[Soon Not a Chain Retailer]

http://www.dailymail...boot-sales.html

(Sorry I know Mail stories are out of favour)

Basically, as per title - although it looks like a good chunk of it was actually in a Nationwide savings account.

Now, I don't doubt this is most likely gained nefariously. However, I think the judge is quite correct that just because he's been caught engaged in burglary it cannot just be assumed anything else in his possession was obtained in this manner unless there is proof.

It also seems to be the thin end of the wedge in a disturbing police trend of assuming that anyone holding large, particularly cash but also, bank savings, is potentially engaged in criminal activity.

I think DM readers are beginning to feel a bit like mugs for paying taxes because by the comments they seem very unhappy he won't have paid any on this money but, if (obviously a big if but unless it can be proved otherwise) it was acquired from car boot sales over a number of years I think they'd be disappointed with the size of the actual liability - excluding penalty fines.

I just don't like it. There seems to be an undercurrent of 'you're not behaving as we expect the average UK adult/Mail reader to behave therefore you're up to no good' - this leads to a sort of Minority Report world where if the police seize your laptop and your internet browsing history doesn't feature the average amount of page views for busty blonde women then you must be a nonce.

This post has been edited by Soon Not a Chain Retailer: 05 April 2012 - 08:16 PM

[georgia o'keeffe]

Soon Not a Chain Retailer, on 05 April 2012 - 08:15 PM, said:

http://www.dailymail...boot-sales.html

(Sorry I know Mail stories are out of favour)

Basically, as per title - although it looks like a good chunk of it was actually in a Nationwide savings account.

Now, I don't doubt this is most likely gained nefariously. However, I think the judge is quite correct that just because he's been caught engaged in burglary it cannot just be assumed anything else in his possession was obtained in this manner unless there is proof.

It also seems to be the thin end of the wedge in a disturbing police trend of assuming that anyone holding large, particularly cash but also, bank savings, is potentially engaged in criminal activity.

I think DM readers are beginning to feel a bit like mugs for paying taxes because by the comments they seem very unhappy he won't have paid any on this money but, if (obviously a big if but unless it can be proved otherwise) it was acquired from car boot sales over a number of years I think they'd be disappointed with the size of the actual liability - excluding penalty fines.

I just don't like it. There seems to be an undercurrent of 'you're not behaving as we expect the average UK adult/Mail reader to behave therefore you're up to no good' - this leads to a sort of Minority Report world where if the police seize your laptop and your internet browsing history doesn't feature the average amount of page views for busty blonde women then you must be a nonce.

+1
Brunettes and Red Heads are where its at

[Soon Not a Chain Retailer]

Georgia O, on 05 April 2012 - 08:19 PM, said:

+1
Brunettes and Red Heads are where its at

Are Red Heads what used to be called Gingers before the slick men in suits from marketing got their hands on them?

[georgia o'keeffe]

Soon Not a Chain Retailer, on 05 April 2012 - 08:24 PM, said:

Are Red Heads what used to be called Gingers before the slick men in suits from marketing got their hands on them?

No i believe Gingers are known as Strawberry Blondes in marketing speak, i wouldnt rattle ccc with yours

This post has been edited by Georgia O'Keeffe: 05 April 2012 - 08:27 PM

[Mr. Miyagi]

From reading the article it seems that Hampshire Police applied for a cash forfeiture order under POCA. Recent case law has stated that if a cash forfeiture is applied for then the prosecution must show that the cash came from specific criminal conduct on the balance of probabilities.

In this instance the Courts were right not to allow the forfeiture as Hampshire Police could not show that the amount seized directly related to the offence for which the defendant was convicted. Poor form by Hampshire, they need to keep up with developments in POCA case law, which is very fluid.

This post has been edited by Mr. Miyagi: 05 April 2012 - 08:38 PM

[Take Me Back To London!]

A few years back the police broken into 2 safe deposit company vaults that had not complied with the new FSA regulations. The police broke into nearly 7,000 boxes regardless of the owners and they wanted proof of ownership of contents, however the Met police were hit with a lot of law suits and lost. There were things like cash and gold being found in boxes and the presumption was it was stolen etc. You expect to find things of value in a safe deposit boxes, that is the reason in having them.

There was someone here on HPC who had to go to their MP to get their gold back from the police.

This post has been edited by Take Me Back To London!: 05 April 2012 - 08:47 PM

[Mr. Miyagi]

Take Me Back To London!, on 05 April 2012 - 08:45 PM, said:

A few years back the police broken into 2 safe deposit company vaults that had not complied with the new FSA regulations. The police broke into nearly 7,000 boxes regardless of the owners and they wanted proof of ownership of contents, however the Met police were hit with a lot of law suits and lost. There were things like cash and gold being found in boxes and the presumption was it was stolen etc. You expect to find things of value in a safe deposit boxes, that is the reason in having them.

There was someone here on HPC who had to go to their MP to get their gold back from the police.

Without going into too much detail that is not entirely correct. The MET managed to secure all of the assets seized in the operation from those who could not provide reasons that the items were legitimate.

This post has been edited by Mr. Miyagi: 05 April 2012 - 08:50 PM

[Soon Not a Chain Retailer]

Take Me Back To London!, on 05 April 2012 - 08:45 PM, said:

A few years back the police broken into 2 safe deposit company vaults that had not complied with the new FSA regulations. The police broke into nearly 7,000 boxes regardless of the owners and they wanted proof of ownership of contents, however the Met police were hit with a lot of law suits and lost. There were things like cash and gold being found in boxes and the presumption was it was stolen etc. You expect to find things of value in a safe deposit boxes, that is the reason in having them.

I seem to recall one was in somewhere like Golders Green and the Met got all excited they'd got a load of gold from criminals.

Rather predictably it turned out it mostly belonged to holocaust refugees who'd fled with it after a fascist police state had tried to wrest it from them once already.

Another amusing one was that Mr Trebus, in some TV documentary, who compared the local council to nazi concentration camp guards when they tried to curtail his OCD hoarding. They got very upset and chastised him for using inflammatory racist language inevitably a furious back-pedalling was required when it transpired he was uniquely qualified to assess concentration camp guard like behaviour having survived being an inmate in one.

[Englebert]

I hope the fecker's house gets burgled and 85k's worth of gear gets nicked. Scumbag.

[Soon Not a Chain Retailer]

Mr. Miyagi, on 05 April 2012 - 08:35 PM, said:

From reading the article it seems that Hampshire Police applied for a cash forfeiture order under POCA. Recent case law has stated that if a cash forfeiture is applied for then the prosecution must show that the cash came from specific criminal conduct on the balance of probabilities.

In this instance the Courts were right not to allow the forfeiture as Hampshire Police could not show that the amount seized directly related to the offence for which the defendant was convicted. Poor form by Hampshire, they need to keep up with developments in POCA case law, which is very fluid.

Is there an incentive for the police to try and seize this cash - either targets or direct benefit to force finances?

Mr. Miyagi, on 05 April 2012 - 08:50 PM, said:

Without going into too much detail that is not entirely correct. The MET managed to secure all of the assets seized in the operation from those who could not provide reasons that the items were legitimate.

This seems very grey though. Could, for example, British aristocracy prove ownership of art treasures and would the British Museum struggle with the Elgin Marbles. It seems to be effectively saying everyone must have a paper trail from post-tax income for all their possessions.

[Horridbloke]

Soon Not a Chain Retailer, on 05 April 2012 - 08:15 PM, said:

http://www.dailymail...boot-sales.html

(Sorry I know Mail stories are out of favour)

Basically, as per title - although it looks like a good chunk of it was actually in a Nationwide savings account.

Now, I don't doubt this is most likely gained nefariously. However, I think the judge is quite correct that just because he's been caught engaged in burglary it cannot just be assumed anything else in his possession was obtained in this manner unless there is proof.

It also seems to be the thin end of the wedge in a disturbing police trend of assuming that anyone holding large, particularly cash but also, bank savings, is potentially engaged in criminal activity.

I think DM readers are beginning to feel a bit like mugs for paying taxes because by the comments they seem very unhappy he won't have paid any on this money but, if (obviously a big if but unless it can be proved otherwise) it was acquired from car boot sales over a number of years I think they'd be disappointed with the size of the actual liability - excluding penalty fines.

I just don't like it. There seems to be an undercurrent of 'you're not behaving as we expect the average UK adult/Mail reader to behave therefore you're up to no good' - this leads to a sort of Minority Report world where if the police seize your laptop and your internet browsing history doesn't feature the average amount of page views for busty blonde women then you must be a nonce.

There may be a genuine issue buried somewhere in there, but sadly the source is a DM story and therefore unadulterated guff.

[thecrashingisles]

Soon Not a Chain Retailer, on 05 April 2012 - 08:57 PM, said:

Another amusing one was that Mr Trebus, in some TV documentary, who compared the local council to nazi concentration camp guards when they tried to curtail his OCD hoarding. They got very upset and chastised him for using inflammatory racist language inevitably a furious back-pedalling was required when it transpired he was uniquely qualified to assess concentration camp guard like behaviour having survived being an inmate in one.

What a legend!

[Self Employed Youth]

Soon Not a Chain Retailer, on 05 April 2012 - 08:57 PM, said:

I seem to recall one was in somewhere like Golders Green and the Met got all excited they'd got a load of gold from criminals.

Rather predictably it turned out it mostly belonged to holocaust refugees who'd fled with it after a fascist police state had tried to wrest it from them once already.

Another amusing one was that Mr Trebus, in some TV documentary, who compared the local council to nazi concentration camp guards when they tried to curtail his OCD hoarding. They got very upset and chastised him for using inflammatory racist language inevitably a furious back-pedalling was required when it transpired he was uniquely qualified to assess concentration camp guard like behaviour having survived being an inmate in one.

Thank you for this post.

I never knew Mr Trebus had spent time in a concentration camp. He is a man I have a lot of respect for, may God rest his soul.

OCD hoarding is IMO a natural reaction to unnatural living conditions. I knew that hoard due to previous loss, but with Mr Trebus's habit being mentioned I feel that I understand it more.

The TV documentary would have been a bbc one one; 'a life of grime'///

[porca misèria]

Soon Not a Chain Retailer, on 05 April 2012 - 08:15 PM, said:

It also seems to be the thin end of the wedge in a disturbing police trend of assuming that anyone holding large, particularly cash but also, bank savings, is potentially engaged in criminal activity.

Surely by the same argument, we should dispense with all the money-laundering checks we have in the system?

[Mr. Miyagi]

Soon Not a Chain Retailer, on 05 April 2012 - 09:07 PM, said:

Is there an incentive for the police to try and seize this cash - either targets or direct benefit to force finances?

Yes there is. Hampshire would have got half the forfeiture order, but in fairness many forces plough back the money into community projects and policing