In response to Edmund Bon's letter, I find it hard to see any wrong with 'packaging' human rights legal abilities to be 'sold' to the public.

This manner of viewing the situation itself tends to be shallow, for is it not that human rights are of value in today's society? It should be of no concern to us in what manner 'human rights packages' are 'sold'.

I see no difference if it is a meaningless bid to encourage more clients or is in fact an altruistic law firm wishing to put some right into the world.

And indeed, the 'titles' and 'job positions' should be of no consequence. I see no wrong with the ex-CJ being a 'consultant'. One can put him in as a 'motivational correspondent' or 'intermediary relationship leader'. I could not care less.

What the ex-CJ does is his business, not ours. I also fail to see the ethical problem which is apparently inherent in A v B & C and judge D joining case winners B & C after the case. I find it more problematic that A has any further feeling at all after the case has been decided.

Disappointment, anguish, frustration are excusable, but not 'gut' feelings. Since when did suspicion become grounds for evidence, or even anything remotely close to something tangible and definite?

It is this manner of thinking which pervades most of our society, leading us into blind alleys and pathways. It is advantageous in the sense that it allows for an informal, social system of checks and balances against corruption and administrative wrongdoing.

But if one allows it to remain in every corner of our lives, we can only blame ourselves that we have raised the wrong issues and our attention has been diverted from what really should matter.