of independent study behind him, and more to go.
10 Confidence: Asserted in stance maintained, position protected, and course pursued already as being the right one.
11 Prejudice: While during interview his business competence was called into question by a box ticking pen pusher.*
Take no action
*(Note on 1 above):
40 3 1o The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen.
40 3 2o The State shall, in particular, by its laws protect as best it may from unjust attack and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate the life, person, good name, and property rights of every citizen.
45 2 1o The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing: - That the citizens (all of whom, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood) may through their occupations find the means of making reasonable provision for their domestic needs.
45 3 1o The State shall endeavour to secure that private enterprise shall be so conducted as to ensure reasonable efficiency in the production and distribution of goods and as to protect the public against unjust exploitation.
*(Note on 2 above):
42 3 1o The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the state, or to any particular type of school designated by the state.
*(Note on 3 above): Being comfortable with my own predicament the onus is on any as might encourage change of my position to justify that change, and not on me to endlessly explain that being an individual I should as I see fit see to that being an individual does not change while others might argue nonsense. Justifying that it ought not be doesn't cross the Dept's mind, yet the legislation is relied upon blindly without ever having to count that each person is an individual and not more. I am not convinced but harassed and harangued. Concerning what laws can be relied upon to feel whatever confidence in one's position ought to be asserted as a mistakenly confident stance.
*(Note on 4 above): Were I in the wrong or were it a position which would then favour me more, the carrot and stick would be apt. Since I am not claimed to have done anything wrong, nor does it better my position, it is not apt to use a quid pro quo ultimatum to urge change in stance. It is patronising and belittling the choice and freedom of the citizenry of its nation that any government would so employ such tactics to massage their macro sphere situation to more palletteable figures maintaining.
*(Note on 8 above): The nature of being and expressing dualism, while the former part owns the causes of impetus while not intervening, and the latter part while so doing, encourages survival mechanisms which would not tolerate intervention and yet the task be completed happily. This should be an obvious alarm bell even to those who are not tasked with expressing as much, who sadly would be ignored in their plight, just like those unfortunately who can.
*(Note on 11 above): This is not an appropriate mood in which to spur on an emburgeoning business, as should be taking its first baby-steps in private and secret, and not out against the big bad world subject to ill considered bases of ignorance of his position from which to let seem stronger their position to belittle his. Suit against such liable and its prejudicial effect is not ruled out by the appellant.
Take no action
Fig: Take no action: the option not considered under the scheme as that possibly most suitable and appropriate to the needs of the appellant. Without this as an option, the onus would seem on convincing him to change his position. But no, it is assumed the poor don't know what's good for them.
NO INTERVENTION
Steady as she goes!
Fig: Maintain a steady course: the option not considerable under the scheme as the most suitable and appropriate to the needs of the appellant. With the path to success in his sights and intervention blotting it out, every good cause existed to wish them away!
Fig 2: How long can it take for the message “No Thank You, Interference” to sink in?
Fig 3: units slowing in production as they rise against a time line with greater production rate along the more horizontal parts of the blue line. The red line showing the date of initial contact.
Production counted by units of finished products of audio production slowed the most since the period surrounding 2008 when there was no computer to work upon. It is clear from the graph how this correlates with the time of initial contact with the Dept. When there is less interference there is more work done. When there is more work done, there is less interference. You could not interfere more with my work, but by taking away my machine from me.
BEFORE INTERVENTION (PRIOR TO 30/03/11)
SINCE INTERVENTION (SINCE TO 30/03/11)
Fig 1: I cannot get my work done: I already know what it is I have to do. Get out of my way! The appellant had only everything to show him good cause to refuse.
Fig 4: Who ever gave this the green light? The Counter-intuitive flow of Cost and Benefit of Intervention. Considering the effort and strain of being intervened upon, why punish those whom it benefits least – theirs might just be a genuine case too!
Squeeze to fit legislation
Expand to fit facts
Fig: Intervention is only ever on track to relate with legislation, not with the everyday normal routines of the real life of the candidate to be intervened upon.
There is only ever good cause in deciding toward the task which is aimed toward, with one's eyes open, alone, when it is going it alone is the task.
Fig: Welfare set out to intervene upon an attempt to climb Everest alone. But you don't understand, with the banking crisis and this legislation we must offer you a training course!
Fig “No minister, you cannot have “The Intervention” as a period in history, just put Pandora’s Box back now, you've had enough!”
