The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
www.crit.org.uk
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
Page:
We're not (yet at least) in as bad a position as America, legal aid is available to contest the proceedings, so it's still possible to put up some sort of a challenge.
Any thoughts on how you'd improve the site - make it more appealing, clearer etc ?
I'll be putting a page in on the act's compatability with the Human Rights Act et al later on...
By way of an explaination, after Goatboy brought the American side to my attention and a little research dug up the plans for the (then future) UK stuff, I figured it'd make a good dissertation.
There was the American web site about it, but nothing for the UK side of things. So I thought I'd make one
:^)
Any thoughts on how you'd improve the site - make it more appealing, clearer etc ?
I'll be putting a page in on the act's compatability with the Human Rights Act et al later on...
By way of an explaination, after Goatboy brought the American side to my attention and a little research dug up the plans for the (then future) UK stuff, I figured it'd make a good dissertation.
There was the American web site about it, but nothing for the UK side of things. So I thought I'd make one
:^)
Neither I, nor anyone else trying to bring attention to Asset Forfeiture, is saying it is purely to benefit authorities, that's naive in the extreme and the sort of tarbrushing applied to dismiss concerns (not you personally).
The argument is that whilst it does have benefits, the measure of control is not tight enough - individual departments are responsible for their own assets and get the profit.
It is too open to exploitation, which is why it has been slowly and quietly introduced instead of one of Blunkett's usual fanfare announcements.
Nobody says it's all evil, but what is being said is "Well hang on, there isn't enough control here, it's far too easy for greedy or overzealous departments to mistakenly/deliberately target an innocent person".
And what is especially of concern is the fact that you do not have to be charged for this process to begin.
This group, as well as several others, are not saying ban this law. They are saying "please implement a measure of control and make people aware of it".
But, as with most cautionary groups, they are labelled as "liberal whinging", "lefties" etc etc and roundly dismissed.
The argument is that whilst it does have benefits, the measure of control is not tight enough - individual departments are responsible for their own assets and get the profit.
It is too open to exploitation, which is why it has been slowly and quietly introduced instead of one of Blunkett's usual fanfare announcements.
Nobody says it's all evil, but what is being said is "Well hang on, there isn't enough control here, it's far too easy for greedy or overzealous departments to mistakenly/deliberately target an innocent person".
And what is especially of concern is the fact that you do not have to be charged for this process to begin.
This group, as well as several others, are not saying ban this law. They are saying "please implement a measure of control and make people aware of it".
But, as with most cautionary groups, they are labelled as "liberal whinging", "lefties" etc etc and roundly dismissed.
Reading that web site I can see the many arguments against this law, but I don't feel as if I can properly make my mind up until I have heard the other side of the story.
Taken at face value it does seem as if this is a system that is open to curruption and abuse, but my rose-tinted glasses threaten to come into effect here when I say I don't think the government would put a law into effect that has no benifits except for towards them. Prove me wrong? Show me an example of a law brought into effect to benifit only the authorities. I don't feel as if I am being given the full story.
Taken at face value it does seem as if this is a system that is open to curruption and abuse, but my rose-tinted glasses threaten to come into effect here when I say I don't think the government would put a law into effect that has no benifits except for towards them. Prove me wrong? Show me an example of a law brought into effect to benifit only the authorities. I don't feel as if I am being given the full story.
Rosalind wrote:
> I didn't realise that we had civil jursidiction in this country.
---
I dont know if that's the right term or not. It means that it is not a criminal case but a civil one - the same as you bringing an action against a driver that hit your car or similar.
And in civil cases, the burden of proof is a hell of a lot lighter.
Criminal is "beyond a reasonable doubt", whereas civil is "on the balance of probability"
> I didn't realise that we had civil jursidiction in this country.
---
I dont know if that's the right term or not. It means that it is not a criminal case but a civil one - the same as you bringing an action against a driver that hit your car or similar.
And in civil cases, the burden of proof is a hell of a lot lighter.
Criminal is "beyond a reasonable doubt", whereas civil is "on the balance of probability"
Rosalind wrote:
> So you would have to appeal? If your found to be completely innocent
> then your assets aren't automatically returned?
---
You don't have to be charged with a crime for your assets to be seized, it's "assumption of guily".
They cannot sell your assets until you have been found guilty, but they are held in escrow.
If they drop the charge, then your assets are returned but the average length of time to appeal a decision, in The US at least, is 3 years.
> So you would have to appeal? If your found to be completely innocent
> then your assets aren't automatically returned?
---
You don't have to be charged with a crime for your assets to be seized, it's "assumption of guily".
They cannot sell your assets until you have been found guilty, but they are held in escrow.
If they drop the charge, then your assets are returned but the average length of time to appeal a decision, in The US at least, is 3 years.
I didn't realise that we had civil jursidiction in this country.
If you clear your name, then yes.
But you have to attempt to do so with absolutely no access to your bank accounts or those of any relatives living in that property.
Where the craftiness comes in is that your property is charged with the offence, not you. And that takes any action you bring into civil jurisdiction instead of criminal, where the burden is on you to prove you have done nothing wrong instead of the government having to prove you did.
It's a very touchy area.
But you have to attempt to do so with absolutely no access to your bank accounts or those of any relatives living in that property.
Where the craftiness comes in is that your property is charged with the offence, not you. And that takes any action you bring into civil jurisdiction instead of criminal, where the burden is on you to prove you have done nothing wrong instead of the government having to prove you did.
It's a very touchy area.
So you would have to appeal? If your found to be completely innocent then your assets aren't automatically returned?
Rosalind wrote:
> Do you get your assets returned to you, should the police later decide
> that there is no evidence of involment in illegal activities?
Hopefully. Although that is after a lengthy appeal process with lengthy red tape.
> Do you get your assets returned to you, should the police later decide
> that there is no evidence of involment in illegal activities?
Hopefully. Although that is after a lengthy appeal process with lengthy red tape.
Firebrand wrote:
> Hey Unbeleiver. Sorry to hear I was the only person to vote for you in
> the election...
That's fine. I think Miserableman voted for me as well.
*shrugs*
After the day I had it felt pretty good to get onto the board. I felt like the Green Party when they secured that seat in Devon somewhere a few years back.
> Hey Unbeleiver. Sorry to hear I was the only person to vote for you in
> the election...
That's fine. I think Miserableman voted for me as well.
*shrugs*
After the day I had it felt pretty good to get onto the board. I felt like the Green Party when they secured that seat in Devon somewhere a few years back.
Page: