Bob Birchall @ Calyx wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
Definitely a reservation: the "of unsound mind" language has reappeared as a reason to remove a member. It does not say who is to judge soundness of mind, so I think that wording should be removed. Legal incapacity should suffice as a test.
I think I just copied that from somewhere else. I don't mind what expression is used. I think its totally unlikely the clause will ever be needed. I just put it in for completeness.
I also doubt it will ever be needed, but it sounds like a phrase from a time less enlightened about mental health issues, when it was considered acceptable for a committee to judge one of its members as "of unsound mind". The UK has a pretty cavalier attitude towards personal liberty at the moment (The War Against Terror, don't you know?) but as I understand it, even we have the right to a fair hearing by an "impartial tribunal established by law" (Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, adopted by Human Rights Act 1998) to determine if someone is of unsound mind in many cases. I have this rosy idea that NZ is at least as rights-protecting as the UK... Hope that explains, -- MJ Ray (slef) Webmaster and LMS developer at | software www.software.coop http://mjr.towers.org.uk | .... co IMO only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html | .... op