Big Brother Is Alive And Well

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:49 pm

And appears to be living in England!

The latest proposal to come out of Tony Blair's government is to allow them to freeze the accounts of, and confiscate money from, any individual.

This is without trial and without the need to produce any evidence of wrongdoing - just the accusation that they are "a master criminal".

The justification is that it's too dificult to prove it.

What I find worrying is that the TV News was presenting this as a reasonable move that would bring great benefit to the country.

Has no-one heard of civil liberty and the rule of law?

Am I going mad?

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:58 pm

Diuretic;520566 wrote: sounds like people in govt are losing it.
Isn't that redundant? :yh_bigsmi

Wolverine · Post by **Wolverine** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:10 pm

and do you really think that this is too far off for us Yanks?

with the passing of the Patriot Act and it's renewal, the gov't can detain any one for any amount or time, without ever charging you with anything.

what's to stop them from messing with our money?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:11 pm

jesse b;520564 wrote: all ready here procieds of crime prove it or lose it

got to prove where ya got money from any thing over £500 cash

The fact that I could not walk £1000 round from my bank to the solicitor to cover the final bill for buying the flat was annoying enough but at least they have to go before a court of law before they can freeze my account or confiscate my money or belongings.

This new proposal is so open to abuse that it's unreal

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:15 pm

Wolverine;520582 wrote: and do you really think that this is too far off for us Yanks?

with the passing of the Patriot Act and it's renewal, the gov't can detain any one for any amount or time, without ever charging you with anything.

what's to stop them from messing with our money?

Sorry to say this but your government are already detaining people without trial - for years in some cases.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:19 pm

Bryn Mawr;520589 wrote: Sorry to say this but your government are already detaining people without trial - for years in some cases.

Erm, ever hear of "internment" in relation to British justice counter-terrorism in Northern Ireland Byrn? Whats happening in Guantanamo ts not a new idea.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:23 pm

Wolverine;520582 wrote: and do you really think that this is too far off for us Yanks?

with the passing of the Patriot Act and it's renewal, the gov't can detain any one for any amount or time, without ever charging you with anything.

what's to stop them from messing with our money?
And don't you just adore the pretty little title they give it to lull us into a false sense of "security"?

Wolverine · Post by **Wolverine** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:25 pm

Bryn Mawr;520589 wrote: Sorry to say this but your government are already detaining people without trial - for years in some cases.

i know, but that's "enemy combatants" i use the term lightly.

with the Patriot Act in its current incarnation, they could do that to any citizen.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:31 pm

Galbally;520594 wrote: Erm, ever hear of "internment" in relation to British justice counter-terrorism in Northern Ireland Byrn? Whats happening in Guantanamo ts not a new idea.

Touche - not Britain's hour of greatest glory. The Maze prison was wrong then as Guantanamo is wrong now - if you have not the evidence to procecute someone in a court of law then you have no right to imprison them without trial.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:33 pm

Wolverine;520599 wrote: i know, but that's "enemy combatants" i use the term lightly.

with the Patriot Act in its current incarnation, they could do that to any citizen.

You know as well as I do that that is no justification - they might not be US citizens but they still have a right to justice.

First prove that they *are* combatants - you have not even done that yet!

Wolverine · Post by **Wolverine** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:55 pm

oh yeah, it great.

i wasn't surprised at all it passed the first time. but when it came up for renewal and it passsed again, with a whole bunch more CRAP attached to it. that make the powers of the Dept of Homeland Security even more broad and vague

Wolverine · Post by **Wolverine** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:56 pm

Bryn Mawr;520605 wrote: You know as well as I do that that is no justification - they might not be US citizens but they still have a right to justice.

First prove that they *are* combatants - you have not even done that yet!

i'm not trying to justify it, Bryn.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 6:45 pm

Bryn Mawr;520604 wrote: Touche - not Britain's hour of greatest glory. The Maze prison was wrong then as Guantanamo is wrong now - if you have not the evidence to procecute someone in a court of law then you have no right to imprison them without trial.

I agree completely.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 7:23 pm

It's just plain wrong. If I'm not mistaken the banks here have a right to investigate where you got your money if it's 10,000 or over to prove you aren't a criminal. It's complete BS as far as I'm concerned. This world gets more Orwellian every day.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 8:20 pm

RedGlitter;520666 wrote: It's just plain wrong. If I'm not mistaken the banks here have a right to investigate where you got your money if it's 10,000 or over to prove you aren't a criminal. It's complete BS as far as I'm concerned. This world gets more Orwellian every day.
You are not mistaken, that's exactly how it works. 10 grand and higher gets investigated, the bastards.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 3:52 am

Bryn Mawr;520585 wrote: The fact that I could not walk £1000 round from my bank to the solicitor to cover the final bill for buying the flat

Why?

I shall have to read up on this proposal. Hopefully it won't get far, but...

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 11:09 am

Bill Sikes;520823 wrote: Why?

I shall have to read up on this proposal. Hopefully it won't get far, but...

That's part of the existing anti-money laundering legislation - no cash for payments over £250 when dealing with "official bodies" like solicitors.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 12:12 pm

Bryn Mawr;527085 wrote: That's part of the existing anti-money laundering legislation - no cash for payments over £250 when dealing with "official bodies" like solicitors.

Soliciters!! ROFL! Gosh, they wouldn't be bent, then, would they!

Chookie · Post by **Chookie** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 12:50 pm

Wolverine;520582 wrote: and do you really think that this is too far off for us Yanks?

with the passing of the Patriot Act and it's renewal, the gov't can detain any one for any amount or time, without ever charging you with anything.

what's to stop them from messing with our money?

They already are - remember RICO legislation?

Here why am I referring Americans to American laws?