Reply to: Police seize £67K cash from man because "he could not prove where the money came from

[Pondlife]

The BBC would not have sat in that room and heard all the evidence so I would be hesitant to go in with a judgment based on their reporting of the story.

Slightly off topic but...

The BBC wouldn't have been privy to the first hand information. They do almost no investigative journalism at all these days. They get almost all their info from AP or Reuters as do the dailies.

AP and Reuters do not investigate whether what they publish is factually correct but merely that it is accurately reported. The difference between the two is what makes modern churnalism pointless.

The main exception to this is the Mail which does do it's own investigating but only publishes that which fits its own agenda - regardless of whether it's true.

Just finished reading Flat Earth News which was a bit of an eyeopener TBH. Although I didn't agree with all of it.

[AtW]

If he was trying to bring in £67k in cash into this country in airport without declaring and refusing to explain where money came from etc, then MAYBE in THIS case confiscating it was reasonable, otherwise that seems surrogate justice.

[Menelaus]

I'm not saying what they did was right but I am very sure it was not just a case of "ahh, there is some money we are having that".

The BBC would not have sat in that room and heard all the evidence so I would be hesitant to go in with a judgment based on their reporting of the story.

That's a very good point. Salaciousness, previously the reserved patch of the Sun, Daily Star et al is now a staple of the journalistic trade - and journalism is the poorer for it.

Indeed, this is the reason why in my list of first-against-the-wall-when-the-revolution-comes, journalists are top of the list.

[minestrone]

But the salient facts have been reported. Which are that the police/magistrates have taken money away from someone with no proof that the money is bent. Searches with HMRC showing that the money was not accounted for through them etc cannot prove that the money is bad, because there are so many legitimate ways the money could have been legitimately acquired without the authorities knowing about it - such as a gift. Absense of evidence (of a lawful source) is not evidence of absense (of the same).

I'm not saying what they did was right but I am very sure it was not just a case of "ahh, there is some money we are having that".

The BBC would not have sat in that room and heard all the evidence so I would be hesitant to go in with a judgment based on their reporting of the story.

[NotAllThere]

...
Taking away from this - further - the decision on the part of Jack Straw as Home Secretary to remove the right to silence of an accused now means that the refusal of an accused to say anything in a police interview can now be construed to be a statement of guilt. I mean, wtf?

You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.

Where's the construing of guilt there. you might ask? Well, consider this.

[KentPhilip]

Can I just make the point that many people have simply ignored that the police did not actually take the money off him, a magistrate did that.

About 95% of the facts of this case would not have been reported so I would not be jumping in to make judgments. Especially when the POCA software was so wonderfully written.

But the salient facts have been reported. Which are that the police/magistrates have taken money away from someone with no proof that the money is bent. Searches with HMRC showing that the money was not accounted for through them etc cannot prove that the money is bad, because there are so many legitimate ways the money could have been legitimately acquired without the authorities knowing about it - such as a gift. Absense of evidence (of a lawful source) is not evidence of absense (of the same).

[Menelaus]

I hope you sued the police for lost earnings.

Not yet. I will be suing the person who made the allegations though, and making the Chief Constable a co-defendant in the action.

[KentPhilip]

The obvious reputational risk associated with this meant that I lost that contract immediately - and the £600 / day I was making from it.

I hope you sued the police for lost earnings.

[BrilloPad]

have you heard of Magna Carta?

I have seen a judge break the magna carta.

[minestrone]

Can I just make the point that many people have simply ignored that the police did not actually take the money off him, a magistrate did that.

About 95% of the facts of this case would not have been reported so I would not be jumping in to make judgments. Especially when the POCA software was so wonderfully written.

[Menelaus]

In the interests of pouring oil on potentially troubled waters, the vast majority of the police do a good job in potentially difficult circumstances, hog-tied by the media, MPs who change opinions like they change their underwear and pressure groups such as Liberty.

But (and it's a big but) there are a few who make things bad for the majority, examples as above.

In my own experience, an ex- of mine decided to make life difficult for me by making a scurrilous accusation to her local force. This accusation was taken seriously (despite there being precisely zero evidence to support this) and two members of that force hired a reasonably nice vehicle (Volvo V70) to drive from Somerset to my place of work in Canary Wharf and nicked me at the office. The obvious reputational risk associated with this meant that I lost that contract immediately - and the £600 / day I was making from it.

Four months on, I received a three line email from them to confirm that they were not pursuing the matter. No comment on why they weren't pursuing it (other than the fact that the allegations had been a pile of bulltulip from the outset).

My complaint to the IPCC was upheld although no disciplinary action was taken against the officers in question, and my request that the ex- in question be nicked for wasting police time and perjury was not followed up.

Taking away from this - further - the decision on the part of Jack Straw as Home Secretary to remove the right to silence of an accused now means that the refusal of an accused to say anything in a police interview can now be construed to be a statement of guilt. I mean, wtf?

[NotAllThere]

The police can only police with the consent of society. Fortunately for them, most people don't realise that.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

True, but it has always been so. A good police force is one that catches more crooks than it employs. The quality of the police in the UK is IMHO more than good enough to live with: it is the quality of the constitutional protections or lack of them that will determine whether a people is free or not. I do not believe that this is any longer good enough in England, and for that I blame both the government and those people who accede in their illiberal crushing of ancient, and I would say timeless, liberties.

BGG, have you heard of Magna Carta?

I agree about the Police but there's a risk in giving them too much power on the assumption (made by BGG and others who've either never witnessed or never thought about it properly) that they will always excercise it responsibly and fairly. This why I also agree that the balance has shifted too far from freedom and a presumption of innocence.

This is typified by another of my pet hates - ID cards. Their entire premise is that none of us can be trusted to tell the truth about who we are and therefore the government must manage our identities on our behalf. This shows such a lamentable poverty of expectation (although it is broadly in line with a Home Secretary who feels no shame in admitting the streets aren't safe for single women at night) and a detachment from reality that it really is scary.

[expat]

Bollocks. I'm quite happy for the Police to ask where any of my dosh came from - but it's entirely my choice (or has been until recently) not to answer if I don't want to. Why is having a large amount of cash suddenly grounds for having to prove where it came from? What's next, having to prove where you got the cash for that watch or that car because plod thinks you look a bit scruffy/young/black etc for it?

Utter nonsense - if the Police have any evidence then they can use it otherwise in a civilised society they must move along.

I too have had some eyeopening experience with our wonderful boys in blue that proves they aren't all as trustworthy decent and honest as you might like to imagine with your "everyone must tell them everything" line.

True, but it has always been so. A good police force is one that catches more crooks than it employs. The quality of the police in the UK is IMHO more than good enough to live with: it is the quality of the constitutional protections or lack of them that will determine whether a people is free or not. I do not believe that this is any longer good enough in England, and for that I blame both the government and those people who accede in their illiberal crushing of ancient, and I would say timeless, liberties.

BGG, have you heard of Magna Carta?

[Peoplesoft bloke]

.......Basically, we're all wrong and jumping to all sorts of conclusions, based on the little evidence we have read, which we know is lacking in its paucity.

....

You may like to rewrite that sentence too, when you have looked up the meaning of paucity.