Is the IRA dumb ?

[sappatz]

why did they disarm ?
here is the answer from the british government :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...er/4314802.stm

[Not So Wise]

I find it curious, how can you seize assets as proceeds from crime without accusing and finding guilty in a criminal court the person of at least being involved in crime?
Newpapers and libel court is hardly a criminal court

[AtW]

I think they made law in such a way that you have to prove that the assets are owned legitimately, as otherwise they are proceeds of crime or something like this -- make prosecutors job easier.

[Lucifer Box]

I think they made law in such a way that you have to prove that the assets are owned legitimately, as otherwise they are proceeds of crime or something like this -- make prosecutors job easier.

The lad from the steppes is correct. Yet another piece of civil rights legislation from New Labour.

[Not So Wise]

I think they made law in such a way that you have to prove that the assets are owned legitimately, as otherwise they are proceeds of crime or something like this -- make prosecutors job easier.

So basiclly assumed guilty unless proven innocent?

[AtW]

So basiclly assumed guilty unless proven innocent?

I think that's pretty much it (is not that's the way IR deals with people?) -- they apply it to a very small number of knowingly guilty individuals which is why the public don't give a crap about it. NL solution for you.

[Lucifer Box]

So basiclly assumed guilty unless proven innocent?

Yup, just like tax law. If you can't demonstrate how you legitimately came to own that country pile and bullet proof Mercedes when you've apparently never had a job, it is assumed to be "proceeds of crime" and confiscated. No proof required. As Alexei says, a typically elegant New Labour solution brough in on David Blunkett's watch. The Daily Mail readers loved it.

[Bagpuss]

The lad from the steppes is correct. Yet another piece of civil rights legislation from New Labour.

How can it be civil right legislation. As fair as I'm concerned i'd rather thay ceased the assets of known terrorists, rather than take them through a length and costly court case. For far too long criminals have been taking the p1ss

[Lucifer Box]

How can it be civil right legislation.

That was irony, Bagpuss.

[AtW]

As fair as I'm concerned i'd rather thay ceased the assets of known terrorists, rather than take them through a length and costly court case.

Yes but they did it for STARTERS -- intentionally made legislation that spits over core values of the justice system like presumed innocent until proven guilty, this is done at first on people who seems to be known criminals, but as soon as this approach is used on them it will be extended to others -- no so obvious, but hey politicians know how to define in law who is obviously criminal and who is not without need for sodding proof.

If you look at what subsequent NL (and probably other parties to be fair) Home Secretaries do is try to exploit Parliamentary majority to write laws that will make their own job easier -- remove trials by jury, lower burden of proof for CPS, ignore presumed innocent principle in some cases etc.

This is all a very slippery slope that does not make police and CPS work better on gaining evidence and instead just allows them to cheat their way in the process, but of course this is only done for known criminals and terrorists, so good citizens have nothing to worry about.