ECHR again...

[vetran]

There is a PDF link for the full judgement at the end of the post.

couldn't see that but Google found it.


http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-142961#{"itemid":["001-142961"]}

so he worked illegally and earnt £74k over 4 years working illegally. He had £21K left in savings from working illegally.

Not sure what the problem is.Its clearly proceeds of illegal activity.

[doodab]

The UK has 9% of the total MEPs in the EU parliament.

So your happy for half the laws that run your life to be made to be made by the 91% who aren't British and largely couldn't give a damn about what happens here then ok vote
Labour/ Conservative/LibDem.

On your conscience be it.

On the other hand if you don't like UKIP then please vote for these people :-

No2EU

They don't make our laws directly, our Parliament does when it implements EU directives. Most of what people object to about "the EU" is the work of British MPs choosing to implement the directives badly. I trust them less than I trust the people in the European parliament, and if we leave the EU they will simply have even more scope to **** things into a cocked hat.

[original PM]

couldn't see that but Google found it.


http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-142961#{"itemid":["001-142961"]}

so he worked illegally and earnt £74k over 4 years working illegally. He had £21K left in savings from working illegally.

Not sure what the problem is.Its clearly proceeds of illegal activity.

Completely agree if this country wants to have a clear immigration policy then this ruling needs to stick.

And besides he was also caught driving without a licence or insurance.

[Mich the Tester]

couldn't see that but Google found it.


http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-142961#{"itemid":["001-142961"]}

so he worked illegally and earnt £74k over 4 years working illegally. He had £21K left in savings from working illegally.

Not sure what the problem is.Its clearly proceeds of illegal activity.

Yesterday you were defending individual property rights, today you're defending a government confiscating private property. What's it to be?

[darmstadt]

Yesterday you were defending individual property rights, today you're defending a government confiscating private property. What's it to be?

Well as a Daily Mail reader naturally you need to defend property rights (an Englishman's castle and all that...) but as a Daily Mail reader its okay for the government to confiscate a person's property, especially if that person is an illegal

[original PM]

Hmm lets see

House bought legally should not be allowed to be taken away by a Government

Monies procured illegal should be allowed to be taken away by a Government

Even for this website that is pretty clear.

[Mich the Tester]

Well as a Daily Mail reader naturally you need to defend property rights (an Englishman's castle and all that...) but as a Daily Mail reader its okay for the government to confiscate a person's property, especially if that person is an illegal

Wot, like 'an Englishman's house is his castle but Jonny Foreigner's house is fair game'?

[Mich the Tester]

Hmm lets see

House bought legally should not be allowed to be taken away by a Government

Monies procured illegal should be allowed to be taken away by a Government

Even for this website that is pretty clear.

Being in the country without the right documents is illegal. Working may also be illegal in those circumstances. However, that does not mean that the monies are procured illegally, unless the 'work' was some illegal activity like drug dealing, which it apparently wasn't. You see, a government can decide that something is illegal, apparently even retrospecively as in BN66; give the government the power to then take away the money and you have a government living off illegal means.

[Mich the Tester]

Why does a post about an ECHR ruling turn into a discussion about the EU?

Is it because both have a capital 'E' in their name?

[vetran]

Being in the country without the right documents is illegal. Working may also be illegal in those circumstances. However, that does not mean that the monies are procured illegally, unless the 'work' was some illegal activity like drug dealing, which it apparently wasn't. You see, a government can decide that something is illegal, apparently even retrospecively as in BN66; give the government the power to then take away the money and you have a government living off illegal means.

The employers clearly stated they would not have employed an illegal, he deceived them by using criminal activity to earn the money. Its the proceeds of crime.

OK so lets take a drug dealer who uses his proceeds to create a profitable shipping business do we not confiscate those assets as they were made possible by crime? After all the drug dealers money is even less linked to his crime.

I admit the original judgement seems harsh and the sum insignificant but unfortunately cases on the edge normally are. Wait for the drug dealer to use this ruling.

This is how law becomes weakened by good intentions and sympathetic cases.

As to defending property, well this is the whole point of the proceeds of crime act, it means it isn't the criminals property and it never was. Not sure how you can confuse that with an innocent person being deprived of their legally acquired property by fraudulent government officials and retrospective legislation.