artful dublin Essay -- essays research papers

Someone has crafted a dense, human-size spider web in a 17th-century baroque chapel. At the center of the swarming thread, a longhaired woman lies in a hospital bed, sheet to her chin. Silence, light filtering from stained glass, and her stillness trapped in the maze reminds the viewer of some old dada wisdom -- any work of art that can be completely understood is the product of a journalist. Down the hall, in a large room, a young German is rushing around in a white jumpsuit. He alternately plays with toy airplanes and bakes cakes in a microwave, which every hour on the hour he blows up. These exhilarating works of art from Chiharu Shiotta and Frank Werner were at the Irish Museum of Modern Art in Dublin recently, part of a show called "Marking the Territory." The images were compelling enough, but the real strangeness was that they were happening in Dublin at all. For centuries, the visual arts in Ireland ran a distant second due to the superiority of the Word. But no longer. "This is an ideal place for an artist to be," Paolo Canevari said. The young Roman was represented at IMMA by "Differences," seven people on a bench on whose foreheads he methodically rubber-stamped religious denominations. "The Irish aren't jaded. There's no boredom with art." Even Dublin's stinging humor, a style that is distinguished by an urchin's allergy to the sentimental and a duty to bring everything down to street level, has softened toward the public art of the city. The statue of the River Liffey, personified as a woman in a fountain, is still known as "The Floozy in the Jacuzzi," and a realistic sculpture of two middle-age women taking a rest from shopping will forever be "The Hags With the Bags." And what else could a giant metal spike proposed for the north side be called but "The Stiletto in the Ghetto?" These days, however, all street titles are said with affection and pride. Every nation prizes creativity. But countries such as Ireland, which for so long had little but creativity, revere it. It is now museums, galleries and artistic work that are embraced, and not just the theater, pub wit and the writer. One of the engines of Dublin's artistic boom is IMMA, only 10 years old yet housed in one of the most magnificent 17th-century buildings in the world, the Royal Hospital, Kilmainham. Formerl... ...ight to $1,725 for the penthouse suite. Full service, excellent restaurant and a great bar for people watching. The Pembroke Townhouse (90 Pembroke Rd., telephone 011-353-1-660-0277,www.pembroketownhouse.ie) is a marvelous, immaculate Georgian house in Ballsbridge, close to everything on the south side, with a cheerful and efficient staff. Rates run from about $90 to $120 per night. WHERE TO EAT: Restaurant Patrick Guilbaud (21 Upper Merrion St.) has spectacular art on display along with the best French cuisine in Dublin. Appetizers run from $14 to $30, entrees from $35. Trocadero (3 St. Andrew's St.) -- "the Troc," near Temple Bar -- is a great old-time theater restaurant, with late suppers and superior bar food until midnight. It's recently been refurbished and crisped up, but they left the sense of fun intact. Two can have a memorable Italian meal and a bottle of red for about $60. INFORMATION: For more information, contact the Irish Tourist Board, 800-223-6470, www.ireland.travel.ie; or, in Dublin, the Bord Failte (Gaelic for "board of welcome"), Baggot Street Bridge, telephone 011-353-1-602-4000. -- Ambrose Clancy  © 2002 The Washington Post Company

Perspectivism and Truth in Nietzsche’s Philosophy: A Critical Look at

Perspectivism and Truth in Nietzsche’s Philosophy: A Critical Look at the Apparent Contradiction â€Å"There are no truths,† states one. â€Å"Well, if so, then is your statement true?† asks another. This statement and following question go a long way in demonstrating the crucial problem that any investigator of Nietzsche’s conceptions of perspectivism and truth encounters. How can one who believes that one’s conception of truth depends on the perspective from which one writes (as Nietzsche seems to believe) also posit anything resembling a universal truth (as Nietzsche seems to present the will to power, eternal recurrence, and the ÃÅ"bermensch)? Given this idea that there is no truth outside of a perspective, a transcendent truth, how can a philosopher make any claims at all which are valid outside his personal perspective? This is the question that Maudemarie Clark declares Nietzsche commentators from Heidegger and Kaufmann to Derrida and even herself have been trying to answer. The sheer amount of material that has been written a nd continues to be written on this conundrum demonstrates that this question will not be satisfactorily resolved here, but I will try to show that a resolution can be found. And this resolution need not sacrifice Nietzsche’s idea of perspectivism for finding some â€Å"truth† in his philosophy, or vice versa. One, however, ought to look at Nietzsche’s philosophical â€Å"truths† not in a metaphysical manner but as, when taken collectively, the best way to live one’s life in the absence of an absolute truth. By looking at one of Nietzsche’s specific postulations of perspectivism, we can get a better idea of precisely how this term applies to his philosophy and how it relates to the â€Å"tru... ...’s lack of a direct response to this apparent contradiction ensures that this matter will continue to be hotly debated well into the future. For this seemingly simple contradiction of positing truths when one has denied all absolute truths, Nietzsche gives a very complex and personal answer. Bibliography PRIMARY TEXTS Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, trans. R. J. Hollingdale (London: Penguin Books, 1990). Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power, trans. Walter Kaufmann and R. J. Hollingdale, ed. Walter Kaufmann (New York: Random House, 1967). SECONDARY TEXTS Clark, Maudemarie, Nietzsche on Truth and Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990). Solomon, Robert C., ‘Nietzsche ad hominem: Perspectivism, personality, and ressentiment,' in The Cambridge Companion to Nietzsche (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 180-222.

Hamlet Essay

It comes over you like a weight, dropping, falling on your soul, weighting you down, and corroding away the happiness. Depression appears for many different reason, and comes with many different symptoms. Hamlet, a play by William Shakespeare, is the tragic story of a young prince’s journey of self-discovery as he struggles to overcome the tragic occurrences in his life: his father murdered by his uncle, and his mother who incestuously marries the killer. Hamlet is plagued with the responsibility of avenging his father’s death, and setting right the kingdom of Denmark, all while suffering from a severe melancholia. Hamlet acts crazy in an effort to fool people into letting their guards down, allowing him to seek out revenge. Hamlet is depressed, mourning the loss of his father and his mother’s betrayal. While Hamlet’s depression causes him to act out of character, acting on impulse, his madness is just a pretense to cover his true motives. Hamlet’s madness only manifests itself when he is in the presence of certain characters; his ability to use logic and reasoning reinforces his sanity. In mourning, Hamlet dresses in all black, refusing to celebrate his mothers wedding, and his uncle’s coronation. The recent events have caused Hamlet to lapse into a depression; grief has overwhelmed his spirit, he feels alone and betrayed by his mother. He cannot come to terms with his mother’s actions; he does not understand how she could so quickly forget his father and marry his uncle. So in conclusion Shakespeare’s play Hamlet and it’s main protagonist’s sanity are still subject to question. And I suppose we will never know the truth of the well being of Hamlet’s mind.

The Fourth Amendment

Abstract This paper will investigate the fourth amendment, unlawful search and seizure, and will explain what is considered to be unlawful and what is not. This paper will also discuss the right of privacy that Americans are entitled to as citizens of the United States. Events that have marked history in regards to the fourth amendment will also be explored, explaining the nature of searches and the key components that coincide. The court ruling in the historic case of Arizona vs. Gant will be explored in detail.This court case set out to establish what was actually considered unlawful, and what guidelines must be followed to be considered lawful. The case suggests that because of probable case that a search would then in fact be lawful. But in this case it is discussed that even when probable cause is present, there is still factors that must be considered. Unlawful Search and Seizure Imagine being pulled over while driving on a suspended license; you are handcuffed, and placed in t he backseat of a squad car, while the officer searches your car, without your consent.There you are sweating profusely, nervous of what may and will be found, and then it is found, in the glove box a gun and drugs. What should be said in defense? What should be done? Was this in fact a situation where unlawful search and seizure had taken place? Did this go against your constitutional rights as a citizen? There was no consent, but there was probable cause because of the suspended license. Imagine driving with friends and you are speeding. You are then pulled over, the officer smells marijuana, and arrest everyone inside of the vehicle.He then returns to the vehicle, and searches it finding cocaine in a jacket coat pocket. Was this too an act of unlawful search and seizure? Did this go against your reasonable expectation of privacy? The Bill of Rights Many of us may struggle when it comes to knowledge about laws, and our constitutional rights as citizens. We want to protect ourselves from situations that may be unconstitutional, but may not be aware of our rights when unconstitutional behavior occurs. When The U. S.Constitution was ratified in 1788 and 1799 there were not many laws set in place in regards to the criminal justice system. â€Å"The Fourth Amendment was adopted as a response to the abusive search and seizure practices used by the British government during the American colonial period. The colonists were particularly concerned about broad, particularized searches performed under the authority of general warrants. General warrants authorized searches for persons or papers not named specifically in the warrant† (Josephson, 1996). The U. S.Constitution did not set forth the rights of individuals in enough detail; so ten amendments were added in 1791, and were called the Bill of Rights (Cole & Smith, 2011). According to Cole and Smith (2011), The Bill of Rights are the first ten amendments that were added to the U. S. Constitution to provide spe cific rights for individuals, including criminal justice rights concerning searches, trials, and punishments. Unlawful search and seizure is the fourth amendment, which is a part of the first ten amendments. Unlawful Search and SeizureThe Fourth Amendment states: the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated and no Warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath and affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized (Cole & Smith, 2011). Unlawful search and seizure was made to limit the capability of law enforcement officers to search a person or property in order to obtain evidence.It is believed that law enforcement should not be able to pursue criminals at all cost. A search is a court document that gives law enforcement the authority to examine and hunt for evidence in or on a person or place in a manner th at intrudes on reasonable expectations of privacy (Cole & Smith, 2011). The reasonable expectation of privacy, that was developed by the courts, is normally from the government; but if there is probable cause law enforcement can receive an search warrant from a judge and search wherever the warrant states.A seizure is a situation in which police officers use their authority to deprive people of their liberty or property and which must not be â€Å"unreasonable† according to the Fourth Amendment (Cole & Smith, 2011). All types of things can be seized such as a person’s freedom, which is also called an arrest, and also even property. Law enforcement must ensure that there is probable cause because if not that is an infringement of that person’s right. Being unconstitutional can lead to fines, and law enforcement officers even losing their jobs, depending on the severity of the situation.Requirements of the Fourth Amendment There are requirements that law enforceme nt are expected to be knowledgeable of and have to follow, even while trying to catch criminals. The requirements are probable cause, affidavit, and describing the place being searched, and the persons or things to be seized (Cole & Smith, 2011). Probable cause is the amount of reliable information indicating that it is more likely than not that evidence will be found in a specific location or that a specific person is guilty of a crime (Cole & Smith, 2011).In order for search and seizure to take place there has to be probable cause. Affidavit is a written statement, which is supported by oath or affirmation, submitted to judicial officers to fulfill the requirements of probable cause for obtaining a warrant. The place or person to be searched or seized has to be described in detail to help establish if probable cause is reasonable. There are however, exceptions to the probable cause and warrant requirements.Some exceptions are investigatory detentions, warrantless arrest, searches incidents to a valid arrest, seizures of items in plain view, exigent circumstances, consent searches, vehicle searches, container searches, border searches, searchers at sea, administrative searches, and searches in which the special needs of law enforcement make the probable cause requirement impractical (Calsyn et al. , 1998). A warrantless search can be conducted if law enforcement believes that the evidence is imminent danger of being moved or destroyed.Also if there is belief that law enforcement may be in danger they may enter a dwelling and conduct a full warrantless search (Calsyn et al. , 1998). The Fourth Amendment does not require law enforcement to have a warrant when searching vehicles when they have probable cause. The â€Å"automobile exception† to the warrant requirement stems from both the inherent mobility of vehicles, which often creates exigent circumstances that make obtaining a warrant impractical, and the reduce expectation of privacy due to configurat ion, use, and regulation of automobiles (Calsyn et al. 1998). â€Å"In certain circumstances, law enforcement officers may lawfully arrest persons without an arrest warrant. Such arrests are permitted for any offense committed by the arrestee in the presence of a law enforcement officer and for any felony that an officer has probable cause to believe the arrestee has committed. After making a warrantless arrest, an officer must promptly secure a judicial determination of probable cause. The probable cause required to make a lawful warrantless arrest is identical to the probable cause required to secure an arrest warrant (Calsyn et al. 1998). According to Nolo (2012), the fourth amendment only applies to a search if a person has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place or thing searched. If not, the Fourth Amendment offers no protection because there are, by definition, no privacy issues. For example, when the police look for and find a weapon on the front seat of a car, it is not considered a search under the fourth amendment because it is very unlikely that the person would think that the front seat of the car is a private place and expectation of privacy is unlikely.Even if the individual did, society is not willing to extend the protections of privacy to that particular location. On the opposing side, a person who uses a public restroom expects not to be spied upon and most people, including judges and juries would consider that expectation of privacy to be reasonable Therefore, the installation of a hidden video camera by the police in a public restroom will be considered a search and would be subject to the fourth amendment's requirement of reasonableness. However, the fourth amendment does permit searches and seizures that are considered reasonable.In practice, this means that the police may override your privacy concerns and conduct a search of you, your home, barn, car, boat, office, personal or business documents, bank account records, trash barrel, or whatever, if the police have probable cause to believe they can find evidence that you committed a crime, and a judge issues a search warrant, or the particular circumstances justify the search without a warrant first being issued (Nolo 2012). The Supreme Court has ruled that warrantless police conduct may comply with the Fourth Amendment so long as it is reasonable under the circumstances.The exceptions made to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement reflect the Court's reluctance to unduly impede the job of law enforcement officials. The Court has attempted to strike a balance between the practical realities of daily police work and the privacy and freedom interests of the public (FindLaw 2012). A warrant is a document issued by the courts allowing law enforcement to search your private property. All that is needed to obtain a warrant is probable cause, meaning there must be sufficient reason based upon known facts to believe a crime has been committed or that certai n property is connected with a crime.Also, as explained by The Lecture Law Library (1995-2012), the fourth amendment provides no protection for what a person knowingly exposes to the public. For instance a man's facial characteristics, or handwriting, his voice is repeatedly produced for others to hear. No person can have a reasonable expectation that others will not know the sound of his voice, any more than he can reasonably expect that his face will be a mystery to the world. These are simply a fraction of the examples as to when the fourth amendment of unlawful search and seizure does not apply.Courts use a two-part test established by the U. S. Supreme Court to determine whether, at the time of the search, a defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place or things searched. Evaluating whether or not the person actually expected some degree of privacy and if the person's expectation is one that society is willing to recognize? Also, if upon review, a court finds that an unreasonable search occurred, any evidence seized as a result of the search cannot be used as direct evidence against the defendant in a criminal prosecution, state or federal. This rule, established by the U. S.Supreme Court in 1961, has come to be known as the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution. Many commentators criticize the exclusionary rule on the ground that it unfairly lets the criminal go free simply due to error. Adversely, the rule's supporters argue that excluding illegally seized evidence is necessary to deter police from conducting illegal searches. According to this deterrence argument, the police won't conduct improper searches if the resulting evidence can't be used to convict the defendant.In addition to being excluded as evidence against the defendant, evidence resulting from an illegal search may not be used to discover other evidence, under a le gal rule colorfully known as the â€Å"fruit of the poisonous tree† doctrine. The â€Å"tree† is the evidence that the police illegally seize in the first place; the â€Å"fruit† is the second-generation product of the illegally seized evidence; both tree and fruit are inadmissible at trial (Nolo 2012). Moreover, when the fourth amendment is broken there are consequences that are handled by the courts. The Knock-and-Announce RequirementThis requirement is meant to protect the security, privacy, and property interest of people in their homes (Josephson, 1996). â€Å"The knock-and-announce rule requires that police officers give notion of both their authority and purpose to the occupants of a residence to be searched. Before breaking and entering the premises to search, officers must also give the occupants a reasonable opportunity to voluntarily allow the police to enter† (Josephson, 1996). This rule has to be follow even if officers do have a warrant. Thi s rule also serves for protection for the officers that are entering a home owner home.Citizens have an expectation to privacy and with this rule it allows the occupants to give consent to enter. Arizona v. Gant This case was taken all the way to the U. S. Supreme Court, and is used as a guideline for what is considered constitutional in regards to Unlawful Search and Seizure. The facts of the case states that Gant was arrested for driving with a suspended license. He then was handcuffed and placed in the backseat of an officer car. While under arrest the officers searches his car. The officers find cocaine in a jacket pocket (The Daily Record, 2009, p. 1).Gant’s motion to dismiss the evidence was denied and he was convicted of drug charges. â€Å"Reversing, the State Supreme Court distinguished New York v. Belton, which held that police may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle and any containers therein as a contemporaneous incident of recent occupants lawful arres t on grounds that it concerned the scope of a search incident to arrest but did not answer the question whether officers may conduct such a search once the scene has been secured† (Justia. com, 2009). One major concern was of the officer’s safety if the occupant was allowed to be within the reach of the area being searched.This could be absolutely dangers for the officer and could endanger the public. Under the Gant ruling, if an officer wishes to search the vehicle of an arrested suspect, he or she may delay handcuffing the suspect until after the search is complete (NJ. com, 2009). This allows the occupant to be able to access his car while being searched. Conclusion The Fourth Amendment is the primary, essential limit on the power of governments in the U. S. to inquire into people's lives, arrest them, and take their property. It is also what prevents governments and their agents from invading citizens' privacy.In a society that both deplores crime and values liberty , there will always be a tension between law enforcement interests and the privacy of individuals. The tools and system of the fourth amendment are as followed: Is it governmental conduct? Does the defendant have a legitimate expectation of privacy? Will society protect the defendant’s expectation as objectively reasonable? And was a warrant issued? If any of the stated reason within the system of unlawful search and seizure hold true then there I no violation of the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment to the U. S. onstitution places limits on the power of the police to make arrests, search people and their property, and seize objects and contraband, such as illegal drugs or weapons. The amendment of unlawful search and seizure is one of ten amendments within The Bill of Rights and reads as follows: â€Å"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants sh all issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized (Nolo 2012). † ReferencesArizona v. Gant. (2009). Retrieved November 22, 2012, from http://supreme. justia. com/cases/federal/us/556/07-542/ Calsyn, J. D. , Hale, B. C. , Kranz, H. , Grossman, M. R. , & Kim, N. E. (1998). Warrantless searches and seizures. Georgetown Law Journal, 86, 1214-1288. Cole, G. F. , & Smith C. E. , (2011) Criminal Justice (6th ed. ). Belmont, California: Wadsworth. Josephson, M. (1996). Fourth amendment–must police knock and announce themselves before e. g. Microsoft Corporation (1995-2012). The Fourth Amendment [U. S. Constitution]. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www. lectlaw. com/def/f081. htm. (2012). The Fourth Amendment

Characteristic Of A Moral Person Philosophy Essay

Characteristic Of A Moral Person Philosophy Essay Moral are defines in many ways by the understanding of an individual. Generally, moral is defined as the principles of right and wrong in behavior. That is, the capability of an individual to differentiate the right and wrong action. Morality is taken to be significant, moral actions are frequently taken to merit praise and rewards, and immoral actions are often taken to merit blame and punishment. Moral principles are an important part of what makes a good person. Therefore, what are the characteristic of a moral person? It’s the action you take to carry out the values, ethics and morals that you believe in. Our character is not mirrored by what we say, or even by what we aim, it is a reflection of what we do. Being of good moral personality is to have a collection of attributes which make up your behavior and define the way in which you act which are considered respectable. How do we judge an individual as a moral person? However, do we judge by society’s principles for moral standards or by religious moral standards? Yes and No. For example, killing someone is immoral but moral sometimes. In an unlikely scenario, the act of self-defense by killing someone to protect oneself from danger is immoral or moral? In most cases self-defense is a justifiable cause for killing. In another scenario, a poor man steals from a rich man to support and pays for his daughter medical fees. This man is performing in a way that makes us respect him as he cares for his daughter. Is it a moral act? It could be as the poor man is desperate for money and he is trying to save his daughter’s life. He is after all steals from a rich man who has extra money and it wouldn’t hurt to lose some money. Nevertheless, it is always a wrong action to steal in the society’s view. But we are to be careful when judging them based on moral standards. Contents :The Characteristic of A Moral Person Responsible There are many important characteristic of a moral pers on. One of them is having responsibilities. Responsibility, a noun is derived from responsible is a person worthy of trust, having an obligation or a duty towards something. To be morally responsible for an action, is to be worthy of a certain kind of reaction such as compliment and blame for having performed it. Moral responsibility is when there are right things that one should do. Though an individual do have a choice to do what is right. Caring for family, making a living and paying taxes are some moral responsibilities that are right. A moral person has responsibilities towards people, animals and the environments. For example in a situation of car accident, a moral person would call an ambulance or helps the injured out of the car. It depends on how morally they are and their courage to help. Conversely, an immoral person would just look and walks away. Besides that, a moral business owner has several responsibilities to their employees. They would be responsible to ensure its employees are paid on time and also to have a moral and legal responsibility to provide a safe and healthy workplace. A moral person would be responsible to care and protect the animals and the environments. They would not throw rubbish anywhere to keep the environment clean nor would they participate to animal abusive.

An Issue of Two Courts Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

An Issue of Two Courts - Case Study Example Given the fact that the charges that are to be leveled against the officer and the agency in particular have low chances of standing as criminal charges with intent to murder, in all probabilities, it would be certain that the charges could be changed to civil penalties. Greene (2006) states that there are three types of general torts that could be brought up against the police officer and the agency. These would include Tort is a private injury inflicted on one person by another, where the plaintiff is the injured party. Negligence is alleged when a defendant should have anticipated their acts or omissions would result in an injury. The key factors in these cases are that of reasonableness. The US Supreme Court has affirmed that the right to access to the court's assures that no person will be denied the opportunity to present to the judiciary allegations concerning violations of fundamental constitutional rights. US courts have fundamentally presumed that damage actions against the federal government- although not injunctive relief- must be authorized by the US Congress through an explicit waiver of immunity enjoyed by them. Shelton, (2001) states that at present, the Federal Tort Claims Act makes the state and state agencies liable for money damagesfor injury or loss of property or personal injury or death caused by federal government agents. For example both the FTCA, 28 U.S.C. 1346(b), 2671-2680 (1988 and Supp. IV 1992) and the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. 1346(a). It must also be remembered that individual agents are no longer immune from liability in USA where a wrongful act in violation of the constitution by a federal agent acting under color of law gives rise to a cause of action for damages against agents, according to the US Supreme Court (Bivens v Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics). What one needs to be remember here is that moonlighting is not against the constitution and hence there can be no constitutional violation charge can be brought against the agency or the officer. The greatest probability in the context of the case is the charge of intentional tort against the officer and a charge of vicarious liability against the agency for hiring police officers that made it a habit of moonlighting while nature of the job that they do demands that they give it their whole and undivided attention. Intentional tort would be a voluntary commission of an act that to a substantial certainty will injure another person. This is in fact a large possibility given the fact that an officer who had finished a job at 3:30 am in the morning could not be expected to be in his full senses or give his best to another job of a nature as sensitive as public security is. The agency can also be brought under the jurisdiction of damages by the plaintiff under the scope of vicarious liability, which states that A legal doctrine that holds the

The leadership styles and management practices in two real life Essay

The leadership styles and management practices in two real life organisations - Essay Example The leadership styles and management practices in two real life organisations The National Health Service (NHS) is an organization offering healthcare to all English citizens, regarded as the country’s greatest need. Its stakeholders include health professionals, support workers and organisations. Its funding originates from the tax collected from citizens, with the Parliament acting as its watchdog (NHS Direct Web). The NHS Direct is part of UK’s NHS. It is a new, nurse based health advice service that operates within a 4 hour clock system. Health advice are delivered through phone contacts. Its objective is to provide an equal play ground in health services despite time and space, regardless of the background of the nurse. Health software called Clinical Assessment System (CAS) is used for service delivery (NHS Direct Web). According to Webster (2002), provision of healthcare via interactive television will increase efficiency and conveniences in accessing healthcare (p.430). Gann (2002) emphasizes that most people will prefer using the interactive healthcare software more frequently and urgently before reaching the doctors. This will ease pressure on doctors and other healthcare providers. The key issue in this system is how it makes use of technology. The remote non-face-to-face delivery of healthcare creates a favourable environment to its providers. Background of St. Mungo’s St. Mungo’s is a voluntary organisation supporting the homeless. Its objectives are summarized in four words: preventing, alleviating, assisting and influencing the homeless. The organisation offers several services like preventing homelessness, emergency services such as flood stricken areas, and recovery from homelessness. It relies on voluntary funding from donations and service trust from companies. The success of the organisation is evident from innovations and awards it has received since its inception. In the innovation sector, it has managed to initiate life works programme, St. Mungo’s Palliative Care Service and ReVive. It has been shortlisted in awards like the Lodge, Peer Advice Link and Putting Down Roots among others (St. Mungo’s, 2012). Key observations from visits and discussion of the relevance of these observations A) St. Mungos I visited the organization and held some discussions with the management in trying to find out how things are done, an d my mission was very successful. I particularly visited the Department of Health and Recovery and sought audience with Director Peter Cockersell, who was cooperation. He explained to me that the kind of leadership style in the organization is called a recovery approach, which was adopted in 2007. This meant that it had to shift from its traditional power relationships between staff and service users. Currently, the organisation does not consider recovery as an outcome, a method or structure but as a description and a process of change. Recovery is defined as power within an individual, encompassed in a social process. An individual must show commitment and ability to create and lead a satisfying life. Flexibility and creativity are attributes in recovery. Recovery remains as the source of frame work for St. Mungo’s staff and client. Their roles and identities rely on this framework-recovery (Clarke, 2002, p.20). The organisation realised that the former designation of staff, workers and other work title positions created divisions within the society’