Malpractice Incompetence Negligence and Denial
On Thursday, a radio station hosted an author claiming to prove, definitively, that the ancient Egyptians were black. Only 24 hours later, the BBC aired their annual Red Nose Day Bonanza. For those less informed it is a massive charity appeal drive to raise funds for the starving Africans – those same Africans that I imagine this author was targeting. Yet again, this radio charade demonstrated the treacherous mediocrity of black people. Since October, Brent Mind has imposed a visitor ban on the property where I stay. This was following an incident where numerous items were stolen, and yet, the “corrective” measure ought to have come before that. In reality, Brent Mind, like other charities, and especially prisons, receive a substantial sum for housing these vulnerable people, and so, like prison bed turnover, that have much to gain from housing people indiscriminately, and this means, inappropriately. This being so, in August lat year, they decided to neglect a ‘thorough’ background check on a resident that moved into the property, and soon after, this fiend, and their friends, began to flood the premise. Eventually, as fiend behaviour seems to dictate, items were gradually stolen – supposedly, to exchange for money to fund lewd habits. Although this begun with the television and other smaller items, such s food, it culminated in the theft of two bikes, and then, afterwards a third.
Of course, Brent Mind could have prevented the theft of the bikes by securing the property after the theft of the television, and yet, as their staff do not reside on the premises, they don’t need to care. They have the luxury of innocence, which might otherwise be read as implausible denial, for evidence suggests they were well-aware of the activities taking place on the premises. In fact, very early on, they put up a poster warning against drug dealings. Much later, when these thefts were reported and complaints were made, they issued a general warning that strikes would be given if the rules of the property were violated, and then finally, they instituted an ineffectual visitor ban – a ban existing in theory only. Despite this ban, the fiend-resident has still had their unwelcome guests on the premises, with some even “living” in their room. Naturally, when the complaints were made, Brent Mind gave their heroic rhetoric, and even made suggesting about how myself, and other residents, could work together to solve this problem, and yet, the problem is theirs, as is the responsibility to deal with it. It is their property but even beyond that, they have all the resources to counteract the issue. Even their phoney story about people hiding behind the central camera – yes, we have a main camera that sees everyone upon entering – was implausible, for they claimed that people find ways to manoeuvre around these thing when in fact, these “visitors” were being let in without impunity. If they were incredibly honest, they would have simply stated that do not need to act as there is nothing to make them concerned.
Eventually, residents engaged in counter-insurgency, which essentially involved sabotaging and damaging the property – in the same way that Brent Mind has done – and yet, as this property damage was very real, only then, Brent Mind attempted to take action to target this resident. In fact, the organisation that had neglected cameras for the longest time, and simply weren’t bothered to enforce the words they put on paper, attempted to utilise all the tools and mechanisms within their means, to target the alleged perpetrator – the perpetrator that was “reported” by the fiend-resident. So desperate were they to make an example of this “saboteur” that they resorted to lying, by claiming that there was CCTV footage of this resident “breaking the glass”, despite initially stating that a police report implicated the suspect. Again, this reporting could go on but the pint is, these people have no will to do right. There is nothing compelling them to be just. Moreover, this has been the collective effort to individuals to silence and bury a situation; this has been individualism hiding behind institutional roles, that have hid and tolerated, even welcoming, subversive activity, and yet, when it has only indirectly affected them – i.e. the financial blip of having to replace windows – they act. In fact, this simply isn’t new as this model simply reflects how institutions and the individuals within them, work. They are totally criminal; it is not in their nature to do right. These are the debased people that are of no consequence to anyone because when it matters, there values are not in check, and so, those who they hold prisoner, hostage, and subdue, eventually fall into despair as their powerlessness overwhelms them, and they are “sickened” by the sick people who spearhead thee institutions…and then they wonder why we up rise.
There is nothing to mystify. Like the dancers in the battle of Algiers, these people just stood by. They are the criminals. Again, the purpose of this piece is to establish and encourage proper discernment. It must be noted that people are acting, not systems. People are making decisions everyday, and even if they struggle with the allocation of resources, and face many difficulties in prioritising, these are the people to realise. They cannot be concealed; they have to be exposed, as they are so deeply flawed. If people are going to lambaste and make a spectacle of “street gangs” then these people with a duty to know and do better must have at least thrice the exposure. Charity begins at the top. This system which we live in is total, for many have colluded with it and given themselves over to tit and so the question to be asked is what to do with these “traitors.” We are not speaking about abstract policies and practices here but people, individuals, in positions, and given pay packages and salaries, who are deliberately and very consciously acting to sabotage the outsiders. There is no mystery involved, and yet, they must pretend that they are mystified by all the happenings as it gives them an excuse to turn away as they endorse a position of “implausible denial.” Fact is, if they wanted to act and effectively respond, as they do when it suits them, then immediately something would be done, and yet, when the other, the outsider, the non-white, who is unlike them, who is not a part of them, who does not belong to their elite team, attempts to simply assert their dignity and possesses their being, they are radically targeted, and this here is extremism. If anything it militant, it is this position, and general criminal practice. It wrecks lives and completely destroys people, subjecting them to violent victimisations they may never recover form, and yet, we are expected to tolerate this denigration. It is not possible as to embrace this nihilism would simply negate our dignity, which itself, would necessarily dictate that we adopt a position which means we cease to be people. We refuse.