Nanny Knows Best

Nanny Knows Best
Dedicated to exposing, and resisting, the all pervasive nanny state that is corroding the way of life and the freedom of the people of Britain.

Tuesday, December 20, 2005

You've Got To Pick a Pocket or Two..

You've Got To Pick a Pocket or TwoAt this time of year, when abundance rejoices, want is most keenly felt.

These words, first penned by Charles Dickens well over a century ago, are as true now as they were then.

Nowhere is want most keenly felt than in Nanny's world of rules and regulations. You see folks, all these rules have to be enforced, monitored and administered.

That costs money.

Nanny, although she happily keeps raising taxes, is still feeling a little "short".

Fungus ClarkeShe has been pondering how to raise more cash, then finally her special little Christmas troll Charles Fungus Clarke, the home secretary, came up with a real wizzo idea.

His idea is to lower the the cash seizure threshold under the Proceeds of Crime Act.

What's all that about then Ken?...I hear you ask.

Didn't you know?

Currently, if the police are investigating a suspect and they are carrying more than
£5K in cash, the police can seize the money.

The suspect then has 14 days to explain the source of funds to a magistrate. If the suspect chooses not to do so, then the police keep the funds.

Didn't know that, did you?

Now, dear old Fungus is considering lowering the limit from £5K to £1K. This amount, I think you will all agree, is what you could easily get through one night down the pub.

The amendment would widen the scope for donations to the police force's "tin box", as it is known; ie it would provide a very nice top up to the police force's petty cash.

Gordon Smiler BrownThe scheme is administered by Smiler Brown's Treasury, and is designed to return a percentage of the proceeds of crime back to the law enforcement agency that
seized it. This money is viewed as a short-term gain for the police force.

A member of the City of London Police is quoted as saying that they are looking for " seizures for quick results..".

Indeed, in 2004 police officers in Suffolk forced a convicted drug dealer to hand over £60 in cash for which he could not account.

A pilot scheme will be run in Kirklees.

Offenders found with £1K or more face having their cash taken by the police using a court order under the new proposals.

Fungus said:

"Reducing the threshold so officers can seize cash stashes of at least £1K will allow the police to target local drug dealers and other small-time criminals whose activities destroy lives and blight communities.

Hard cash remains the currency of choice for criminals - bundles of notes totaling around 1m are being seized each week.

Much of the money we are confiscating from the criminals is being used to fund the fight against crime and to help support victims and crime reduction projects across the country.

This forms a key part of our Respect agenda

and our sustained effort to ensure criminals can no longer ride roughshod over the law and the values of the decent law-abiding majority by openly flouting their ill-gotten gains."

I am all for wiping criminal scum from the face of the earth.

However, does it not pose rather a risk to police impartiality, intergity and independence if the police are able to profit by keeping the money that they take from people in this manner?


  1. Anonymous12:06 PM

    Hmmm... my grandparents used to keep more than 1k around the house. As it had been saved a bit at a time, I suspect they would be unable to account for its origins. So I would advise old folks not to mention to crime prevention officers how much they keep in cash....

  2. When I watched the atrocities of the terrorists smashing into the twin towers in America, and recoiled in loathing of these people, little than did I realise that it presented the UK and American Governments with the greatest solution to their wish to erode our civil liberties and rights, under the banner of terrorism and serious crime.

    As we relentlessley move towards a totalitarian police state, we can see that we are all becoming guilty until proving ourselves innocent. Soon, it will be up to us to prove where we were and what we were doing at the time of a crime, and not the other way round. We already have this concept established in the world of taxation - as anyone who works in that field will vouch for.

    However, troubled and repulsed (with the politicians who move us in this direction) as I am by these developments, there also seems to be a complete contradiction as with the legal suggestions today to downgrade the term 'murder', and also with the recent moves to downgrade the claasses of drugs.

    The words 'money laundering' have, since the crimes of the twin towers atrocities, now been linked to the monetary proceeds of any crime, no matter how small or trivial, and we have a whole network of lawyers, accountants, estate agents, insurance salesmen and other professionals, acting as unwilling Government grasses and stooges, having to report all proceeds of crime, no matter how small, to NCIS.

    What is needed in this country are politicians who are tough on crime in the sense of tougher sentences for those found guilty of a serious crime, not simply assuming that a wad of cash must be an ill gotten gain, so steal it

    Our politicians are becoming just as unscrupulous as the criminals!!!

  3. Spiv

    I couldn't agree with you more.

    wrt tax, absolutely correct; the current regime now assumes guilt, and expects the hapless tax payer to prove their innocence.

    Once that has been done, the tax payer gets no apology or compensation for the time and effort expended in proving their innocence.

    Money laundering, don't even start me on that!

    In theory you can be reported for money laundering if you take so much as one paperclip from the office stationery cupboard.

    Laws are now being made and enforced by half wits, with no interest in the consequences of their "initiatives".

    Some poor sod is going to have to unpick this mess one day!


  4. Anonymous6:25 PM

    spiv said:

    "Our politicians are becoming just as unscrupulous as the criminals!!! "

    On the contrary, I think it the other way around.

    The Chancer of the Exchequer daily offers a public Masterclass in the ways of theft and fraud and the very public use of entrapment methods related to, for example, speed cameras, have enshrined the principles of creating 'criminals' in order to fleece tham of part of their remaining assets post Chancer and chums.

    Any excuse that can be spun on the web of fear will do as far as these amoral rogues are concerned.

  5. Anonymous9:43 PM

    Can we say "conflict of interest"...