why is my fine so large £425 for 90 in a 70mph?

[vonhosen]

Broccers said:

vonhosen said:

Luckily you are in your own little world & it's not like that in the real world.

No, it's not, we have namby pampy people like you sticking up for the have nots, which makes me quite sick.

One minute I'm accused of being Judge Dredd etc & in the next namby pamby.

Can only happen on PH

[Broccers]

vonhosen said:

Broccers said:

vonhosen said:

Luckily you are in your own little world & it's not like that in the real world.

No, it's not, we have namby pampy people like you sticking up for the have nots, which makes me quite sick.

One minute I'm accused of being Judge Dredd etc & in the next namby pamby.

Can only happen on PH

Good to see you can laugh at yourself, we all mainly do at your daft comments.

[vonhosen]

Broccers said:

vonhosen said:

Broccers said:

vonhosen said:

Luckily you are in your own little world & it's not like that in the real world.

No, it's not, we have namby pampy people like you sticking up for the have nots, which makes me quite sick.

One minute I'm accused of being Judge Dredd etc & in the next namby pamby.

Can only happen on PH

Good to see you can laugh at yourself, we all mainly do at your daft comments.

[eldar]

vonhosen said:

I disagree, luckily our governments haven't agreed with you either.
If you impose a fine it is only fair if it is payable & within a reasonable defined time frame.

Social engineering, then. If you are feckless/smart enough to live on state handouts, the penalty is negligible in both financial and effort terms. If you work for a living it costs.

The carrot/stick balance needs adjusting.

[vonhosen]

eldar said:

vonhosen said:

I disagree, luckily our governments haven't agreed with you either.
If you impose a fine it is only fair if it is payable & within a reasonable defined time frame.

Social engineering, then. If you are feckless/smart enough to live on state handouts, the penalty is negligible in both financial and effort terms. If you work for a living it costs.

The carrot/stick balance needs adjusting.

What, you want a big stick for the poor & a golden carrot for the rich ?

[randlemarcus]

vonhosen said:

eldar said:

vonhosen said:

I disagree, luckily our governments haven't agreed with you either.
If you impose a fine it is only fair if it is payable & within a reasonable defined time frame.

Social engineering, then. If you are feckless/smart enough to live on state handouts, the penalty is negligible in both financial and effort terms. If you work for a living it costs.

The carrot/stick balance needs adjusting.

What, you want a big stick for the poor & a golden carrot for the rich ?

Fairly certain the justice system as a whole ought not to be any sort of carrot but the stick should smart equally. Oddly, I'm kind of OK with an income based fine, as I get the principle, but if it simply bounces off the feckless, what on earth is the point?

[eldar]

vonhosen said:

eldar said:

vonhosen said:

I disagree, luckily our governments haven't agreed with you either.
If you impose a fine it is only fair if it is payable & within a reasonable defined time frame.

Social engineering, then. If you are feckless/smart enough to live on state handouts, the penalty is negligible in both financial and effort terms. If you work for a living it costs.

The carrot/stick balance needs adjusting.

What, you want a big stick for the poor & a golden carrot for the rich ?

Of course, where is the revenue and profit in fining people that can't pay. Don't fine people on benefits, its just moving money.

[Brummmie]

Whatever your view, this was a £60 fine, but i committed the horrendous crime of not being able to find my paper bit..because i have not seen it for 6 years, so a £415 tax was put on this.
In this day and age paper is simply an excuse, complete and utter tax.

[vonhosen]

Brummmie said:

Whatever your view, this was a £60 fine, but i committed the horrendous crime of not being able to find my paper bit..because i have not seen it for 6 years, so a £415 tax was put on this.
In this day and age paper is simply an excuse, complete and utter tax.

No you've got it the wrong way around. It was a higher fine, but you failed to qualify for the discount available as you couldn't meet the criteria.

[Brummmie]

vonhosen said:

Brummmie said:

Whatever your view, this was a £60 fine, but i committed the horrendous crime of not being able to find my paper bit..because i have not seen it for 6 years, so a £415 tax was put on this.
In this day and age paper is simply an excuse, complete and utter tax.

No you've got it the wrong way around. It was a higher fine, but you failed to qualify for the discount available as you couldn't meet the criteria.

Like your thinking i feel so much better. just a days wages anyway...

Edited by Brummmie on Saturday 17th April 08:25

[10 Pence Short]

Broccers said:

I like to be obtuse but on this occasion I can't see why one person should pay the state more than another for the same minor motoring offence.

The imposition of the fine is a punishment designed to affect the offender, not a levy to earn some cash. If someone earning £250 a week is fined £250 it's a far harsher punishment than someone earning £2000 a week being fined the same.

How is it fair that someone of less means cannot eat for a week due to their fine when someone earning 10 times as much gets no such punishment, yet it's for the same offence?

Time and time again this forum is flooded with complaints about the justice system being inconsistent yet, when it tries to penalise people equally according to their means, it's suddenly 'communist'? You can't have it both ways.

If people are going to be fined the same amount irrespective of their means, then you have a two tier justice system that offers little if any punishment to those well off yet harshly punishes those with little spare income. And before the Daily Mail brigade cast down on those with little income as Sky TV watching, perma-pregnant parasites, not many households can easily absorb a sudden £400+ fine and not all people of limited means are there through a fault of their own.


For me to be branded a 'communist' or 'socialist' for believing in a fair justice system just seems abhorrent- especially considering my own political views are about as far from that as you can get. Maybe people should try separating the principles of capitalism/welfare state from those of the justice system?

[grumbledoak]

vonhosen said:

but you failed to qualify for the discount available as you couldn't meet the criteria.

Discounted justice. Thanks, von, you've made my morning.

[eccles]

Broccers said:

vonhosen said:

Broccers said:

I like to be obtuse but on this occasion I can't see why one person should pay the state more than another for the same minor motoring offence.

Simply because one doesn't have the ability to pay the fine.
If I haven't got a spare £500 & have no hope of getting it, then I can't give you it.

Then I send you to prison until you earn enough on your daily wage to leave.

Nice in my world.

So you send said scrote to prison, which costs you, the taxpayer a shed load of money every day in food, accommodation, etc, until they've earn't enough of their tax payer supplied prison wage, to pay the fine..... Oh yes, your world is just dandy!

[eccles]

Brummmie said:

Whatever your view, this was a £60 fine, but i committed the horrendous crime of not being able to find my paper bit..because i have not seen it for 6 years, so a £415 tax was put on this.
In this day and age paper is simply an excuse, complete and utter tax.

At the risk of sounding a bit harsh, these two part licenses have been around for quite a while now, and it's been clear for many years that if you can't find or lose the paper counterpart it's going to cost you. Either to replace it, or in an increased fine when you get nicked for speeding.

[herewego]

We've had people here before who couldn't find the paper bit. They just asked for a time extension and bought a new one. Leaving it until the last day then telling them you've lost it and done nothing about it won't go down well.

[Engineer1]

First off you failed to provide the relevant paperwork to accept the £60 FPN, then you ended up in a magistrates court, it should be common knowledge by now that the punishment for speeding imposed by a magistrate will be high there is even a list of fines for each speed band.

[vonhosen]

grumbledoak said:

vonhosen said:

but you failed to qualify for the discount available as you couldn't meet the criteria.

Discounted justice. Thanks, von, you've made my morning.

How else would you describe £60 instead of £425 (or indeed reduced costs for all parties involved) ?

[grumbledoak]

vonhosen said:

How else would you describe £60 instead of £425 (or indeed reduced costs for all parties involved) ?

A clear sign that this is more about revenue than justice.

[otolith]

vonhosen said:

otolith said:

So should sentencing generally be adjusted to equalise the consequences to the offender? A custodial sentence will cost a man with a good job and a mortgage much more than it will an unemployed man in a council house without a pot to piss in - should the sentences be adjusted accordingly?

Edited by otolith on Friday 16th April 19:32

Person A has £15k disposable income per annum.
Person B has £1k disposable income per annum.

Both are given a term of 4 months imprisonment. Is it possible for them to both serve that ? = Yes.
Both are given a £2k fine. Is it possible for them to both pay it ? = No.

So it is nothing to do with fairness of penalty and entirely to do with the practicality of extracting punishment? I'm sceptical of that, I think TPS's explanation of the motives for varying the fine are correct, that it is an attempt to equalise the impact upon the offender, and in that case I maintain that the greater impact of a custodial sentence upon someone who has more to lose ought also to be a consideration in sentencing.

[Puddenchucker]

10 Pence Short said:

If people are going to be fined the same amount irrespective of their means, then you have a two tier justice system that offers little if any punishment to those well off yet harshly punishes those with little spare income.

So by that definition the FPN system is inherently unfair, is it not?