I’m all for being tough on crime, it’s an aye from me.
I don't particularly seeing this doing anything other than wasting even more police time, there is also no burden of proof for suspicion stated and such seizures of assets certainly should not happen without approval of the courts.
Absolutely not, this is a ridiculous bill which forces even those vaguely suspected of even being at risk of being involved in gang activity/becoming a member of a gang to give up their assets and social media accounts.
As somebody currently working for the police (not a police officer), I don't think this is necessary. We already have POCA allowing seizure of items believed to be bought with money earned through criminal activity. Surely gang induced criminality would fall into this category?
Whilst assets are often used to lure young people into joining a gang, removing them won't stop the action. It'll only become an irritant rather than a tool that can actually have an effect on reducing gang involvement.
I also can't imagine the power to look through social media will be valuable for too long. As soon as word gets out, they'll switch to using programs allowing encryption, if they haven't already
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple
or Google Play
Last edited by L.Michie; 1 week ago
There's some debate over the definition of a gang, but according to the metropolitan police, 0.19% of violent crime involved someone in a known gang.
You may say that only recording known gang members is why that is so small, so lets change it to gang related, which uses the same definition for gang as this bill.
In 2017 the met police recorded about 200,000 violent crimes. A little under 400 were gang related.
Narrowing it down to just homicides and gang related crime is a higher percentage, about 15% over the last decade in our biggest city, though gang crime has been on the decline in London for about a decade.
Not only is it a bad solution, its a bad solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
Looking at the bill itself I was tempted to provide a cautious Aye because the intent and quality is there. Reading the comments though Jammy and Dayne have to their credit provided convincing arguments and as such, I cannot support this bill.
I feel this does nothing new.
In respect to the 'surrending of social media', the new 'Knife Crime Prevention Orders' go some way in doing so - and the police can simply liase with social media companies without requiring the involvement of the suspect in question.
In respect to the surrending of assets, I believe the Proceeds of Crime Act also already goes some way...
After also reading and acknowledging the comments from JD, Jarred and Dayne, I will be voting Nay.