How does this work? Yesterday it was reported that the UK government had used sections of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 to take control of assets held by Icelandic bank Landbanski in this country. Now, I guess I'm as ignorant as most people on this one in assuming that an Act referring specifically to terrorists is applicable only to individuals or organisations being charged as terrorists, but then I've seen the way the police use their powers against political protestors. Perhaps the reason lies in the opening section of the Act:

"(1) Schedule 1 (which makes provision for enabling cash which— (a) is intended to be used for the purposes of terrorism, (b) consists of resources of an organisation which is a proscribed organisation, or (c) is, or represents, property obtained through terrorism, to be forfeited in civil proceedings before a magistrates' court or (in Scotland) the sheriff) is to have effect."

"(2) The powers conferred by Schedule 1 are exercisable in relation to any cash whether or not any proceedings have been brought for an offence in connection with the cash."

The issue here isn't that the government took steps to protect British interests, it's the steps they took under the auspices of which powers that makes you stop and think. It makes it appear as though terrorism is the justification for any action the government may wish to take in regards to anything. My legalese isn't too good, but doesn't the above sound a little open-ended?

Update: there's further comment over on reddit. No one else seems to have much of a clue as to what's going on with this either.

1 original comment:

Sounds to be like Schedule 2 means Schedule 1 is just for show – they can use the act to do whatever the hell they like.
Freezing the assets of the bank in the UK is one thing. Why they have to use Anti-Terrorism legislation is another (surely there should be something in banking legisilation for this, it’s not like it’s an entirely unpredictable event).
Freezing assets of other companies just because they’re from Iceland is just plain wrong.
“In unusually aggressive terms last night, the prime minister said he was willing to use anti-terrorism legislation to freeze the assets of other Icelandic companies operating in Britain in an effort to recoup the lost money.”
The UK Government is responsible for companies doing business in the UK. They’ve allowed this to happen, take some responsibility rather than start a war.
Comment by Scott Lawson — 10 October, 2008 @ 2:14 pm

"Banks to lend you your own money. The government is to invest £500bn of your money in British banks so they can lend it back to you with interest."
from The Daily Mash

Quite. Perhaps we should spend £500,000,000,000 on something more tangible. Like the Moon! Now there's a solid asset we can buy today and hold against future resource shortfalls.

I've been doing a piece of research that has necessitated keeping up with the wonderful world of automobiles, recent news from which has been dominated by the Paris Motor Show. On seeing vehicle exteriors like these and interiors like these, most with the word 'concept' attached I was reminded of this excellent post:

"Why hasn’t Apple, the most innovative and visionary company in computing, produced a single concept product or vision in over a decade? Because, to paraphrase Jobs, real artists ship."
Kontra, Counternotions blog

I understand the desire to dream, to dream big and to share those dreams with others. However, when you ship a product based on these dreams my first reaction is always going to be to compare it to the concept. And then be disappointed.

"A commercial company’s ability to innovate is inversely proportional to its proclivity to publicly release conceptual products."
Kontra, Counternotions blog

Why would you ever want to disappoint?