Comments on: How the law entangles us

By: The Great Simpleton

The Great Simpleton — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 15:52:26 +0000

Another example of what you get when politicans massage their own egos by passing populist legislation through a compliant/incompetent parliament and justify it on the basis that “if you’ve nothing to fear”.

By: Ian Bennett

Ian Bennett — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 12:45:24 +0000

The entire operation of the Proceeds of Crime Act is, to say the least, grossly suspect. I recall a case (Not this one) where a businessman was found not guilty of any crime, but his assets were siezed under that act. How can they be the proceeds of crime if no crime has been proven?

By: Jeff Wood

Jeff Wood — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 10:30:03 +0000

And, yes, Brian is spot on.

By: Jeff Wood

Jeff Wood — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 10:29:04 +0000

Quite so, Ian. I hadn’t got to the point where Tim mentioned Gulag before the word came into my mind.

A disgraceful verdict. I hope it goes to appeal.

Or do I? Maybe the Appeal Court will add a spell in the salt mines.

By: Ian Bennett

Ian Bennett — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 10:05:16 +0000

“we’re not on the cusp of creating a Gulag”

Really? Because it’s starting to sound as though we are.

By: Brian, follower of Deornoth

Brian, follower of Deornoth — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 10:03:36 +0000

“Three years on an allowance”

The process is the punishment.

By: and

and — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 10:02:05 +0000

Deprivation of resources as a way of denying the accused of an effective defence is a ploy now being used regularly by the authorities. Ironically, this is one of the reasons why historically people from less democratic jurisidictions continue to park assets offshore.

And asking a lawyer to do the numbers is about as sensible as asking a bloke in a wheelchair to take the lead in Swan Lake.