Wiltshire - Speed cameras `may be used to recoup losses'
Discussion
According to an article in the Salisbury Journal, the Wiltshire scammers could be resorting to desperate measures to recoup the losses incurred by the Folly Bottom fiasco:
When it comes to attaining the status of "Public Enemy Number One", Wiltshire SCP are clearly in a league of their own.
Salisbury Journal said:
Motorists could suffer increased targeting, if the organisation responsible for Wiltshire's speed cameras is forced to recoup losses from refunding incorrect penalties. Documents seen by the Journal show members of the Wiltshire and Swindon road safety partnership feared it could end up in deficit after the collapse of prosecutions over speeding at roadworks on the A303. And the agreement establishing the partnership states that, in any loss-making position they would "increase enforcement to avoid any shortfall".
When it comes to attaining the status of "Public Enemy Number One", Wiltshire SCP are clearly in a league of their own.
Salisbury Journal said:
And the agreement establishing the partnership states that, in any loss-making position they would "increase enforcement to avoid any shortfall".
[/quote]
Well let's hope they do and show their true colours, hopefully then the public at large will see them for the money-grabbing, self-serving, spiteful, scumbags that they are and treat these people with the contempt they deserve.
Anything to further discredit the whole industry of automated revenue collection...
BliarOut said:
So it's about safety? I think not. That is a business case, pure and simple. What's the best course of action for this information? MP time, or national media?
It's not even that either, really, it's extortion. A captive market that you can screw for however much money you want backed by the threat of law is hardly a business.
autismuk said:
It's not even that either, really, it's extortion. A captive market that you can screw for however much money you want backed by the threat of law is hardly a business.
Makes sense to me. If you have a law and 90% of the population seems to break it, does that mean A) You fine everyone for it because it will make you loads of money, or B) You look into why they are breaking it.
It seems from what they say that they are reliant on revenue from fines which means they'll never go back. If everyone stopped speeding they would *need* something else illegal to fine and prop it all up. Which surely only means more and more monitoring, more and more laws, more and more difficult to get through the day without doing something 'illegal' until there's nothing else to make illegal and a paradox ensues and the universe collapses to the size of a garden pea!
Or, they could fight falling down that route and instead think about solving the problem in a way that means people are naturally better drivers or don't speed, i.e. without having to monitor them even more, make new laws and have a dependency on fines from people do things wrong! Wouldn't that be a happier future for everybody? Or am I a hippy?
Russell
Scary thing is that refunding the fines has cost them so dearly.
It calls into question that although they don't make a profit, the DO spend what they make, and what do they spend it on.
Is there any way public can get hold of their data since they are government run, or are they not run like that?
Would be interesting to see how many holidays they get. Overtime? Office stationery budget (ie, take home goodies), pension contributions?
You can see where they spend it though when referring to the correspondence I've received from some pratnerships. They seem to be able to respond to emails within a day, and get intertwined in email conversations quite happily for a whole afternoon.
They must just employ people to sit around spreading spin for them!
Dave
It calls into question that although they don't make a profit, the DO spend what they make, and what do they spend it on.
Is there any way public can get hold of their data since they are government run, or are they not run like that?
Would be interesting to see how many holidays they get. Overtime? Office stationery budget (ie, take home goodies), pension contributions?
You can see where they spend it though when referring to the correspondence I've received from some pratnerships. They seem to be able to respond to emails within a day, and get intertwined in email conversations quite happily for a whole afternoon.
They must just employ people to sit around spreading spin for them!
Dave
IIRC, the published figures for the Essex Pratnership were very revealing. They spent a fortune on the offices and on overtime payments, transportation costs were sky high, repairs and renewals were at a level the Revenue would query for a private limited company.
This information should be in the public domain, or a request under the FoI Act should elicit the data.
All told, they are a complete shower!
This information should be in the public domain, or a request under the FoI Act should elicit the data.
All told, they are a complete shower!
They spend it at the end of the financial year, same as any public body.
If they have left over cash (i) it will be taken away and (ii) their budget next year will be reduced. So every spends up even if they don't want anything.
Our Council was caught a year or two back replacing chairs that were about a year old with new ones. This happens more or less everywhere.
If they have left over cash (i) it will be taken away and (ii) their budget next year will be reduced. So every spends up even if they don't want anything.
Our Council was caught a year or two back replacing chairs that were about a year old with new ones. This happens more or less everywhere.
Mr Whippy said:
It calls into question that although they don't make a profit, the DO spend what they make, and what do they spend it on.
I'd be very surprised if they were actually running into loss, it's probably more like they're not making as much as they'd hoped. I maybe wrong but I wouldn't trust any figures that they publish. To try and remedy the situation is somewhat ironic as supposedly their ultimate goal is surely to run at a loss when everybody obeys the limit.
rayats said:
The morale therefore is to not accept the offer of the fixed penalty and opt for court. That way the partnership will not get the money (Except of course I realise that politically the government would not let them make a loss - so there would be some fiddle of the books].
This has always been the way to beat the scameras. If everyone who received a penalty notice opted to go to court even to just plead guilty then the court system couldnt cope. It is a fundemntal right to have your day in court (well it used to be). There is no way the court system could deal with 1.8 million extra cases a year.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff