18-8-2007

Crime, punishment don’t make us laugh…


We see the news we read the papers, we hear the stories from family friends and neighbours, crime is all around us in his many forms.
It is visible for all but invisible for the ones who have to protect us from those crimes.

Gangs are organizing our lives regardless of this are street gangs or gangs organized in business.
These ones infiltrate our lives our homes and our actions in daily life.

To make it possible for gangs to do that the authority have down graded crimes and violators of rules.
It is simple if you are rich you can break almost every law of the land. They will be congratulated for it while if you are poor, even an accidental mistake is regarded as the biggest crime in history. This can be indeed a parking ticked which land you in jail for a considerable time, while a attempt on a live is seen as a hazard of life.

If such a poor person has an attempt on his life and want to defend himself, it will be him who goes to jail while again his attacker is congratulated.

That this is not something of this time will be shown in two examples 100 years apart, one in the US the other in the UK.

However let us first explain what crime is exactly; Crime is a breach of a rule or a law issued by the Governing Authority who may or may not prescribe punishment.

It will be obvious that crime is indeed not always a reason to punish. Therefore, the answer has to be a resounding NO it is not always punishable.

Punishment depends on who commit the breach of the rule or the law. Rich or poor influence or no influence. Someone who takes a single coin can be arrested and punished for this sometimes very severe.
However, another can take millions are congratulated and sometimes even rewarded for doing so.

It is this as reason that many people think that there is one rule for one and one rule for another, but is this the case? The answer however is NO, the law is for all the same, but a breach of the rule or the law of a person without power or connections is seen as a crime, while the same breach of rule and law by a well-connected person with power is seen as a business decision.

Further on we will explain how this exactly works, as it will also explain the what we call crime and the working of it, why it is used so width spread.

It will explain why crime is committed and why it is so attractive. It is there for important that we next explain a culture that is called a gang. The dictionary explains clearly the out lay of it. A gang is a group of people who through organization, formation, and establishment of an assemblage share a common goal and identity. The word carries a negative connotion.

There are many examples to put forwards. However, we will restrict ourselves to two businesses in which the breach of rule and law is used to get advances in business. This in disregards of the human costs, and on how to cover it up, or to present it as a fact.

The first example was in the US around 100 years ago plus/minus a couple of years. It was presented as an antique and furniture business. This was written on the business cards.
Born in New York, he worked himself up to an almost celebrity status due to money and power. Although he stated that he was a furniture dealer, he had his hands in many other businesses, from furniture to transport and nightclubs.
He was indeed a celebrity he was one of the first who shake hands with Charles Lindberg after his famous transatlantic flight in 1927. He was more seen as an upstanding community leader and on the forefront to help people. He was the man who supplied milk to school children an action what was continued for a long time after his death. He opened soup kitchens for the homeless and the poor. He would buy huge blocks of opera tickets and distributed them among the low-income neighbourhoods. He was also instrumental of talents like Louis Armstrong and others.
His famous club was a night hot spot for new acts such as Bing Crosby and others.
He was in deep regard and admired by the low income, the homeless, and the poor in the city. In short, he was the leader of a wealthy business who did so much good to the people that he received many cheer while walking the street, and it was really deserved.

The business of the second example was in the UK, and just as the first example was around 1900. The business was described as a charitable trust to provide homes to the poor.

The fist of which were ready in 1909 and by 1925 there were nearly 2000 homes. The real expansion started after a change in the Housing act 1974 under which money as a grant could be given to charitable housing. For many who could not afford to buy a house, the providing of charitable housing was indeed an act of charity. However, if things are going well then there is always others who lay in wait to take over.

The start for the take over was given in 2001, when the charitable status slowly changed. Between 2001 and 2007 there were many changes leading to the forming of a business to obtain homes and to supply homes.

The original status for housing for the poor as a charity was only a distant memory and only used to fill homes. Homes however were the main purpose of the new business to grow, to get more homes, more value, more money. They accepted that they still had to put up with the poor, the old and the disabled, but this could be changed by the change of staff, the caring old one out and the more ruthless new one in.
The condition was simple a contempt for the poor, the old and the disabled was enough to qualify for a position. The next thing was to raise the rents shy high only the capping measures stopped them from raising the rent above any reasonable level, still they managed to be one of the highest in the field of this kind or organizations.

The two examples have several point in common, not only they started at the same point in time. Both also pretended to be good to the poor and the old, the homeless and the less well off.
Both also had a second agenda the making of so much money as possible regardless of the consequences, they were in the business of making money, money and more money, regardless how.
Both had and have to the outside the image of a charity caring for the depending side of the community,
In addition, both did and do it at such a way that even insiders do believe it but as the first example will show it will not last.
Both used and use the force of intimidation harassment and the threat to health or life to obtain what they wanted and want.

Both also have a whole army of legal experts to cover their tracks, and both can be described as ruthless in their pursued of money and power.

Both had their minions to do the work for them, this enable them to keep themselves clean of any blame.
If something went wrong, they could easily blame the minions as they are easily to be disposed off.

The two examples show that breaking the rules and law can be lucrative and rewarding.
If that happens, accidental or otherwise then the tables could be turned. Example one found out the hard way
That it can turn even if they cannot proof that the rule and the law were broken, that he still went to jail was due to an supposedly failing to supply the right accounts, incomplete account and failing to supply accounts. His name was Al Capone and he no doubt done many of the never proved crimes.

The second example is still in operation, living the high life of money and power, for that reason, and for that reason only they are allowed the break the rule and the law. Their name is William Sutton Homes, accused and proven of many breaches of rule and law.

Both examples way of working was the same, the breaches of the rule and the law, the intimidation the harassment the bullying.

Both had and have the protection of politicians, the Government and their quango, s. The first example failed already, we just have to wait for the second example.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.