Guest X-QUORK Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Perhaps those people who feel the guy must be innocent and a victim of the state, should get out there and offer to help defend him? Are you being deliberately obtuse? We're not trying to defend this bloke in particular, we don't know him from Adam. It's the principle that an individual should be free to save cash, or any other valauable commodity, without the threat of it being confiscated by the State because they think it's a bit fishy. Understand? It's the principle, not this particular case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Ray Valentine Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Are you being deliberately obtuse? We're not trying to defend this bloke in particular, we don't know him from Adam. It's the principle that an individual should be free to save cash, or any other valauable commodity, without the threat of it being confiscated by the State because they think it's a bit fishy.Understand? It's the principle, not this particular case. What about guns or drugs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 What about guns or drugs? What about them? You don't like them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kilroy Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 What about guns or drugs? have you ever heard of someone sticking up the local the post office with a wodge of 50s, or someone dying from snorting fivers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest X-QUORK Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 What about guns or drugs? Illegal guns and illegal drugs are fair game, naturally. Your point is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 (edited) Illegal guns and illegal drugs are fair game, naturally. Your point is? You can't stand on principle on this money issue and then say it's ok for the state to take guns or drugs. You agree they can take your stuff whenever they fancy, you just get huffy about particular items. It's inconsistent and leaves you pretzel shaped when it comse time to defend your position. It's either wrong to take someones stuff unless they have done something to harm others, or it isn't. Pick one and stick to it. Edited May 7, 2009 by Injin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest X-QUORK Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 You can't stand on principle on this money issue and then say it's ok for the state to take guns or drugs.You agree they can take your stuff whenever they fancy, you just get huffy about particular items. It's inconsistent and leaves you pretzel shaped when it comse time to defend your position. It's either wrong to take someones stuff unless they have done something to harm others, or it isn't. Pick one and stick to it. Injin, I'm not trying to join your anarcho-syndicate so don't try and impose your eccentric set of principles on me. Thanks. Unlike some, I do see the need for a State, and for a police force, and for laws, property, etc. What I am extremely uncomfortable with, is the gradual erosion of rule by consent, to a much more hardline regime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Injin, I'm not trying to join your anarcho-syndicate so don't try and impose your eccentric set of principles on me. Thanks.Unlike some, I do see the need for a State, and for a police force, and for laws, property, etc. What I am extremely uncomfortable with, is the gradual erosion of rule by consent, to a much more hardline regime. Nothing to do with anarchism. Just logic. I am an anarchist because I am logical, not building a case from anarchy backwards for some spurious emotional reason. Simple question - What's different about drugs than bits of paper with the queens head on them? Why can one be seized and not another? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gone baby gone Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Are you being deliberately obtuse? We're not trying to defend this bloke in particular, we don't know him from Adam. It's the principle that an individual should be free to save cash, or any other valauable commodity, without the threat of it being confiscated by the State because they think it's a bit fishy. There is a law that states you must be able to prove the origin of large sums of cash. The guy chose not to comply with it and his money was taken away (but not his freedom). If even 50% of the money could have been shown to come from legitimate sources he might have a case for the return of the money. He claims the money came from business transactions. Again, it is the law that businesses (of any type) must keep proper records that are offered up for inspection to the authorities on demand. He appears to have no such records. No only that, but it seems he cannot (or is unwilling to) name any of the other people he has been trading with who would corroborate his story. What you are essentially saying is you have no faith in the police or the criminal justice system enforcing the law as it currently stands. In which case, you have an MP... Understand? It's the principle, not this particular case. Do you live in a black and white world? Yes, I understand the principle of innocent until proven guilty, but the law was changed - in this case - with good reason. The problem is that organised criminals tend to deal in large quantities of cash. I guess it became more and more difficult to secure a conviction against these people without spending millions of taxpayers money in order to do so. The police, judges and MPs who drafted the law made the decision to balance the rights of the individual to the presumption of innocence with the rights of society. They did not change the principle of law, they only changed the conditions they are able to seize cash, or goods where their is no provenance and they suspect they are the proceeds of crime. If you are tried for shoplifting, or assault, or murder, the presumption of innocence is still there. "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men" I am against the death penalty, but I can see a situation where I may deliberately kill another person. Shades of grey... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 You may wish to interrogate most of the cabinet and Mr Goodwin and friends.Start with Lord Mandeslime and work your way downwards via Baroness Uddin, Tony McNulty, Fred Goodwin, etc etc. Nail and head may i say Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest X-QUORK Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Nothing to do with anarchism. Just logic. I am an anarchist because I am logical, not building a case from anarchy backwards for some spurious emotional reason. Simple question - What's different about drugs than bits of paper with the queens head on them? Why can one be seized and not another? I'm not going to join one of your red herring debates about property, see my last post for clarity on my position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 There is a law that states you must be able to prove the origin of large sums of cash. The guy chose not to comply with it and his money was taken away (but not his freedom). If even 50% of the money could have been shown to come from legitimate sources he might have a case for the return of the money. He claims the money came from business transactions. Again, it is the law that businesses (of any type) must keep proper records that are offered up for inspection to the authorities on demand. He appears to have no such records. No only that, but it seems he cannot (or is unwilling to) name any of the other people he has been trading with who would corroborate his story.What you are essentially saying is you have no faith in the police or the criminal justice system enforcing the law as it currently stands. In which case, you have an MP... There is no law that says any such thing. It's a quite brilliant thing the state has done, getting acts mixed up with laws. Right and wrong do not come from the law, nor MP', nor judges. Law comes from right and wrong, from actual actions. There are acts and statutes - but thopse are just the opinions of some bloke and mean nothing in reality. Do you live in a black and white world? Everyone lives in a black and white world. Thinsg either are or they aren't. There is no middle ground. Yes, I understand the principle of innocent until proven guilty, but the law was changed - in this case - with good reason. The problem is that organised criminals tend to deal in large quantities of cash. I guess it became more and more difficult to secure a conviction against these people without spending millions of taxpayers money in order to do so. The police, judges and MPs who drafted the law made the decision to balance the rights of the individual to the presumption of innocence with the rights of society. They did not change the principle of law, they only changed the conditions they are able to seize cash, or goods where their is no provenance and they suspect they are the proceeds of crime. If you are tried for shoplifting, or assault, or murder, the presumption of innocence is still there."Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men" I am against the death penalty, but I can see a situation where I may deliberately kill another person. Shades of grey... No law was changed. A wacky statute was created to excuse attacking people. You've fallen fpr it, Which is a shame because you appear to be an intelligent chap. The end of this road is concetration camps and mass murder of undesirables. Why are you cheering it on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 I'm not going to join one of your red herring debates about property, see my last post for clarity on my position. It's not a red herring. What's the difference between the state seizing drugs and the state seizing money? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarahBell Posted May 7, 2009 Author Share Posted May 7, 2009 The deep tragic irony is of course that the solicitor who fleeced minors of £13M can keep all his money as he can prove how he got it. His money is safe http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6201199.ece A former television presenter who became one of Britain’s highest-earning solicitors has been struck off for “disgraceful” misconduct in his handling of sick miners’ compensation claims. Andrew Nulty, who earned £13 million from the claims in one year, joins a growing list of solicitors punished for their role in the coal health scandal, exposed by The Times. More than thirty partners at a further ten law firms have been suspended, fined or disciplined for misconduct linked to what has become the world’s largest personal injury compensation scheme. An additional 16 misconduct cases, involving 75 solicitors, are yet to be heard by the tribunal. In total, solicitors have earned £1.2 billion since 1998 for their work on 760,000 claims brought by former miners with respiratory disease or a crippling hand condition caused by their work underground. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enrieb Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Er, no. I'm just illustrating the point that no-one knows the full facts, and that there could well be a lot of small details involved in this situation that will otherwise make this thing seem less sinister than it actually appears.As regards to confiscating the money, in the scenario I made up, it would appear that the money was obtained in an illegal fashion. What should the police do then? Let him have the money, come back a week later with evidence of wrong doing, only to find out the money has been spent, probably on other criminal related activity? Does anyone know if there was actually a break in? Was the break in a call from someone who knew he had the stash of money there and wanted to drop him in the shit? Was the guy in question aware that the money was in his house, or was the purported break in actually an acquaintance of his stashing the money the money there without his knowledge? Does anyone know what the scene was like when the police arrived at his house? No. Just a lot of assumptions from people on this thread. ....... Know one knows? there could be? actually appears? What should? Do anyone know? was the? or was? does anyone know? just a lot of assumptions from people on this thread... you could have included, what if? perhaps?, could be? maybe? possibly? It seems the assumptions are mostly yours. Your shifting the burden of proof onto others and will construct any bizarre set of imaginary circumstances to create a scenario where the your core assumption is justified but without, for obvious reasons, ever actually stating your core assumption, that being... people are guilty until they prove themselves innocent Anyone who wants to argue in favor of this sort of action, please will you state that your core principle in this matter is that... people are guilty until they prove themselves innocent Then I can stop repeating myself, and the discussion can move forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest X-QUORK Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 I am against the death penalty, but I can see a situation where I may deliberately kill another person. Shades of grey... I hear what you say, however I'm concerned that these grey areas are being exploited more and more in favour of the State at the expense of the individual. Maybe it's just me, I'm at that age in life (40) when you tend to start questioning the competence of those in charge. Gradually over the last 12 months I've become more and more concerned about the way the government behave, less by consent, more by dictat. The so-called kettling of protesters in London is a prime example, freedom removed from individuals without the need to provide justification, DNA samples taken, photographs taken - all becuase folks wanted to exercise their right to protest. It feels like a slippery slope, and maybe some are more aware of the problem than others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 I hear what you say, however I'm concerned that these grey areas are being exploited more and more in favour of the State at the expense of the individual. Maybe it's just me, I'm at that age in life (40) when you tend to start questioning the competence of those in charge. Gradually over the last 12 months I've become more and more concerned about the way the government behave, less by consent, more by dictat. The so-called kettling of protesters in London is a prime example, freedom removed from individuals without the need to provide justification, DNA samples taken, photographs taken - all becuase folks wanted to exercise their right to protest.It feels like a slippery slope, and maybe some are more aware of the problem than others. That was my point, but you said it was a red herring. What's black and white and red all over? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gone baby gone Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 I hear what you say, however I'm concerned that these grey areas are being exploited more and more in favour of the State at the expense of the individual. Maybe it's just me, I'm at that age in life (40) when you tend to start questioning the competence of those in charge. Gradually over the last 12 months I've become more and more concerned about the way the government behave, less by consent, more by dictat. The so-called kettling of protesters in London is a prime example, freedom removed from individuals without the need to provide justification, DNA samples taken, photographs taken - all becuase folks wanted to exercise their right to protest. The police at the G20 broke the law, and their own guidelines, and as such should be prosecuted and disciplined. It feels like a slippery slope, and maybe some are more aware of the problem than others. I also find some of the recent UK laws sinister and ill-founded. Particularly those restricting protest. However, the police have been taking an interest in dodgy characters having a lot of cash almost since their inception. We don't know the full facts in this case, but I feel confident that the police would have had cause to seize the money, and there is no evidence of any kind to counter their suspicions. I am prepared to trust the local plod who know the area, quite possibly this individual and the kind of schemes that operate in their 'patch'. The man in question has recourse to the courts should he wish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dinker Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 THE CRIMINAL ASSETS RECOVERY AGENCY costs more to run than the value of the assets it recovers, typical state incompetence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr ray Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Can we draw a line under this. We all agree (I think) that if someone commits a crime he should be arrested, charged, tried in court and punished if found guilty. If someone evades tax he should have to pay the tax and a penalty as set out by the inland revenue. Just because the police have a suspicion that money has been obtained illegally or not taxed but have insufficient evidence to charge the individual is not a reason for the police or the revenue to bypass the legal system and issue summary justice. If this is what people think is a good idea then they condon the police giving someone a good beating if they don't like the look of them or think they might have commited a crime in the past and not been caught so a good beating is justified anyway. The worrying thing is that this is how the police now think. There was a chap on Today this morning arguing the case for storing DNA on innocent people because they might commit a crime in the future so are "potential criminals" rather than "innocent". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InternationalRockSuperstar Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 If someone evades tax he should have to pay the tax and a penalty as set out by the inland revenue. why should they even have to pay tax in the first place? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number79 Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 THE CRIMINAL ASSETS RECOVERY AGENCY costs more to run than the value of the assets it recovers, typical state incompetence. more about creating state jobs than doing anything Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number79 Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 That was my point, but you said it was a red herring.What's black and white and red all over? a panda playing with razor blades? sorry, it's a newspaper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number79 Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 It's not a red herring.What's the difference between the state seizing drugs and the state seizing money? because drugs are BAD, atleast the ones they don't tax like alcohol and tobacco, and they need the cash. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PopGun Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 It feels like a slippery slope, and maybe some are more aware of the problem than others. I agree, this is just one of many dangerous precedents being set at the moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.