Is the IRA dumb ?

[threaded]

we can't just let known criminals live the life of luxury while bombing, maiming, robbing and extorting their way through life

Sorry, but the New Lie have brought in laws so we can't actually sue them once they get kicked out of office. Which is a pity really.

Otherwise I might have been inclined to agree with you.

[Not So Wise]

, but we can't just let known criminals live the life of luxury while bombing, maiming, robbing and extorting their way through life just for the fear the government might use the act in future for misdemeanors of the general public.

No they should not be living the life of luxury, they should be tried, found guilty due to evidence against them and jailed.

Not just having some tabliod paper declare them guilty and then some government agency come in and take everything with zero proof against them (if they have proof why not arrest them?) when it suits them politically

This has nothing to do with the "goverment might use the act in future for misdemeanors of the general public." it's something we KNOW will happen, like look how short of time police have had their anti terrorist powers and the abuse's of it they are already commiting on a regular basis, like the 80 year old man held at the labour party conference, and thats just the ones that catch the eye of the media, god only knows how many others happen everyday

Laws are not only meant to protect us from the criminals but also from the government who otherwise would have to much power over our daily lives, and slowly but steadly, here like in the US those safeguards are being removed.

As every day goes by i find myself more afriad of the goverment than any terrorist, because the former is 100 times more powerful than the latter and every time i turn around i notice another chain that keeps it under control has been broken for "good intentions"...and we all know the old saying about the road those lead to.

[Bagpuss]

This site make I larf sometimes. Some people can't wait to post a spun news story about some case where someones civil rights have aledgedly been infringed and scorn at the abuse of the system. Yet when the real criminals who have been bending the system for years get some deserved justice people are outraged. Ultimately all legislation can be missused, but we can't just let known criminals live the life of luxury while bombing, maiming, robbing and extorting their way through life just for the fear the government might use the act in future for misdemeanors of the general public.

[AtW]

In Russia the judicial system is under complete control of the executive branch -- here its not the case, thanks God/Chico for this.

[sunnysan]

Laws

Indeed good citizens have nothign to worry about. Yet

Maybe one day we will have our own UK version of this
http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/89/...264_Yukos.html

Which as they say is ..... nice.

[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.

[Lucifer Box]

How can it be civil right legislation.

That was irony, Bagpuss.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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

[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