RE: Speed cameras to fund police spending gap?
Saturday 7th November 2015
The suspicion speed cameras are used as much as a means of raising cash as they are safety has always been there. The official line and those who defend them have always maintained it's about the latter. But Bedfordshire Police and Crime Commissioner Olly Martins would appear to have broken rank and is openly appealing to use the county's speed cameras - specifically those on the 'smart' section of M1 - to raise as much as £1m a year to plug the hole left by government cuts to police spending.
Speed cameras to fund police spending gap?
Bedfordshire's police and crime commissioner wants M1 speed cameras to bridge funding gap ... does he mean it?
Speaking in front of the Home Affairs Committee on Tuesday and repeated in an interview earlier today on Radio 4's Today programme, Martins suggested setting the M1 cameras to a 'zero tolerance' 70mph limit at all times - not just when temporary limits are in place - could bridge a spending gap for the force. "Strict enforcement of the speed limit could raise £1m and to me that's better than losing 25 more police officers," he's reported as saying in a story on the BBC, a line repeated in this morning's interview on Today. "I'm being faced with some really quite unpalatable choices and it's a choice between this or reducing the size of the police force I'm responsible for," he told John Humphrys.
Does he mean it though? Elected to the role of Police and Crime Commissioner in 2012 as a Labour candidate, Martins was suspended from the party in August 2014 following disciplinary action related to the death of Leon Briggs in police custody. It's safe to say he remains opposed to the Conservative government's police funding policy though and, as such, his statements could be viewed as a - successful - method of playing politics and attracting publicity to his campaign for additional funding for the Bedfordshire force. Arguably a dangerous game and his line in the Today interview that the only people with anything to fear are those breaking the 70mph limit in Bedfordshire won't inspire confidence it's purely a scare tactic intended to raise awareness for his campaign.
[Sources: Olly Martins homepage; The Guardian; BBC news; Luton Today; ChooseMyPCC]
Discussion
Good old politics and policing. A great match.
Commercial sponsorship. What planet is this genius on? I can't see one person being able to do such a stupid thing with the speed cameras, either.
One thing he isn't talking rubbish about is how Beds really struggle with the numbers they have and the volume of serious crime they deal with for a small force. He needs to be thinking of what 'his' force should not be doing any more rather than looking for poor ways to raise revenue.
Commercial sponsorship. What planet is this genius on? I can't see one person being able to do such a stupid thing with the speed cameras, either.
One thing he isn't talking rubbish about is how Beds really struggle with the numbers they have and the volume of serious crime they deal with for a small force. He needs to be thinking of what 'his' force should not be doing any more rather than looking for poor ways to raise revenue.
So, in order to raise revenue for social services (ie a TAX) he plans to criminalise a large proportion of the general public? Wouldn't it be easier for Bedford CC to just, you know, TAX, that same public instead?
There are roughly 600,000 people living in bedfordshire, why not just add £1.5 to their council tax bill to pay for the police service (which a lot of people would i think readily pay to keep a proper service).
Frankly, if they go ahead and turn our laws into Cash cows, then they will rapidly find that people pay even less attention to those laws than ever before. This would be the start of a very very slippery slope imo. Perhaps they should introduce a £10k fine for murder. Pretty sure that would help pay for Police services too. Or hows about £5k for a bit of kiddy fiddling, or maybe £1k for drug possession. Where would the Chief of Police like to draw the line???
There are roughly 600,000 people living in bedfordshire, why not just add £1.5 to their council tax bill to pay for the police service (which a lot of people would i think readily pay to keep a proper service).
Frankly, if they go ahead and turn our laws into Cash cows, then they will rapidly find that people pay even less attention to those laws than ever before. This would be the start of a very very slippery slope imo. Perhaps they should introduce a £10k fine for murder. Pretty sure that would help pay for Police services too. Or hows about £5k for a bit of kiddy fiddling, or maybe £1k for drug possession. Where would the Chief of Police like to draw the line???
Harry H said:
The Chief Constable is an idiot.
It's not the CC. It's the Police and Crime Commissioner. The CC is a police officer who has been through every rank, the PCC is affiliated to a political party and voted in by (usually a very small %) of the public and has never (most likely) done any policing. "The Criminalisation of Normality"
That title really sums up the issue for me. Namely, what our Laws do is to attempt to focus the morality of the population into a set of rules by which that same population can be governed. It's not "Us and Them" it's "Us and Us".
The Law is not fixed, nor finite and certainly not absolute. It's purpose is to provide moral guidance to the population and to act when abnormal behavior, that falls outside the accepted sphere, occurs.
If you stopped 1000 people in the street and asked "Is murdering someone wrong" then i'm going to suggest that 999 of those 1000 will answer "yes".
But stop that same 1000 people and ask "Is it dangerous to exceed 70mph on the motorway" and the response would, imo, be rather different. There is no DIRECT link between the speed you are travelling and the danger to yourself and others, only that, on average, faster = more dangerous. However this is highly non linear and massively affected by other much more important factors (such as looking where you are going, or not being drunk/tired etc)
So, we have a Law that says "thou shall not exceed 70mph on the motorway" which, frankly is a Law that is well past it's time, and a Law that is flouted by something like 90% of the driving population each and every time they drive on a motorway. The Law makers know it to be out of date, that it criminalises Normality, hence most Police forces ignore the letter of the law and apply a "grey scale" filter to it. (ie only >85mph is ticketed etc).
So now, we get to the point where a Police force suggest they could use the breaking of a Law that doesn't reflect the morality of the population to gain revenue. This is blatantly flawed in so many ways it's not even funny. In fact, in order to raise a significant revenue from such a law means the Law itself is flawed (ie, the Law is meant to protect us from the abnormal, not from the normal). If everyone is breaking that law, regularly enough to raise money from it, then that tells you that the population, as a whole, have decided that the Law in question is no longer a moral objection.
Lets face it, Pre 1967 is was illegal to be Gay in the UK. Back then this "deviancy", as it was then seen by the moral compass, fell outside of normality and hence there was a law that attempted to prevent it occurring. Wind forwards 40 years and the sea change in social attitudes has been incredible, in fact there are now Laws that aim to protect people with what was once considered immoral sexual tendencies!
This tells us that the Law is not fixed, that it should reflect the needs and morality of it's subjects. Hence the Act of trying to raise revenue via Criminalisation of the (Normal) Masses is itself morally bankrupt!
In the UK we have a system to raise revenue for our governing bodies, it's called Tax. It doesn't need to make people Criminals, or to undermine the fabric of moral society to do so. If the Justice system cannot make ends meet, then they must use Tax to do so, and not to attempt to use the very powers of Justice for their own means (as we all know where that ends)
The other thing that is ridiculous is the pathetically small fines applied, typically to repeat offenders of many more serious crimes. You only have to watch one of those "Police Camera Action" style programs to see the same ner-do-well, getting Nicked by about £100ks worth of Police resource, only to be fined about 37pence in "costs". Before we make normal people criminals to pay for our Police, wouldn't it be better to, you know, actually make the Criminals pay?
That title really sums up the issue for me. Namely, what our Laws do is to attempt to focus the morality of the population into a set of rules by which that same population can be governed. It's not "Us and Them" it's "Us and Us".
The Law is not fixed, nor finite and certainly not absolute. It's purpose is to provide moral guidance to the population and to act when abnormal behavior, that falls outside the accepted sphere, occurs.
If you stopped 1000 people in the street and asked "Is murdering someone wrong" then i'm going to suggest that 999 of those 1000 will answer "yes".
But stop that same 1000 people and ask "Is it dangerous to exceed 70mph on the motorway" and the response would, imo, be rather different. There is no DIRECT link between the speed you are travelling and the danger to yourself and others, only that, on average, faster = more dangerous. However this is highly non linear and massively affected by other much more important factors (such as looking where you are going, or not being drunk/tired etc)
So, we have a Law that says "thou shall not exceed 70mph on the motorway" which, frankly is a Law that is well past it's time, and a Law that is flouted by something like 90% of the driving population each and every time they drive on a motorway. The Law makers know it to be out of date, that it criminalises Normality, hence most Police forces ignore the letter of the law and apply a "grey scale" filter to it. (ie only >85mph is ticketed etc).
So now, we get to the point where a Police force suggest they could use the breaking of a Law that doesn't reflect the morality of the population to gain revenue. This is blatantly flawed in so many ways it's not even funny. In fact, in order to raise a significant revenue from such a law means the Law itself is flawed (ie, the Law is meant to protect us from the abnormal, not from the normal). If everyone is breaking that law, regularly enough to raise money from it, then that tells you that the population, as a whole, have decided that the Law in question is no longer a moral objection.
Lets face it, Pre 1967 is was illegal to be Gay in the UK. Back then this "deviancy", as it was then seen by the moral compass, fell outside of normality and hence there was a law that attempted to prevent it occurring. Wind forwards 40 years and the sea change in social attitudes has been incredible, in fact there are now Laws that aim to protect people with what was once considered immoral sexual tendencies!
This tells us that the Law is not fixed, that it should reflect the needs and morality of it's subjects. Hence the Act of trying to raise revenue via Criminalisation of the (Normal) Masses is itself morally bankrupt!
In the UK we have a system to raise revenue for our governing bodies, it's called Tax. It doesn't need to make people Criminals, or to undermine the fabric of moral society to do so. If the Justice system cannot make ends meet, then they must use Tax to do so, and not to attempt to use the very powers of Justice for their own means (as we all know where that ends)
The other thing that is ridiculous is the pathetically small fines applied, typically to repeat offenders of many more serious crimes. You only have to watch one of those "Police Camera Action" style programs to see the same ner-do-well, getting Nicked by about £100ks worth of Police resource, only to be fined about 37pence in "costs". Before we make normal people criminals to pay for our Police, wouldn't it be better to, you know, actually make the Criminals pay?
Pete317 said:
vonhosen said:
Their primary purpose is to encourage compliance. They undoubtedly do encourage some to comply (I didn't give any figures but it's going to be somewhere between 1 & all) & it does what it's supposed to with those who don't & provides evidence of them not doing so.
It's no good asserting that they undoubtedly do, when you have zero actual evidence to back it up.tapereel said:
Speed limits are set in law.
The laws regarding speed limits are made by elected members of parliament.
The application of those laws in setting speed limits has to be done in accordance with the laws and when councils set them they are under the control of elected councillors. When trunk roads and motorways are set then this is done under the overall control of the Department for Transport and their subsidiary agencies. Again this is under the control of elected MP's.
The limits are not arbitrary, they are, in my experience of being part of setting them, very carefully considered and do not come under any of the definitions of arbitrary. Maybe your experience of setting them, if you have any, is different to mine.
adjective: arbitrary
1.
based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
"an arbitrary decision"
synonyms: capricious, whimsical, random, chance, erratic, unpredictable, inconsistent, wild, hit-or-miss, haphazard, casual; More
unmotivated, motiveless, unreasoned, unreasonable, unsupported, irrational, illogical, groundless, unjustifiable, unjustified, wanton;
discretionary, personal, subjective;
rarediscretional
"an arbitrary decision from the top"
antonyms: rational, reasoned
2.
(of power or a ruling body) unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority.
"a country under arbitrary government"
synonyms: despotic, tyrannical, tyrannous, peremptory, summary, autocratic, dictatorial, authoritarian, draconian, autarchic, anti-democratic; More
oppressive, repressive, undemocratic, illiberal;
imperious, domineering, high-handed;
absolute, uncontrolled, unlimited, unrestrained
"the arbitrary power of a prince"
antonyms: democratic, accountable
3.
Mathematics
(of a constant or other quantity) of unspecified value.
All of your post is wrong.
So how come, when the performance of car has roughly tripled in 60 years, the limit hasn't changed, even when the rest of Europe has a much more sensible limit?The laws regarding speed limits are made by elected members of parliament.
The application of those laws in setting speed limits has to be done in accordance with the laws and when councils set them they are under the control of elected councillors. When trunk roads and motorways are set then this is done under the overall control of the Department for Transport and their subsidiary agencies. Again this is under the control of elected MP's.
The limits are not arbitrary, they are, in my experience of being part of setting them, very carefully considered and do not come under any of the definitions of arbitrary. Maybe your experience of setting them, if you have any, is different to mine.
adjective: arbitrary
1.
based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
"an arbitrary decision"
synonyms: capricious, whimsical, random, chance, erratic, unpredictable, inconsistent, wild, hit-or-miss, haphazard, casual; More
unmotivated, motiveless, unreasoned, unreasonable, unsupported, irrational, illogical, groundless, unjustifiable, unjustified, wanton;
discretionary, personal, subjective;
rarediscretional
"an arbitrary decision from the top"
antonyms: rational, reasoned
2.
(of power or a ruling body) unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority.
"a country under arbitrary government"
synonyms: despotic, tyrannical, tyrannous, peremptory, summary, autocratic, dictatorial, authoritarian, draconian, autarchic, anti-democratic; More
oppressive, repressive, undemocratic, illiberal;
imperious, domineering, high-handed;
absolute, uncontrolled, unlimited, unrestrained
"the arbitrary power of a prince"
antonyms: democratic, accountable
3.
Mathematics
(of a constant or other quantity) of unspecified value.
All of your post is wrong.
They are actually worse than arbitrary, they are "historical".......
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff