and another thing...
Wednesday, October 28th, 2009 01:27 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
caddymanWere it not for the fact that my age is against me, I think that I would be prepared to emigrate.
The concept is not something that I’ve ever seriously contemplated over the years, though a number of my friends have moved either to the States or Australia and have successfully made new lives for themselves. A combination of laziness and the knowledge that I would miss England and my family something fearsome held me back. Now, pace a huge win on the National Lottery –enough to give me complete financial independence - it’s probably too late.
This is a shame, for although I am and always have been proud of my country and my roots, I am no longer happy with the way it is run or the direction in which it is headed. I should like to live somewhere that is recognisably similar to what this country used to be. It wouldn’t have to replicate a semi mythical Britain of yesteryear, but a place having some of the values we used to have and the best of our traditions adapted to the needs of that country, would be ideal. I am thinking New Zealand, I think. A similar climate, unspoiled, fewer people and no tradition that I am aware of, of increasing state nannyism coupled with rising levels of draconian intrusion.
This annoyance is brought to you on account of the revelation in today’s Times that HM Government, the same people who made it illegal to congregate in numbers of above two, or take photographs anywhere in the vicinity of a random selection of public buildings just in case a Fatwa Pixie took a shine to it and tried to blow it up, have had another brain fart.
Some years ago and to general nods of approval from many of the populace (including, it has to be said, me), legislation was brought in to enable the police and the courts to confiscate and/or otherwise seize the assets of criminals. It was known colloquially as the Al Capone Law. The idea behind the Proceeds of Crime Act was simple: if a drug baron or some huge fraudster was convicted and shown to have massive assets in property or cash as a result of their illegal activities, the courts could seize said assets and take the fruits of the perpetrator’s crimes. Crime should not pay. Good idea.
Now, of course, we find that it has been decided to roll out these powers to councils, quangos and random agencies, making it legal for them to seize assets for pretty much and misdemeanour that occurs to them. Not all of the provisions are bad, but the power is so sweeping and so loosely defined that
councils in England and Wales will be able to seize assets in lieu of unpaid Council Tax, or Transport for London could seize assets to pay for dodged fares. Just as importantly, in a country where the principle of Justice is supposed to be that we are assumed to be innocent until proven guilty, the powers allow:
There are a number of things that make the new Statutory Instrument (SI) interesting.
A lot of those powers exist anyway and for good reason. The SI, however, means that neither the courts nor the police, or indeed any other law-enforcement agency will have to be involved. The councils and other bodies concerned will be able to use and enforce the powers as a simple administrative expedience. They will also receive a portion of the proceeds from any such seizures, meaning that they can (and will be encouraged through targets) make a profit from their activities.
We already live in a world where measures enacted to combat terrorism are being used to check up on what people throw in their waste bins, so how much further do we have to go?
Just as worrying is the fact that this is being done through a Statutory Instrument. For the uninitiated, a SI is a small piece of legislation, already covered by one or more Acts of Parliament and subject to only weak scrutiny. They are not routinely debated and have the force of statute. A Statutory Instrument is “laid” before Parliament and MPs have 40 days to object and force a vote. There are some that require Parliamentary affirmation before they take effect, most only have to survive the 40 day period and then become law.
There is some oversight through the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, but their remit does not extend to considering the merits of an SI, they merely ensure that a minister’s powers are being properly carried out in line with the enabling Act and reports instances where the authority of an Act has been exceeded or where powers are used in an ‘unusual or unexpected way’.
The Proceeds of Crime Act was brought to you courtesy Rt. Hon David Blunkett, when he was Home Secretary.
The Times article is here.
The concept is not something that I’ve ever seriously contemplated over the years, though a number of my friends have moved either to the States or Australia and have successfully made new lives for themselves. A combination of laziness and the knowledge that I would miss England and my family something fearsome held me back. Now, pace a huge win on the National Lottery –enough to give me complete financial independence - it’s probably too late.
This is a shame, for although I am and always have been proud of my country and my roots, I am no longer happy with the way it is run or the direction in which it is headed. I should like to live somewhere that is recognisably similar to what this country used to be. It wouldn’t have to replicate a semi mythical Britain of yesteryear, but a place having some of the values we used to have and the best of our traditions adapted to the needs of that country, would be ideal. I am thinking New Zealand, I think. A similar climate, unspoiled, fewer people and no tradition that I am aware of, of increasing state nannyism coupled with rising levels of draconian intrusion.
This annoyance is brought to you on account of the revelation in today’s Times that HM Government, the same people who made it illegal to congregate in numbers of above two, or take photographs anywhere in the vicinity of a random selection of public buildings just in case a Fatwa Pixie took a shine to it and tried to blow it up, have had another brain fart.
Some years ago and to general nods of approval from many of the populace (including, it has to be said, me), legislation was brought in to enable the police and the courts to confiscate and/or otherwise seize the assets of criminals. It was known colloquially as the Al Capone Law. The idea behind the Proceeds of Crime Act was simple: if a drug baron or some huge fraudster was convicted and shown to have massive assets in property or cash as a result of their illegal activities, the courts could seize said assets and take the fruits of the perpetrator’s crimes. Crime should not pay. Good idea.
Now, of course, we find that it has been decided to roll out these powers to councils, quangos and random agencies, making it legal for them to seize assets for pretty much and misdemeanour that occurs to them. Not all of the provisions are bad, but the power is so sweeping and so loosely defined that
councils in England and Wales will be able to seize assets in lieu of unpaid Council Tax, or Transport for London could seize assets to pay for dodged fares. Just as importantly, in a country where the principle of Justice is supposed to be that we are assumed to be innocent until proven guilty, the powers allow:
Freezing of a suspect’s assets at the beginning of an investigation;
The presumption that all of an individual’s assets are acquired through criminal means;
The search for and confiscation of cash of £1,000 or more;
The right to demand that banks and other financial institutions disclose financial information;
Seek confiscation orders for assets after a conviction; and
Collect a share of the assets.
There are a number of things that make the new Statutory Instrument (SI) interesting.
A lot of those powers exist anyway and for good reason. The SI, however, means that neither the courts nor the police, or indeed any other law-enforcement agency will have to be involved. The councils and other bodies concerned will be able to use and enforce the powers as a simple administrative expedience. They will also receive a portion of the proceeds from any such seizures, meaning that they can (and will be encouraged through targets) make a profit from their activities.
We already live in a world where measures enacted to combat terrorism are being used to check up on what people throw in their waste bins, so how much further do we have to go?
Just as worrying is the fact that this is being done through a Statutory Instrument. For the uninitiated, a SI is a small piece of legislation, already covered by one or more Acts of Parliament and subject to only weak scrutiny. They are not routinely debated and have the force of statute. A Statutory Instrument is “laid” before Parliament and MPs have 40 days to object and force a vote. There are some that require Parliamentary affirmation before they take effect, most only have to survive the 40 day period and then become law.
There is some oversight through the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, but their remit does not extend to considering the merits of an SI, they merely ensure that a minister’s powers are being properly carried out in line with the enabling Act and reports instances where the authority of an Act has been exceeded or where powers are used in an ‘unusual or unexpected way’.
The Proceeds of Crime Act was brought to you courtesy Rt. Hon David Blunkett, when he was Home Secretary.
The Times article is here.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2009-10-28 03:56 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-10-28 03:57 pm (UTC)eh be careful about that
Date: 2009-10-28 10:30 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-10-28 05:58 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-10-28 09:57 pm (UTC)Sounds like your SI is similar to a regulation here? They can wreak havoc.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-10-28 11:39 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-10-29 02:18 pm (UTC)It's the principle of the thing.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-10-29 12:21 am (UTC)Using it against what I believe is a civil debt(?) is not a simple extension of powers. As far as I can see from a rapid scan, they would have first have had to get a "Committal order" from a crown court, and pass the test of a "criminal lifestyle".
(no subject)
Date: 2009-10-29 12:35 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-10-29 12:51 am (UTC)Sorry, I don't see how that comment applies... I'm not the one considering emmigration - was that what you were replying to?
(no subject)
Date: 2009-10-30 01:22 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-10-29 01:24 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-10-29 09:35 am (UTC)I have told him that it hasn't been "play tested" yet and if there is a way to twist it then it will be found sooner rather than later.
So I wait to see what Paul Flynn thinks as time goes on
(no subject)
Date: 2009-10-29 01:39 pm (UTC)At this point I'm going to do the unthinkable and praise Ken Clarke. If he meant what he said at Conference about regulatory budgets, then to get a new SI passed, Ministers will have to abolish an old one. That's only a start in turning back the tide of regulation, but it's a good one.
PS You can stay in our basement for a while if you come over.