Law Lords change POCA to stop claims for compensation due to false allegations

Because government departments are so corrupt and incompetent, they are using the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 as a ‘catch all’ for allegations of fraud.  When those allegations turn out to be spurious and nonsensical, they care nothing for the damage that has been done to the victims of POCA.

Families are being torn apart, businesses are closed down on a whim, people are being put out on the streets and the law does nothing to protect them from misfeasance and false allegations.  Due to the number of successful awards being made the Law Lords have recently put into place amendments to POCA which prevent victims from claiming compensation for the loss they suffer as a result of governmental incompetence.

POCA HAS NO PLACE IN A DEMOCRACY – IT UNDERMINES THE VERY FOUNDATION OF DEMOCRACY, COMMON LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS.

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “Law Lords change POCA to stop claims for compensation due to false allegations

  1. Yeh it’s absolutely disgusting! Tell me about it, as my poor friend got done by ASDA over ALLEGEDLY (a lie if ever there was one), “colluding” just because some scumbag walked past her till and ran off without paying for his shopping! The over-the-top nutjobs in charge called the police, and whilst the thief got off scot free (which the police obviously couldn’t be arsed to catch) ; this poor darling was arrested by heavy-handed gangsters (nowadays what passes for a police force), and frog-marched down the local station! She was grilled and interrogated for “colluding with him”! What a bloody liberty! She suffered a suspension from her job for 3 whole months, managing the dreaded dwp and she almost suffered a nervous breakdown! She was INNOCENT for Christ’s sake!!!

    Although she got her job restored and won an appeal, she should NEVER have been put through any of this shit! In my mind she’s owed an appology, not least of all from the police! It’s disgusting that some of these dickwad managers can just over-react and have one of their loyal employees crucified like this, over a whim and because she was so shocked that her reactions in calling security were too slow! But for heaven’s sake, why try to criminalise this poor lady over a poxy error? They should get a life. You can’t tell me they never make any mistakes!! Also where were their security guards to let this swine walk away? Not very observant obviously, yet their stupid bleeper machines can go off any damn time at random – again when you’re INNOCENT (a word they can’t even spell); just because a customer happens to be wearing an under-wired bra!

    I think it’s about time the POCA laws were repealed and designed for what they were meant to be used for;- (ie: to compensate actual victims from REAL SCUM like drug-pushers, muggers, rapists, con-artists and filth like this. Sure they should be the ones to lose out and be forced to pay for the damage and losses which they force onto their poor victims! But the people in charge seem way too dense (or lacking in the common sense dept. anyhow) to know how and when to apply this, and all too often they choose their recipients wrongly! As a result my poor friend has to be on her feet all day on the shop floor and is STILL being unfairly punished for a crime she didn’t commit in the first place, because she’s not trusted on the tills anymore! How disgusting is that? Ofcourse it would have to come from the toffs at the House of Lords wouldn’t it?! Afterall, they never have to live in the real world, and these were the same deluded old farts who thought it was “lawful” and an absolute wheeze that we should keep getting hit with bank charges when by rights they should have abolished them altogether! I rest my case!

  2. I read with interest the above comment(s).
    The point I would be raising is there is no trace of a companys representative to assist this innocent Lady?
    Was this Lady briefed before employed, of the companys procedures?
    Re instatement would not bring back her pride and torture she has gone through?
    I think it is natural to call a police,after all she was working in the interest of the company and teching a lesson to a culprit that one should not get away from wrong doings.
    My sympathy goes to the victim.

  3. Raj – thanks for your comments on this matter.

    What is clear from company ‘policy’ is that all the big boys seem to be clubbing together to make life as difficult as possible for the common man; this serves to make every move we make fraught with indecision and doubt thus keeping us firmly in our place and too afraid to step out of line lest we lose our jobs, our income, our homes and our liberty.

    There is no representation for the individual, not from the police, the judiciary or the corporations – you’re on your own at every turn so it’s easy to become a victim at the hands of these New World Order policy makers.

  4. Wasn’t Nick Clegg and David Cameron supposed to repeal this law in the so called great repeal? Just in case the gentleman in the middle comment doesn’t understand this law maybe he should picture himself breaking two minor laws in 6 months, fairly easy given that local authorities can now institute these proceeding (bins placed out on the wrong day, planning act breach for the extension maybe?. For this little slip up he will be deemed to have a criminal lifestyle and the court will be forced to consider all assets, income and outgoing to be the result of criminal conduct. Ie you get to loose everything. Oh yes and when proved innocent you cannot claim compensation.
    If you disbeleive this try the two fishermen who are currently serving 2 year in prison for landing extra catch, 91k in total. The proceed of crime act fined them £214k which they obviously didn’t have being nearly three times the value of the entire catch. So I think anybody thinking this is a fair law had better think again it was designed to bankrupt people, and give the proceeds in equal shares to the coffer of the court, cPs and whoever else is prosecuting including the Local Authourity. Still sound lawful? So much for glib comments

    • If your a politician this law doesn’t apply to them. but it’s strange they are the ones that introduced it in the first place ( Labour party) did any of them get POCA against them when they defrauded there expenses. .No is the answer, The Police and CPS and the criminals here they also do double counting if you not keep an eye on them. They say you have a criminal lifestyle when you clearly haven’t got to pennies to rub together. Make you sell your home and if it isn’t sold within 6mths they take it off you. Even if the persons living there are inocent. Who can sell a house in 6months.

  5. Yes I agree with you Jason, and thank everyone here for the concern they have shown to my good friend. Maybe it’s just as well she doesn’t have her own property and is forced to live in digs, because if she did it looks as though the bent law system and skewed mentality which passes for “justice” nowadays would be able to take it all off of her. Downright extortionate! We all need to campaign together to get this crazy law repealed and deleted, coz we can’t trust the Condem’s paying lip-service for “listening to our views” – whatever!! We need to take action ourselves, and get those responsible for these bent laws done, tried with their goods (including all their hidden offshore assets too), being confiscated to make reparation to their victims! Yes – then we should tell these Bilderbergs/NWO tarts – Ooooopppps……sorry our politicians just where they can POCA thair Proceeds Of Crime Act!

  6. Hello Can someone give details of the changes that the Law Lords are meant to have made.

    • We wrote to the House of Lords asking the following question on 12/06/2011:

      Recent comments suggest that due to the high number of successful claims for damages compensation as a result of misuse of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 that the Law Lords have decided that in order to save money that victims of POCA can no longer make a claim for damages save if those damages come about as a result of political bias or misfeasance. It concerns me that what amounts to a money saving decision will have a dire impact on victims of such misuse of POCA and that there are not more controls and safeguards built into the regulations to ensure that they are not misused in the first place. There is clear evidence that even at Crown Court level; the judiciary is not wholly familiar with the use and responsibilities inherent in such dire and draconian legislation and it should be made more difficult therefore for spurious, vexatious and politically motivated use of the legislation to come about. Damage done to individuals, families, businesses and indeed to the process of law is considerable and human rights legislation already in place make it doubtful that this Act is even lawful. Can you confirm that such changes have in fact been made and if so confirm that full consideration has been given to due process and that legislation that already removes basic rights such as habeas corpus, a right to a fair trial and civil liberties has now been made more draconian.

      They replied as follows on 15/06/2011:

      Thank you for your enquiry.
      We are unable to advise on recent case law. Following the final appeal hearings and judgements of the House of Lords at the end of July 2009, the judicial role of the House of Lords has ended. From 1 October 2009, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom assumed jurisdiction on points of law for all civil law cases in the UK and all criminal cases in England and Wales and Northern Ireland.
      For information on how the 2002 Act is being enforced you may wish to contact the Ministry of Justice:

      http://www.justice.gov.uk/

      To find out more about the Supreme Court and how to contact them please visit their website:
      http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/index.html

      We hope this information is of use.

      Information Office
      House of Lords
      London SW1A 0PW
      020 7219 3107
      http://www.parliament.uk/lords

      We’ll be writing to the Supreme Court to follow up. We will post replies here but if anyone has anything they can add to this, please post it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s