Comments on: Government Robbery

By: Kay Tie

Kay Tie — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 10:30:58 +0000

“Don’t be too sure about the chances of that happening. In the USA, police can size “large” amounts of cash discovered after a traffic stop (for example) without even making a charge.”

I suppose that just because you have a constitution, doesn’t mean the Supreme Court gets to do a proper job (c.f. insane eminent domain ruling).

“You realise that a person can have assets confiscated under this act even if he was found not guilty of the crime of which they are claimed to be the proceeds?”

I’m not particularly comfortable with this, of course. But a couple of points:

1. The burden of proof in civil cases is lower than criminal. Yes, the State shouldn’t be taking civil cases against people, I know.

2. This happened under an existing act, not the proposed one. The proposed one (if reports are to be believed) allows a police officer to confiscate assets. Under the HRA seizure can only be done after an independent tribunal has made a ruling, and police officers (surprise, surprise!) are not independent (and often complicit in crime: see recent case of man being killed after policeman gave out DVLA database details to criminal colleague).

I don’t have any faith in politicians to protect people: the State is largely evil (by act, if not motive). A constitution (or our HRA) is there to protect us from the State, and it’s all we’ve got. So I have to have some faith in it (and yes, it chills me to the marrow how effective the mob campaign against the HRA has been).

By: Ian Bennett

Ian Bennett — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 08:16:36 +0000

You realise that a person can have assets confiscated under this act even if he was found not guilty of the crime of which they are claimed to be the proceeds? See here.

By: Monty

Monty — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 18:20:45 +0000

Wow, the audacity.

Just stealing stuff from some bloke, and then making restitution conditional on his ability to prove he deserved his own property in the first place, what a wheeze. What a stroke of criminal genius.

Like most people, I wouldn’t be able to demonstrate justified title to the skin on my own arse. And unlike most people, I have retained every payslip of my 35 year career. But I can never prove that I didn’t supplement that income with any criminal activity.

And I don’t believe for a moment that any major league dealers are going to be caught in this net, so who are they going after really?

By: MikeinAppalachia

MikeinAppalachia — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 17:10:01 +0000

Kay-Don’t be too sure about the chances of that happening. In the USA, police can size “large” amounts of cash discovered after a traffic stop (for example) without even making a charge. The onus is then on the “suspect” to prove that the funds were lawfully obtained to recover them. Similiarly, all of a suspect’s posessions in a narcotics case will be impounded pending the outcome of the charges. This is supposedly to prevent them from disposing of them (proceeds of crime) in the interim. However, it also deprives the charged from obtaining better legal representation as the seizure will include bank accounts.

By: Kay Tie

Kay Tie — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 11:09:54 +0000

I’m not sure why, but the Telegraph reports this uncritically, as if churning a press release. The Times has a much better report, with comment from Shami at Liberty, and David Davis. And indeed the piece makes the point that the HRA will slap this down very quickly.

By: Kay Tie

Kay Tie — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 09:29:04 +0000

“seize purely upon charging?”

Absolutely no chance of this happening. Because:

“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.”

In my view there are three possibilities here:

1. This is to “Send A Message”. Blair pioneered the use of legislation in place of a press release (c.f. “glorifying terrorism”). Cracking down on evil people, blah blah blah.
2. The ministers know this will be overturned, their dogs in the Mail etc. can be allowed to run loose on “Human Rights Act, more like Drugs Dealers Rights Act, its an outrage” (etc. etc.)
3. The Home Office is staffed with utter fuckwits, top to bottom.

Of course, these options are not mutually exclusive (with particular reference to point 3).