That last point is perhaps the most important. It means that when violent death happens, the cops are entitled to look into it, gather evidence and arrest anyone they think might be involved. The courts then have the power to pass sentence and hand out punishment. Not all aspects of life are so simple. In fact, there are times when things are clearly wrong, but because nothing about the facts are illegal, it means that there's no action. Nothing happens.



Let's think about banks. In Britain we have a well-known institution, a High Street bank that's a household name in this country. It's a large, old-fashioned body, and thanks to mergers and acquisitions, is also quite famous in other parts of the world. Not always for good stuff. Back in the 1970s, this bank was a real bad boy and many young people were calling for customers to boycott it services. Why? Because it had a reputation for doing lots of business with the evil regime in South Africa. Not everyone remembers those government people now, but they had a fearsome history of locking people up and oppressing the native population. They weren't nice people. Students in England campaigned against them, including one who is now a member of our current British cabinet. Of course, being the government of South Africa, they weren't illegal. They'd been elected. Well, they had to pass a few laws to make sure that not everyone could vote, but those who could, yes, they voted for them. They were the law, why shouldn't a bank from England do business with them?

The '70s have come and gone, but this particular bank is back in the news. Ten years ago they invented a special type of mortgage for older people. It enabled the oldsters to get money in their hands. It was based on the value of their house, and meant they would have cash for improvements. They wouldn't have to sell up and move on. At the time, it was seen as a pretty good thing, a big help for people who had assets but no ready funds. Well, as they found out in the long run, there was a catch. The interest rate on the loan was kept low by a promise ? 'If you sell your house eventually, you must split the increase in the value of the property with us, the bank'. That sounded reasonable at the time and anyway, it was all a long way off, in the future. Well, 'the future' is now. A man who got too old to manage in his own house recently made plans to move into a nursing home. He sold his house and was astonished to find that the bank wanted ?99,000 out of the sale. He got ?12,000. It was all to do with the fact that the small print on the contract said that when it came to 'sharing', the bank got most. The actual owner got a small part of it.

Okay, it's legal, and I didn't just say that: as fine a body as the Financial Services Authority has ruled that there's nothing wrong with the deal. Oh, yeah, sure. It's just not fair, that's all. And it's being put into effect by a bank that made record profits last year, just about four and a half billion pounds. That sounds pretty clever, and admirable for shareholders. It sounds pretty stinky when you realise that they made it off the savings of vulnerable old people. That doesn't sound like anything to boast about at all.

A very wise man once said, 'Some people rob you with a six-gun, and some with a fountain pen'. He must have been thinking our High Street bank. The joke is, of course, that the boys at the bank seem to think that because they haven't broken the law, then they haven't done anything wrong. Made an obscene level of profit from an old, frail gentleman? The gents in suits seem to think that there will be no repercussions, and they can safely go on about their disreputable business. Funny thing is, over the last 30 years I've opened bank accounts with just about every bank in England, (including the Bank of Ireland and the Royal Bank of Scotland!) In all that time, I've always steered clear of the one I mentioned earlier. Why? Because of the furore in the 1970s. Even though South Africa has changed out of all recognition, I figured that a bank that could do business with the leaders of that poor benighted country had the misfortune to call their government in those days couldn't be trusted. I was right, wasn't I? The fact that we now know that this up-right institution has done the dirty on old folks in present-day England is just one more reason why I won't be risking my investments with that particular investment opportunity. If a few more customers and potential investors agree with me, then some employees in the bank's plush offices might come to see that just because you can claim that something is 'legal', it's no alternative to a dose of good old-fashioned morality.