| All kinds of people are duped and misguided in their entitlements to purchasing services, especially from Banks and Insurance Companies. Some of the conduct is blatantly Unlawful. Other behaviour is dishonest and still other practices have the character of intimidation. Behaviour and conduct of this sort is increasingly being identified by Legal Firms, based upon successful test cases and subsequent rulings by the Courts and Banking & Financial Regulators. These practices are often, initially identified as 'unfair' practices. If we analyse the underlying character of how these practices are developed, we can see that they have all the hallmarks of 'abusive practices'. This is easily identified by highly skilled advocates, but is often missed by ordinary people. It makes little difference how skilled and clever a person is in their general life and work. Most people are susceptible to this kind of institutional dishonesty and abuse. Lets analyse the characteristic of this kind of conduct: For any society, culture or community to survive and thrive, it needs to establish forms of organisation which ensure justice, peaceful coexistence and the provision of the essential commodities & the basic services needed to maintain itself. These commodities and services are necessary for the participating individuals, the institutions themselves and, in modern cultures, those who are unable to fully contribute to the culture or community. The essential 'bodies' that form the basis of this social organisation are often called 'Institutions'. This formal arrangement comes from the fact that they are 'instituted' to perform certain 'regulated' functions on our behalf. These are essential to our continued, successful purpose; ensuring the continuation of a community, culture or nation. To do this, cultures have to include arrangements for the individual institutions' own survival, in some fair & effective form. The purpose of these 'institutions' is primarily to serve the community. Their aims are determined by the community, through the Primary institutions of Government and International Treaties & Conventions. This has been the case, in one form or other, since the dawn of civilisation. Whether it is the eventual successful cooperation between families, tribes, communities, or nations, the establishment of formal arrangements for organising societies is unavoidable. This is clearly a fundamental part of human genetic characteristics; as are the fact we stand upright, use language and have determined hair colour. It is impossible to avoid some form of social organisation for any length of time. Anything which disrupts established social arrangements invariably results in a new, basically similar and hopefully slightly 'improved' arrangement, as people get to see a need to reorganise themselves (by comparison with social chaos). How this happens and how it is decided who does what, can vary considerably and the means by which the new arrangements arises can also vary considerably (Anarchy, Autocracy, Meritocracy, Democracy, or any mixture), but the general trend has been persistently towards increasing 'inclusion' of a greater proportion of people in the decision processes and the accountability of the institutions that are formed for these more general social purposes. I am not particularly interested here in the how and why, just the fact that this tends to happen, as a natural human process. This is an 'evidenced' scientific fact, which is difficult to contest and I remain open to being convinced otherwise. The eventual collapse of families, tribes, communities, cultures & nations is also a fact in this same sense; as is the persistent tendency for societies to reorganise themselves once more, out of the chaos of previous collapse. I would also argue, as a well evidenced scientific fact, that when social institutions 'corrupt' and fail to fulfil their instituted purpose, this generates social reactions, largely because of the felt disadvantage of individuals, groups and eventually whole communities. Poorly managed Institutions regularly fail to keep pace with the advancement of human knowledge, the improving skills and the emancipation of a cultures membership (individual social empowerment). Further more, Institutions can be corrupted by undue influences, whereby they become partisan to powerful sub-groups, or else become corrupted by self interested, self protective and usually prejudicial practices (institutionalised). The term 'corrupted' is not used in a moral sense. It is used in a scientific sense; as the evidenced dissociation between the original &/or revised, stated objectives and the actual practice and purpose it is eventually observed to serve. Towards Social Disorder: When people are unable to express their dissatisfaction adequately, or if they do so in partisan political, or less partisan intellectual terms, or even when they express this through social action (or revolution), there is still the more fundamental, or pure, scientific fact: An underlying trend towards progressive social disorder. This is clearly generated when there is any kind of disproportionate power, or when the institutions misrepresent their agreed, declared & accepted purpose. Much of this social disorder is clearly associated with the corruption and breakdown of the various organisation's instituted purpose. Like a stack of dominos, one institution's failure impacts upon other organisations and then causes the corruption and the eventual fall of these others. These failing Institutions loose their ability to adjust to new realities, they fail to be self reflective and also neglect to be adequately self critical. They loose credibility and creditability. They increasingly compromise their principles, become risk averse and more defensive of other's criticism. In fact, they become a power unto themselves and fail to meet their instituted purpose (independent of the commercial purpose). Institutions have a constituted duty to maintain the delicate balance between their established conventions & rules (Policy), the progressive demands of improved social knowledge and broadening emancipation of citizens. When Institutions fail to maintain this delicate and essential balance of trust, they (or their executives) are the ones that become greedy. They become institutionalised, one size fits all, recycling the same resources amongst same favoured customers and placing the larger financial burden upon the unfavoured. The 'mass purchasers' (us) reduce our purchasing and eventually; the institutions cease to have any 'organic' viability (or validity) and they die. So - Where does this lead us?: Chaotic problems arise when any established social institution, which has arisen on the pragmatic basis described above, no longer adequately reflects the stable social need of a culture, or community, or set of nations. This can also happen when institutions are corrupted to disproportionately meet the needs of a 'privileged' sub-group, or its own institutional self interest; or when an established and accepted 'bias' is recognised to be no longer appropriate. This invariably generates resentments within individuals which is eventually expressed by individual anarchistic action, or rationalised revolutionary, or reactionary group actions. No judgments here, just the recognition that these reactions are recognised, researched and established as scientific facts, in spite of disagreements as to why and how this happens. The fact that this does happen is far more important to recognise for our purposes. The institutions of justice are just as susceptible to these influences as any other institution and need critical review as much as any other. That said, systems of Justice are still effective (if sometimes slow) in eventually establishing and maintaining Social Justice. It is even established that breaking Law can be justified in challenging 'Bad Law', provided that it is 'proportionate' and in keeping with this genuine purpose (Pole Tax; Protest Rallies, etc.). All this 'rational' framework for developing Justice and Social Order has a well established factual basis; as observable events that regularly arise, in clear association with (eventual) recognised failures in the 'system' of institutions. Some of these failures are simply failures to keep up with developments. This arises when Institutions fail to do their Research and Development work (Market Research being in keeping with the modern idiom). The particular failing I am drawing attention to here, is the more dishonest abuses of the the instituted purpose of the established Institutions. It is not Just Banking, Finance and Insurance Institutions that fail in their duties. Commercial Institutions generally fail; as do institutions and systems for Justice, Health & Social Care, Education, etc. The concern here is the corruption for Privileged Purpose and Institutional Self Interest (and that of individuals & controlling bodies). Human Rights and the Institutions Duty of Care: How does this fit in with Human Rights, the principles being applied in considering failures of Duty of Care, Neglect, and considerations of Abuse? Put quite simply; Institutions have certain powers, provided through our Government, which can only be properly maintained through 'trust'. We give over some of our independence, social responsibilities and power to institutions and fund them to provide this civic duty, in all our best interests. It is actually quite a simple principle. When that trust is abused in some way, we are often so used to 'trusting' the institution to do its job that we do not immediately see how it is 'prejudicing' our civic entitlements. We may ignore these corruptions when it appears to affect others, especially when this is 'justified' by the institution in some rationalised way (Spongers, incompetence, social class, race, sex, intelligence, previous form, political correctness, etc.). It is really only when we become aware that the effects are impacting upon ourselves that we get the first signs of an underlying resentment, often something we can not immediately put our finger on. The corruption, or the distortion of the institution's purpose is eventually highlighted in a way where we can see its effect upon us (re-rationalised). It is often only then that we realise the problem has been there for a while and that we have been duped. Again, because we must rely on trust to a considerable degree (life would be otherwise impossible), we have often listened and trusted explanations for justifying restrictions on our own and other's entitlements. Because of the 'rational' character of institutions and the 'intellectual' character of 'justifications', we do not recognise the problem for what it is, until it is re-formulated into an alternative rational explanation. We then get a the new, enlightening perspective. Because of a need for some level of institutional trust, we have become dependent upon professionals and reliant upon those skilled in 'rational' matters, to speak & act on our behalf; especially when an institution fails to meet its obligations in some important way. One intellectual, or rational argument is pitted against the dishonest 'other' rational (in order to show up its 'failures & weakness'). Its a good way to earn a living; no wonder our skills to speak up for ourselves is undermined. Once this is done 'the penny drops' and we can all see how the failures came about, our part in them and the impact on ourselves and others. And so it is with unreasonable and disproportionate Bank Charges, Loan, Credit Card and Mortgage Protection Insurance. These are aggressively sold (like so many products), often on dishonest basis, knowingly not in peoples best interests, relying upon institutional trust and generated, disproportionate fear. Even the legalised jargon contained in contracts and conditions can not override our Basic Rights and these institutions know this. Even disclosed 'Policy' of any institution can not override these Basic Rights, incorporated in the Conventions, or arising out of previous challenges which have required the establishment 'good & fair practice' by the institutions. The very wording is deliberately misleading and confounding and is actually abusive in itself. These formalised statements often include invalid demands, mixed among the more valid requirements and are clear attempts to fool people. If fact, these institutions (like so many) break the trust we put in them as formal institutions. The status and the power they wield, is used disproportionately, inappropriately and largely discriminatorily, in clear contravention of our Basic Human Rights for dignity, respect, truthful, unbiased and transparent practices. They rely upon the fact that most people will be confounded, desperate, trusting and naive. Further more, there are those who wilfully misrepresent contracts, policy statements and even Law & Conventions, to prejudice a person's entitlements, or their request for fairness and justice. Further more, this is often done in the knowledge of the managers of institutions, who then impute culpability in their employees, who have been practicing this way unsupervised. This is where the Abuses come in: Fear and intimidation are used to get us putting our money and resources first in this place and then in that other place, giving the impression that we still have significant choice between the balance of safety and of benefits; Managed Investments, Pensions, Bank Savings, Buying your own Home, Homes to Rent, Gold and other Commodities. Sometime Commercial Institutions seek to appeal to our 'Greed' (its pure projection in psychology terms). Banks; Investment Companies; Time Share; Social Networking and Sales Companies actually talk about 'appealing to greed' as their rational for pursuing a particular sales strategies. I have even worked within such organisations to understand these strategies. This makes Banks, Insurance and Sales Companies (and even companies that promote Charities) feel less responsible for the consequences, than acknowledging that they use fear, insecurity & intimidation. Even these contradictory justifications are used to our disadvantage. There is greater social credibility (these days) in acknowledging our 'greed' instinct, rather than recognising and acknowledging our fears & insecurities (generated by the increasingly unstable and highly publicised social and world disorder). Actually, people mostly seek security and a reasonably good quality of life, as they feel they deserve, having worked under unreasonable levels of stress. By publicising and showing interest in the Big Issues we generate fear for ourselves and institutions then also benefit from perpetrating the small, progressive, incremental injustices. It makes these abuses look puny by comparison. Its a win-win arrangements for dishonest institutions and lose-loose arrangement for the rest of us. We often unwittingly play our part in all this. It is a psychology that institutions (and those that run them) fully understand and utilise. So, when unexpected bank charges, due to late payment of wages, or benefit entitlements, puts you into overdrawn (beyond your arranged limit) and the some direct debits then fail to be paid and produce more bank charges, which in turn cause a credit card payment failure, which generates a bank charge and a credit card charge, you begin to see how the charges can be disproportionate and abusive. Can't you? The fact is, there are increasing institutional requirements upon us all, to meet financial obligations, within restricted budgets, involving ridiculous levels of form filling and demands for justifying just about everything we do. This, like the proverbial Mallet to break a egg; Hammer to crack a nut; this triplicated, multi-agency, legally required demand to meet the requirements of multiple institutions which are there to support, protect and service us, is punitive 'overkill'. All this paraphernalia of institutional red tape, is in order to try and catch the few, relatively minor 'fraudsters' who prey upon the resources of institutions. The abuses they inflict, when compared with the burden of duty placed upon everyone else, is minor, especially when compared with the multimillions gained in institutional miss selling and inappropriate miss-use of institutional resources. These are mostly Unlawful acts, 'protected' by institutional rules and conventions and legal services which are geared to protect the institution, not the people the institution is 'instituted' to serve. Quite frequently, more time and money is spent on protecting and promoting the institutions than is spent on providing the 'paid for services' that the institution has been contracted to provide. Why don't people complain more? Because they fear the consequences upon the service that they will get. All the evidence suggests that those who complain (except to the highest level, over protracted periods of time), risk a reduction, or compromise of the quality of the service they get. This is true for Banking and Insurance, as it is for Policing, Social Care, Health Care, Housing and Education, etc.. It is little wonder that those in personal and social distress find themselves in uncontrollable spiral of debt. Saving for our old age puts us at social care disadvantage. Our commercial pensions are not adequately protected. There is little justice for those who financially, psychologically and emotionally abused, or even assaulted (when the assailant has fled). Social Justice is in recession, along with the Financial Services Industry. Even legal recourse has been substantially curtailed and aspects of policing and justice are being 'charged for', to the greatest disadvantage to the poor and disabled. How much something is worth, in direct monetary terms, is deemed more important than the 'cost' of the lost 'facility' from theft, or criminal damage. Even the Courts tend to follow these criteria, with Magistrates being influenced by the well paid advocates of Banking and Insurance Companies. A low cost item for a person in poverty has far more significant personal and social impact than an expensive, insured item of someone who is comfortably off, but it is the expensive crimes that are perused the most energetically and the longest. The greatest respect shown to 'well off' victims. Justice is failing those who most need justice to protect them and the victims are often treated with contempt, especially if they complain. If angry they are likely to be criminalised. Its is time for Back to Basics: Basic Human Rights have status in Law. Speak up and politely complain at progressively higher levels. Assert yourself, or get someone to do so on Human Rights terms. Ensure your requests and progressive complaints are recorded. Seek legal advice (much of it free now) and make sure you get the service you deserve. Ensure that it is at a cost that is reasonable, and of a quality which is assured by those institutions that are established to ensure this. People who represent institutions are often increasingly miss-informed, poorly trained, often dishonest and frequently just plain prejudiced & progressively abusive. The Institutions they manage, or work for, are held in Trust. This original 'Trust' status has often been forgotten, or conveniently diminished in favour of shareholders and executives, after their 'policing' was transferred to their 'commercial' Trustees (Shareholders and Executives). The obligations remain the same. We have seen the consequences of this kind of culpable neglect for years and are currently experiencing some dramatic consequences of Changed Policies and Attitudes, which were developed in the 1980's. These impacts not only affect world markets, they also devastate 'local' markets. We will publish examples of this over the following weeks. Keep sending your stories. They will get published eventually, in the form you request. © Terry Couchman, July 4th 2009 | 
