Nosey G**s

[Crankarm]

The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

"31 Jul 2006 Police can now take any sum over £1,000 in money suspected to be proceeds of crime

Police and customs officers will now be able to seize smaller sums of money suspected to be the proceeds of crime.
From today the minimum cash seizure threshold has been lowered from £5,000 to £1,000, to tackle those who have tried to transport money in amounts just below the previous threshold in order to evade the Proceeds of Crime 2002 (POCA) provisions.

The police and customs officers have to have reasonable suspicion that it is from proceeds of crime. They can't just demand your money because you are carrying above this thresh hold (and they are a bit short ) without reasonable suspicion. Well they can, but if they cannot then subsequently show they had reasonable grounds for suspicion when seizing your money the seizure would be unlawful, cough.....theft?

It's like if you are stopped in the street by a copper who asks you for your name, address, etc. and where you have just come from and where you are going, not that I ever have, you can ask him why? He can't just demand this information. He has to have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity before he asks it. Mind you one would be pretty stupid to refuse as the copper could probably make life pretty difficult for you as they can. If he says that a burgarly has just been commited in the next street and he is collecting details of everyone in the vicinity this may or may not be reasonable depending on the information the police already have on the perpetrators if any. So if the police know the perpetrators were all 4ft tall with green skin, three legs, two heads and 6 arms and you do not closely resemble this description as you are 4ft tall with red skin, 2 legs, 3 heads and 4 arms then you could tell the officer to bog off. You would be pretty unwise though as the long arm of the law can act arbitarily and make you feel pretty uncomfortable .

Unfortunately I cannot remember which specific piece of legislation but will take a quick stab at the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. Will check out where I remember this from.

To quote a well known source:

''If you have done nothing wrong............then you have nothing to worry about.''

That's ok then.

Who's the well known source?

 

[Gerry Attrick]

I paid in some large-ish sums last year, and withdrew some large-ish sums. Large-ish for me, that is. About £100k in, and two lots of £31k out. And nobody asked me nuffink.

Of course I have an honest face. And I did pay it in in Sloane Square, so it wasn't out of the ordinary for them.

Are you suggesting that we backwoods chaps trade in only elk bones and conch shells?

 

[colly]

[/i]
Who's the well known source?

None other than than Lord Rightold of B'Stard

 

[ComedyPilot]

[/i]

The police and customs officers have to have reasonable suspicion that it is from proceeds of crime. They can't just demand your money because you are carrying above this thresh hold (and they are a bit short ) without reasonable suspicion. Well they can, but if they cannot then subsequently show they had reasonable grounds for suspicion when seizing your money the seizure would be unlawful, cough.....theft?

It's like if you are stopped in the street by a copper who asks you for your name, address, etc. and where you have just come from and where you are going, not that I ever have, you can ask him why? He can't just demand this information. He has to have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity before he asks it. Mind you one would be pretty stupid to refuse as the copper could probably make life pretty difficult for you as they can. If he says that a burgarly has just been commited in the next street and he is collecting details of everyone in the vicinity this may or may not be reasonable depending on the information the police already have on the perpetrators if any. So if the police know the perpetrators were all 4ft tall with green skin, three legs, two heads and 6 arms and you do not closely resemble this description as you are 4ft tall with red skin, 2 legs, 3 heads and 4 arms then you could tell the officer to bog off. You would be pretty unwise though as the long arm of the law can act arbitarily and make you feel pretty uncomfortable .

Unfortunately I cannot remember which specific piece of legislation but will take a quick stab at the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. Will check out where I remember this from.




Who's the well known source?

You are sort of right there.

I have stopped a car, and as a direct result someone lost their house!!!

Well, I saw them on a mobile phone, they dropped it sharpish when I got behind them.

The car pnc'd to a local man, and I knew this to be the driver, and he knew me.

I stopped him. Smelled a bit of blow, got back up, searched the car, got a big bag of grass, individually wrapped, arrested him for PWITS, S18 on his house got more grass and about 5k in cash. The job was taken from me, but the CID ran him for the drugs and money laundering, and the financial people ran him through POCA and he lost his house.

Yee haa

 

[Andy in Sig]

You can't open a bank account unless you provide the ins and out of your arse, you can't buy anything for cash over a couple of thousand without being quizzed, it seems you can't even draw your OWN cash out of the bank without being questioned and now it seems you can't even PAY IN a cheque either.

There was an article in The Spectator a couple of weeks back where a bloke reported on how, when he tried to open an account, the bank asked him which political party he supported!!! I know it sounds unbelievable but anybody wanting to check it out can do a search on the Specc's website.

 

[colly]

On a different theme but related.........

my daughter has just filled in an application form for a job with the Local Authority.
Right at the end is the series of questions about race, religion, colour, even sexuality. Now I know the idea is to have ''fair shares for all'' but asking questions like that is discriminatory in itself.

What the f*** business is it of any employer what any of their employees or prospective employees sexuality it is?

Are they saying..........we might have too many homosexuals working for us ..............therefore we will only interview Hetrosexuals. Or vice versa. Or possibly we don't have enough Sikh Asians here so we will select only from that group to interview.

A truely equal, non discriminatory system would not even consider posing the question.

edited: Sorry off topic I know. It just got my goat.

 

[Crankarm]

You are sort of right there.

I have stopped a car, and as a direct result someone lost their house!!!

Well, I saw them on a mobile phone, they dropped it sharpish when I got behind them.

The car pnc'd to a local man, and I knew this to be the driver, and he knew me.

I stopped him. Smelled a bit of blow, got back up, searched the car, got a big bag of grass, individually wrapped, arrested him for PWITS, S18 on his house got more grass and about 5k in cash. The job was taken from me, but the CID ran him for the drugs and money laundering, and the financial people ran him through POCA and he lost his house.

Yee haa

Seems like you had a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity so could legitimately stop him . Not saying you wouldn't still stop him even if you didn't as things can still be handled diplomatically. Only beccomes an issue if some one can't see the reason for why they are being stopped or if they have been walking along minding their own business. I guess it would really only become an issue if an officer was less than courteous, officious or heavy handed which I'm sure you are not .

 

[Crankarm]

On a different theme but related.........

my daughter has just filled in an application form for a job with the Local Authority.
Right at the end is the series of questions about race, religion, colour, even sexuality. Now I know the idea is to have ''fair shares for all'' but asking questions like that is discriminatory in itself.

What the f*** business is it of any employer what any of their employees or prospective employees sexuality it is?

Are they saying..........we might have too many homosexuals working for us ..............therefore we will only interview Hetrosexuals. Or vice versa. Or possibly we don't have enough Sikh Asians here so we will select only from that group to interview.

A truely equal, non discriminatory system would not even consider posing the question.

edited: Sorry off topic I know. It just got my goat.

You can of course omit or refuse to complete the Diversity Monitoring form which is what I think they call it. It is not supposed to form part of the selection process. But yes I agree with you. It does seem strange now we are all supposed to be more tolerant. Positive discrimination is a curse unless it's justification is absolute ie a female medical examiner or rape councillor counselling women who have been raped. Would seem particularly egregious to select and appoint a male for this position where a woman is expressly needed.