Crime

 

Its origin

 

Just what, exactly, is crime?  There are probably many answers, but surely it must, first and foremost, be ‘contravention of  rules of behaviour laid down by the common consent of the people’.

 

We can be certain that what most people are prosecuted for is certainly not crime as defined by the above. This is because, for the most part, our laws are based on a) initially religious edicts and b) subsequent political edicts. At no time has the population been asked for its consent to introduce any of these laws. They have all been introduced by “those who know best”. Those who know best have then forced these laws upon the population, and these laws have eventually become accepted as “normal” by subsequent generations.

 

Most of the basic behavioural laws in the western world seem to be based on the Jewish account of Moses’ ten commandments, and they do make living together in harmony and safety much more of a predictable process. There are certain aspects of these ten commandments that are questionable however, after all, we are not wandering in a middle eastern desert, and many of us do not have a neighbour with an ass, but as a basic starting off point, for the structure of  communal behaviour law, they have much to be commended. The trouble is that they bring along with them, due to their alleged origin, much that the power seeking clerics have been able to use to both hypnotise and subjugate millions upon millions of people, without those people being able to accede or not.

 

On to the top of these basics the church, in all its guises, had built a layer of additional “suppression” rules, some of which were eventually incorporated into “common law” by the Kings and Power Seekers.

 

These Kings and Power Seekers, however, have overlaid layers and layers of  law basically aimed, not at the welfare of the population, but at keeping control of the population, maintaining themselves in power and at the same time keeping up a steady flow of money into the coffers.

 

Many of these laws have been dressed up in pretty costumes to appear, to those under hypnosis, as though they were for the well being of the community (and, funnily enough, some of them do achieve this) but most are, without doubt, for the benefit of the power seekers and/or to disguise their shortcomings.

 

The doubter should compare the present sentences passed down for “crimes against the state”, where no one is harmed (tax evasion, in all its guises, being the most ‘serious’), with those handed down for injurious crimes against the general population.  In the latter cases the modern politically correct view seems to be that it is almost the victims’ fault that the crimes were committed!

 

Many of today’s laws have been enacted in an attempt to paper over the cracks becoming evident in the ill founded nature of older laws, or on the ill conceived measures taken by previous governments to achieve some objective or other. Much of today’s iniquitous  motoring taxation, and verbal outpourings, had its origins in previous governments. The red flag paraded in front of any mechanically propelled vehicle was instigated by the parliamentary squirachy,  because they did not want their horses frightened, and has resulted in the vilification, by the power seekers, of all motorists to this day. The plundering of the Road Fund licence takings, started by Winston Churchill (as a short term expedient) has led to the motorist being viewed as an indispensable milk cow, but one that should be accepted only on sufferance, and be looked upon much as the red flag brigade did. The fact that most of  the roads in our country are still only a little better than those used by the horse riding squirachy, and were never made to separate pedestrians and cyclist from wagons, cars and motorcycles, does not seem to  occur to the opinion formers, when road safety is discussed. It never ceases to amaze me that millions of vehicles pass each other, going in opposite directions, often only inches apart, and only a infinitesimal number come into any sort of contact. They also pass similar numbers of pedestrians with the same sort of result. Never-the-less those motorists who have accidents, as a result of anything at all, even bad road design and upkeep, must have lots of money taken from them, for the good of the country. This money will not go to improve the road that caused the accident, it will probably go as “aid” to Ghana or Ethiopia, or somewhere, to enhance the standing, of our incumbent leader at the time, on “the world stage”.

 

The basic needs of a society are that people should be able to live, move, trade etc. peaceably and without fear of any form of harm from others. Here is not the place for  a list of modern laws purporting to achieve this but which, in fact, are nothing more than state interference for the purpose of revenue gathering, or control for the sake of control.

 

The saddest fact of all is that due to political meddling some of the few sound laws and many of the more successful, but ill founded, behavioural control laws, have been so debased by political populism efforts, that our hypnosis has resulted in their being broken continuously and their breakers scarcely punished.

 

A deplorable factor in this is the rise of the vocal, Greenpeace, lesbian, vegetarian, OBE-seeking, unemployed (but actively seeking employment), single parent, childless family that “knows”, from a long 23 year life time, that people should not be “punished”. These, and the people who are able to push political correctness to new heights of folly, are, in the main, the causes of  the softening of the punishment regime, resulting in criminals who should be punished, rather than being reformed, being allowed “out” after serving less than half their allotted span, because there is insufficient prison accommodation to hold all those found guilty of breaking the ever escalating number of  imbecilic new laws.  In real Reality true punishment and victim recompense would be introduced, and, because of the fact that laws would be  democratically approved, the OBE seekers would have to find fresh fields to conquer.

 

A further deplorable factor,  in this rise of crime, is the “shining examples” set by our “Leaders”. These leaders, by their speeches and public appearance, set themselves up to be examples of rectitude. However, we have openly homosexual Members of Parliament passing legislation to not just legalise what has for thousands of  years been viewed as perversion by the state and sin by the church, but to encourage it, in order to comply with personal desire and/or curry favour with their puppet masters and paymasters. We have religious leaders openly embracing this homosexuality, that they have for centuries condemned as evil. We have religious leaders who have for years condemned this behaviour publicly but who, behind closed doors, have been indulging themselves in their fondness for little boy’s bottoms. We have the frequent sight of our political masters being found guilty of bribery and corruption of the highest order, some having served prison terms for it, others being able to get away with it. New Years honours lists always seem to contain people who could be thought to have been less that open in their dealings. There has grown up a new occupational opportunity as a “Lobbyist”. The whole purpose of these lobbyists is to pervert the course of the democratic (ha-ha) process. Strangely enough, these people, who are openly acknowledged as a force to be reckoned with, are not prosecuted as criminals. Presumably it is a case of honour amongst thieves!

 

We are regularly treated to the sight of “friends” of our leaders being involved in skulduggery, dishonesty and sleaze with often very little, if any, punishment. The House of Commons (the mother of parliaments) is awash with lies and deceit, with ethical and moral bankruptcy. The Establishment is awash with nepotism and favouritism. Quangos are created not in order to carry out their attributed purpose, but to repay favours, and at the same time provide a vehicle for the less than democratic machinations of the government of the day. Money is taken from the public in taxes, ostensibly for a certain purpose, but is then spent in what can only be described as a dishonest manner, and no guilt is ascribed to the perpetrator, nor is a balance sheet (mandatory for any business) issued for the general public. With all this laissez faire attitude to law and order and honesty,  exhibited by the father figures of society, there is little wonder that the hypnotised population takes the view that “what is good enough for them is good enough for us.” Unhappily, with parents taking this view, there is little wonder that this is “picked up” by the younger generations.