text:
Nigerian Law/Evading justice: perjury

EVADING JUSTICE – PERJURY AS A RELATED OFFENCE

Evidence is the corner stone of all legal proceedings. It is therefore, of great significance, for its sanctity to be protected. A judge or magistrate before whom the legal contest is fought is intrinsically unconnected with the facts which led to the dispute. His ability to resolve the dispute based on the facts as presented by the disputants depends to a large extent on the quality of evidence adduced by the parties. Assigning probative value on the evidence of the disputants and, their witnesses, equally depend on the forensic skills of the trial court in observing the demeanours of those witnesses. The basis for the proscription of offences relating to perjury or false evidence is underscored by the inherent danger in wrongful conviction or wrongful acquittal where the evidence adduced by the parties, were false.

Historically, in Anglo-Saxon legal procedure, the offence of perjury (which is same with the offence of false evidence under the Penal Code, (applicable in Northern states of Nigeria) although the term is retained under the Criminal Code (which is applicable in Southern states of Nigeria) could only be committed by both jurors and by compurgators.1  With time witnesses began to appear in court they were not so treated despite the fact that their functions were akin to that of modern witnesses.  This was due to the fact that their role were not yet differentiated from those of the juror – hence false evidence or perjury by witnesses was not made a crime.  Even in the fourteenth century when witnesses started appearing before the jury to testify, perjury by them was not made a punishable offence.  The maxim then was that every witness’s evidence on oath was true.2  Perjury by witnesses began to be punished before the end of fifteen century by the Star Chamber. The immunity enjoyed by witnesses began also to be whittled down or interfered with by the parliament in England in 1540 with subornation of perjury3 and, in 1562, with perjury proper. The punishment for the offence then was in the nature of monetary penalty, recoverable in a civil action and, not by penal sanction. In 1913, the Star Chamber, declared perjury by a witness to be a punishable offence at common law.

CONCEPTUAL CLASSIFICATION ON CRIME OF PERJURY OR FALSE EVIDENCE UNDER NIGERIAN LAW Nigerian penal legislation classifies offences affecting evidence e.g. (for example) false evidence, perjury and, fabricating evidence in exactly the same way and, punishment for all the grades of offences appears to be based on the enormity of the evil, which will follow, consequent upon the giving of such false evidence. The offence of perjury is restricted as it was under common law to the case of forensic false evidence. This offence is committed by a witness, lawfully ‘sworn’ in judicial proceedings, which makes a material statement, which he knows to be false, or without belief in its truth. The word ‘oath’ according to Turner4 is not limited to religious oaths, but includes the taking of legal affirmation or declaration. Oath as synonym of sworn is defined by section 36 of the Penal Code thus: ‘The word ‘oath’ includes a solemn affirmation substituted by law for an oath, and any declaration required or authorized by law to be made before a Public Servant or to be used for the purpose of proof, whether in a Court of Justice or not.’

(a)	 False oaths in non-judicial proceedings In the classification of perjury, the Criminal Code,5 punishes every falsehood whether in judicial proceedings, or sworn or not, in exactly the same way. This tends to suggest that the Criminal Code punishes telling lies simpliciter and, lies told outside the confines of a Court of Law, even though, not sworn, are brought within the classification of perjury or false evidence. Under the Penal Code classification, such evidence must have been given under oath or under express provision of law compelling a person to state the truth. But having regard to section 36 of the same Code, such statement may be made in order to proof a particular fact in a Court of Law or not. The Criminal Code in classifying false evidence or the offence of perjury made no distinction between statements made under oath; under the Penal Code, if the statement is made in a judicial proceeding oath is a sine qua non for the statement to assume the character of false evidence or perjury, if its falsehood is proved. Under section 1 (1) of the English Perjury Act 1911, the statement to amount to perjury must have been made under oath. Under these laws it is irrelevant whether or not the witness’s statement is false at all. The witness renders himself liable to punishment by simply making assertions, false or true, which he does not positively believe to be true. In the words of Turner6 ‘a man who tells the truth quite unintentionally is morally a liar.’ This proposition was exemplified by the conviction of a Jewish juryman who concurred in a verdict that Christ was born of a virgin, was held to have committed perjury, whilst his Christian colleague were found not to be guilty.7

PERJURY OR FALSE EVIDENCE Definition

Section 156 of the Penal Code defines giving false evidence, thus: Whoever, being legally bound by an oath or by any express provision of law to state the truth or being bound by law to make declaration upon any subject, makes any statement, verbally or‘ot Whoever, being legally bound by an oath or by any express provision of law to state the truth or being bound by law to make declaration upon any subject, makes any statement, verbally or otherwise, which is false in a material particular and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, is said to give false evidence.

The offence is defined under section 329 of the Sokoto State Shariah Penal Code, thus ‘whoever makes any statement, verbally or otherwise, which is false in a material particular and which he either know or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, is said to give false evidence.’ The offence is also defined under section 117 of the Criminal Code, thus:

Any person who, in any judicial proceeding; or for purpose of instituting any judicial proceeding; knowingly gives false testimony touching any matter which is material to any question then pending in that proceeding, or intended to be raised in that proceeding, is guilty of an offence, which is called perjury.

In English law, the offence is defined under section 1 of the Perjury Act, 1911, thus:

If a person lawfully sworn as a witness or as an interpreter in a judicial proceeding willfully makes a statement material in that proceeding, which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true, he shall be guilty of perjury, and shall, on conviction thereof on indictment, be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years to a fine or to both such imprisonment and fine.

Elements The following matters may be regarded as the elements of the offence:

(a)	Lawfully bound on oath

It seems that under the Nigerian Penal Code, for a witness to be prosecuted for giving false evidence, his testimony must be required by law to be on oath and, such testimony may be verbal or otherwise. But having regard to section 36 of the same Penal Code as noted earlier, evidence given under an affirmation or solemn declaration is also regarded as evidence given on oath. In interpreting the term ‘By an oath’ under section 191 of the Indian Penal Code, which has same wording with section 156 of the Penal Code, Thakore and Vakil8 apparently referring to an Indian court’s decision, argued that an oath or solemn affirmation is not a sine qua non to the offence of perjury or giving false evidence. This reasoning may be correct but it is submitted that such a person must either legally be bound by an oath or by express provision of the law to state the truth or must be bound by law to make declaration. If otherwise, it is doubtful if a court of justice under the Nigerian Penal Code jurisdiction can reasonably find an accused guilty for the offence of giving false evidence for statements not made under those circumstances. Under section 113 of the Criminal Code, it is immaterial that the statement is given on oath or not. Also under section 117 of the same Code, the forms and ceremonies used in administering the oath is immaterial, provided that the witness’s assent to the forms and ceremonies was voluntary. It is also immaterial under the same section that the evidence was given orally or in writing.

With regard to the competence of the court before which the oath or affirmation is given the Penal Code is silent on this. However, if the position in the Indian Penal Code is to be used as a guide for section 156 of the Penal Code, it means that if the oath was administered by a court that has no jurisdiction over the case in which the false evidence occurred, the proceeding will be coram non judice.9 Under section 117 of the Criminal Code, it is immaterial that the court, tribunal, commission of inquiry or person before whom the oath was administered is properly constituted, or held in the proper place, provided that the court or tribunal, commission of inquiry or person acted as such in the proceeding in which the testimony is given. This seems to suggest that under the Criminal Code, perjury may be committed though the court had no jurisdiction in the particular case in which the statement was made.10 The position under the Nigerian Penal Code and, that of the Indian Penal Code is consistent with the position under common law, where it used to be a requirement that the oath must have been taken before a competent jurisdiction, that is before same person or persons authorized by English law to take cognizance of the proceeding in or for which the oath is given, and administer the oath.11  It must be pointed out that under the Penal Code, even if the oath is improperly administered by an incompetent person, the offence is still committed, if the person who made the false statement were bound by an ‘express provision of the law to state the truth.’

Turner11 enumerated those instances under common law, when the absence of ‘competent jurisdiction’ will result to the administration of oath on a witness being declared invalid, hence could not afford grounds for the prosecution of any person for perjury:

Thus a false oath taken in a court of requests, in a matter concerning lands, was held not to be indictable, that court having no jurisdiction in such cases. The court must be properly constituted and the evidence must be taken before person or persons constituting the court. And perjury could not be assigned on an oath taken before persons acting merely in a private capacity, or before those who take upon them to administer oaths of a public nature, without legal authority for their so doing, or before those who are legally authorized to administer some kinds of oaths but not those which happen to be taken before them, or even before those who take upon them to administer justice by virtue of an authority colourable, but in truth unwarrantable and merely void…

The English Perjury Act as seen from section 1 (1) does not contain the expression ‘competent jurisdiction.’ As noted above12 and, having regard to the definition of judicial proceeding in section 1 (2) of the Perjury Act, perjury can be committed even though the offence occurred before a court having no jurisdiction to hear the matter. ‘Judicial proceeding’ is defined by section 9 of the Penal Code thus: ‘judicial proceedings include any proceeding in the court which it is lawful to take evidence on oath.’ Section 113 of the Criminal Code defines a judicial proceeding to include any proceeding had or taken in or before any court, tribunal, commission of inquiry, or persons in which evidence may or may not be taken on oath. Section 180 of the Evidence Act13 dealing with taking of oral evidence, provides that ‘save as otherwise provided in section 182 and 183 of this Act all oral evidence in any judicial proceedings must be given upon oath or affirmation administered in accordance with the provisions of the Oath Act.’ Section 229 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code14 provides that ‘Every witness giving evidence in any inquiry or trial under this Criminal Procedure Code may be called upon to take an oath or make a solemn affirmation that he will speak the truth.’

Sub-section 2 of section 229 of the same Code states: The evidence of any person, who by reason of youth or ignorance or otherwise is in the opinion of the court unable to understand the nature of an oath, may be received without the taking of an oath or making of an affirmation if in the opinion of the court he is possessed of sufficient intelligence to justify the reception of the evidence and understands the duty of speaking the truth.

Section 230 of the Code prohibits compelling a witness to take oath or make affirmation. The section provides:

No witness if he refused to take an oath or make a solemn affirmation shall be compelled to do so or asked his reason for so refusing but the court shall record in such a case the nature of the oath or affirmation proposed, and the fact of the refusal of the witness together with any reason which the witness may voluntarily give his refusal.

Furthermore, section 231 of the CPC provides ‘a witness shall take an oath make a solemn affirmation in such a manner as the court considers binding on his conscience.’ With regard to swearing of Muslims, section 232 provides that:

No person of the Moslem faith shall be required to take an oath in any court unless

(a)	He has been given an opportunity to complete the ablutions prescribed by the Moslem faith for persons taking oath on the Holy Qu’ran; and (b)	The oath is administered by a person of the Moslem faith; and (c)	The oath is taken upon a copy of the Holy Quran printed in the Arabic language.

By virtue of the definition of judicial proceedings under the Penal Code, it is clear that all proceedings in the ordinary courts of law, courts martial and tribunal and, quasi-judicial bodies where the taking of oath is a sine qua non for a witness to testify, are judicial proceedings. Under the Criminal Code, oath is not material, provided the evidence was given before any body authorized to conduct a hearing or an inquiry over a matter. Therefore, statements made before such bodies, if false, can furnish sufficient grounds to prosecute the maker for perjury or for giving false evidence under the Codes. However, a cursory look at section 113 of the Criminal Code, section 180 of the Evidence Act and, section 230 of the CPC reveals a conflict. This is because while the former section permits a witness to testify before a court or tribunal, commission of inquiry or any person on oath or otherwise, section 180 of the Evidence Act makes it mandatory for all oral evidence to be given on oath and, section 230 of the CPC permits a witness to testify if he elects to do so, not on oath or by affirmation. In such a situation, it is important, for the trial judge, the magistrate, the prosecution or defence counsel, to ensure that a statement is extracted from such a witness, which indicates that he agreed to tell the truth in his testimony. If this is not done, the testimony of such a witness may not furnish enough ground to prosecute him/her for perjury or for giving false evidence.15 Therefore, where a witness who refused to testify on oath or by affirmation, did not undertake to speak the truth, the entire process in such a proceeding may be described as a drama without any intent of it being basis for a criminal prosecution.

The above notwithstanding the position of the law by virtue of section 1 (2) of the English Perjury Act and, section 9 of the Penal Code, is that while evidence could only he held to have been given in a judicial proceedings, if it was given before a body authorized to receive and examine evidence on oath, such a consideration is immaterial under section 113 of the Criminal Code. In the English case of Shaw16 where licensing justices held a special preliminary meeting for which there was no statutory authority, they had no power to administer an oath, the proceeding was held not to be judicial one. Equally, where an oath was administered on a witness by a person authorized by law to do so, there can be no perjury, if that person subsequently withdrew. This was decided in Lloyd17 where a witness was sworn in bankruptcy before a county court registrar, but examined in another room in the absence of the registrar; no perjury was committed in the absence of the registrar who had the competence to receive evidence on oath. Under section 117 of the Criminal Code unlike section 156 of the Penal Code and section 1 (1) of the English Perjury Act, the false statement may either be made in an on-going proceeding or in a case, in which judicial proceeding is either threatened or imminent.18 Also where a witness in a judicial proceeding, contradicts his earlier statement cannot furnish a ground for the conviction of an accused person. The Nigerian Supreme Court stated so in the case of Joshua v The Queen,19 where the accused, a Customary Court President, was charged with demanding and with receiving, money to favour a litigant. A witness, who is said to be the go-between when first testifying before a magistrate, denied the corruption; later after a prosecution was begun against him for making a false statement as the police, he testified against the accused. The trial judge treated the witness and the accused as accomplice and, after warning himself of the danger of convicting the accused on such evidence, found their evidence to be true, and convicted the accused. When the trial judge re-examined the witness, in answer to the trial judge, he said there was no difference between his original written statement to the police and his evidence at the trial. The statement was not produced. In allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court held:

The judge erred in receiving evidence on the contents of the written statement he should have disregarded it in toto the evidence of M.S, who had committed perjury, as unreliable, and then asked himself whether there was enough other evidence for finding the appellant guilty; and as it was uncertain whether the judge would have convicted on the litigant’s evidence alone the conviction would be quashed.

The requirement that the false statement must have occurred under oath, in a judicial proceeding, which is a sine qua non for the offence of perjury under sections 156 of the Penal Code and 1 (1) of the English Perjury Act 1911, does not have a general application in all cases. For instance, oath may be a first step in the initiation of the proceeding, for example, swearing to an affidavit in support of a motion or any fact contained in a deposition duly sworn. According to Turner, ‘ In the case of perjury in an affidavit or the like, the offence is committed when the deponent takes oath to the truth of the affidavit, and it is unnecessary to aver or prove that the affidavit was filed or in any way used.20

It is pertinent to emphasis here, that under common law, the only oath required is one ‘calling Almighty God to witness that his testimony is true.’21 Such oath need not be in accordance with the doctrine or tenets of Christianity. It was sufficient if the witness believed in God and, swears in accordance with his religious belief.22 The purpose of such oaths had the effect of the witness renouncing the mercy and imprecates the vengeance of Heaven if he did not speak the truth. Such oath had the idea of binding the conscience of the witness, and presupposes a religious sanction if the witness told a lie on oath. Such a requirement has been displaced now, in that the solemnity of the occasion when an oath is administered by a witness in a judicial proceeding, no longer implies a religious sanction, but a legal sanction. This can be deduced from section 191 of the Criminal Code:

Any person who, on any occasion on which a person making a statement touching any matter is required by law to make it on oath, or under some sanction which may by law be substitute for an oath, or is required to verify it by solemn declaration or affirmation makes a statement touching such manner, in any material particular, is to his knowledge false, and verifies it on oath, or under such sanction or by solemn declaration or affirmation; is guilty of a felony, and is liable to imprisonment for seven years. The Evidence Act has also modified the common law rule which required a witness to swear in accordance with his religious belief. Section 182 (1) of the Evidence Act provides:

Any court may on any occasion if it thinks it just and expedient, receive, the     evidence, though not given upon oath, of any person declaring that the taking of any oath whatsoever is, according to his religious belief ought not, in the opinion of the court, to be admitted to give evidence upon oath.

Section 39 of the Sokoto State Shariah Penal Code include in the definition of an oath, the swearing in the name of Allah (SWT) or by His attributes and, a solemn affirmation substituted by law for an oath. This means that witnesses in a Shariah Court are given option to affirm instead of swearing in the name of God. It also means that those witnesses in a Shariah Court who may object to swearing on oath in accordance with section 182 (1) of the Evidence Act, are also at liberty to affirm, instead of swearing. However, the common law position on swearing in the name of God, is clearly modified by section 117 of the Criminal Code thus: ‘The forms and ceremonies used in administering the oath or in otherwise binding the person giving the testimony to speak the truth are immaterial, if the assents to the forms and ceremonies actually used.’23

(b) Material Statement in that proceeding All the statutes referred to above, require that the statement must be material to the proceeding in question, although the Criminal Code extends the doctrine to cover cases in which proceeding is either threatened or imminent. This doctrine was credited to Coke:24

For if it be not material, then though it be false, yet it is no perjury, because it concerneth not the point in suit, and therefore in effect it is extrajudicial also this act giveth remedy to the party grieved, and it the deposition be not material, he cannot be grieved thereby.

Whether or not a false statement is material as to amount to perjury is a question of fact, for the court.25 The materiality of the statement need not be intrinsic to the evidence in question. It is sufficient, if it is capable of facilitating the judge’s other evidence which had an intrinsic materiality. This has been explained by Turner, thus:

… so that trivial details, mentioned by a witness in giving his account of a transaction, may become important by their leading the jury to believe that his knowledge of the transaction is complete, and his evidence therefore likely to be accurate on the same ground, all statement maDE by a witness as to matters that affect his credibility are material, e.g. his denial of having been convicted of crime. And even if the false evidence were legally inadmissible yet this need not prevent its being regarded as ‘material’ enough to form the subject of an indictment for perjury. There is, for instance, a rule that when a witness answered answers are to be taken as final, so that no other witness can legally be brought to contradict them. Yet if, by a breach of this rule, some second witness be permitted to give this contradiction, and he gave it falsely, he may be indicted for perjury; for, so soon as the contradiction was admitted, it did affect the credit given to the previous witness, and so became ‘material.’26

It seems that the question is not just failure to tell the truth, that determines the materiality of the statement. Even acts of a witness which obstructed proceeding during cross-examination, may be held to be material. In Millward,27 where a police officer denied having sought the assistance of his colleague in identifying in the court room a person charged with driving offences, that act was held by the English Court of Appeal as material statement in that it brought to a halt a line of cross-examination, went to the heart of the case, in that the stopping of the cross-examination might very have affected the outcome of the case. However, questions asked during cross-examination, which purpose is to impugn the credibility of a witness as to his previous convictions have been held not to be material. In R v Griepe,28 accused gave evidence on behalf of the Crown in 1970 on a preliminary objection into a charge of blackmail. The counsel to the alleged blackmailer asked the accused questions as to his credit with regard to his previous convictions between the year 1947 and 1950, which the accused denied but later admitted. The accused was subsequently charged with perjury relating to his evidence at the Magistrate Court in the proceedings for blackmail. The court inter-alia held that the answers given by the accused relating to those convictions not being relevant to those proceedings could not form the basis of a prosecution for perjury.

Whether a statement is material or immaterial seems to be a recondite point. Even as the questions relative to the credibility of a witness, a clear illustration of its operation seems not to be an easy point to determine. Smith29 argues that questions put to a witness under cross-examination which goes solely to his credit and, he denies it, the general rule is that his answer is final and evidence is not admissible to rebut his denial. Based on this reasoning, the court held in Murray30 that the accused was not indictable for false statement made when he was permitted to testify in rebuttal of a witness’s denial under cross-examination. In Gibbons31 the court took a contrary view. In that case, decided by eleven judges (with Martin B and Cropton, J.) dissenting, it was held that the accused was guilty, notwithstanding that his statement is inadmissible in law, but logically relevant to the question to be decided, that is the witness’s credibility. The court relied upon Hawkins32

…though the evidence signify nothing to the merits of the cause and is immaterial, yet, if it has a direct tendency to material, it is equally criminal in its own nature, and equally tends to abuse the administration of justice, and there does not seem to be any reason why it should not be equally punishable.

It is submitted that once a person has been lawfully sworn to tell the truth in any judicial proceeding, such a person is under a scared duty to say nothing, but the truth. If he tells a lie on oath, the question as to whether or not such a statement is immaterial to the main issue before the court ought not to arise. This is because the lie was told in a ‘judicial proceeding,’ where he had sworn to say nothing, but the truth. So whether such deliberate falsehood, will corroborate evidence, as to make it a material statement, for the purpose of prosecuting the maker for perjury, should also not arise. It is in view of this, Muale, J, in Phillpots,33 said: ‘… it is not material to the judicial proceeding, and it is not necessary that it should have been relevant and material for the issue being tried…’ This proposition differ from this rule under Nigerian penal laws and, under the English Perjury Act. The same doctrine is approved by Stephen, who contended that: ‘it is difficult to imagine a case in which a person would be under any temptation to introduce into his evidence a deliberate lie about a matter absolutely irrelevant to the matter before the court.34  At common law a person who made a statement which was in fact true, had no defence, it he believed such a statement to be false, or he was just reckless as to the truth or falsity of the statement.35  This is still the position under section 1 of the English Perjury Act 1911 and, under section 156 of the Penal Code. This position of the law, according to Smith, means that every statement in any judicial proceeding is the actus reus of perjury.36 This suggests that once such a statement is made, the burden on the prosecution is to prove that the accused made it with mens rea. (c) Mens Rea Under the Criminal Code, mens rea and actus reus as common law concepts are no longer relevant in the interpretation of the provision of the Code. Instead, the expressions ‘voluntary act’ and ‘intention’ have replaced them under that Code. This is by virtue of section 24 of the same Code which in defining criminal responsibility did not use these Latin expressions. Therefore, under the Criminal Code where a prohibited act results from the voluntary and intentional act of the perpetrator there is responsibility for the commission of such prohibited act.37 This means that under the Criminal Code, for a person to be liable for perjury, it must be established that the false statement was made intentionally as against statement made inadvertently or by mistake. This means that the accused must have made the statement which he knows to be false. Under the Penal Code and, the English Perjury Act, an additional element is required, that is, the accused apart from knowing of the falsity of the statement, he does not also believe it to be true. Under the Perjury Act, willfulness is also an essential element. This means that the false statement must have been made deliberately. Under both Codes, prove of intention or recklessness, will suffice. In an Indian case of Ratansi Daya,38 it was held that if the statement is literally true but owing to suppression or certain other facts, a wrong-inference was drawn, the accused cannot be convicted. This means that negligence as to the falsity of the statement will not suffice. According to Hawkins:39

It seemeth that no one ought to be found guilty there of without clear proof, that the false oath alleged against him was taken with some degree of deliberation; for if, upon the whole circumstances of the case it shall appear probable, that it was owing rather to the weakness than perverseness of the party, as where it was occasioned by surprise, or inadvertency, or a mistake of the true state of the question; it cannot be hard to make it amount to voluntary and corrupt perjury

Corroboration Corroboration which is a time honoured precaution which the common law imposed in prosecutions for perjury is perpetuated under section 119 of the Criminal Code, although it is not a requirement under the Penal Code. It is a requirement under section 13 of the Perjury Act. In an English case of R Threlfall,40 it was held that section 13 of the Perjury Act imposes a requirement that the assignment of perjury must be proved or corroborated with two witnesses, or by one witness with proof of other material and relevant facts substantially confirming his testimony. In R v Mayhew41 a letter written by the defendant contradicting his sworn evidence is corroboration. The corroborated fact upon which the assignment is based, must be relative to that part of the matter sworn which is material to the matter before the court at the time the oath was taken.

RECOMMENDATIONS In the dim past, taking of oath was dreaded for fear of supernatural sanctions. In that epoch, oath taking was an effective means of discovering the truth. Parties who were unsure of their claims or assertions refrained from taking the oath. That made matters simple and straight forward as it was easy to assume that refusal to take on oath was an admission of the allegation made against the defaulter. In this century, it seems that the efficacy of oath as a means of discovering the truth has been lost to the propensity of witnesses to perjure themselves. How to prevent perjury and, what remedies should be made available for the victims of perjured evidence came under focus in 1970 in the workings of the English Law Commission Working Paper42 and, the Council of Justice Committee. In Part III of the Report, the Justice Committee felt that oath or affirmation is still necessary not only for ensuring high standards of truth43 but  also as a remainder of the solemnity of the occasion, it however, was categorical that oath should be abolished, in that: Many of those who take a religious oath do so largely as a matter of form (or) because they think they are more likely to be believed if they take the oath, the oath ‘is only too often regarded as a necessary formality and rattled off with little outward sign of sincerity or understanding of its implications…We therefore think the time has come for the oath in its present form to be abolished and replaced by a form of undertaking which is more meaningful, more generally acceptable and more likely to serve the cause of justice. All witnesses should be required to make same solemn affirmation so that there is no distinction in the respect that is accorded them.’44

Having taking this stand, the Justice Committee had to grapple with the methodology of administration and, the wording of the affirmation. The Committee recommended that the administration of the oath should be unceremonious as possible, so that it makes no impact on the mind of the witness or on the court.45 The Committee also proposed that ‘oath would be more effective for its purpose if it were administered with deliberation by the judge or presiding magistrate who should satisfy himself that the witness understands its implication.46 On the suitable wording of the affirmation, while the Committee believed that an oath to tell ‘the whole truth’ was a meaningful phrase and, that all witnesses should be made aware of the fact that they could be prosecuted at the time of giving false evidence,47 the Committee further proposed as to the suitable form of the wording thus ‘I solemnly declare and promise that I will tell the truth, I am aware that if I tell a lie (or willfully mislead the court or tribunal,) I am liable to be prosecuted.’48

I concur with these proposals and recommendations for the following reasons. Oath taking as is currently administered in our courts is capable of swaying the mind of a reasonable tribunal or court, in favour of those witnesses who agreed to testify on oath. This means that religious oaths have a prejudicial effect. Incorrigible and pathological liars will be ready to perjury themselves on oath, if they are certain that a magistrate or judge would readily mistake their holy pretences for piety. It is therefore recommended that oath taking under our criminal justice system be abolished. Instead affirmation as alternative to oath taking should be modified to have same wording as those proposed by the Justice Committee above. It is however, submitted, that this recommendation should be limited to trials at the courts that apply essentially common law principles.

CONCLUSION In conclusion, it is submitted that the offence of perjury arises as a result of a breach of an oath, affirmation or declaration duly sworn in a judicial proceedings, or as observed, by the breach of a witness who declined from being sworn on oath, or being affirmed, of his undertaking to speak the truth. The fact that statutorily, a witness is allowed to testify in a judicial proceeding, if he elects not to be sworn or be affirmed, supports the position under the Criminal Code which extends the application of the law to every falsehood, whether or not made on oath. Under that Code therefore, the solemnity of the occasion is immaterial, as the Code treats telling of lies in the course of judicial proceedings and, outside judicial proceedings, as a criminal offence. The position of the law under that Code suggests that the underlining objective for the proscription of the offence of perjury requires a re-examination. This is because perjury means that a person has proved false to the oath he has taken. It is on this basis that the charge that the person violated the solemnity of his oath is based or assigned, which is termed the assignment of perjury. There may be several assignments which may exist in one oath duly sworn, but it is only one perjury in that proceeding that can be committed.42

1 Turner, J.W.C: Kenny Outlines on Criminal Law (Cambridge at University, Press: London, 1964) (18th edition), p.421. 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid 4 Turner, J.W.C, op.cit, p.422 5 Sections 117 of the Criminal Ciode; 156 of the Penal Code and, 191 of the English Perjury Act 1911. 6 Turner, J.W.C, op.cit, p.423 7 See the case of R. v Schlesinger (1847) 10 Q.B. 670, where it was emphasized that falsity as to a mental fact suffices, e.g. the witness’s belief, or his ‘I cannot remember.’ 8 Thakore, Dhirajlal Keshavlal and Vakil, Manharlal Ratanlol: The Law of Crimes (Bombay: The Bombay Law Reporter (Private Ltd: Calcutte: India, 1956) (19th edition), p.464. 9 Ibid. 10 This is the same position in English law as stated by Mitchell and Buzzard: Archibold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice (Sweet & Maxwell: London ) (14th Edition), p.1688 11 Turner, J.W.C: Russel on Crimes (Vol. 1) (London: Stevens & Sons, 1964) (Twelfth Edition), p.294 11 Ibid, pp. 294 - 295 12 Ante, p. 7 13 Cap C37, Laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 2004. 14 Cap E38, Laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 2004. 15 See the case of R v Moore (1892) 8 T.L.R. CCR where it was held that no affirmation where a witness declines to state the form of oath binding on him; and Nash v Ali Khan 8 T.L.R. 444, where it was held that unjustified refusal to swear or affirm constitutes contempt of court. 16 (1911) 6 Cr. APP.R. 1023 17 (1887) 19 Q.B.D. 212 18 Cf the case of R v Peerse (1863) 3 B. & S. 531, where it was held that for perjury to be committed there must be some thing in the nature of judicial proceeding, e.g. an existing cause. Also see the case of R v Cohen (1816) 1 Stark p 511, where it was held that before the Common Law Procedure Act, 1852, where an action had abated by the death of a co-plaintiff and no suggestion had been entered under the Administration of Justice Act, 1696, a trial was held extra-judicial, and perjury could not be assigned on false evidence given therein. It was held that an action improperly brought against a fictitious person or fictitious claim may constitute a judicial proceeding: see Turner, J.W.C., op.cit, p.294, footnote 15. 19 (1964) 1 ALL N.L.R. 1 20 Turner, J.W.C, op.cit, p.294. The principles in the quotation were distilled from the cases of R v Crossley (1797) 7 T.R. 315 and, R v Phillpots (1851) 2 Den. 302. 21 Smith, J.C., and Brian, Hogan: Criminal Law (Sweet & Maxwell, 1965) (2nd Edition), p. 504. 22 Omychund v Barker (1744), 1 At K 21. 23 Cf the case of Pritam Singh (1958) 1 ALL E.R. 199, where the witness, a Sikh was lawfully sworn and had given evidence on affirmation although the taking of an oath was not contrary to his religious belief, because the copy of the holy book of the Sikhs was not available in the Magistrate Court, the case was withdrawn. But under section 15 of the English Perjury Act and the English Oath Act 1961, the witness having been affirmed voluntarily would have been ‘lawfully sworn:’ see Smith, J.C, p. 505. 24 3 Inst. 167 but quoted by Smith, J.C, Ibid, p. 506. 25 Section 1 of the English Perjury Act, 1911. 26 Turner, J.W.C, op.cit, p.424. 27 (1985) Q.B. 519; (1985) 1 ALL E.R. 865, C.A. 28 1 Ld. Raym, 256 29 J.C. Smith, op.cit, p.507 30 (1885) I.F. 80 31 (1862) 9 Cox C.C. 105 32 1 P.C.C, 69 33 (1851) 2 Den. 302 at p. 306. It is submitted that this is the position under the penal code, as the words of section 156 of the Code appears to be very general without any limitation that the false evidence shall have any bearing upon the matter in issue. But explanation 2 to section 156 of the Penal Code seems to approve of the materiality concept, as it states that a material particular within the meaning of that section means a particular which is material to any question then in issue or intended to be caused in that proceeding. 34 3 H.C.L. 249 35 Co. 3 Inst. 160; Hawkins, I.P.C, c. 27, 3, 6, Ockley and Whitles bye’s case (1622), palm. 294; Allen v Westley (1629) Het. 97; Stephen, Disgest (4th edition), 95, 96: Smith, J.C, op.cit, p. 509 footnote 12. 36 Ibid. 37 Suit No. F.S.C. 260/1961; (1962) 2 N.S.C.C. 107 at 110, cited by Deji Sasegbon, Sasegbon’s Laws of Nigeria (1st edition) An Encyclopedia of Nigerian Law and Practice 7 (Pt. III) Criminal Law & Practice, p. 1297. 38 Deji Sasegbon, op.cit, p.1297. 37 Ovieful v State, S.C. 74/1983 (unreported), 9th Oct. 1984 per Karibi-Whyte, J.S.C. 38 (1915) 9 S.L.R. 170, 17 C.R.L.J 96; (1916) AIR (S) 70 (2) 39 I.P.C.., c. 27, 2, p.429 40 10 Cr. App. R. 112, at p.114 41 6 C & P 315. See also the cases of R v Saldanha (1921) 85 J.P 47; R v Hook (1858) D. and B. 606 (T.A.C) wherein it was held that it is sufficient if one direct witness be corroborated by some admission which the prisoner has made, or by circumstantial evidence. 42 (1909) A.C. 312 cited in Deji Sasegbon: Sasegbon’s Laws of Nigeria (1st edition) An Encyclopedia of Nigerian Law and Practice 7 (Pt. III) Criminal Law & Practice, p.1295. 42 Ibid. 43 See In re Samuel Nunoo 3 W.A.C.A. p.74 cited in Deji Sasegbon, op.cit. 44 1 N.L.R. 123, see Deji Sasegbon, ibid. 45 This procedure is to be adopted when the trial court found that the witness had committed perjury or given false evidence and it decided to commit him to trial and be dealt with summarily where such a witness failed to show enough cause why he should not be dealt with summarily. 46 (1943) 9 W.A.C.A. 20 at 20 – 21. 47 Deji Sasegbon, op.cit, p.1296. 48 No 33 on Perjury and kindred offences. 49 Report, para. 69 50 Report, paras. 66 51 Report, para. 71 52 Ibid. 53 Report, para. 77 54 Ibid. 55 Turner, J.W.C, op.cit, p.302.

title: Nigerian Law/Evading justice: perjury


text:
User:Matt Bevacqua

Matt is a second year student at Univerisity of Canberra, attempting to complete a Bachelor of Sports Management.

He is a qualified personal trainer and enjoys playing football and futsal.

Assignments
/The impact of Business and Politics on World Football (Soccer)/

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User:Matt Bevacqua


text:
Dominant group/Anthropology

With respect to any dominant group in anthropology, or dominant anthropological group; i.e., the term dominant group within the subject area of anthropology, use in context may indicate its reason for use or may signify importance of research results that usually need to be explained by theory and interpretation of experimentation.

Anthropology is divided into fields: archaeology, biological anthropology, cultural anthropology, linguistic anthropology, and social anthropology.

The entity, dominant group, like the anthropologist who writes an article using the term, seems to find purpose within each.

Dominant group
Are dominant group and possibly some or all of its synonyms artifacts?

Is anthropology the field of the two-word term dominant group?

What ethnic group originated the first use of a term that has been translated into English as dominant group?

Is there some fundamental ethnographic concept associated with dominant group?

What is the origin and first use of the term or its primordial concept and usage?

Artifact hypothesis: dominant group may be an artifact of human endeavor or may have preceded humanity.

Bad group hypothesis: dominant group is the group that engages in discrimination, abuse, punishment, and additional criminal activity against other groups. It often has an unfair advantage and uses it to express monopolistic practices.

Entity hypothesis: dominant group is an entity within each field where a primary author of original research uses the term.

Identifier hypothesis: dominant group is an identifier used by primary source authors of original research to identify an observation in the process of analysis.

Obvious hypothesis: the only meaning of dominant group is the one found in Mosby's Medical Dictionary.

Def. "a social group that controls the value system and rewards in a particular society" is called a dominant group.

Primordial hypothesis: dominant group is a primordial concept inherent to humans such that every language or other form of communication no matter how old or whether extinct, on the verge of extinction, or not, has at least a relative synonym for dominant group.

Regional hypothesis: dominant group, when it occurs, is only a manifestation of the limitations within a region. Variation of those limitations may result in the loss of a dominant group with the eventual appearance of a new one or none at all.

Experimentation
To gather data, use "dominant group" in quotes and anthropology or ethnography as additional search terms to explore the internet using search engines listed under External links.

Humanities
"The term 'humanities' includes, but is not limited to, the study and interpretation of the following: language, both modern and classical; linguistics; literature; history; jurisprudence; philosophy; archaeology; comparative religion; ethics; the history, criticism and theory of the arts; those aspects of social sciences which have humanistic content and employ humanistic methods; and the study and application of the humanities to the human environment with particular attention to reflecting our diverse heritage, traditions, and history and to the relevance of the humanities to the current conditions of national life." --National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act, 1965, as amended.

The Division of Research Programs for the National Endowment for the Humanities encourages research and writing in all areas of the humanities, including the study of history, literature, philosophy, religion, and foreign cultures. Through grants to individual scholars and institutions, the division fosters work that enables Americans to understand the world.

What aspects of anthropology are considered to be part of the humanities?

Anthropology
Def. "[t]he holistic scientific and social study of humanity, mainly using ethnography as its method" is called anthropology.

"Anthropology is distinguished from other social science disciplines by its emphasis on in-depth examination of context, cross-cultural comparisons, and the importance it places on long-term, experiential immersion in the area of research."

Biological anthropology
Some thirty-two vervet monkey infants in Amboseli National Park, Kenya, are observed from August 1983 to June 1985.

An external factor making it costly for an animal to maintain access to a food item is threats by a high-ranking group member.

"Interactions with dominant group members may thus provide infants with the raw material for recognizing variation in food quality."

"A final possibility is that infants' fear of dominants overrides the importance of food quality." Dominants "may instill a general level of fear in infants, regardless of food types, and thus abandon distance in infants is not expected to vary by food category."

Cultural anthropology
Most nativistic movements "have as a common denominator a situation of inequality [that] ... may derive either from the attitudes of the societies involved or from actual situations of dominance and submission."

In the Southwest, the Anglo-Americans dominate Indians and Mexicans alike.

"[T]he technological superiority of European culture has, until recently, rendered the dominance of colonial groups secure."

"Nativistic movements tend to arise only when the members of the subject society find that their assumption of the culture of the dominant group is being effectively opposed by it, or that it is not improving their social position."

Analysis: three apparent dominant groups are identified:

 * 1) whites,
 * 2) Anglo-Americans, and
 * 3) colonial groups.

Dominant group is used to refer to the group of whites, Anglo-Americans, and colonial groups, each of which is in turn a dominant group. These dominant subgroups are identified as indicated by respective links. "Colonial groups" refers to several groups of immigrants to America. North America has been divided into European immigrant territories based on control such as British America, French America, Spanish America, Russian America, Dutch America, and Norse America.

The relation to one another is that they are dominant groups of individuals, or peoples, originating in Europe. The population is North Americans in the location of North America.

Dominance appears to result from

 * 1) surrounding,
 * 2) armed force, and
 * 3) technological superiority initially.

These may have been replaced to some extent by distinctive powers and privileges, since the culture pattern of the dominant group of European-ancestor North Americans now preclude the use of forcible methods.

"Having established that cultural/language differences between the dominant group and the schools, on the one hand, and the minorities, on the other, existed, and that the difficulties in social adjustment and academic performance experienced by minority children might be due to such cultural/language differences, anthropological research developed into a second stage. ... [S]ome minority groups do well in school even though they do not share the language and cultural backgrounds of the dominant group that are reflected in school features and practices."

"The difference, as writers like Talal Asad within anthropology and Norman Fairclough within linguistics (Language and Power, 1989) would argue, is that the notion of hegemony problematises how a common social-moral language-a given discourse- achieves and reproduces its dominance, whereas earlier accounts of culture appeared to accept at face value the representations of the dominant group and their claim to speak for all."

Ethnography
Def. "[t]he common characteristics of a group of people" is called ethnicity.

Def. the science and scientific descriptions of "specific human cultures and societies" is called ethnography.

"Ethnography (from Greek ἔθνος ethnos = folk/people and γράφω grapho = to write) is a qualitative research design aimed at exploring cultural phenomena. The resulting field study or a case report reflects the knowledge and the system of meanings in the lives of a cultural group.  An ethnography is a means to represent graphically and in writing, the culture of a people."

Def. "[t]he branch of anthropology that studies and compares the different human cultures" is called ethnology.

Ethnology (from the Greek , ethnos meaning "people, nation, race") is the branch of anthropology that compares and analyzes the origins, distribution, technology, religion, language, and social structure of the ethnic, racial, and/or national divisions of humanity.

Compared to ethnography, the study of single groups through direct contact with the culture, ethnology takes the research that ethnographers have compiled and then compares and contrasts different cultures.

"Anthropology is not just ethnography; in fact, the meanings which can be attached to ethnographic case studies depend on wider schemes, on classifications of societies, and on polemics which generate interest in particular projects at particular times."

"I. M. Lewis has argued that spirit possession frequently provides a means for oppressed or deprived groups such as women to exert pressure upon or attack the dominant group (Lewis 1986: 23-50).4 Once a claim of this kind has been made, either on the basis of ethnographic descriptions or theoretical expectations, further ethnographic material cannot be introduced in a neutral way."

"So, an ethnographer who enters the scene on the presumption that the social arrangements in a particular school or classroom will favor the interests of a dominant group is undeniably looking for hegemonic practices."

"The problem becomes more complex when it is realized that in Kanuri-dominated towns such people often accept the dominant group's term and claim they are Kirdi."

"While the human groups are many and diverse, they are conveniently combined in two categories: first, the natural or consanguineal or kinship group in which the unit is the ethnos; and second, the artificial or essentially social group in which the unit is the demos. The ethnos, or ethnic group, is the homologue of the varietal or specific group of animals; it is the dominant group in lower savagery, but its influence on human life wanes upward, to practically disappear in enlightenment except as retained in the structure of the family. The demos is the product of intelligence applied to the regulation of human affairs; it has no true homologue among animals; its importance waxes as that of the ethnos wanes from savagery through barbarism and civilization and thence into enlightenment."

Linguistic anthropology
"In the case of Aboriginal Australia, differences between economic and political systems, at least using the categories usually quoted in relation to language replacement, are largely absent. Australian Aboriginal societies are classless and stateless, and it seems highly unlikely that any form of centralised organisation and elite hierarchy existed in the past."

"Pidginisation occurs where there is a close economic relationship between two peoples; the pidgin is derived from the language of the dominant partner in the relationship. Such a relationship and the dominance of one side could be inferred from archaeological evidence, independently."

"Such a relationship may just as well result in the adoption of the dominant group's language as a lingua franca without significant pidginisation."

"Other aspects which have been suggested as crucial for pidgin simplification to occur are: (a) an attitude on the part of the dominant language speakers that their language cannot or should not be learnt by foreigners except in a simplified /'debased1 form; (b) a degree of actual complexity/difficulty in the dominant language."

Analysis: members of the dominant group are in the relationship of being "dominant partner"s.

The population is "Aboriginal societies" in the location of Australia.

Investigating the source of dominance includes

"While no relic language or group can be identified amid the southern Pama-Nyungan block of languages, the Yolngu languages of north-eastern Arnhem Land clearly constitute a northern offshoot of Pama-Nyungan entirely surrounded by non-Parna-Nyungan languages." ,

"[T]he fact that in this myth this change in technology also accompanies a change from female to male control of circumcision ritual might encourage us to give consideration to ideas that radical change in ritual and social organisation has occurred and its traces can be detected." , and

"These are areas where Macassan influence was also strong."

Dominance may refer to "surrounded", "strong influence", or new technology and an accompanying "prehistoric change from matrimoieties to patrimoieties".

Physical anthropology
"The Aztecs who conquered the city of Xaltocan in ancient Mexico around 1435 may have fundamentally changed the genetic makeup of the people who lived there ... maternal DNA from 25 residents of Xaltocan prior to the conquest did not match that found after. ... Xaltocan was the capital of a pre-Aztec city-state ruled by the Otomi, an indigenous people who lived in Mexico. ... Colonial records from the 1500s onward told tales of the Otomi fleeing the city en masse in 1395. "It's likely that some people did leave, probably the elites who no longer had the same social roles," Overholzer said. "It's also possible that when some people left, more valuable land was made newly available and so people moved around within the site."" Ruling elites is a relative synonym for dominant group.

Social anthropology
"For ethnic groups, [Niominkas and Serer people,] Wolofs and Lebus, Tukulors and Fulas, Bambaras and Soninkes, Diolas and Manjaks were respectively grouped together since the social structure and historical background of each member of the pair were closely related."

Ethnicity is a central concept in social anthropology and traditionally considered as prominent in determinism of behavior.

"In Senegal, Wolofs and Lebus represent the dominant group (43 per cent of total population) as well as the oldest one in the Dakar area."

Hypotheses
Examples from primary sources are to be used to prove or disprove each hypothesis. These can be collected per subject or in general.

 * 1) Accident hypothesis: dominant group is an accident of whatever processes are operating.
 * 2) Artifact hypothesis: dominant group may be an artifact of human endeavor or may have preceded humanity.
 * 3) Association hypothesis: dominant group is associated in some way with the original research.
 * 4) Bad group hypothesis: dominant group is the group that engages in discrimination, abuse, punishment, and additional criminal activity against other groups. It often has an unfair advantage and uses it to express monopolistic practices.
 * 5) Control group hypothesis: there is a control group that can be used to study dominant group.
 * 6) Entity hypothesis: dominant group is an entity within each field where a primary author of original research uses the term.
 * 7) Evolution hypothesis: dominant group is a product of evolutionary processes, such groups are the evolutionary process, produce evolutionary processes, or are independent of evolutionary processes.
 * 8) Identifier hypothesis: dominant group is an identifier used by primary source authors of original research to identify an observation in the process of analysis.
 * 9) Importance hypothesis: dominant group signifies original research results that usually need to be explained by theory and interpretation of experiments.
 * 10) Indicator hypothesis: dominant group may be an indicator of something as yet not understood by the primary author of original research.
 * 11) Influence hypothesis: dominant group is included in a primary source article containing original research to indicate influence or an influential phenomenon.
 * 12) Interest hypothesis: dominant group is a theoretical entity used by scholarly authors of primary sources for phenomena of interest.
 * 13) Metadefinition hypothesis: all uses of dominant group by all primary source authors of original research are included in the metadefinition for dominant group.
 * 14) Null hypothesis: there is no significant or special meaning of dominant group in any sentence or figure caption in any refereed journal article.
 * 15) Object hypothesis: dominant group is an object within each field where a primary author of original research uses the term.
 * 16) Obvious hypothesis: the only meaning of dominant group is the one found in Mosby's Medical Dictionary.
 * 17) Original research hypothesis: dominant group is included in a primary source article by the author to indicate that the article contains original research.
 * 18) Primordial hypothesis: dominant group is a primordial concept inherent to humans such that every language or other form of communication no matter how old or whether extinct, on the verge of extinction, or not, has at least a synonym for dominant group.
 * 19) Purpose hypothesis: dominant group is written into articles by authors for a purpose.
 * 20) Regional hypothesis: dominant group, when it occurs, is only a manifestation of the limitations within a region. Variation of those limitations may result in the loss of a dominant group with the eventual appearance of a new one or none at all.
 * 21) Source hypothesis: dominant group is a source within each field where a primary author of original research uses the term.
 * 22) Term hypothesis: dominant group is a significant term that may require a 'rigorous definition' or application and verification of an empirical definition.

Dominant group or its earliest synonym may have originated only in cultures north of Earth's equator or in cultures spanning the equator to the North.

title: Dominant group/Anthropology


text:
User:Matt Bevacqua/The impact of Business and Politics on World Football (Soccer)

From its humble beginnings in the 1860’s in England, to now having clubs worth billions of dollars, football has evolved to become one of the biggest industries in the modern world. The influence that business and politics have had on football are immense, and without industrialisation, commodification and bureaucratisation, football would not have the notoriety it has today, not to mention the extremely large sums of money the game now possesses. Business and politics have made the modern football industry what it is today.

Football
Football (Soccer) is a popular recreational and professional activity, in both Australia and around the world. According to FIFA’s Big Count 2011 there are 265 million male and female players, in addition to 5 million referees and officials involved in football worldwide. In Australia there are 970,728 footballers; 435,728 registered and approximately 535,000 unregistered, along with 67,632 officials and 3,868 clubs in operation. Football in Australia is regulated by Football Federation Australia (formerly Soccer Australia) and the highest and only level of professional competition is the Hyundai A-League. Each state and territory has a federation with numerous Tier 2 leagues (League System, 2011), which are considered the highest level of amateurism, being only one level lower than the A-League.

Football Origins
Modern day football began in England circa 1863, with the formation of The Football Association (FA History, 2011) however football wasn’t considered a business until 1956 when the English players association (Professional Footballers' Association) was revamped by newly appointed chairman Jimmy Hill. This was the birth of football as a business and thanks to Hill's efforts, player wages increased dramatically (Harding, J 2009). Today, the FA claims to have had an operating profit of £37 million by December 2010 (Gibson, O 2011) and in 2007, FA Premier League team Manchester United were worth a reported 1.8 billion US dollars (Richelieu, A, Lopez, S, & Desbordes, M 2008).

International
Away from its origins, football has become immensely popular, especially in the US. According to an article in the US Soccer Journal (National Soccer Coaches Association of America, 2010), for the 2010 World Cup held in South Africa, US citizens purchased the highest number of tickets (excluding South Africa) and for every English supporter in South Africa, there were two Americans. This boost in popularity has also seen an increase in promotional spending from well-known companies such as Coca-Cola, Pepsi, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_Inc. Visa] and Budweiser, who have all decided to invest time and money on football in the US. The upsurge of football into mainstream consciousness has also seen broadcasting networks spend hundreds of millions of dollars on media rights for the World Cup (National Soccer Coaches Association of America, 2010).

Similar increases in popularity were seen throughout most of Europe, with most nations embracing the game in the early 1900’s. Between 1910 and 1925, Spanish football grew from middle-class fun into an immensely popular sporting activity (McFarland, A 2007). During the 1910s, Spain’s industries and economy quickly developed because the nation’s neutrality during the First World War. In this positive economic climate and as the nation’s urban population expanded rapidly, football became a regular part of Spanish culture (McFarland, A 2007). Almost 100 years on, research has discovered how many Spanish Primera División Clubs are struggling to keep up with business as it continues to grow. Barajas & Rodríguez (2010) have found that under recent changes to Spanish law, nine clubs were considered insolvent. The race for trophies has almost forced clubs to use money they don't have in order to procure more talented players.

Australia
Despite the apparent lack of football culture (Foster, C 2010), football has been played in Australia since 1879 (Trove Australia, 2011) and the oldest existing club, the Balgownie Rangers, is still competing since its formation in 1880. In 1913 the first attempt at a football federation was made (Trove Australia, 2011b) but it wasn't until 1921 that Australian football had its first fully functional governing body, by the name of the Australian Soccer Association. In the 1950’s and 60’s, football’s popularity grew amongst the various European immigrant communities and club names often reflected the players' cultural background. The Czech club was 'Prague', the Jewish was 'Hakoah' and the Italian was 'Apia' (Powerhouse Museum, 2010). The late Johnny Warren named his memoirs “Shelias, Wogs and Poofters”, illustrating the general public’s perception of footballers around this time (Warren, J 2002).

In 1977, the first national competition was established; the National Soccer League (A-League History). It ran for 28 seasons under various names, until 2004, where national competition went into hiatus for almost 18 months. This was partially due to decreasing levels of sponsorship, as well as the Independent Soccer Review Committee publishing a report in 2003 on the governance of football in Australia, commonly known as the Crawford Report. Initially, the report was dismissed by Soccer Australia, but after threat of funding being cut by the Australian Sports Commission, a majority of the board resigned (Vincent, M 2002). This brought about many changes to football in Australia. Soccer Australia, having been established in 1995, was disbanded and in 2003 the governing body was once again named the Australian Soccer Association, with Frank Lowy appointed as chairman. In 2005, the name was changed to Football Federation Australia to align itself with general international usage of “football” instead of “soccer”. They also formed the current professional competition, the A-League, which kicked off on August 26, 2005 (A-League History).

Since the formation of the new governing body and establishment of an elite national league, there has been unprecedented growth in popularity in several Australian cities (Warren, I and Hay, R 2010). In 2006, the FFA signed a seven year, $210 million deal with Fox Sports for exclusive rights of all A-League matches and Socceroos home qualifiers, and SBS bought the rights (directly from FIFA) for the 2010 and 2014 World Cup Finals (Sports Business, 2008) Due to some public discourse, Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy has placed all Socceroos matches on the anti-siphoning list from 2014 onwards, stating that “Socceroos World Cup qualifiers are of national importance [and] these matches should be available to all Australians” (Sports Business, 2008). In 2009, a national curriculum was launched, unifying every state, every club and every association (Foster, C 2010). The curriculum meant governance of Australian football could be more effective and the coaching of players would be united across all states and territories.

Business and Politics
The current state of football in the world, and in Australia, proves that football has become big business. There has been widespread growth in the commercialization, consumption and popularity of football over the past few decades (Cornelissen, S 2011) and the influence of business and politics on football is substantial and it is clear to see that without this influence, football would not be what it is today.

The business world covers a wide variety of aspects, from management, marketing and finance (Schwarz, E. C. & Hunter, J.D. 2008) and involves business owners, employees and consumers. In sports management and administration, the same business principles apply, where the planning, organising, directing and budgeting of a sport at all levels of competition is critical to the success of a sport.

Politics also play a pivotal role in the success of a sport. Politics is simply the “social relations involving authority or power” (die.net) and it’s arguable that these social relations have the greatest impact on the sport. Business and politics are so closely related that in regards to sport, when you mention one, the other is almost certainly involved. Business cannot be conducted without an authoritative body managing relations and governance, nor would politics or relationship management be needed if sport was not considered a major industry.

International
In present-day football, clubs are often seen as an international brand; “a name, a word, a sign, a symbol” (Kotler et al, 2000, p.478, via Richelieu et al, 2008) and not just a sports team. The value of the brand is measured as brand equity. It is defined by Kotler (2002, p.470, via Richelieu et al, 2008) as being “based on the extent to which it has a high brand loyalty, name awareness, perceived quality [and] strong brand associations”. Clubs, especially those in Europe, have reached such a high point of internationalisation, that they have become household names in foreign countries. According to Richelieu, Lopez and Desbordes (2008) internationalisation in sport is relatively standard and sports gain fans and media attention from all over the world. It is also argued that being a brand is the most important asset for a sports team (Bauer et al, 2005) and fans often see the team as an extension of themselves. This emotional connection with sports team is one of the reasons it’s believed sports branding is so important. Accompanying emotional benefits of supporting a team, are tangible benefits, such as the feeling of success after a win or the purchasing of merchandise and other affiliated commodities (Burton & Howard, 1999). For a club to be successful as a brand and as a business, they need to take advantage of the emotional relationship it shares with its fans; however on-field success is the first step in developing a strong brand (Waltner, 2000).

Australia
In a general sense, there were a few steps the Australian sports industry took to get it to where it is today. In its humble beginnings, sport was a recreational and cultural practice played for fun and organised by volunteers (Marriage, S 2011). An increase in commercialisation saw more revenue streams open up, meaning staff and players could be paid for services, and the value of sport attracted sponsors and crowds; this lead to specialised sporting markets which in turn lead to bureaucratisation and governance of sport (Marriage, S 2011). The structures of sport were more complex, administrative control was established and a business-like set of functions established for marketing, coach and athlete development and finance (Marriage, S 2011). The last step in sport’s transformation is the corporatisation of the industry; brand management is now increasingly important to sports and clubs, revenue is dominated by sponsorship and broadcasting rights, a formal industrial relationship model is in place for contract negotiations and collective bargaining was established. This required the government to regulate the industry a lot more, to ensure not only players’ safety, but the safety of staff and supporters (Marriage, S 2011).

Football as a business is still in its infancy in Australia. There was a push in the early 1990’s, especially by the Professional Footballers Australia (PFA), the player association started by NSL player Kimon Taliadoros, to have a better regulated and more professional working environment for players and staff (PFA, From A Joke…, 2010). The main goals of the PFA were supporting the players and building the Australian football industry into one respected throughout the nation and the football world. They followed the influence of Rugby League at the time (Dabscheck, 1994) and sought directions on how to negotiate with Soccer Australia and obtain an award wage for players and a fair player transfer system. Today, the PFA still negotiates player wages with the FFA, most recently securing a collective bargaining agreement for all A-League players (PFA, A-league Collective Bargaining Agreement 2008 – 2013, 2010.

FIFA and the World Cup
FIFA are the peak governing body for international football. They are responsible almost everything football-related, including rules, regulations and the organisation of events. The main event in FIFA’s calendar is the World Cup. FIFA ensure the competition runs as smoothly as possible, from the selection process of the hosting nation, to the awarding of the Cup to the winners of the final. Recently, FIFA has received negative media attention when there were allegations of bribery and the selling of host selection votes by FIFA committee members (Al Jazeera 2011). After the Sunday Times published an article, investigations were carried out and it was found that two members had indeed offered to sell their votes for large sums of money. Sepp Blatter, FIFA’s president, wrote a letter which was published on FIFA’s website, stating the negative impact that the article had created on FIFA and on the bidding process (Al Jazeera 2011). Keir Radnenge, a columnist for World Soccer magazine, told Al Jazeera that the bidding process was vulnerable to corruption and there was opportunity for an “unnecessary amount of politicking, persuading, dealing, and speculating” (Al Jazeera 2011).

Despite politics shining a negative light on FIFA and the World Cup, there have been positives as well. When it was announced that Qatar would host the 2022 World Cup, it meant it would “open new horizons”. By having the 2022 World Cup in country with an extremely hot climate, research has gone into cost-effective, environmentally friendly ways of keeping stadiums at a comfortable temperature. Recent research has been successful, providing incentive for people to travel to Qatar in 2022, without worrying about the temperature at matches. This can only ensure that more people and more money will enter the country at the time of the competition.

A major benefit to hosting the World Cup is the amount of infrastructural upgrading that is done to comply with FIFA standards. For example, in Australia’s Bid Evaluation Report there were many planned changes to most major cities to ensure the cities could handle the large influx of international supporter. It included renovating stadiums, building new ones, upgrading accommodation close to the stadiums, and upgrading transportation in and around those areas. By developing the amenities the host nation has it ensures that it will be competent host and after the World Cup, the financial advantages of new infrastructure will be of continual benefit.

Conclusion
It’s clear to see why football has become so popular across the world. At first it was just a game enjoyed by people on the streets or on ovals. It wasn’t until business and politics were introduced that football really took off. The influence of business and politics on football is the main reason why today people are paid millions of dollars just to maintain the standards that have been reached by the sport, not to mention kick a ball around for 90 minutes every week. Without the influence of business and politics, we wouldn’t have teams that needed management, marketing or financing; nor would we need someone at top regulating the way business was carried out. If it wasn’t for business and politics, football would not exist in the way it does today.

Presentation
This link will take you to my presentation on YouTube. An abstract can be found in the video description, along with references in the presentation itself.


text:
User:SDunk/Corruption; Sport's skeleton in the closet

Due to the presentation aspect being unable to be uploaded to wikiversity. The 10 minute and 41 second presentation can be found on the following link: http://www.archive.org/details/SdunkCorruptionSportsSkeletonInTheCloset

Introduction to corruption in Sport
''“In sport there are four major problems, one is hooliganism, one is doping but my motion doesn’t have anything to do with that. My motion is about corruption in sport and there are two legs to this, one is within the federations and the other is outside of that and it’s to do with result fixing and betting." - Roland Buechel (member of the Swiss parliament and represents the Swiss People's Party [SVP])1

Sport has an enormous impact on daily life, with estimations of 900 million to 1.2 billion people2 of all ages, shapes and sizes participate. This ranges from social rock climbing, playing grassroots football or playing tennis at the Wimbledon. Not only does sport bring individuals together it also strengthens communities, national identity, pride, tourism and a country's economy.

This has been proven in events such as the FIFA World Cup and the Olympics which attracts and generates money from commercialisation, sporting development and sponsorships. Unfortunately like any industry where there are high levels of wealth and income there is an increased risk of corruption.

It is difficult to scale the scope of corruption in sport, but due to media coverage it always seems to be enhanced to the public. Corruption can sadly be found in every area of sport and in every sport. Types of corruption includes match fixing, embezzlement, misuse of funds, corruption in hosting games/events, changing match results, transfer of players, doping trade of athletes, political abuse, and elections of sporting bodies, directors and board members2.

To stop match fixing and spot betting, the Australian Federal Governments has been proactive with introducing laws and new legislation. To add to this, FIFA has introduced new reforms in order to deal with corruption.

Match officials are also under scrutiny for corruption due to their impact on the game. Further, the politics within the sport have strong influence regarding the matters that can lead to corruption.

Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)
FIFA is the governing body of disputably the world's most beautiful game but it is also the world's ugliest business. On 2nd December 2010 FIFA was accused of corruption after the hosting rights for the 2018 and 2022 World Cups were awarded. The world was confused after FIFA inspections had evaluated Russia and Qatar as the riskiest of all nominations, and yet these countries were awarded the events3. Russia was deemed to lack major infrastructure and Qatar's exceedingly hot temperatures during summer was considered to potentially cause health risks for players, officials and spectators during the World Cup. Nevertheless, President of FIFA Sepp Blatter and 24 executive committee members took no consideration of final lobbying from Prince William, David Beckham and Bill Clinton for their respective countries. To add to the mix, two members of the Executive Committee, Tahiti's Reynald Temarii and Nigeria's Amos Adamu, were caught demanding hundreds of thousands of dollars for their votes by an undercover journalist4. They each claimed that the money would be used for development projects, such as a football Academy in Auckland, New Zealand and the construction of four artificial fields in Nigeria. Both Executive Committee members had however requested that the money be paid via direct debit into their personal bank accounts. FIFA has had a longstanding reputation for corruption, and even before the Executive Committee convened there was widespread concern that the voting would be rigged and an unfair process. A recent BBC Panorama program broadcast an investigation into FIFA corruption that accused three current Executive Committee members of taking bribes in the 1990's.

Following the allegations of corruption following the announcement of the 2018 and 2022 World Cup, Sepp Blatter has announced reforms and that FIFA will make available publications of secret court documents showing FIFA senior officials had accepted kickbacks on World Cup television and sponsorship dealing during the 1900's5. Blatter stated a policy of zero tolerance in the fight against corruption within the organisation. Since this announcement two executives have been suspended and that FIFA would also release secret documents from a Swiss court that investigated the 2001 collapse of International Sport and Leisure (ISL), the former FIFA market partner. Blatter instructed that FIFA lawyers settle the case at a cost of 5.5 million Swiss Francs to protect the identities of individuals named as recipients of ISL kickbacks. The individuals named were João Havelange, Ricardo Teixeira, two FIFA committee members and Sepp Blatter. The court denied the five named of any wrongdoings as bribery was not a criminal offence in Switzerland at the time of the investigation5.

Other changes proposed are that the FIFA committee will no longer decide the host of the World Cup Finals and it will be voted by Congress to make the process less vulnerable to corruption. In addition, committee members will no longer be appointed, but will be elected by the 208 member associations of FIFA congress and they will be subject to term limits and must undergo criminal background checks5.

International Olympic Committee (IOC)
The race to win hosting rights of an Olympics is a battle that many countries compete in. The Salt Lake City organising committee for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games went one above the bench mark by preparing a document that listed personal and family needs of IOC members. Local officials reportedly spent more than one million dollars on gifts and favors for IOC members in their quest to win hosting rights7. Other media releases regarding corruption within the IOC were in 1999 when one of the organisers of the Sydney Olympic Games admitted he offered tens of thousands of dollars to members of the IOC the night before they were awarded the games. John Coates, President of the Australian Olympic Committee and a leader of the Sydney 2000 bid, said he had offered $35,000 apiece to two African members of the IOC. Mr Coates defended himself stating that the offer was within IOC guidelines and similar to plans used by bidding competitors from Beijing and Manchester and denied the money was a bribe8. He stated that he believed that the money would go toward helping sports in Kenya and Uganda.

The president of the International Olympic Committee says the organisation will expel any members found guilty of accepting bribes. His comments follow allegations by a senior IOC official, Marc Hodler, about major votes for cash corruption scandal. Mr Hodler, an IOC member since 1963, said a group of four people, including one IOC member, had been involved in promising votes for payment although he would not identify them. He believed that 5 - 7% of the IOC's 115 members were open to bribery9.

The previous IOC President Juan Antonio Samaranch said that the crisis was as serious as the political boycotts of the 1980s and Ben Johnson's drug scandal at the 1988 Seoul Games. He also said that the IOC may need to consider changing the way host cities are selected in an effort to eliminate possible corruption. He alleged that there had been abuse in voting for the 1996 Atlanta Games, the choice of Sydney for the 2000 Olympics, as well as Salt Lake City for the 2002 Winter Olympics.

"If we have to clean, we will clean, If it is necessary, we will expel members if this (investigation) commission feels these members are guilty. There are least one in 20 members corrupt." Juan Antonio Samaranch9

Formula One (F1)
Along with Ferraris and McLarens, corruption in F1 is known to be regular on the racing grid.

In 2006 Formula One's Bernie Ecclestone had been named by prosecutors in Germany as allegedly bribing a former banker during the sale of the sport. Gerhard Gribkowsky, in charge of the sale of Bayern LB's stake in F1, stands accused of taking a $44m bribe. In return, prosecutors alleged Mr Ecclestone received $41.4m in commissions from the bank, along with a large payment to a family trust. The allegations revolved around the sale of Bayern LB's stake in Formula 1 to private equity group CVC Capital Partners, which still own the commercial rights to the sport10. CVC said it had no knowledge of any alleged payments to Mr Gribkowsky. The firm bought majority control of F1 from Bernie Ecclestone's family trusts and a group of investment banks10. Mr Ecclestone remains F1's chief executive and retains a large shareholding in the sport.

On the Asian continent Yu Zhifei, the man responsible for bringing F1 motor racing to China, has been sentenced to four years in jail for embezzling 1m Yuan of public funds to buy state-owned property. Mr Yu who has been sacked as chief of F1 in China was also responsible for running Shanghai's Shenhau Football Club for seven years and also was a part of the negotiations for English Premier League side Manchester United to play in the city in 1999. He also established F1 in China in 2004 with the construction of the $240m track11.

There have been no acknowledgements that corruption is an issue within F1 and therefore no publicised strategies on how to reduce or combat this occurring.

Australian Football League (AFL)
Match fixing has been made public in Australia with AFL CEO Andrew Demtriou insisting that the AFL has a high risk of being affected by betting scandals and that offenders should be jailed12.

NRL also continues to battle against regular betting dramas which have seen current play Ryan Tandy and former star John Elias arrested for match fixing along with their sports agent Sam Ayoub.

An AFL match review panel provided the State Government with a report into sport betting suggesting jail for match fixing, a ban on exotic bets and a new crime name for cheating in connection with sports wagering. Demetriou suggested, after looking closely at match fixing situations in the American Football League, that gambling in the sport is the biggest risk to damaging the integrity of the code. A loss of a sports integrity can damage the overall support for a sport, thereby affecting sponsorship and other money making pathways. The cricket gambling saga and doping in cycling have proven the negative impact that this can have.

The AFL has a strong stance against any official or player betting on AFL matches. In the 2010 season they fined, suspended and stood down six league and club officials for betting on matches ranging from $1 to $20. The former Port Adelaide captain Matthew Primus was suspended for two weeks for placing a $20 bet for a friend12.

The Federal Government will push for a 10 year nationwide jail term for anyone who is involved with match fixing to prevent corruption in professional sport13. The Federal Sports Minister, Senator Mark Arbib, has supported the jail term and believes that a 10 year sentence would send the right message to those who seek to corrupt sport and fix matches. The proposal was suggested by the NSW Law Reform Commission proposing that matching fixing is one of the biggest threats to sport since doping.

Although different laws exist in each state and territory with regard to match fixing, Senator Arbib was impressed by the cooperation and desire for the nation to take action. The Minister expects State and Federal Attorney-Generals to agree on the penalties and uniform criminal law for match fixing. There have also been suggestions for laws to ban spot or exotic betting and laws against the sporting equivalent of insider trading. This law would make it an offence to leak information such as team selections to someone in the knowledge that they were going to make money from the information.

Spot betting will be applied to all major codes but the codes would be empowereed to eliminate the types of bet if they felt that the integrity of the game would be threatened. The NRL supported this ban by withdrawing betting on the first and last scoring players of the second half and betting on whether there will be a field goal scored during the match. The NRL are also removing live updates on betting odds during the game. The AFL are intending to decide which spot bets they wished to be banned.

Senator Arbib and other Ministers have suggested that a national code of conduct for sporting organisations be developed and that a national sport integrity unit be established.

Referees
"Today, when a referee takes a decision, there are 20 cameras which show the decision. Television shows errors – but we all know that the referee can't see everything. I think that it is time to change refereeing and to reflect on what refereeing is. Sufficient referees should be deployed to cover all parts of the pitch. Today, football is the only sport where there is one referee covering the entire pitch. It is easy to show all the things that a referee can't see. One referee is not enough. Our role is to put into place a system of eyes which can cover the whole [pitch].14"- Michel Platini (Michel Platini, 31 January 2010)

Alexander Bubnov, a former Russian football player said 'Russian referees are no longer used in major competitions because of suspicions about match fixing and the scale of corruption surrounding the game in Russia has made it's bid to host the 2018 FIFA World Cup is unrealistic'15. The last time a Russian referee officiated in a major international match was during the 2006 FIFA World Cup in Germany when Portugal played Netherlands in the second round. Valentin Ivanov was criticised after his performance by FIFA for issuing 16 yellow cards and sending off four players. The German Football Association defended Ivanov saying he was simply enforcing the Laws of the Game. It is believed that referees in Russia have been bribed, beaten and murdered. Their bribes have been tens of thousands of dollars for domestic games15.

Cricket umpires have also been under the spotlight for corruption allegations with Darrell Hair demanding AUD$500,000 for ball tampering. The International Cricket Council will continue to employ the official but have suspended him from officating in any matches. Earning AUD$107,640 for his duties to the ICC, the organisation seemed unsure how to charge the umpire when little evidence apart from Hair's word that the ball was tampered by himself16.

Athletes
Athletes have also been responsible for a large majority of corruption related stories in sport, whether it has been from taking banned substances, to match fixing and illegal betting. There have been countless numbers of athletes that have been disqualified for taking performance-enhancing substances since drug testing commenced at the 1968 Olympics. Two memorable anti-doping stories are Ben Johnson and Marion Jones. Johnson dominated the 100m track race at Seoul smashing a new world record in 9.79 seconds. However a post-race drug test returned positive and he was disqualified hanging his gold medal to Carl Lewis. He was suspended and returned back to track and field where he failed a second drug test in 1993 and received a lifetime ban17.

Marion Jones during the 2000 Sydney Olympics took out the track and field winning five medals, placing first in 100 metres, 200 metres and the 4 x 100-metre relay. She won bronze medals in the long jump and the 4 x 400-metre relay. Jones admitted using performance enhancing drugs, beginning in 2000 and continuing through to 2007, the IOC disqualified Jones from all of her Olympic events from 2000 and 2004 where she returned all medals to the rightful winners18.

An end to corruption
From athletes and match officials to the competitions in which they compete, over to the organisations that are responsible for the construction and operation management of these events it is quite obvious that corruption has had a huge impact in the way of the sport's industry operations. The effect that corruption has on sport creates a negative image and the association that is related. Due to the love of sport by millions of people around the world, regardless of what scandals might go on behind the scenes it will still be supported and followed.

Only recently has FIFA acknowledged their battle with corruption and suggested a way in which to reduce further speculation. The International Cricket Council (ICC), dealt with the management of a corrupt umpire by suspending him from officiating however they continued to keep him as part of the organisation.

Whether corruption is found on the pitch or off the track, corruption and power will always be a battle that sport will have to face and manage for many years to come. One can only hope that the FIFA's President, Sepp Blatter's dream to bring corruption to an end in FIFA by 2013 can be well and truly be achieved. However, many are doubtful and believe it is futile aspiration.


text:
User talk:Matt Bevacqua

 Hello Matt Bevacqua, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy policy, Civility policy, and the Terms of Use while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.
 * Explore Wikiversity with the links to your left.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.
 * Follow Wikiversity on twitter (http://twitter.com/Wikiversity) and identi.ca (http://identi.ca/group/wikiversity).

You don't need to be an educator to edit. You only need to be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage. See you around Wikiversity! --Abd 00:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Unblocked
Welcome Back

title: User talk:Matt Bevacqua


text:
User talk:Egm6321.f11.team2.johri.y

 Hello Egm6321.f11.team2.johri.y, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy policy, Civility policy, and the Terms of Use while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.
 * Explore Wikiversity with the links to your left.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.
 * Follow Wikiversity on twitter (http://twitter.com/Wikiversity) and identi.ca (http://identi.ca/group/wikiversity).

You don't need to be an educator to edit. You only need to be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage. See you around Wikiversity! --Abd 01:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Egm6321.f11.team2.johri.y


text:
User talk:Arissara Mint

 Hello Arissara Mint, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy policy, Civility policy, and the Terms of Use while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.
 * Explore Wikiversity with the links to your left.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.
 * Follow Wikiversity on twitter (http://twitter.com/Wikiversity) and identi.ca (http://identi.ca/group/wikiversity).

You don't need to be an educator to edit. You only need to be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage. See you around Wikiversity! --Abd 01:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Arissara Mint


text:
User talk:NFLking

 Hello NFLking, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy policy, Civility policy, and the Terms of Use while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.
 * Explore Wikiversity with the links to your left.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.
 * Follow Wikiversity on twitter (http://twitter.com/Wikiversity) and identi.ca (http://identi.ca/group/wikiversity).

You don't need to be an educator to edit. You only need to be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage. See you around Wikiversity! --Abd 01:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:NFLking


text:
User talk:Jeffreycarllloyd

Past Project Contributions
tj2

Jeffreycarllloyd tj2

Ecars

Jeffreycarllloyd ecars

Ekart

Jeffreycarllloyd ekart

What is the copyright of File:Ekart spreadsheetpdf.pdf?
Similarly with File:Ekart spreadsheet 2.0.pdf Thanks for your recent contributions. Please add copyright and license info, contact me if you need help. Thenub314 05:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Thanks! One quick question, by "public use" do you mean your releasing it into the public domain?  (That is anyone can use it in any way for any reason without attribution to the creator)  Also don't forget to do the same with File:Ekart spreadsheet 2.0.pdf. Thenub314 15:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jeffreycarllloyd