I liked swap shop, it was like a currency for kids with crap. You know, I will swap my headless action man for a scrambler. (If it was a Ducati Scrambler, id take action man.) Seriously though, anyone wanna swap 4 concrete blocks for 'something ohlins'? who presented that? Edmunds, what's he at these days?
If there is reason to suspect a crime has been committed then by all means investigate it to determine the facts. So are we to assume that you believe we are all chattels of the state ? I prefer to see myself as a Libertarian free to do what the law does not proscribe.
Unfortunately the regulatory body, run by the Government, has pushed the position of judge, jury and executioner onto those who work in the bank, with the additional condition that if they get it wrong then they are the ones that go to prison. Nice eh?
No we are not "chattels of the state" but more to the point, no-one is above the law, not even you. Yes you are free to do what the law does not proscribe, but that does not mean it is OK for you to suppress records of whatever legal (or possibly illegal) actions you may have done. If you carry out transactions which are legitimate and above-board, why would you be so anxious to avoid leaving any audit trail? And if criminals carry out non-legitimate transactions connected with their crimes, why would you be so keen to afford them a way of avoiding leaving any audit trail? The money they are hiding might have been stolen from you, or me.
Wtf is all this bullshit? Sounds like you're threatening the poor bloke. You on the wrong forum or summat?
Perhaps it might help to clarify a few points here. 1. Say hypothetically I am in possession of a suitcase containing £1 million of banknotes, a fact which comes to the attention of the police. Have I thereby committed an offence? No, it is not an offence to possess any amount of valuables or money. 2. The police ask me where the money came from, but I provide no explanation. Does that mean I have committed an offence? No, I don't need to provide an explanation. If the police or prosecutors allege I have come by the money as a result of crime, the onus is on them to find evidence to prove it. 3. I try to pay the money into a bank account, and the bank ask where the money came from. Am I obliged to explain? Yes, I have to provide an acceptable explanation, otherwise the bank cannot lawfully accept the payment in. 4. The Inland Revenue ask me if I have received income which I have not declared for income tax; they say that the suitcase of money raises a suspicion that I may have done. Am I obliged to declare the money for tax purposes and pay the tax percentage? Yes, or else provide an acceptable explanation as to how I have come by the money without being liable for tax. It seems to me that position is pretty reasonable. What complaint does anyone have? How is this unfair to anyone?
A nice, neat set of examples of how and why anti-laundering legislation is "a good thing". Excellent. Fine. What if it is one hundred thousand pounds we are talking about? That's a fairly big sum. Ten thousand pounds? Not inconsiderable. How about £1000? £500? £300? Where is the cut-off? This, anti-laundering legislation, is of course simply one example of how the Government is zooming in on its citizens, for good or ill. It isn't happening in a vacuum - there's CCTV (if you have nothing to hide, why do you object to appearing on film?), registering for the vote, the requirement to have a bank account for a variety of different reasons, contact-less payment taking over from cash for small transactions, etc ... People aren't objecting to the Government trying to track down criminals, they object to being placed under the microscope by their own government.
Criminals are certainly objecting to the government trying to track them down - vociferously - and they definitely object to being placed under the microscope. The trouble is, how do we know which are the "criminals" and which are the "people" you refer to? Is there a defined category of "people" who cannot be "criminals", thus are exempt from scrutiny? Who would they be? Policemen? Priests? Politicians? Ducati owners?
Before I attempt to answer your question, will you answer one of mine? Are there people in society who are not wrong-doers but who do not wish to being subjected to intense scrutiny by government on general principle, or for some specific reason (such as distrust of government's motivation, competence or ability to keep such data secure)? It is OK to answer this, "I don't know" - I won't judge you.
Nobody in society wants their affairs to be subject to intense scrutiny. That goes for all wrongdoers/criminals and all non-criminals alike. So the answer to your question is yes, obviously. So what? If desiring not to be scrutinised was enough justification for exempting people from scrutiny, no wrongdoers would ever be caught. Obviously.
Is there a point when such scrutiny becomes oppressive? I don't mean for the hypothetical people we are discussing but for someone like, say, yourself? Where do you draw the line in terms of scrutiny? Insurance companies having direct, real-time access to your shopping habits, travel habits and such? Police forces with the ability to procure telemetry in real time in respect of your motorcycling activities? The ability to correlate every aspect of your life, regardless of your having a criminal record or not, with the activities of your associates, friends, loved-ones in order to demonstrate connections, at whatever remove, to organised crime, terrorism, drug-use, prank-phone-calling, busking, nude-sunbathing or feeding the pigeons in a prohibited area? Comfy?
As I just said, I thought pretty clearly, nobody likes being under scrutiny. The expression "nobody" includes me as well, and you. Obviously. So what? You seem to be proposing that a category of persons, defined in some vague way, should be exempt from legal scrutiny because they (and we) dislike it and find it uncomfortable. Try and think through the implications of this idea.
At no point have I suggested suppressing anything or avoiding leaving any audit-able trail, legal or otherwise. Do you keep a record of every single transaction that you conduct by cash ? I certainly don't. If I choose to conduct a perfectly legal trans action, and chose to use cash, what business is it of the state ? By eliminating cash that freedom is removed. To suggest that this is in some way condoning criminal activity is disingenuous.
Pete, I think you might be beating your wife, this is an activity carried out by a small but significant minority of people. Would you please arrange for her to be examined by the state because this is the only way we can be sure you have nothing to hide.
