Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Nickbat on 06 May 2009, 10:28:14
-
...or have a good reason why you have it should Plod call round.
"A man lost £67,000 in cash found at his home after being unable to explain how he came by it.
Police seized the cash under the Proceeds of Crime Act even though the unnamed man was never charged with a criminal offence.
Officers were called to an address in Port Talbot, south Wales, after reports of an attempted burglary at the property.
While making inquiries at the address, which is in the town’s Sandfields area, they discovered the cash, South Wales Police said."
from:
http://timworstall.com/2009/05/05/it-aint-yours-any-more-bupkiss/
It is becoming a police state, so I guess they have to finance it somehow. >:( >:( >:( :(
-
How long before they start rifling through our bank accounts and deciding that we don't need the money therein?
Then again, one wonders if there's more to this than meets the eye? They must have a suspicion about this guy, surely?
Kevin
-
I expect it is now in those Policemans pockets. I cannot see how they can take it wothout proof of crime
-
Oh and this really does sound scarey - what are they going to do next?
-
The proceeds of crime act you refer to is a power granted to officers, and HMRC officers.
Cash seized has to be suspected to be gained by/ from unlawful means (the title of the act says it all).
There does not need to be a criminal conviction or investigation at that point but it will instigate one. The confiscation order is made by the magistrates court acting in their civil capacity.
Martin, they can take it without proof of a crime, as I have said.
Think of it like this, £67,000 that has possibly not been subject to taxation. A rough calculation is that is unpaid taxes of £17600. (20% of 36000 and 40% of 26000 - taking into account a 5k personal allowance)
Drawing a comparison
If 10 omegas (each worth £1760!) were stolen and found in a compound would you not want them seized as evidence.
The seizure of the money is the physical evidence, which starts the investigation, no different to seizing 10 omegas which is the physical evidence of the crime.
The police have significant powers all of which have to be justified and accounted for when used. There will be an audit trail as well.
And lastly, why do you feel Martin, that the officers would want to pocket the money? :o
-
Don't do banks to be honest mrs does but thats her choice. Most of my money is all here in a large safe. It's all been hard earnt so no-one else is having it ;D
-
It is becoming a police state,
While I am of the train of thought that we are getting there, let's be realistic.....you don't have £67,000 in your house in hard cash and not be able to account for where it came from.
-
The proceeds of crime act you refer to is a power granted to officers, and HMRC officers.
Cash seized has to be suspected to be gained by/ from unlawful means (the title of the act says it all).
There does not need to be a criminal conviction or investigation at that point but it will instigate one. The confiscation order is made by the magistrates court acting in their civil capacity.
Martin, they can take it without proof of a crime, as I have said.
Think of it like this, £67,000 that has possibly not been subject to taxation. A rough calculation is that is unpaid taxes of £17600. (20% of 36000 and 40% of 26000 - taking into account a 5k personal allowance)
Drawing a comparison
If 10 omegas (each worth £1760!) were stolen and found in a compound would you not want them seized as evidence.
The seizure of the money is the physical evidence, which starts the investigation, no different to seizing 10 omegas which is the physical evidence of the crime.
The police have significant powers all of which have to be justified and accounted for when used. There will be an audit trail as well.
And lastly, why do you feel Martin, that the officers would want to pocket the money? :o
Ahh clarity, factual information and balance - the foundations of good sense :y :y
-
It is becoming a police state,
While I am of the train of thought that we are getting there, let's be realistic.....you don't have £67,000 in your house in hard cash and not be able to account for where it came from.
Correct!
-
He wasn't arrested, nor convicted, yet they say he got it illegally, how can they take it without proof?
Just seems wrong to me.
-
BTW not defending ANY crime but it is innocent until proven guilty.
Was it confiscated or seized as evidence+?
-
Seized as evidence I can accept, but just taken not.
To me it sounds like a lot of cash in hand work.
-
Don't do banks to be honest mrs does but thats her choice. Most of my money is all here in a large safe. It's all been hard earnt so no-one else is having it ;D
Err where did you say your safe was located? ::)
-
The proceeds of crime act you refer to is a power granted to officers, and HMRC officers.
Cash seized has to be suspected to be gained by/ from unlawful means (the title of the act says it all).
There does not need to be a criminal conviction or investigation at that point but it will instigate one. The confiscation order is made by the magistrates court acting in their civil capacity.
Martin, they can take it without proof of a crime, as I have said.
Think of it like this, £67,000 that has possibly not been subject to taxation. A rough calculation is that is unpaid taxes of £17600. (20% of 36000 and 40% of 26000 - taking into account a 5k personal allowance)
Drawing a comparison
If 10 omegas (each worth £1760!) were stolen and found in a compound would you not want them seized as evidence.
The seizure of the money is the physical evidence, which starts the investigation, no different to seizing 10 omegas which is the physical evidence of the crime.
The police have significant powers all of which have to be justified and accounted for when used. There will be an audit trail as well.
And lastly, why do you feel Martin, that the officers would want to pocket the money? :o
I see your point, but your analogy is faulty. In the case of the 10 Omegas, you state that they are stolen. So, it's a prima facie case that the person possessing them has committed a crime. In the case of the £67,000, there would appear to be no prima facie evidence that a crime has been committed (obviously we don't know all the facts in this case, we are just surmising). Seizing cash on a hunch, is not, IMHO, a very sound way to apply the law.
With the limited amount of information on this particular case, I would currently tend to side with Martin's views on this.
-
I wouldn't get too anti-plod on this one. Sandfields, Port Talbot is about 20 mins drive from me and although I've not been there for a couple of years, the last time I was passing through it wasn't exactly a "Des Res" area. The kids would steal hubcaps of moving cars.
On olden day maps it would have been marked "Here be Drive-by's" ;D
-
I wouldn't get too anti-plod on this one. Sandfields, Port Talbot is about 20 mins drive from me and although I've not been there for a couple of years, the last time I was passing through it wasn't exactly a "Des Res" area. The kids would steal hubcaps of moving cars.
On olden day maps it would have been marked "Here be Drive-by's" ;D
I'm not "anti-plod" at all. Remember, any "police state" (whether or not we are headed that way) is not instigated by the police service. They are purely doing their job. In this case, an Act of Parliament was passed, by which they (the police) are expected to seize the assets of anyone who cannot account for the legality of that ownership. Just because an Act is passed by Parliament does not mean that it is good...or just.
I generally support the police service. Should we enter a "police state", it will be through the actions of the government of the time, not the serving officers. Indeed, the term "police state" is often sadly misconstrued as the police running the country. It is not so. I am sure that many officers are vehemently opposed to some of the laws that they are expected to enforce. But enforce them, they must.
-
Police is formed of people a lot are good some are bad.
However I do think a few Gene Hunts out there would help ;D
-
Police is formed of people a lot are good some are bad.
However I do think a few Gene Hunts out there would help ;D
The good old days.......... ::) ::) ::) ::) In his day people wanted to bring back Dixon of Dock Green.... :D
-
Police is formed of people a lot are good some are bad.
However I do think a few Gene Hunts out there would help ;D
The good old days.......... ::) ::) ::) ::) In his day people wanted to bring back Dixon of Dock Green.... :D
"Evenin' all!" ;)
..and to think I'm only 22 years old..... :D
-
A man?
What age? 17 or 97
Did he work?
Was he a self employed craftsman. Doing weekend jobs for cash.
Did he trust banks, a lot of the older generation did'nt.
Was he a good saver, My Mother started saving 50p pieces when my Nephew was born, I wont tell of the ammount she saved in 12 years, but had it have been a guy who just saved his daily fag money after packing in it would have been a far greater ammount than the 67K mentioned. and of course that could be quite a variation depending on how many he gave up smoking.
I used to have a chippy and there was one old lady that bought a bag of chips 3 days a week that kept her life saving in her stocking tops.
I know of people who collected kruggerands and kept them under the floor boards. and still do. Does he have to keep them any where else.
but just because a guy cant explain how he got it, does that mean it he came about it by ill gotten methods.
-
A man?
What age? 17 or 97
Did he work?
Was he a self employed craftsman. Doing weekend jobs for cash.
Did he trust banks, a lot of the older generation did'nt.
Was he a good saver, My Mother started saving 50p pieces when my Nephew was born, I wont tell of the ammount she saved in 12 years, but had it have been a guy who just saved his daily fag money after packing in it would have been a far greater ammount than the 67K mentioned. and of course that could be quite a variation depending on how many he gave up smoking.
I used to have a chippy and there was one old lady that bought a bag of chips 3 days a week that kept her life saving in her stocking tops.
I know of people who collected kruggerands and kept them under the floor boards. and still do. Does he have to keep them any where else.
but just because a guy cant explain how he got it, does that mean it he came about it by ill gotten methods.
[/highlight]
Probably...... ::)
-
I would bet a pound cash to a pound of pig shit that the 'owner' of the cash seized is a previous customer of the Officers (Force) who seized the cash, hence the 'suspicion' under the proceeds of Crime etc Act.
Martin - you really need to get out more. There really really are bad people out there who dont always declare their 'earnings' to the taxman, be they drug profits, the fortnightly giro's or cash they accumulate from fixing remore alarm keyfobs off E-bay or elsewhere! ;D
-
Trust me folks, Sandfields is not the sort of area where law abiding citizens would live if they had the money to get out.
-
I would bet a pound cash to a pound of pig shit that the 'owner' of the cash seized is a previous customer of the Officers (Force) who seized the cash, hence the 'suspicion' under the proceeds of Crime etc Act.
Martin - you really need to get out more. There really really are bad people out there who dont always declare their 'earnings' to the taxman, be they drug profits, the fortnightly giro's or cash they accumulate from fixing remore alarm keyfobs off E-bay or elsewhere! ;D
That's quite a reasonable assertion there 21 :y :y
-
I expect it is now in those Policemans pockets. I cannot see how they can take it wothout proof of crime
A bit of a quantum leap, methinks? If, perchance, the cash DID getbinto their pockets, even for a split second, you think its there now?
Perhaps, heavens forbid, the cops who seized the cash are actually HONEST and did the deed as per guidelines? Still newsworthy or worth maligning all otherwise honest Police Officers? I think you viewpoint is fatally flawed, Mr Imber, and is coating far too many honest Officers with a tarry brush........
-
Police is formed of people a lot are good some are bad.
However I do think a few Gene Hunts out there would help ;D
Do you honestly understand the persona that the 'gene hunt' character displays? having served through this era in real time, not a script writers imagination, do you really think that the gene genie was wholly honest? I'd bet that his character type kept the cash..... ;)
-
Perhaps, heavens forbid, the cops who seized the cash are actually HONEST and did the deed as per guidelines? Still newsworthy or worth maligning all otherwise honest Police Officers? I think you viewpoint is fatally flawed, Mr Imber, and is coating far too many honest Officers with a tarry brush........
And ultimately leads to the breakdown of the essential trust in, and respect for, the police.
-
I would bet a pound cash to a pound of pig shit that the 'owner' of the cash seized is a previous customer of the Officers (Force) who seized the cash, hence the 'suspicion' under the proceeds of Crime etc Act.
Martin - you really need to get out more. There really really are bad people out there who dont always declare their 'earnings' to the taxman, be they drug profits, the fortnightly giro's or cash they accumulate from fixing remore alarm keyfobs off E-bay or elsewhere! ;D
Hmmm. As I read it, the police responded to a reported burglary at the address. I know of a few ne'er do wells that would never call plod even if they were relieved of all their worldly goods. Would he (presumably) have called the police if he had major crimes to hide? I think not.
Not sure that your comment about keyfobs is appropriate. :(
-
Police is formed of people a lot are good some are bad.
However I do think a few Gene Hunts out there would help ;D
Do you honestly understand the persona that the 'gene hunt' character displays? having served through this era in real time, not a script writers imagination, do you really think that the gene genie was wholly honest? I'd bet that his character type kept the cash..... ;)
However attractive people think that type of policing to be, it made a right mess of the service at the time. I knew too many such types, more interested in short-cutting the system than in doing the job in a way that was acceptable and professional. That attitude didn't work then and it certainly can't work now
-
Don't do banks to be honest mrs does but thats her choice. Most of my money is all here in a large safe. It's all been hard earnt so no-one else is having it ;D
:o That's a bit of a admission to make!!!
Is this her day or night job :D ;D ;D.
-
I would bet a pound cash to a pound of pig shit that the 'owner' of the cash seized is a previous customer of the Officers (Force) who seized the cash, hence the 'suspicion' under the proceeds of Crime etc Act.
Martin - you really need to get out more. There really really are bad people out there who dont always declare their 'earnings' to the taxman, be they drug profits, the fortnightly giro's or cash they accumulate from fixing remore alarm keyfobs off E-bay or elsewhere! ;D
Hmmm. As I read it, the police responded to a reported burglary at the address. I know of a few ne'er do wells that would never call plod even if they were relieved of all their worldly goods. Would he (presumably) have called the police if he had major crimes to hide? I think not.
Not sure that your comment about keyfobs is appropriate. :(
As always, whats reported in the newspaper may or may not have a true resemblance on what actually happened, as opposed to what sells papers.
Perhaps chap had his 50 inch widescreen chored and reported it, like any good citizen.
Perhaps said chap is already a customer of said police officers...
Perhaps something was said, by a slip of the tongue by said chap whilst officers were on the plot and thus gave a reasonable lead to turn said chaps house, finding his well hidden drugs stash? Still selling the papers?
Do not be led down a garden path. There are folks who rob the system and there are also folks who rob the system such that they also loose touch with reality and overstretch their arm.....
The keyfob comment was and is tongue in cheek. Do we all declare our whole and complete earnings to the taxman??
discuss.....
-
How much cash do you have to have at home then before your suspected of being a criminal >:(.
If it's over £10 then I've had it ::) ;D ;D.
-
Do we all declare our whole and complete earnings to the taxman??
discuss.....
Yes of course I do - but I also ensure I always declare EVERY expense I incur in doing my job which (with the help of a VERY good tax accountant) is normally MORE than my earnings! ;) ;) ;)
-
Do we all declare our whole and complete earnings to the taxman??
discuss.....
I have always been registered with HMRC for all semi self employed tasks. As such, this involves an annual tax return, and anything I make on top of my PAYE earnings in the day job, have always been declared as honestly as I possibly can.
Reasons - a) it really doesn't cost a huge amount, to be able to sleep at night!, and b) It would be the end of my current and future careers, if I were to act dishonestly.
Only speaking on a personal level - but hopefully a worthwhile example :y
-
To a degree this thread is starting to make me laugh.
The focus on a type of area where people live, and what they should or should not have is a joke.
There is a rather posh area of Sheffild where a certain boxer called prinze nazeem lives, it is full of bankers, night club owners, business men of all varied trades. some are estate agents, some are retaurant owners and car dealers.
Now lets face it we all know ALL cash business' pay thier tax and VAt dont we, they dont drink, dont do drugs, and certainly dont sell them.....do they......do they......
lester Pigott, Geofrey Archer......cant quite remember what they went to jail for.
there was a thread a while back about MP's and criminal records.
I think we all know the point I am trying to make.
-
Do we all declare our whole and complete earnings to the taxman??
discuss.....
It should be a no-brainer, excise investigations are unpleasant in the extreme and for all that the ordinary Joe would stand to gain he, or she stands to lose much more.
-
I would bet a pound cash to a pound of pig shit that the 'owner' of the cash seized is a previous customer of the Officers (Force) who seized the cash, hence the 'suspicion' under the proceeds of Crime etc Act.
Martin - you really need to get out more. There really really are bad people out there who dont always declare their 'earnings' to the taxman, be they drug profits, the fortnightly giro's or cash they accumulate from fixing remore alarm keyfobs off E-bay or elsewhere! ;D
Hmmm. As I read it, the police responded to a reported burglary at the address. I know of a few ne'er do wells that would never call plod even if they were relieved of all their worldly goods. Would he (presumably) have called the police if he had major crimes to hide? I think not.
Not sure that your comment about keyfobs is appropriate. :(
As always, whats reported in the newspaper may or may not have a true resemblance on what actually happened, as opposed to what sells papers.
Perhaps chap had his 50 inch widescreen chored and reported it, like any good citizen.
Perhaps said chap is already a customer of said police officers...
Perhaps something was said, by a slip of the tongue by said chap whilst officers were on the plot and thus gave a reasonable lead to turn said chaps house, finding his well hidden drugs stash? Still selling the papers?
Do not be led down a garden path. There are folks who rob the system and there are also folks who rob the system such that they also loose touch with reality and overstretch their arm.....
The keyfob comment was and is tongue in cheek. Do we all declare our whole and complete earnings to the taxman??
discuss.....
Hmm, again ( ;D)
How about this scenario:
Householder: Ah, good evening officer. You've come about the attempted burglary?
Officer: Yes. Do you mind if I have a look around?
Householder: No, feel free.
Officer (pulling open a cupboard and seeing a large quantity of cash): "Is this yours, Sir?
Householder: "Yes"
Oficer: "Where did you get it from?"
Householder: "I thought you'd come to investigate a burglary?"
Officer: "Yes, but you must tell me where you got this cash form."
Householder: "Well, that's my business. Why should I tell you?"
Officer: "You are obliged to by law"
Householder:"Forget it. I only called you to about a burglary"
Officer: "I'm sorry, but I'll have to seize this cash unless you tell me where you got it from".
Householder: "You wouldn't!"
Officer: "I just have"
No, of course we don't know the full details of this case, but as Martin rightly says there is a golden thread which runs through British law which is "innocent until proven guilty". Unless an officer can prove at the time that the money is ill-gotten, he should not have the right to seize it. If the law is faulty, then it needs to be changed. A police officer should not be placed in a position of making a judgment as to whether goods are legally held or not, unless they have good reason to believe the latter is true. And, of course, we don't know. All this is merely idle (but interesting) speculation.
-
We do not know the full circumstances of the case in point, only a news report, hence the conjecture, supposition and plain guesswork...
The legislation is similar to this...
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2002/ukpga_20020029_en_5#pt2-pb8-l1g45
Am not an expert and do not profess to be one. Too long away doing silly things like nicking folks for 33 in a 30! ;D Now retired, I hasten to add..... :(
Check from para 49 to see powers of seizure etc,. I like 49(3)(c)....
Perhaps the complainer had an existing warrant from the court? Dunno. Just guessing and adding to the discussion. bottom line is, we do not know for sure..... :y
-
We do not know the full circumstances of the case in point, only a news report, hence the conjecture, supposition and plain guesswork...
The legislation is similar to this...
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2002/ukpga_20020029_en_5#pt2-pb8-l1g45
Am not an expert and do not profess to be one. Too long away doing silly things like nicking folks for 33 in a 30! ;D Now retired, I hasten to add..... :(
Check from para 49 to see powers of seizure etc,. I like 49(3)(c)....
Perhaps the complainer had an existing warrant from the court? Dunno. Just guessing and adding to the discussion. bottom line is, we do not know for sure..... :y
Agreed, H21. :y Interesting discussion, though . ;)
-
Trust me folks, Sandfields is not the sort of area where law abiding citizens would live if they had the money to get out.
He had - he should have! ;D
-
I would bet a pound cash to a pound of pig shit that the 'owner' of the cash seized is a previous customer of the Officers (Force) who seized the cash, hence the 'suspicion' under the proceeds of Crime etc Act.
Martin - you really need to get out more. There really really are bad people out there who dont always declare their 'earnings' to the taxman, be they drug profits, the fortnightly giro's or cash they accumulate from fixing remore alarm keyfobs off E-bay or elsewhere! ;D
If there is proof I have no issues, but this was worded that there wasn't.
Some of those are tax man ones rather than Police.
If he had been on drug sales before - would he have called the Police?
-
I expect it is now in those Policemans pockets. I cannot see how they can take it wothout proof of crime
A bit of a quantum leap, methinks? If, perchance, the cash DID getbinto their pockets, even for a split second, you think its there now?
Perhaps, heavens forbid, the cops who seized the cash are actually HONEST and did the deed as per guidelines? Still newsworthy or worth maligning all otherwise honest Police Officers? I think you viewpoint is fatally flawed, Mr Imber, and is coating far too many honest Officers with a tarry brush........
Heat of moment I think
-
Police is formed of people a lot are good some are bad.
However I do think a few Gene Hunts out there would help ;D
Do you honestly understand the persona that the 'gene hunt' character displays? having served through this era in real time, not a script writers imagination, do you really think that the gene genie was wholly honest? I'd bet that his character type kept the cash..... ;)
I have had friends in the Police (retired now), but this article just creeps me out. I will say there is a lot unsaid and noone has all of the details, but as stated before, unless there is proof of illegal earnings, how can you just take the money?
-
Nickbat - Whilst I accept my analogy maybe slightly faulty, your thought process is flawed as well. The person in 'possession' of the stolen omegas may have no knowledge of them being stolen.
Imagine buying a nicked car - do you believe it is right that just because you are in possession of stolen items you should be prosecuted.
Of course not, guilty knowledge of the item being stolen needs to be proved.
The suspect i.e. the person in possession needs to be interviewed legally (not Gene Hunt style) in accordance with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act codes of practice.
Now apply this to the poor security guard who is the only person on site at the compound with 10 stolen omegas - is it right that he gets interviewed - yes, is it right then that although he initially seems to be in 'actual possession' if he does not have the guilty knowledge (mens rea) he is not guilty of this crime.
Therefore your statement of it being a prima facie case of an offence is wrong.
The compound owner who lives off site is then traced and interviewed, having been arrested at his home address on suspicion of the theft and handling of the omegas.
His home and business premises are searched prior to charge and conviction under section 32 and 18 (1) of the police and criminal evidence act and items are found (documentation and car ringing equipment) and seized under s19 of PACE, the cars already have been seized under the same power. During the search of the business premises cocaine is found, S19 of PACE also allows that to be seized even though it is not what was being searched for - evidence of theft of the omegas and handling stolen goods.
Essentially section 19 PACE states that if the officer believes that the items have been obtained during the commission of the offence, or that it is evidence in relation to an offence he is investigating, or any other offence and the officer believes it is going to be
Concealed
Altered
Lost
Damaged
or Destroyed
then the officer may seize it.
This is the power that would have been used to seize the money in the Port Talbot case. The officers would take into consideration all the factors - the male can't account for it (an account could be its cash in hand earnings which I am going to declare next tax return), do they suspect it to be proceeds of crime (yes) the amount (alot) and do they believe it would be concealed, altered, lost damaged or destroyed (yes, otherwise they would not have seized it)
The way a lot of legislation in the UK works is that an act (Statute legislation) or common law creates an offence. Proceeds of Crime being statute law. If officers SUSPECT (not proven guilty therefore at this time from a legal viewpoint still possibly innocent) someone of committing the offence, they have additional powers granted under the Police and Ciminal Evidence Act to search for and seize evidence.
Have a look at PACE legislation here http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/legResults.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&PageNumber=0&NavFrom=0&activeTextDocId=1871554. You will see just how many powers the police have that can be used. Some of them are quite invasive, agreed (think stop and search) which is why there has to be justification, proprtionality and accountability which the officer must record (in the case of stop and search, and make available to the person searched either at the time of within a year at the local poilce station)
Martin - you are confusing the Police with the Judical System. The police is there to collect evidence to present to the Crown Prosecution Service so they may prosecute.
The only time there is proof that a crime has been comitted in law is when the suspect has been convicted by a court of law in its criminal capacity (i.e. beyond all reasonable doubt).
Courts acting in a civil capacity only need to prove balance of probabilites i.e 51% likelyhood that this person is responsible for the case bought before them.
If everyone had to be guilty before any of the powers given to the police could be used, then the police could not do their job at all. How could seizure (S19 PACE) of evidence happen to present to the Crown Prosecution Service as its evidence that convicts people. Its a chicken and egg situation.
In the Port Talbot case officers would have seized the money under section 19 of PACE, with the 'offence' being created by the proceeds of crime act.
The officers would conduct a PACE codes of practice compliant interview (PACE is NOT required in this interview as it is civil proceeedings, but officers will still abide to it as good practice).
The officers may now have the evidence (the money and the suspects lack of satisfactory (cash earnings could be a satisfactory with further questioning about the nature of the work he carries out and his lifestyle etc (think bigger picture here) explanation for the money. Officers would then make an application to the courts (magistrates in a civil capacity) for a detention order, so that further financial investigation may occur.
If the officers cannot convince the magistrates (remeber 51% balance of probabilities) then no detention order is granted and the money back.
Following on from the financial investigation, once there is sufficient evidence to support a criminal charge then the Crown Prosecution Service will determine the most appropriate. Once conviction occurs a confiscation order can be made.
By the way Martin, you still haven't answered my question, WHY do you think the £67,000 went into the officers pockets.
I hope I have answered some of your questions, I can't account for individual actions but I can tell you about legislation and the powers officers have.
Please would you answer mine
-
Thanks for the details
Heat of moment, as the original details are worded like it was taken from the original person illegally.
To be honest I have come across too many knobheads who shouldn't be in the force, this hurts the image of the good Police officer.
-
I quite agree, the minority spoil it for the majority.
All good things come to those that wait though, see here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/5272716.stm.
Cheers
Have a good day ;)
-
As before I do know a few retired Police but I am not happy with some previous dealings when I have been picked on basically.
Example Knob, slowed down (under 20) until I overtook, pulled me for overtaking. I asked him why he kept slowing - it was to make me overtake him, and why did he pull me - because I overtook him, aksed me why I overtook him as he was a Policeman and I shouldn't, "because you went too slow" Definate knob
Good pull, got pulled to look at my Sunbeam as he wanted to know which one it was, disappointed that it wasn't a Lotus - then we chatted about his colleage and I had found I had seen it!
Another knob, drove VERY CLOSE (under 6 foot) to my rear wheel on a motorcycle on a dual carriageway so I accelerated away (plain clothes car), got done for speeding. Something similar had happened not long before to someone else and they got knocked off.
Another good, had some wheels stolen off my car from outside my bedsit, Police were VERY helpfull and gave Sue a lift home.
All my dealings with proper TrafPol have been polite and I have no issues either way, but I do get annoyed at the way some non traffic Police act like they are, and deliberately goad on their proposed victim, however when you are early 20s - who get believed.
I have other examples for other people of definate targeting.
Been pulled for driving in a town I used to live in (why are you driving here when you don't live here?)
Been attempted pulled for accelerating out of a 40 limit into a 60 (small bike and I wasn't speeding) I parked up and hid as I wasn't in the mood! I did see the speed trap but I was doing nothing wrong.
I get very annoyed at being pulled when not doing anything wrong!
Been stopped at night (when walking) for blowing my nose (what was I hiding - snot).
Funny one, I ran out of petrol about two miles from home (at night), near a few houses, a torch light came on so I walked to that house, light went off. Happened a couple of times, I just thought knob so walked home, drained some petrol from a bike, found a bicycle and road back.
The Police found me about 1/2 mile from the car wobbling along with a petrol can on a bike with no lights (if I saw a car I pulled onto the verge - only saw one - the Police car). They got the details of what happened and thought it was hilarious. They did visit Mr torch and told him he had spooked a petrol run out!
Annoying pair, one was stopped and checked over - dodgy tyre, following weekend got it MOTed (as it was due) checked all fine, especially the dodgy tyre. Another stopped for a spot check, took ages trying to find a fault, decided some rust scale on the exhaust was a leak, had to fart about at an MOT place to get it signed off.
Weird one, left a pub near midnight, 3 of us, bombing down the lanes, came across a Police checkpoint sortof. They stopped me and asked where we were from to ect, my speech was slightly slurry - not alcohol but it gets like that sometimes when nervous (had a brace when a teenager), I thought I was going to get a full inspection - they looked in saw a couple of merry lads, both with seat belts on including the rear seat passenger in a car built before they fitted rear belts - waved us on.
Finally what really got to me though was the attitude, I find a lot have a good attitude, but there are some people who join so they can bother people who are not actually causing any problems, and I have twice got points from Police goading me on (usually driving VERY close and were NOT Trafpol).
I have found when you have a bike, motorcycle cops are best (they sometimes just want a chat so they can sit on your bike), followed by TrafPol, very bottom is snotty git in a next up from beat car, or rapid response car (whatever a 2.0 Sierra is when trafpol have Senators).
Funny that a lot of the retired Police I know are TrafPol, and that when one was still working he helped me get rid of a really dangerous driver (old story).
-
I know about James and his calling, and I can definatly state better with him in than not.
-
I quite agree, the minority spoil it for the majority.
All good things come to those that wait though, see here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/5272716.stm.
Hmm knobs.
Cheers
Have a good day ;)
You too! ;D :y
Edited for embarrasingly bad structure
-
Omegaestate3.2 wrote:
Nickbat - Whilst I accept my analogy maybe slightly faulty, your thought process is flawed as well. The person in 'possession' of the stolen omegas may have no knowledge of them being stolen.
Imagine buying a nicked car - do you believe it is right that just because you are in possession of stolen items you should be prosecuted.
Of course not, guilty knowledge of the item being stolen needs to be proved.
Thanks for your detailed response. I think the Omega example is perhaps a red herring, given that they would have to be stored somewhere, so let's take another example. There has been a burglary and a plasma TV has been nicked. The police stop a car nearby which matches a description of the vehicle used in the crime. Inside the car, they find a plasma TV. That's prima facie evidence, I think, and the police would arrest the occupants and seize the TV on suspicion of burglary.
In the case of the 67K how can they seize the money. On suspicion of what, exactly? There is no evidence that a crime has been committed, just supposition. It's not illegal to have 67k in cash.
What I find disturbing (though no doubt true) is your description of the PACE Act:
Essentially section 19 PACE states that if the officer believes that the items have been obtained during the commission of the offence, or that it is evidence in relation to an offence he is investigating, or any other offence and the officer believes it is going to be
I don't have any problem with the first part, but it is the highlighted text that worries me since, essentially, this is a catch-all. Indeed, you could delete the first part of the Act and just say that if an officer believes items are related to any past, present or future offence, he can seize them.
As I said earlier, it's legislation that worries me, not the police.
I am beginning to regret starting this thread though! ;) ;D :-[
-
Omegaestate3.2 wrote:
Nickbat - Whilst I accept my analogy maybe slightly faulty, your thought process is flawed as well. The person in 'possession' of the stolen omegas may have no knowledge of them being stolen.
Imagine buying a nicked car - do you believe it is right that just because you are in possession of stolen items you should be prosecuted.
Of course not, guilty knowledge of the item being stolen needs to be proved.
Thanks for your detailed response. I think the Omega example is perhaps a red herring, given that they would have to be stored somewhere, so let's take another example. There has been a burglary and a plasma TV has been nicked. The police stop a car nearby which matches a description of the vehicle used in the crime. Inside the car, they find a plasma TV. That's prima facie evidence, I think, and the police would arrest the occupants and seize the TV on suspicion of burglary.
In the case of the 67K how can they seize the money. On suspicion of what, exactly? There is no evidence that a crime has been committed, just supposition. It's not illegal to have 67k in cash.
What I find disturbing (though no doubt true) is your description of the PACE Act:
Essentially section 19 PACE states that if the officer believes that the items have been obtained during the commission of the offence, or that it is evidence in relation to an offence he is investigating, or any other offence and the officer believes it is going to be
I don't have any problem with the first part, but it is the highlighted text that worries me since, essentially, this is a catch-all. Indeed, you could delete the first part of the Act and just say that if an officer believes items are related to any past, present or future offence, he can seize them.
[size=12]Oh I wish I could see into the furture and win Lotto and retire[/size]
As I said earlier, it's legislation that worries me, not the police.
I am beginning to regret starting this thread though! ;) ;D :-[
Nickbat
You're quite correct with the example you gave since there would be independent evidence (witnesses, CCTV for example) which links the vehicle to the crime. You would also be quite correct in that the officers actions would be to arrest and interview you occupants of the vehicle.
The proceeds of crime act does not make it illegal to have £67,000 worth of money at home IF it is been obtained by legitimate means.
What it does seek to do though is prevent people from living off dishonest monetary gain, however that is so achieved (drug dealing, unpaid taxes, fraud etc). The act creates powers and offences in relation to this.
If someone cannot give a reasonable explanation for having that amount of money in their property at that point in time that would raise the suspicion of the officers that the money has not been obtained by legitimate means.
Is it not he case then, that an offence is now suspected to have been comitted against the proceeds of crime act if a person fails to give a satisfactory explanation as to where the money has come from.
As already stated, a satisfactory explanation could be that it is the product of cash jobs and that like some members on this forum they do not wish to use banks for whatever reason personal to them. There would also be supporting documentation and an audit trail by way of customers that could vouch for a story of this nature.
In relation to your concerns about S19 of the police and criminal evidence act think of it like this.
Let's go back to your burglars with the plasma telly.
Having got them into custody at the police station, the inspector lawfully authorises is the search of their property for other evidence relating to burglaries. Let's face it most people (criminals don't get caught the first time they commit an offence.
So the search power under section 18(1) PACE is to look for evidence relating to burglaries.
Whilst at one of the addresses, of those that are in custody, carrying out our search we come across half a kilo of cocaine together with a couple of laptops and PlayStation 3 for example.
It is completely nonsensical to suggest that we couldn't seize the cocaine but could seize the laptops and PlayStation 3.
Section 19 PACE therefore incorporates the power to seize the drugs without having to get additional permission or warrants. This prevents wasting police time chasing round to get a signature on a piece of paper.
That said, this power does not provide for police officers to seize anything at random. They still have to believe it is evidence of an offence and that they believe that unless they seize it, it will be concealed, altered, lost, damaged or destroyed.
It is also importat to note that to believe requires a higher level of justification than suspect. On a sliding scale 0 - 100 with 100 being known fact, to believe something is at about 80 whilst to suspect is around 20 - 30, however it is down to individual officers to justify their individual level of suspicion or belief on the information that they have available to them.
I appreciate your frustrations with the legislation, however operationally it does make perfect sense since it is about saving time. I trust you can see this from the example that I have now given.
The law is complex, however if people do not understand it and then comment on it, urban myths and incorrect statements prevail resulting assumptions that the police are acting unlawfully, when actually they are acting within their powers.
This is not about defending the actions of officers that have either acted unlawfully or outside of the discipline code (that is indefensible) but trying to explain the legislation and how it is put into operational practice.
HTH
:)
-
Don't do banks to be honest mrs does but thats her choice. Most of my money is all here in a large safe. It's all been hard earnt so no-one else is having it ;D
Err where did you say your safe was located? ::)
Not at my house ;D
-
3.2omegaestate,
Thanks for the detailed reply.I fully understand what you are saying and I can see how PACE can aid the efficient detection of crime.
You said: "The law is complex, however if people do not understand it and then comment on it, urban myths and incorrect statements prevail resulting assumptions that the police are acting unlawfully, when actually they are acting within their powers."
That's a very good point and I did say earlier that I largely support the police service. Yes, they are acting lawfully but, as in the case of cameras being seized (or at least pics deleted) from tourist photographing tube stations, a law which is designed to help both the police and the public can easily be brought into disrepute by being badly drafted and thus open to varying degrees of interpretation. It is in such circumstances, where the police are acting lawfully, but not perhaps in the spirit of the law as intended (although not necessarily with malice), that the service gets criticised.
Nonetheless, thanks again for the time you have taken to provide such thought-provoking and detailed replies. :y
-
Thanks for clearing up lots of details.