Irgendeiner

Surrey Police

22 posts in this topic

On Thursday I drove from Guildford to Woking, and just past SashaB's favourite Police Station I came up behind a bus, the back of which was displaying a large advertisement (paid, one assumes, out of Police funds?) which reads:

It wasn't theirs so we've taken it back

Surrey Police with you, making Surrey safer

£188,365 Returned from two Surrey fraudsters to their victim

Know someone living off the proceeds of crime?

Contact Crimestoppers anonymously or call Surrey Police

While I assume that all of us would be pleased if the Police did restore to the victims that of what they have been robbed, I just wonder whether this ad actually has taken the "victim" to be "society", and the Police to be "trustee" for Society?

I think I'll write to the Chief Constable to ask....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go for it. I'll be interested to hear their reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That campaign launched on April 1st, the same day I was sentenced. Talking to the advertising body that arranged that bus advertising (for entirely seperate reasons) I happen to know those adds (back panel of bus) cost £187 + VAT per bus, per month. They have combined this with a radio campaign on Heart and Eagle radio to cover the area.

Its good to know they are spending the procedes of crime well and supporting the community. To this day I find it disgusting that no one was ever brought to justice for the attack against us. I can live with the fact I was prosecuted but how can the police prosecute me and say that what I was doing was so wrong yet on the other hand leave those responsible for the attack against us at large???

A quote from the police statement about my sentencing http://www.surrey.police.uk/media/news_item.asp?area=5&itemID=13848

“Alongside that, we were also trying to prevent incidents of violence particularly as it was our belief that the Camberley address had been targeted by a rival business as a warning not to encroach on its territory. Bearing in mind our concern for the safety and welfare of the workers, the clients and the public at large, the decision was taken to shut the brothels down to prevent further escalation of violence.”

I did find it interesting that none of the papers used or quoted the police statement but instead quoted the judge who accepted there was no exploitation etc. Surely if Surrey Police believed a rival was behind the attack they should have had a shortlist of suspects??? And since when does prosecuting the victim and not the attacker prevent a further escalation of violence???

Police had all the information they needed to prove who was behind the attack against us but couldnt be bothered, so what is the point in campaigns like this when they cant investigate violent crimes that occur under thier noses properly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That campaign launched on April 1st, the same day I was sentenced. Talking to the advertising body that arranged that bus advertising (for entirely seperate reasons) I happen to know those adds (back panel of bus) cost £187 + VAT per bus, per month. They have combined this with a radio campaign on Heart and Eagle radio to cover the area.

Its good to know they are spending the procedes of crime well and supporting the community. To this day I find it disgusting that no one was ever brought to justice for the attack against us. I can live with the fact I was prosecuted but how can the police prosecute me and say that what I was doing was so wrong yet on the other hand leave those responsible for the attack against us at large???

A quote from the police statement about my sentencing http://www.surrey.police.uk/media/news_item.asp?area=5&itemID=13848

“Alongside that, we were also trying to prevent incidents of violence particularly as it was our belief that the Camberley address had been targeted by a rival business as a warning not to encroach on its territory. Bearing in mind our concern for the safety and welfare of the workers, the clients and the public at large, the decision was taken to shut the brothels down to prevent further escalation of violence.”

I did find it interesting that none of the papers used or quoted the police statement but instead quoted the judge who accepted there was no exploitation etc. Surely if Surrey Police believed a rival was behind the attack they should have had a shortlist of suspects??? And since when does prosecuting the victim and not the attacker prevent a further escalation of violence???

Police had all the information they needed to prove who was behind the attack against us but couldnt be bothered, so what is the point in campaigns like this when they cant investigate violent crimes that occur under thier noses properly

This is absolutely preposterous. It's like saying "we established there was bullying at the school, so we took all the lunch money away from the victims, gave it to the bullies, and educated the victims in a crappy shed instead of the bullies' classroom."

They said they investigated the "aggravated burglary". Did they investigate the "rival business" suspected of violence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They said they investigated the "aggravated burglary". Did they investigate the "rival business" suspected of violence?

Aggravated Burglary carries a max of life, which suggests to me (but I'm pretty suggestible) that the expense fiddling Parliament of our benighted nation thought that it was a rather serious offence.

Generally, I'd have thought, the CPS' beloved "public interest" would tend, when there is a choice between two offenders, to prosecute the one wot done the worser deed, but clearly I don't understand....

Where I stay quite a few planning decisions can only be explained by the passing of a brown envelope. Can the decision taken in this case also be explained by the "rival business" producing a brown envelope?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aggravated Burglary carries a max of life, which suggests to me (but I'm pretty suggestible) that the expense fiddling Parliament of our benighted nation thought that it was a rather serious offence.

Generally, I'd have thought, the CPS' beloved "public interest" would tend, when there is a choice between two offenders, to prosecute the one wot done the worser deed, but clearly I don't understand....

Where I stay quite a few planning decisions can only be explained by the passing of a brown envelope. Can the decision taken in this case also be explained by the "rival business" producing a brown envelope?

That would seem to be the logic from the public point of view, but POCA aligns both CPS and Police in going for the option that maximises takings.

Incidentally may be unsurprising but both Grauniad and Indie reports on the Police Fed conference are followed by comments unanimously unsympathetic to Plod's hurt over Theresa May's proposals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Irgendeiner : I suspect most planning decisions involve brown envelopes. It is interesting that virtually all local councillors depicted in television drama, British or foreign, are corrupt.

There has been a growing trend for the police and CPS to prosecute the victims of crime when they resist criminals rather than the latter. The police always like an easy target, which explains the brutal attack on Ian Tomlinson rather then the actual demonstrators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incidentally may be unsurprising but both Grauniad and Indie reports on the Police Fed conference are followed by comments unanimously unsympathetic to Plod's hurt over Theresa May's proposals.

What proposals?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its good to know they are spending the procedes of crime well and supporting the community. To this day I find it disgusting that no one was ever brought to justice for the attack against us. I can live with the fact I was prosecuted but how can the police prosecute me and say that what I was doing was so wrong yet on the other hand leave those responsible for the attack against us at large???

Sasha, your case was highlighted at one of the sessions of the Criminology Conference 2011 along with a couple of other cases which involved prostitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never be surprised at the level of corruption in our police. This is being shown in the hacking scandal. Police paid by Murdoch's minions for information and the refusal of the police to investigate the hacking allegations properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sasha, your case was highlighted at one of the sessions of the Criminology Conference 2011 along with a couple of other cases which involved prostitution.

What was said at the conference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As if there was ever any doubt Im now 1000000000% sure the CPS are just blood sucking scum. Forget bottom feeders these low lifes are the lowest of the low.

Have been at confiscation today and despite having to go back on the 5th October for a mini trial over disputed points primarily because they wont accept total wipeout in the way of assets they want to make sure you are financially destroyed for life! Did you know your outstanding tax liability isnt considered a priority debt before confiscation??? In other words they could take EVERY last penny you have and still leave you with the tax bill!

Putting that aside my colleuge Val has agreed a confiscation figure of just short of £6000... not because she benefited to that sum but because she has no way of prooving that at least half that money was legitimate and the onus of proof is on her to show it was legally obtained otherwise its assumed criminal. As if that was not enough, she has also had to pay a contribution towards her legal costs throughout but ADDING to all of that, she has been left with a small sum from her mothers inheritance so they have applied to have her legal defence costs retrieved! So in other words confiscation of her assets isnt enough, even though its more than she criminally benefited, if there is a HINT that they will leave you with a penny they go for costs.

As I said nothing but complete financial ruin will do.

What makes me even more mad is that the probation service is crying poverty and are now talking about CHARGING charities for the community service people they send out, so the probation service will be making money from all these unpaid community service orders. Can ANYONE explain to me where exactly all this money is meant to be going????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sasha

While I admit to being aware of the case but not following it too closely, one aspect of the statement from DI Hughes "......we were also trying to prevent incidents of violence particularly as it was our belief that the Camberley address had been targeted by a rival business as a warning not to encroach on its territory. "

Is/has the rival business being prosecuted, or we you singled out, in your view. Just curious as to fair play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sasha

While I admit to being aware of the case but not following it too closely, one aspect of the statement from DI Hughes "......we were also trying to prevent incidents of violence particularly as it was our belief that the Camberley address had been targeted by a rival business as a warning not to encroach on its territory. "

Is/has the rival business being prosecuted, or we you singled out, in your view. Just curious as to fair play.

Hi Taggart

No the rival business was left to thrive. No charges were ever brought in relation to the attack, in fact that case was closed in December 09 just 2 months after the attack through lack of evidence despite the police being told who was behind it, including one of the attackers names and work place. No arrests were ever made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah. Now I understand your fury and anger. It's another decision (or lack of) that smacks of double standards.

No wonder people hate the police and CPS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not only that Taggart but the police statement in itself. Anyone who attended court... (and I will get around to getting a copy of the transcripts and publishing them) would tell you there was NO coercion, NO drugs, NO illegals, NO nasties at all. I was registered for tax etc. and even the judge praised the way the business was run while quickly enforcing that it was illegal. She accepted that I had done everything that I could to minimise any disruption to the public and also accepted that if I hadnt of dialled 999 I wouldnt have been in the position I was.

The press was unable to paint me as an evil charecter so how is it that the police can write a statement like the one you have quoted from making out that I was some nasty piece of work who by all accounts was a menace to society. Its difficult because its personal and I get that but all this about justice being the pursuit for the truth is complete and utter Bo****ks, the CPS twist the truth to suit thier own agenda, just as the police do in thier bull**** statements and they dont just play dirty, they play mean. Im meant to be the criminal and I honestly couldnt sleep at night doing or saying half the things they get away with every day, its just WRONG.

I broke the law and have paid the price but what I dont get is that violent people get away with effective murder, burglars get cautions and peodephiles get off with community service orders while good people have thier lives turned upside down and are financially ruined by the police for a gain that seems to have zero benefit to the community.

Maffia would be an understatement and they literally make the rules up as they go along, find a way that the rules might benefit you and you can be certain they will change the rules and move the goal posts. 6 years they go back and if you cant provide catagoric proof of where every penny came from, anything you cant prove is automatically assumed as criminal benefit, they dont need proof they get to assume and the onus is on the defense to prove thier case, its like being on trial all over again.

Edited by SashaB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never forget that the British police go for the easy target every time, witness the recent riots when the police stood by and allowed looting. If one is asked to prove that some of the money, to be seized under POCA, was not from so-called immoral earnings then why haven't the Human Rights Lobby latched on to and taken a case to the European Court?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never forget that the British police go for the easy target every time, witness the recent riots when the police stood by and allowed looting. If one is asked to prove that some of the money, to be seized under POCA, was not from so-called immoral earnings then why haven't the Human Rights Lobby latched on to and taken a case to the European Court?

Thats a very good point fritigern and one I will raise with the solicitor although I doubt it will help us. We have all heard how draconian POCA is but I dont think anyone realises just how draconian until your living it. As the barister said which I think sums it up very well, the CPS assume that if you have plead guilty or been found guilty of one crime you must have been running around doing allsorts of illegal things and you your charges only relate to what they could prove. When POCA comes along that process is reversed in that EVERYTHING going back 6 years is criminal unless you can prove otherwise. I appreciate we are criminals but I would think most people would find it hard to account for every penny in thier account going back 6 years... what about the car boot you did, the kids toys you sold on, the odd cash job you did for the lady down the road that moved years ago. The onus of proof is on us and stupid us for banking and paying tax on what we earnt! The tax payable on our money isnt considered a preforential debt but they are happy to take everything you ever earnt!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sasha

I do believe you position regards tax and POCA is nothing new. Yes they take your assets, but do not pay the tax man. That's for you to sort out somehow!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sasha

I do believe you position regards tax and POCA is nothing new. Yes they take your assets, but do not pay the tax man. That's for you to sort out somehow!

This one goes round, so it goes up its own arse!

So a WG earns money, and does her accounts, deducts necessary expenses of business, fills out self-assessment and pays HMRC Income Tax + National Insurance, plus, of course, the same again as "payment on account" for next year.

Fine!

Then, wait for it, nice Mr Plod discovers that when she went on holiday last year to <somewhere nice> she had another girl "stand in" (or, I suppose, lie in!!) for her,

so,

her gaff can now be described as being a brothel, (rub hands lasciviously) and she is the manager,

so, the "income" which she properly declared and paid tax on, has suddenly become "proceeds of crime"?

Now, does "proceeds of crime" come under the heading of "taxable income"? If not, can CPS / Mr Plod claim repayment from HMRC of the tax & NI already paid?

This really is so crazy that even a politician should realize that it is morally wrong. Nadine Dorries (who I have to say I find not unattractive) could well spend her time and talents on advertising just how evil the current use of POCA is, rather than encouraging the birth of more unwanted children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a little more complicated than that but effectively your spot on. In my case I have now confirmed with HMRC that as my income was considered proceeds of crime my tax returns were incorrect and that any profit was actually an automatic loss so no real profit was made and therefore no tax left to pay> its been complicated but thats at least one less worry.

Where its even more crazy is my partner. He was never charged with brothel keeping or anything assosiated as he was in no way involved with the business and the crown accepted that very early on. He was however charged and prosecuted for money laundering as he was named on our mortgage and where I had invested money jointly with him into property he was therefore guilty of money laundering. He knew what I did and was therefore guilty of converting criminal property. Rightly or wrongly I think anyone would agree that was NOT what the law was designed for but the CPS saw another cash cow and why have just my half of the property when they could have his half too! The braister advised him top plead guilty as despite me not believing he was guilty of money laundering as the law would suggest he actually had no defence as in the eyes of the LAW he was automatically guilty.

So he plead guilty to laundering the money I had invested into the house and as a result he too is subject to POCA. 6 years they go back and he has had to account for EVERY penny ever paid into his account. He was a builder for gods sake and rather foolishly the only difference between him and some is that he banked, delclared and was taxed on the cash he earnt. Fortunately the crown (despite initial objection) have accepted that his income paid by Cheque or BACS was legitimate from his business but where he has been paid cash we are required to provide customer statements for every tom dic and harry he has done work for going back 6 years!!!

His is the real chocker as his income from building is legitimate and as such tax is payable. Our assets have been frozen since Jan 2010 so no suprise in the fact that he has oustanding tax due for the tax years ending April 09 and April 10. The crown are taking everything he earnt from legitimate sources (and can prove was legitimate) as he is unable to get customer statements from everyone who paid him cash... it turns out that in some cases there is a reason customers have paid cash not that you would consider questioning that at the time, especially when small jobs of just a couple of hundred pounds. Not only that people move, dont want to get involved or are scared that if they make statements they will find themselves being pulled over by police or given a hard time. I would say some people are paranoid but who can blame them.

So Michael will have all of his assets confiscated, every last penny and still be left with his tax bill to pay after! The real joke is that my PAYE responsibilities are however considered a preferential debt even though my own, or Michaels own tax liability isnt. Mad, Mad, Mad!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i wonder if the corrupt met officers who took bribes from news of the world will be subject to poca & hmrc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now