Does Anyone Seriously Think That This Family Will Lose Their House?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2340243/Family-face-losing-200-000-home-landmark-ruling-grandfathers-terror-conviction.html

Not only is /// the Crown Prosecution Service making an application under S23a of the Terrorism Act 2000 for the forfeiture of Munir Farooqi’s home... on the basis that it has been used for the purposes of terrorism. ///

Where 'The court will consider the effect of any order on the family members.'

Also the accused is making a High Court appeal next month against his conviction.

But then if all else fails there is always the European Convention of Human Rights to fall back on.

[andy-hughes]

Hopefully not.

In spite of the Mail's usual efforts to stir up fear and loathing, only one member of this family has been tried and convicted of any offence.

The rest of the family remain innocent and as yet - uncharged.

So why should they lose their home?

For having a big house?

For wearing burkas?

We await the Mail's ruling on this one.

[FredPuli43]

I very much doubt whether this consequence was intended by Parliament. The section, as amended by s34 of the Counter-terrorism Act 2008, reads very much like the provisions for the forfeiture of property used for the purposes of crime. We do not normally think of seizing a burglar's house because he'd planned , with his accomplices, his various burglaries when in it. We might think of seizing the getaway vehicle perhaps.

It seems an ill-founded application.

[Octavius]

"before any decision is made, the forfeiture application is considered by the court and the family will be given an opportunity to be heard."

I think I can wait for that before speculating. Not sure I'd pay £200k for that house, but its nice to know the value, and light relief from the burkhas with Kate Upton skimpy bikini shots to the right. Nice touch.

[Kevink]

If it' so unlikely, one has to wonder why the CPS is wasting taxpayer's money on pursuing it.

[razza]

If its been used for criminal purposes YES

[emmie]

if it was proved to be then yes, hardly likely to happen though. They would have to be rehoused elsewhere.

[FredPuli43]

But that's the question, razza. How are we to interpret "for the purposes of terrorism"? It could be argued that any place, from a bus stop to a pub to a public park, where people meet to discuss, or one person alone plots, terrorism, is used "for the purposes of terrorism". That sounds absurd and it's why we don't spend our time forfeiting burglars' houses.

The section is surely aimed at property specifically intended and substantially used for the purpose. Thus, a printing press used to print terrorist literature, or to rally terrorists to action, is used or intended for the purpose of terrorism and is therefore forfeit. A house occupied by the man and his family is not and it's hard to imagine how any house, one occupied by him alone, for example, could ever be.

[emmie]

if you use a computer in the home to generate hate e mails, videos, or print off literature likely to cause religious hatred, that would surely be pertinent.

[VHG]

Can anyone tell me the slightest advantage to this country to having people like this here.

100 years ago women went to prison and some even died fighting for the vote and women's rights.

And now we have women walking round the streets of the UK dressed in these awful outfits, probably under the pressure from the man of the house.

Why one earth cant we be stricter who we let in this country.

So many news items on the TV news, internet, newspapers etc. seem to be "problems" (often crimes) caused by people who are immigrants or asylum seekers.

What did we (as a country) do to deserve this.

Just an example from todays Birmingham Mail

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/100-foreigners-west-midlands-murder-4308142

[Octavius]

" If its been used for criminal purposes YES " "for the purposes of terrorism"

Not to be flippant, but couldn't 10 DS and The Whitehouse also be in contention? I'm sure this is what extremists would claim.

[anotheoldgit]

andy-hughes

I would have though you better than to blame the Daily Mail for stirring up fear and loathing, they are just reporting the facts, as regards the proposed enforcement of a new power to forfeit residential premises in these circumstances under the Counter Terrorism Act 2008.

Incidentally this was initially an Independent report, please note the following:

/// The house in Longsight, Manchester, is home to three generations of the Farooqi family, including two children, according to The Independent. ///

The family seem quite happy to pose for the photos, most likely taken by the Daily Mail photographer 'to stir up fear and loathing',

If this is more fitting to your appetite, here is the Independence's view on things, note their headline to 'stir up fear and loathing' not against the family this time, but against the authorities, how very strange, but perfectly predictable.

/// FAMILY'S 'TORTURE' 'Demonised' relatives say their children will end up on the street because of grandfather’s conviction. ///

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/familys-torture-as-they-face-losing-home-under-antiterror-law-8654524.html?origin=internalSearch

[FredPuli43]

Happily, Octavius, the law is the Counter-terrorism Act. When the extremists write the laws, they'll have an act titled to suit their views :)

[Octavius]

I rather think, like Chuck Norris they act outside of the law.

[emmie]

Octavius, Neither No 10 DS or the White House speaks for me, i prefer to keep my own counsel, and i didn't bomb anyone, nor invade someone's country, that idiot decision was the politicians, and who is made to pay, us and those caught up in the aftermath in those countries.

[emmie]

VHG, were any of the people in the house born here, if so they have a perfect right to live as they choose. I dislike seeing women wearing the Burkha and Veil, i make no secret of that, and seeing as how more and more women are doing so, it's not going to go away or be banned.

[Ric.ror]

If you read on it is clear that he does not own the house it is part of the wife and daughters family letting business - but as they own another two properties there does not seem any chance they will be 'homeless'

[emmie]

then they could move, of course those others properties are probably let, so they would have to move them out.

[FredPuli43]

No, em, but the point is that we shouldn't allow any foreigners, whatever their religion or origin, to live here. That way we only have our own murderers, rapists, nurses, doctors, fruit-pickers etc to worry about :)

[emmie]

really, funny... not

[anotheoldgit]

em10

/// if it was proved to be then yes, hardly likely to happen though. They would have to be rehoused elsewhere. ///

Perhaps then they would know what it is like to be a tenant rather than a landlord.

/// Mrs Farooqi, 49, said the family were devastated by her husband's conviction and were now worried they would be split up if the £200,000 house were seized. She said they also face losing two other properties, which form the basis of a family lettings business, to cover legal costs. ///

Others like Abu Qatada manage to afford legal costs without losing their homes.