Faulty Investigation

Faulty Investigation

What does the word police stand for? It seems ridicules that the more than 90% of the police force in the south eastern countries are not aware of. This shows the incompetence in which their are embroiled in. 

I shall bring the acronym to fore later but to put an analogy of this to the testing, I would like to bring an incident of great magnitude in nature. 

About six people were sentenced to prison in Nepal for the murder of a person that they had confessed to in front of the police. It so happens that this person resurrected after six months or so after the conviction of his murders. 

These people are are languishing for a crime that they are not culpable of. Why? If a person whom had been murdered by the confessed people, how is it possible that he had come to life? This can perplex any science. 

After all he had been killed by the very eyes of the people who did the deed of taking his life and throwing his lifeless body into the Koshi river. Mind you, that the rivers in Nepal are fast flowing bodies. 

His coming back to life is unexplainable, unless there are other means to explain it. 

Yes, there are other means of explaining it. The incompetence of the police force in Nepal. Just to show that they are doing their jobs and that their stats show so, that they are solving cases in the country, arbitrarily case without proper investigation and forced confessions can make up the bulk of it, the cases solved.
One can actually assume what really went on in this particular case and most other cases can be taken on this line. A complain was lodged that a particular person was murdered by supposedly these people by the family members of the supposedly murdered person. Pressure was put on the police and so the group of guys were arrested and put under torture to confess in police detention. 
It is natural that when one in under torture that is painful, they will concoct a story up in order to get away from the pain an torment that is leashed on them. 
The case for the police have been solved. They were convicted for a murder of a person. This could be a case of irony or a breach of the law that the very people are to maintain. 
This shows only one thing - that the police force in Nepal are both incompetent and that many people must be languishing in prison for a crime that they may not have committed or have been given sentences that are not virtues of a part of the crime that was committed.
It also show either directly or indirectly that torture and forced confession is prevalent in the police force. Any person can become a victim of the police brutality in Nepal as were the incidences of deaths in police custody of a number of people which is then made out to be that he die of some illness or a heart attack. Obviously the pain inflicted on a person will make him die of an heart attack at time. 
It need not mention some case, but if one happens to read the newspapers in the country you would come across such cases. 
Finally, if human rights is to exist in the country proportionally, independent investigation of such case should be done and if it comes to notice that brutality was used to make confessions, then those police persons should be taken as criminals and punished as ones. Including the high and mighty officers that make it possible to happen under their jurisdiction. For they are the most culpable of what is happen. 
This all because they want to score merits of the number of cases they have solve and gain merits for it and at the same time are involved in venal acts of taking bribery from those they can. If not, how is it possible that they are able to accomplish building homes in the city, with the salary they get. 
Steven William Pitts 
  

A Cup of Coffee

“A cup of coffee”, shouts out the boss from within his office, to let the peon know he is in his office and he has begun his day. This cupper many not be the first nor is it the last, but does he know the journey of this coffee to his desk.

Yes, it is the natural tendency of the consumers consuming the aromatic taste and smell of coffee that stimulates the senses to goad them into motion. Money buys them not only the coffee but also the pride in having the power to possess.

This coffee comes from beans usually procured in some of the poorest nations on earth from some of the poorest people who do not get the benefit of the price of the coffee we pay for on the receiving end. Yet, with pride we consume it, not aware that our actions does not have the trickle down benefit to those people who actually make it possible for us to have the luxury of the cup of coffee.

Who is to blame for this? I doubt that the poor farmers that toil the year around just to be paid peanuts for their harvest, that is barely enough to sustain them and educate their children – some of the mighty multinational companies that manufacture coffee run schools showing the coffee farmers that they are doing them a favour. It is no favour as you are just returning them what they have made possible for you and your share-holders.

It has always bugged me as who should get the benefit – the famers who make the cup of coffee possible for our drinking pride or the companies that use their know-how and potentials to market it, making hefty profits for the companies and those who gamble on their company’s shares.

Life has its magical ways of giving those that do the least labour the most benefit and those who practically do the most nothing. It is that they are made the modern day servitudes to benefit society for all the wrong things. This basically happens all due to us. The middle men cheat the lower end of society taking the lion’s share of the goodies which actually should not be the case.

There are two kinds of people who are essential for the cup of coffee. The producer who is the farmer and the manufacture who makes the coffee and then markets it. The profit for the coffee should then be evenly distributed among the two.

This disparity of who receives what is because of us. We are unaware of the real truth. If only we make people more culpable for what happens, then only would just prevail evenly among all people. We are the ones to blame.

Stop buying coffee from companies that do not follow this policy and when their profit margins begin to drop would the realize the truth, that they ought to be humanity in their approach. Only then would the cup of coffee, we drink serve the true purpose.

William Pitts

Matter of Foreign Policy

Just what to write does not come to mind easily as it should come at times. So, this title happen to be passing by and so I though, “why not make just of it”. I do not know what the outcome this article would and I hope that it would have some value in the heart of the reader.

Irrespective of which country you belong to, your government has a foreign policy. Even the government of the Vatican City, with a population of less than a thousand citizens has one. Thus every government around the world has a part of it, known as the foreign department.

One common phrase that may emit from time to time from them is, “It is a matter of foreign policy”. What does this basically means? Simply, it is a policy that is made by the government rather than by the people whom elect them, that makes the dealing of the approach towards other country.

This foreign policy is dictated by the terms of how mightily one country is over another. “I told that government less diminutive, how it should govern itself”. It is a matter of our foreign policy – a common cliché. So the mighty country dictates terms but will never do anything ameliorate solutions when it help is actually needed.

A simply analogy to make this clear is Nepal. With a country with all its faults, is trying to ameliorate the life of its citizens by broadening the roads so that the effect of commerce can have its effects to all parts of the capital. I like the rest believe, it is something good to alleviate the chronic traffic problem in the capital city.

For this to happen most the houses were broken on either side of the road but most of the embassies that that it was a matter of foreign policy not adhere to this except for the Australian Embassy. So much so, people are now forced to walk on the roads as there are no pavements in front of these Embassies. The shameless Embassies are The Embassy of the United States in Maharajgunj, The Japanese Embassy in Panipokhara, and The Russian Embassy in Balawatar.

How hypocritical! These Embassies use the Geneva Conventions but yet break it in their own countries when they believe that the less diminutive country has broken in theirs. This can be the case of a military officer call Lama who happened to visit his wife in the UK and was arrested for human rights violation back in his own country against the dictates of the Geneva Convention. This seems like an issue that those that are signatories of it can easily flaunt the international rule of law all in the name of “It is a matter of foreign policy”.

You are you in this earth all depending on what sway you hold and you can dictate terms proportional to you military strength. As in the case of the Embassies, they believe that their walls are more important and not the lives of the children that are going to school and the people going to work being knocked down by those vehicles that would move all the more faster in front of their embassies all for the want of not walking on a pavement.

Human Rights violators are those countries and their Embassies that think it is a matter of policy to do as their please not taking the dignity of other country’s request for safety into consideration. This purely my observation and what I have seen while humbly being pushed onto the road in front of the above mentioned Embassies with the danger of being killed.

Steven William Pitts

A freelance content writer      

Rights

Categorically speaking when we consider rights, the first thing which comes to mind, you or someone being correct in what one does. By far rights in the modern world have a far reaching consequence especially because we live in a legally tangled world.

There are thousand and one rights presently which far exceeded there being rights at any given time in human history. The only person who had rights was the owner of the land that goes by many names but basically can be termed as the king. Yet, rights where there till he was able to exact control over the land he ruled till someone more powerful was able to overthrow him.

The basics of rights are human rights which may differ from country to country and to some order dictated by the universal rights enshrined in the United Nations. It is more a directive rather than an order where member states need to strictly adhere to.

Besides Human rights which are fundamentally rights to life and being discriminated against, there are rights dished out to animals. I find these rights more necessary than even human rights.

This is because with human rights makes man more powerful in order to exploit the earth which eventually does not only away with what the earth once was, but also destroying it and humans and animals. In fact I find that this is an irony. Humans are animals and so there should be a separate right for them but a common right for all animals including mankind.

Why this is necessary is humans should like the animals they make instinct by taking away their habitats all in the name of economic rights, rights to dwell, rights to food have made the rights seem stupid.

Taking an ambiguous approach to rights, where one actor in it, can possess an object where as another actor cannot. This sound ridiculous – The United States takes it as its right to thousands of tons of nuclear weapons in its arsenal all in the name of protecting itself, but those countries who aspire to use it as the same deterrent do not have the right and can face punitive action by the United States and its allies.

Besides than having rights which actually seems to be lopsided in its approach in how it is disseminated among people and countries, it would be better known as “Order of human existence”. This is because you have that many rights in the class in which you are. The president of a country has the right to live in a palatial home given to him by the state other of the resources contribute by the people but a penniless person has to make do with the benches of a park – that is his right to exist. This seems a mockery of the fundamental principles of rights.

The next which we can see a mockery made of is – animal rights – it is more on paper rather than in deeds. Animals can be slaughtered in name of food and can be reared in horrible circumstances, but some other animals like dogs and cats are given privileges that are better than the existence of some humans living on earth. This should be more termed as privileges for loveable animals.

Finally what is in legal terms called rights is just a man made farce so as to prove that certain section of society from some countries can use it to show dominance over others. This is plain hypocritical.

Steven William Pitts