Reply to: ECHR again...

[vetran]

No, I think you feel the court's decision was wrong.

both. I was being polite.

[Mich the Tester]

I respect your opinion but I fear you are wrong.

No, I think you feel the court's decision was wrong.

[vetran]

1; yes
2; courts

I respect your opinion but I fear you are wrong.

[Mich the Tester]

Just because his crime was 'lesser' (who defines this objectively?)

1; yes
2; courts

[vetran]

And in such cases, individual property rights, which are pretty fundamental, are to be balanced against the needs of the public. The drug dealer and the undocumented worker are two completely different categories of crime with completely differing impacts on the public, and the ECHR rightly ticked the British government on the fingers for not balancing those rights.

why?

Just because his crime was 'lesser' (who defines this objectively?) why is his right to the illegally obtained money more?

If he had fiddled benefits would he be more entitled to the money or less?
If he had defrauded a little old lady etc.

too many grey areas! Too much money for lawyers.

[vetran]

Presumably though if he had of been an oligarch who had got his millions from, lets say, not too legal means yet had bought a rather large and expensive property in London and flashed the cash, then such an act would not have happened (although he may be here legally, he may be wanted in other countries...)

indeed, this is why justice should be blind.

[darmstadt]

Presumably though if he had of been an oligarch who had got his millions from, lets say, not too legal means yet had bought a rather large and expensive property in London and flashed the cash, then such an act would not have happened (although he may be here legally, he may be wanted in other countries...)

[Mich the Tester]

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.

And in such cases, individual property rights, which are pretty fundamental, are to be balanced against the needs of the public. The drug dealer and the undocumented worker are two completely different categories of crime with completely differing impacts on the public, and the ECHR rightly ticked the British government on the fingers for not balancing those rights.

[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.

[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?

[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]

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'?

[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.

[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

[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?