As from next week, when the extensions come into force, we are now all guilty until proven innocent.
These extensions have not been debated in Parliament, were not arrived at via consultation and even the chairman of the Police Federation, Paul McKeever, is appalled. He says:
“The Proceeds of Crime Act is a very powerful tool in the hands of police and police-related agencies and it shouldn’t be treated lightly,”Given the abuse of RIPA and the terrorism act, and almost all of the loosely drafted legislation this government has brought in has led to abuse of power and gross injustice suffered by ordinary citizens.
“There is a behind the scenes creep of powers occurring here and I think the public will be very surprised. They would want such very intrusive powers to be kept in the hands of warranted officers and other law enforcement bodies which are vetted to a very high standard rather than given to local councils.”
How soon before a council, short of money, raids the home of, say, a christian suspected of "homophobia", confiscates her cash and belongings, and seizes her bank account? What redress would the innocent have?
Think it can't happen?
From the Times (my emphasis):
"The expansion of seizure powers is part of a Home Office plan to “embed” financial seizure across the criminal justice system. Ministers set a target to recover £250 million in criminal assets by 2010, rising to £1 billion per year soon after.Does Postman Pat and his delinquent, cerebrally and morally bankrupt cronies believe that this won't lead to corruption?
An “explanatory memorandum”* says that a swath of financial investigators attached to the newly empowered bodies will be accredited, trained and monitored by another quango, the National Policing Improvement Agency. The memo adds that asset seizure will result in financial rewards: “Investigation bodies will receive a share of money recovered as additional funding to incentivise further work in recovering the proceeds of crime.”
Update:
* Some eye-watering inclusions in the memorandum:
An accredited financial investigator "has the power to execute search warrants in financial investigations".
Among the additional agencies which have access to these powers are:
- Counter Fraud and Security Management Service
- Department of Health
- Department for Regional Development in Northern Ireland
- Gangmasters Licensing Authority
- Home Office
- Intellectual Property Office
- a local authority
- Serious Fraud Office
- Transport for London
As you would expect, none of this applies to Scotland.
Impact:
The memorandum asserts that there will be no impact on business, charities, voluntary business or ordinary citizens as a result of this order ... but then states that no impact assessment has been "prepared for this instrument".
Does that mean that no impact assessment was actually done, or that they're not prepared to publish the results of one that was?
If the former, how can the HO declare that there will be no impact? If the latter, they're obviously hiding something.
.bmp){kind=small}
9 comments:
Fausty could they be preparing for a break down of central authority? Or an interuption of central authority's access to world capital markets? This stuff truly makes sense if their agents are expected to "live of the land" like an occupying army. Only by asset stripping anything that moves could central authority continue to exist and continue to function internationally.
It is not the mark of civilisation, it is the mark of piracy.
This seems to have been planned for a while, perhaps from the conception of the Act itself. It would be Labour's style. It is very shocking, but the people must act if it is to be stopped. But will they?
Who knows, Incoming? It does seem odd that a ruling class can rape its populace. It's as if we've been occupied already.
Notice, that none of this applies to Scotland.
Yes, VotR, and that's probably why Labour's bills are so vague, so all-encompassing.
I wonder how they could have pushed this through without resort to Parliament - I don't recall this kind of "order" being pushed through, pre-1997.
Might they have altered parliamentary procedures so radically such that they can put a mild bill through parliament then append to it, at will, via "Orders"?
Fausty,
Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 AKA the Abolition of Parliament Bill is the most recent one. It replaced a similar bill after only a few years.
The State now has so many fingers in so many pies the numbers of Statutory Instruments would naturally rise as more and more legislation is enacted leading to more and more SIs to amend them. Either they weren't widely reported on or they weren't widely used in the past, the power to delegate authority in this kind of fashion has existed for decades. Our ADHD Government has taken to them like a duck to water.
SIs are the way some of the EU directives come into force. I'd guess it's the usual way as it requires the least attention of the politicians. Westminster has willingly sidelined itself. They are as keen as anyone for a quiet and easy life.
Wow! Thanks for the info, Gareth. Passage of that bill passed me by completely.
This new order seems to be at odds with the LRR's supposed restrictions. E.g.:
It's supposed to be used for extensions "to deliver non-controversial proposals for simplification";
"Clause 7 prevents the Bill being used to authorise any forcible entry, search or seizure";
Ministers are required to consult widely.
I've not heard a peep out of the Tories on this.
Is there any life left in the Magna Carta clause that forbids the forfieture of anyones goods and chattels ( inc money ) except after a trial by ones Peers ?
I can only imagine that Labour are madly ennacting these SIs as way to devolve power to their few remaining local feifdoms and also in the hope that Tory and Lib-Dem councils will misuse them against their citizens and thus bring ordur and contempt upon themselves so hastening Labours wishful return at some point in the future.
According to Dr Sean Gabb, the Magna Carta is beyond saving due to all the constitutional tinkering this government has done without telling us.
Constitutional changes should require referenda and that's one of the weaknesses of not having a written constitution.
Perhaps Lib/Lab/Con have a secret consensus on things like this - they don't challenge each other on it because they're agreed on a basic trajectory over some decades.
Add the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 to the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act and you have a very potent cocktail for would be dictators. There can be no other reason (in my opinion) for passing these Acts.
The quote from the Times says: "An “explanatory memorandum”* says that a swath of financial investigators attached to the newly empowered bodies will be accredited, trained and monitored by another quango, the National Policing Improvement Agency."
Let us remember that the National Policing Improvement Agency is a wholly owned subsidiary of ACPO Ltd, a private limited company that considers itself in EQUAL partnership with Government. See the strapline on the top right of the ACPO Ltd web site. Yes, it is a private limited company. That is how they evade the Freedom of Information Act.
Nothing short of a cull on all Labour's odious legislation will do. Douglas Carswell has started the Great Repeal Bill wiki - where people can vote on what to repeal and justify their reasoninig.
Unfortunately, many of the measures in these bills originate from the EU - Labour having campaigned for their introduction. Now that the EU is more centre-right than left, it is to be hoped that some of these measures can be safely removed without much hassle from the EU.
Oh, I totally agree that that Labour has deliberately enacted a legislative framework for dictatorship. If the Tories don't repeal the lot, should Labour come to power again, this country will become a horrible place to live.
Elected sheriffs seem a more sensible approach, although I reserve judgement until I see the detail proposed!
Post a Comment