Having an older brother who is a Met Force DS, I am subject to his recounting of cases etc and some of them scare the hell out of me what criminals do.

I am in agreeance in principal to asset forfeiture for criminal gains and also criminal recompence to victims. But, liek anything else, is never going to be anywhere near 100% perfect.

At the end of the day, there is also the ONE RULE FOR THE AVERAGE PERSON and one for THE RICH aka Lord Archer.

But, we can discuss this at length and the ones in power will still look after their own

---

by Jay Jay
Which I believe was Cat's point

---

WOW! i believe you've summed my POV up perfectly! we dont often agree but in this case i think you are the one person who gets me!

---

by BigDaddy
I am in agreeance in principal to asset forfeiture for criminal gains and also criminal recompence to victims. But, liek anything else, is never going to be anywhere near 100% perfect.

---

I agree, the problem right now though is a crime doesnt even have to be proved! what it should be is asset freasure(sp) until trial, then asset forfiture upon a guilty verdict.

OK, maybe a miscarriage of justice or 2, but a hell of a lot better than present.

How does any democratic goverment think it has the right to take something (usually hard earnt) without proving wrong doing?

There have been several cases where customs have seized cars on the grounds that they were being used for bootlegging. Then after a year of apealing the courts agreed that they were not bootlegging, that what was being taken really was for personal use, and told customs to return the vehicles, in one of the cases it was a car that had been brought for a disabled person by a charity.
However then customs have turned around and failed to act on the courts instructions saying that in the meantime they had sold/destroyed the vehicles.
One of those seized was trying to bring a theft case against customs as a result.


A car clamping company also took someones car, sold it, then the appeals decided the car was legally parked (it was to do with being parked in a residential bay which the owner of the vehicle was paying for). The clamping company then failed to turn up to two court cases, despite being called to do so by the court, then the courts told them to return the vehicle, the company disapeared. However the person whose car it was was taking legal actions and balifs to the owners of the company to get the court decision carried out (at least in terms of getting back the costs of the vehicle, balifs and courts).