BBC1 - Cars, Cops and Criminals

[Bobby Dazzler]

Interesting programme.

The number of MBs which featured was a bit of a concern!!

 

[recycled]

Yes just by looking at your vin and plate numbers TPT's car was gone with the new key.
wonder how many troll internet sites for VIN,s and number plates. much easier than driving around looking

 

[Bear]

So what happens to the revenue generated from all the seizures of assets ect?

 

[chriswt]

Don't buy a car in Cyprus!!

What was the problem with cars in Cyprus? - was it Northern Cyprus!!!

 

[Dragon]

Crime really does pay. What are you waiting for?

On iPlayer for those who missed it.

Didn't I said about knives and guns, immobilisers created?

 

[glojo]

In principle, when the case goes to court, the Financial Investigation Unit carry out an assessment of three things-
.

I think the first two words hit the nail right on the head.

This unit was set-up in haste and 'In Principal' it is a brilliant idea. It's great that the defendant has to prove they obtained their wealth through legitimate means. BUT...... The reality is completely the opposite and this unit gets bogged down attempting to prove the wealth was obtained through devious means!!! If they fail to do this then we regularly get examples of money, property etc being returned, that is not what was intended. For this unit to be viable, there needs to be regular and by that I would guess at least weekly cases in every crown court of large sums of money, property, houses etc being seized.

Ever since the year dot the court has had the power to seize property that was used in the connection of crime. In other words if drug dealers use their car to transport their drugs, the car can be seized, If the house is used to sell or store illegal drugs, or stolen property then in theory that can be seized, but that would involve seizing and then probably liaising with a mortgage supplier?? The easy seizures would be cars. The cars of drug dealers, burglars, those that transport stolen property. The police have always had the right to confiscate. How many times have they bothered? This new legislation was really a publicity stunt, BUT in fairness it did give the police even more power, but bureaucracy rules okay and perish the thought that we interfere with the human rights of the accused!

Rant mode!
How many times does the CPS charge shop lifters with burglary if they have been banned from city centres, shops etc? How many times do courts offer victims compensation even though they have had instructions to consider compensation before fines for the accused?

Apathy

The whole system is bogged down by apathy and far too concerned about the rights of the accused. The punishments we saw awarded yesterday spoke volumes.

It is wrong to just think the legal profession is the only section of society suffering from this ailment.

Just look at certain members of this forum. They are masters of this ailment and will no doubt mouth off the loudest.

The car stolen from TPT.... What's the betting that she left her key in the car????

I'm not convinced it was clever to publicise just how easy some villains can obtain car keys. That was frightening.

End of rant

 

[raymont]

See last para of this text from BBC Jan 2007.


The Assets Recovery Agency, set up to take money from criminals as part of a government drive against organised crime, is to be abolished.

The Home Office announced on Thursday that ARA will merge with the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA).

Government sources insist that while the ARA will cease to exist in name, its work and investigations will continue.

The ARA has been operating in London and Belfast for almost four years.
Last year it froze assets belonging to Northern Ireland criminals worth almost £16m.

But it was also revealed that the agency had recovered only £8m from criminals - despite costing £60m to set up.


In April this year it was merged with Serious Organised Crime Agency.

 

[chriswt]

Crime really does pay. What are you waiting for?

On iPlayer for those who missed it.

Didn't I said about knives and guns, immobilisers created?

I'll be watching it on the iplayer tonight, can't wait.

I was only looking for second hand cars in Cyprus last week so I guess this will make important viewing.

 

[glojo]

So what happens to the revenue generated from all the seizures of assets etc?

Having had my rant.....

Under the old legislation the property\money could be used to fund specialist equipment, or possibly plonked into the police kitty.

Cars could be used by specialist units for surveillance purposes or sold at auction and again the money would go into funding.

What that program did not show was the side of the victims and I'm not talking about those who had their car stolen! I am talking about people that buy these cars in good faith. No doubt they get a V5, they get a service booklet, they get the keys. The car to all intents and purposes is perfectly kosher.

They get a knock on their door, the police march in and eventually drive off with a £40,000 car!! The new owner is then £40,000 out of pocket, the insurance companies have paid out the previous owner, they have adjusted insurance premiums accordingly and set rates that take into account any losses they might incur over the years. For them getting the car back is a bonus and to have the police do this for free just seems so wrong!! It's right that the police should investigate, it's right they should catch the villains, but the insurance companies are the only winners and in reality they are making a legal fortune out of this whole saga! I say this because they set their premiums taking into account expected losses through both crime damage and injury, if we have our car stolen then we have to pay a higher premium the next time we want to insure a car. Protected No Claims Bonus costs us extra, so we are still paying a premium. If our car eventually gets recovered, do we then have our extra costs for insurance refunded? Do we then get back the no claims credit?

Should the insurance companies fund these very specialist police units which are only acting in the best interests of these companies? If a victim can prove they bought a car in good faith and also due diligence, then should they be able to keep the car??

I feel for Jay, but wait until you see a hard working family that has saved hard to buy the car of their dreams, or even worse, they have taken out a large loan to buy a vehicle of necessity, and then it gets seized! Insurance companies can afford to write the loss off. These victims might not be so lucky. There should be a huge penal deterrent that makes people think twice before resorting to a life of crime but that is never going to happen.

Just a little rant
The Inspector of Prisons has just complained about the state of Dartmoor Prison.

They have heavily criticised the prison for being dirty!!!!!!!!!!!

Meals were served at times that were more for the convenience of staff than any other reason

"Tangible sense of isolation" on windswept moor, 16 miles from train station and with a "paucity" of facilities for visitors.

Prisoners given a hot drink, a copy of the prison rules and a telephone card but no access to a telephone to call home.

Prisoners in the segregation unit assigned exercise pens of 12ft square "more appropriate for dangerous animals".

I was surprised to see that some prisoner had to 'slop out' but so what?

The lunatics are clearly ruling the roost.

Who makes these prisons dirty?

Why are people eventually sent to prison?

Where are the investigations into victims that have committed suicide because they could not come to terms with what happened to them?

Where are the reports into victims that are suffering long term illnesses as a direct result of being a victim of crime?

Where are reports into victims being ignored by the police?

Where are the reports into criminal statistics that have clearly been cooked?

I have said it again and agian......... we spend far too much money and far too much time in looking after the rights of the criminal as opposed to the victim.

Of course the criminal has a few rights, but we MUST prioritise and surely we should put the rights of the victim above those of the criminal.

Has the victim a free telephone? A free phone card?

Has the victim got anyone to counsel them, or perhaps clean their house (tongue in cheek)

Can the victim walk the streets and 'exercise' without fear of being assaulted?

Best stop ranting as I sure the apathy brigade will want their say

Regards
John the ranter

Edit
Just noticed raymont's contribution which highlights my point very well

Thanks for the informative post

 

[Dieselman]

What that program did not show was the side of the victims and I'm not talking about those who had their car stolen! I am talking about people that buy these cars in good faith. No doubt they get a V5, they get a service booklet, they get the keys. The car to all intents and purposes is perfectly kosher.

They get a knock on their door, the police march in and eventually drive off with a £40,000 car!!

It doesn't always seem to work like that. A colleague of Mrs Dm had a car stolen which was sold on and subsequently located. It wasn't removed from the new owners possession as it was deemed they bought in good faith.

The new owner is then £40,000 out of pocket, the insurance companies have paid out the previous owner, they have adjusted insurance premiums accordingly and set rates that take into account any losses they might incur over the years. For them getting the car back is a bonus and to have the police do this for free just seems so wrong!! It's right that the police should investigate, it's right they should catch the villains, but the insurance companies are the only winners and in reality they are making a legal fortune out of this whole saga! I say this because they set their premiums taking into account expected losses through both crime damage and injury, if we have our car stolen then we have to pay a higher premium the next time we want to insure a car. Protected No Claims Bonus costs us extra, so we are still paying a premium. If our car eventually gets recovered, do we then have our extra costs for insurance refunded? Do we then get back the no claims credit?

But surely the insurance companies set their total losses against income to decide on their level of profitability. The income they get back from recovery of stolen property is just part of this income and without it we would have to pay higher premiums.
In addition if this didn't happen then criminals would sell the car to an accomplice and get to keep the car even after detection was made.

Should the insurance companies fund these very specialist police units which are only acting in the best interests of these companies?

That's exactly what was the case with the Manchester squad in the programme. It was shown to be funded by insurance companies.

 

[Dragon]

The solution seemed to be, do not own a flashy car, drive a car no one wants.

To get rich be a bounty car hunter.

 

[st4]

The whole system is bogged down by apathy and far too concerned about the rights of the accused. The punishments we saw awarded yesterday spoke volumes.

Sums up modern britain nicely.

 

[glojo]

It doesn't always seem to work like that. A colleague of Mrs Dm had a car stolen which was sold on and subsequently located. It wasn't removed from the new owners possession as it was deemed they bought in good faith..

That is excellent news and hopefully this will become the norm as opposed to the exception, but my guess will be this will need a radical change of our theft laws??

In addition if this didn't happen then criminals would sell the car to an accomplice and get to keep the car even after detection was made...

I'm not sure of your point here but with stolen property the onus is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that property is stolen! Forget cars for a moment.... If the accused had a shed load of tools, and other unidentifiable property and merely laughed when asked to explain ownership. Then if the prosecution cannot prove theft, the villain gets to keep their swag!

Stolen cars that have not been sold should quite rightly be returned to the previous owner and this will usually be the insurance company. If the car has been sold on, then the new owner should perhaps in law have some form of recompense??? Your example is a very nice one but the law as it stands would not stop the insurance company from repossessing any vehicle that is lawfully theirs.

That's exactly what was the case with the Manchester squad in the programme. It was shown to be funded by insurance companies.

I missed that bit!! Are you sure about that as it doesn't make any sense and would also set a precedent. In other words all specialist car squads should be funded this way, plus who calls the tune? If the insurance company pays the salary then are these officers then only allowed to investigate thefts from that one insurance company? I don't doubt you and these questions are in-line with what you have said.

 

[Dragon]

I'll be watching it on the iplayer tonight, can't wait.

I was only looking for second hand cars in Cyprus last week so I guess this will make important viewing.

Have to refresh at least a dozen times due to pauses, not sure it due to talktalk drop lines or too many downloading at the same time.

Watched the Conspiracy Theory:Third Building without a single pause or refresh thru the hour.