U.K. Used Anti-Terrorism Law to Seize Icelandic Bank Assets

Watch
causality
Badges: 0
#1
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#1
Does this not strike anyone as a misuse of power?

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...zyM5c&refer=uk
0
reply
Andrew22
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2
Report 12 years ago
#2
No, the UK is using powers from the 'Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001', it has nothing to do with terrorism. It just so happens that the legislation they're using is part of the act with the word 'terrorism' in the title. The act has 14 parts, 5 of which concern 'Crime and Security' and one of which is:

...
Part 2: Freezing Orders

Orders

Power to make order

(1)The Treasury may make a freezing order if the following two conditions are satisfied.
(2)The first condition is that the Treasury reasonably believe that—
(a)action to the detriment of the United Kingdom’s economy (or part of it) has been or is likely to be taken by a person or persons, or
(b)action constituting a threat to the life or property of one or more nationals of the United Kingdom or residents of the United Kingdom has been or is likely to be taken by a person or persons.
...

Source: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2001..._20010024_en_1
0
reply
tom//
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#3
Report 12 years ago
#3
Theyre always misuing the anti-terror laws. The police do it with things like stop and search.
0
reply
fleur_de_haine
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#4
Report 12 years ago
#4
Meh, I can't say it wasn't expected. Though, I do suppose it is protecting the country, in some way, from the terror of economic ruin. That's not to say that I agree with it, rather, just how I think it'll be presented.
0
reply
ChemistBoy
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#5
Report 12 years ago
#5
to be fair the 2001 act does have the words crime and security as well as anti-terrorism in the title.
0
reply
Oswy
Badges: 15
#6
Report 12 years ago
#6
As has been said, it comes under the heading of a 'security' issue.

If your home, your pension, your savings or your job rely upon the money that is in Icelandic banks being forcibly saved, then you're probably not too bothered what legislation is used.
0
reply
Kemik
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#7
Report 12 years ago
#7
It's amusing to see how much you guys just watch the headlines. You failed to notice Iceland has seized £1bn of our assets before this happened. We have every right to be aggressive.
0
reply
Puma
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#8
Report 12 years ago
#8
It was done for the good of the UK.
0
reply
Indievertigo
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#9
Report 12 years ago
#9
Has anyone read up about the cod wars? There's info on Wikipedia. Very interesting,tales of an Icelandic coast guard boat ramming a British frigate...

Not to generalise, but if that sort of blind aggression is common in Icelandic thinking - which I suspect it is, considering the unilateral action they've already taken in this financial situation - then I have no qualms with the government using whatever law necessary to protect our interests.
0
reply
Prudy
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#10
Report 12 years ago
#10
(Original post by ChemistBoy)
to be fair the 2001 act does have the words crime and security as well as anti-terrorism in the title.
:ditto:

The Act was not drafted merely to create terrorist offences and give the government powers to deal with them, for example part five establishes the crime of religiously aggravated offences. It's hardly a scandal.
0
reply
jacketpotato
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 12 years ago
#11
This ISN'T a use of anti-terrorist powers. It really does amaze me how many people don't actually read the article or bother to get a clue about what is actually going on before posting bilge like "Its a misuse of anti-terror laws"
0
reply
Ed.
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#12
Report 12 years ago
#12
It has to be done, the council and private money has to be recovered if at all possible.
0
reply
Bagration
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#13
Report 12 years ago
#13
I don't like it, but on the other hand...

That's for the Cod Wars, you arrogant *******s.
0
reply
Paxdax
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#14
Report 12 years ago
#14
Ehm. I didn't know European nations actually did that. I mean, seizing assets of foreign nationals can't do much good for the relations, can it?
0
reply
UGeNe
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#15
Report 12 years ago
#15
Where do you think American and U.K. agencies get money for their operations? They freeze accounts and use them for themselves.
0
reply
Indievertigo
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#16
Report 12 years ago
#16
(Original post by Paxdax)
Ehm. I didn't know European nations actually did that. I mean, seizing assets of foreign nationals can't do much good for the relations, can it?
When one country holds up to £10bn of a European nation's money, and then says we aint giving it back, A European nation will do everything in its power to get it back. And relations with Iceland have never really been the best, look up the Cod Wars. Nor are relations with Iceland something that is of the utmost important, other than to keep them happy enough to continue to allow us to use their land for military bases.
0
reply
Paxdax
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#17
Report 12 years ago
#17
(Original post by Indievertigo)
When one country holds up to £10bn of a European nation's money, and then says we aint giving it back, A European nation will do everything in its power to get it back. And relations with Iceland have never really been the best, look up the Cod Wars. Nor are relations with Iceland something that is of the utmost important, other than to keep them happy enough to continue to allow us to use their land for military bases.
Yes, I meant it both ways. That in this financial crisis, neighbouring nations tun on each other to grab their money.
0
reply
Indievertigo
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#18
Report 12 years ago
#18
Well Iceland isn't in the EU, but I can see what you were saying. Thing is Iceland has a history of making decisions unilaterally. A member of the EU would be thrown out of the EU I believe, if they attempted to do as Iceland did.
0
reply
bixx
Badges: 0
#19
Report 12 years ago
#19
The fact of the matter was that the Icelandic goverment had never stated it would not fulfill its obligations and follow international law. The PR blunder here might be a single local interview with a very contreversial head of the Icelandic central band where he suggested the Iceland would not secure foreign debts of the banks. You can do all your research you want, you will not find a single statement from the goverment stating this.

You have to ask yourself, would the same act have been used against a bigger more influential nations, say france, germany or the US ? I think not. Mayben in that case the UK goverment would have called for better information and talks.

Note also that assets of Kaupthing, a bank still in operation and recently been provided with new capital was seized. This was a UK regulated branch. Like other banks it had its share of problems but had just secured a lone from the goverment to strengthen its capital, just as the UK later did for their banks.

If I had money with Kaupthing I would ask why did my PM effectively put my bank out of business ? Was that it in the best interest of the UK depositors ? At least, send a deligation and get concrete information before pressing the panic button. This was done after the seize and people are now working hand in hand as they have from the start. Kaupthing wasnt given the chance of survival.

This was a huge blow to the Icelandic economy and it had enough on its plate already.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you tempted to change your firm university choice on A-level results day?

Yes, I'll try and go to a uni higher up the league tables (44)
27.67%
Yes, there is a uni that I prefer and I'll fit in better (14)
8.81%
No I am happy with my choice (89)
55.97%
I'm using Clearing when I have my exam results (12)
7.55%

Watched Threads

View All