The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Do you get your assets returned to you, should the police later decide that there is no evidence of involment in illegal activities?
The "beauty" of this law is that theoretically I could phone the police and say "Belldandy organises drug deals using his PC over the internet".
Should they feel so inclined, they can come over to Bell's house.
They can take his pc, throw his family out of his house, seize his bank accounts, his parents accounts and any siblings.
It is then down to Bell & his family to prove they are innocent.
But with no access to funds or their house.
And before you raise the obvious point about "theoretically", that's the whole reason this law is so odious - they don't need to charge you to begin the proceedings, merely the assumption of suspicion.
It *can* happen exactly as described above, and that's the danger.
Sure it could help fight drug crimes, but there is too much scope for abuse, the DEA, ATF, Coastguard, all manner of agencies in The USA have numerous cases pending for openenly abusing this system.
Because any items sold at auction of yours, the money goes directly to that agency so there is fierce competition to seize assets.
Should they feel so inclined, they can come over to Bell's house.
They can take his pc, throw his family out of his house, seize his bank accounts, his parents accounts and any siblings.
It is then down to Bell & his family to prove they are innocent.
But with no access to funds or their house.
And before you raise the obvious point about "theoretically", that's the whole reason this law is so odious - they don't need to charge you to begin the proceedings, merely the assumption of suspicion.
It *can* happen exactly as described above, and that's the danger.
Sure it could help fight drug crimes, but there is too much scope for abuse, the DEA, ATF, Coastguard, all manner of agencies in The USA have numerous cases pending for openenly abusing this system.
Because any items sold at auction of yours, the money goes directly to that agency so there is fierce competition to seize assets.
Hey Unbeleiver. Sorry to hear I was the only person to vote for you in the election...
If used for the correct means (i.e. apprehending criminals and stolen property) it can have a bearing on the crime rate, for the good of society.
However, by inadvertently also infringing our civil rights, this "rule of law" probably directly contravenes EU law. Since England has to incorporate all EU law into its' doctrine of English Law, I really wouldn't be surprised if a criminal (or even an innocent man, for that matter) bought a "landmark" case against the government for this breach of our civil liberties.
As for "liberal whining"...I don't think that quite true. If the police stormed your house, Belldandy, and showed "on the balance of probabilities" that your computer was stolen, how would you react? You'd be infuriated. And rightly so.
However, by inadvertently also infringing our civil rights, this "rule of law" probably directly contravenes EU law. Since England has to incorporate all EU law into its' doctrine of English Law, I really wouldn't be surprised if a criminal (or even an innocent man, for that matter) bought a "landmark" case against the government for this breach of our civil liberties.
As for "liberal whining"...I don't think that quite true. If the police stormed your house, Belldandy, and showed "on the balance of probabilities" that your computer was stolen, how would you react? You'd be infuriated. And rightly so.
The way it works, and the reason for the resistance to this law, is that you only have to be suspected of a drug-related crime.
You dont have to be charged.
Once you are arrested, your bank account/property/assets are taken and, if like the USA, any assets of your immediate family is liable as well.
You need to bear in mind that you are not charged with anything at this point, merely the assumption of drug-related crime.
Because of the nature of the law, your property is treated as the "criminal", and therefore comes under civil jurisdiction, where the burden of proof is a lot less stringent.
All the time, in order to fight this, you need a lawyer.
But you have no access to money or your property.
There is a huge furore in The States about it, which is why this has been quietly introduced over here.
You dont have to be charged.
Once you are arrested, your bank account/property/assets are taken and, if like the USA, any assets of your immediate family is liable as well.
You need to bear in mind that you are not charged with anything at this point, merely the assumption of drug-related crime.
Because of the nature of the law, your property is treated as the "criminal", and therefore comes under civil jurisdiction, where the burden of proof is a lot less stringent.
All the time, in order to fight this, you need a lawyer.
But you have no access to money or your property.
There is a huge furore in The States about it, which is why this has been quietly introduced over here.
Light wrote:
> crime...oh, and the whole 'innocent until proven guilty' thing.
That's my immediate reaction. You're supposed to be innocent until proven otherwise, but this sort of thing is more like "we think you might be guilty, so we're going to make you sweat and suffer".
Surely there are better ways? Or maybe I don't know enough about how these rules are applied...
> crime...oh, and the whole 'innocent until proven guilty' thing.
That's my immediate reaction. You're supposed to be innocent until proven otherwise, but this sort of thing is more like "we think you might be guilty, so we're going to make you sweat and suffer".
Surely there are better ways? Or maybe I don't know enough about how these rules are applied...
Belldandy wrote:
> Liberal whining.
----
I'm not even going to bother...
I will say the UK has adopted a somewhat less stringent version of the Asset Forfeiture Law currently under investigation in America due to the large number of investigations into improper application of these laws.
There are a number of groups that are trying to raise awareness and offer legal support to those appealing the decision, because you literally have your bank accounts frozen, and these people are far from "liberal whining".
They offer time and support out of their normal working hours, lawyers doing pro-bono work and volunteer groups that research the law.
I wish you wouldn't dismiss those that say "hang on a minute" as "Liberal whining", you did the same thing during the Iraqi invasion - yet it now appears that the pro-war lobbyists are in the minority.
Ah...what's the point.
I genuinely do hope your unwavering and unblinking trust in the government pays off Bell.
> Liberal whining.
----
I'm not even going to bother...
I will say the UK has adopted a somewhat less stringent version of the Asset Forfeiture Law currently under investigation in America due to the large number of investigations into improper application of these laws.
There are a number of groups that are trying to raise awareness and offer legal support to those appealing the decision, because you literally have your bank accounts frozen, and these people are far from "liberal whining".
They offer time and support out of their normal working hours, lawyers doing pro-bono work and volunteer groups that research the law.
I wish you wouldn't dismiss those that say "hang on a minute" as "Liberal whining", you did the same thing during the Iraqi invasion - yet it now appears that the pro-war lobbyists are in the minority.
Ah...what's the point.
I genuinely do hope your unwavering and unblinking trust in the government pays off Bell.
Belldandy wrote:
> Liberal whining.
>
> Ultimately the law is aimed at taking from drug deales and such, and
> there is no reason to believe it will be used randomly,
...apart from the fact that a similar law has been pretty much discredited in the states as it was being used as a tool to harass people whom law enforcement agencies 'believed' were involved in crime...oh, and the whole 'innocent until proven guilty' thing.
> Liberal whining.
>
> Ultimately the law is aimed at taking from drug deales and such, and
> there is no reason to believe it will be used randomly,
...apart from the fact that a similar law has been pretty much discredited in the states as it was being used as a tool to harass people whom law enforcement agencies 'believed' were involved in crime...oh, and the whole 'innocent until proven guilty' thing.
I agree and disagree with this. On the one hand having this allows the police to harrass sneaky criminals, which to be honest im all in favour of. However as it has been mentioned they could pick on practically anyone, which doesnt really seem like justice.
Belldandy wrote:
> Ultimately the law is aimed at taking from drug deales and such, and
> there is no reason to believe it will be used randomly,
A tad harsh? Pleanty of innocent people are charged with crimes
> Ultimately the law is aimed at taking from drug deales and such, and
> there is no reason to believe it will be used randomly,
A tad harsh? Pleanty of innocent people are charged with crimes
Page: