Yikes! Plans for BIGGER Speeding Fines!
Discussion
Per "Daily Mail" as reported by Matthew Hickley and Matthew Bayley.
"Middle class motorists are facing a fresh onslaught from the Government with plans to impose bigger speeding fines on the better off!"
Ministers signalled the move by suggesting that the fines levied should be linked more closely to income "so that those who can pay more do may more" per Constitutional Affairs Secretary Lord Falconer during speech at Birmingham University.
Eh? So the scrotes who drive uninsured, untaxed can commit even more speeding offences and deaths that we all get tarnished with! What the
is that supposed to mean?
The article goes on to say that less than half of us paid our fines (Aha! But they got jail like Ernie H- right?). So the Home Office is drawing up plans to replace the fixed penalty with "day fines" whereby the size of the fine depends on your wealth!
The reporters remind us that Europe had unit fines - but scrapped them some 10 years ago. This was because a bloke got fined £1200 for dropping a crisp wrapper whilst his poorer neighbours got £75 and £1500 depending on income for driving without insurance!
As the Tory oppo Alan Duncan remarked: "Punishment should fit the crime not the wallet!"
The ABD? Brian Gregory said: It demonstrates how much this Government hates motorists! The whole issue of tackling speeding is becoming ridiculous!" (You don't say!)
The article reminded us of the other daft policies in the making: the victims' levy, the fixed penalty for driving without insurance (which will be reduced to a laughable £65 for the unemployable drongoes) - more than a parking ticket!
Is this article for real?
"Middle class motorists are facing a fresh onslaught from the Government with plans to impose bigger speeding fines on the better off!"
Ministers signalled the move by suggesting that the fines levied should be linked more closely to income "so that those who can pay more do may more" per Constitutional Affairs Secretary Lord Falconer during speech at Birmingham University.
Eh? So the scrotes who drive uninsured, untaxed can commit even more speeding offences and deaths that we all get tarnished with! What the
is that supposed to mean? The article goes on to say that less than half of us paid our fines (Aha! But they got jail like Ernie H- right?). So the Home Office is drawing up plans to replace the fixed penalty with "day fines" whereby the size of the fine depends on your wealth!
The reporters remind us that Europe had unit fines - but scrapped them some 10 years ago. This was because a bloke got fined £1200 for dropping a crisp wrapper whilst his poorer neighbours got £75 and £1500 depending on income for driving without insurance!
As the Tory oppo Alan Duncan remarked: "Punishment should fit the crime not the wallet!"
The ABD? Brian Gregory said: It demonstrates how much this Government hates motorists! The whole issue of tackling speeding is becoming ridiculous!" (You don't say!)
The article reminded us of the other daft policies in the making: the victims' levy, the fixed penalty for driving without insurance (which will be reduced to a laughable £65 for the unemployable drongoes) - more than a parking ticket!
Is this article for real?
Telegraph carried a similar story, but it was really that ALL fines are to be means tested! Basically something like two-thirds of all fines never get paid mainly because the "guilty" person can't pay. To make their stats look better, if you can pay, they will fine you a higher amount. Thus their revenue from fines is increased.
Blunkett is also encouraging the legal system to impose more fines rather than custodial sentences. So to get this straight: "Wayne" (jobless toerag) burgles a house, gets caught, and rather than prison, he gets a fine which he can't afford to pay, so the fine is written off. What exactly is the punishment for "Wayne" then? I would ask if Blunkett is blind to the realities of life, but that may be in poor taste.
Blunkett is also encouraging the legal system to impose more fines rather than custodial sentences. So to get this straight: "Wayne" (jobless toerag) burgles a house, gets caught, and rather than prison, he gets a fine which he can't afford to pay, so the fine is written off. What exactly is the punishment for "Wayne" then? I would ask if Blunkett is blind to the realities of life, but that may be in poor taste.
So, not only are we expected to support the shiftless layabouts with our income tax so they can watch Trisha while we go to work, we are now expected to support them in paying their way for any criminal activities they get caught undertaking? 
I do not have the words to describe the loathing and hatred I have for this government, the hideous, worthless mess they are making of this country and the sickeningly parasitic culture they are not merely turning a blind eye to, but are actively enouraging!
They make me want to
I do not have the words to describe the loathing and hatred I have for this government, the hideous, worthless mess they are making of this country and the sickeningly parasitic culture they are not merely turning a blind eye to, but are actively enouraging!
They make me want to
Sheepy said:
Telegraph carried a similar story, but it was really that ALL fines are to be means tested! Basically something like two-thirds of all fines never get paid mainly because the "guilty" person can't pay. To make their stats look better, if you can pay, they will fine you a higher amount. Thus their revenue from fines is increased.
Didn't the Tories introduce a scheme like this some years ago, only to drop it later on?
judas said:
I do not have the words to describe the loathing and hatred I have for this government, the hideous, worthless mess they are making of this country and the sickeningly parasitic culture they are not merely turning a blind eye to, but are actively enouraging!
They make me want to
Come the revolution, brother...
judas said:
So, not only are we expected to support the shiftless layabouts with our income tax so they can watch Trisha while we go to work, we are now expected to support them in paying their way for any criminal activities they get caught undertaking?
I do not have the words to describe the loathing and hatred I have for this government, the hideous, worthless mess they are making of this country and the sickeningly parasitic culture they are not merely turning a blind eye to, but are actively enouraging!
They make me want to
I would vote for you.......
judas said:
So, not only are we expected to support the shiftless layabouts with our income tax so they can watch Trisha while we go to work, we are now expected to support them in paying their way for any criminal activities they get caught undertaking?
I do not have the words to describe the loathing and hatred I have for this government, the hideous, worthless mess they are making of this country and the sickeningly parasitic culture they are not merely turning a blind eye to, but are actively enouraging!
They make me want to
Another example of bLiars classist (almost racist) totalitarian socialist policies. It's time he was hung drawn and quartered in PUBLIC the feckin moron......
Don said:
Didn't the Tories introduce a scheme like this some years ago, only to drop it later on?
Don't think so. Hmmmn.But the idea is familiar. I think proportional fines are used in countries like Finland - hence almost legendary speeding fines of £60K and so on...
According to the telegraph, the Tories introduced a similar scheme, but dropped it after it became obvious it was unworkable. Their scheme was to add a multiplier to fines based upon a number of "units" related to your income. The sorts of issues they faced were like two neighbours caught driving without insurance. One got £75, the other £1500.
Sheepy
"I work very hard and I live in London".....therefore I should pay the same speeding fine as some Valleys scumbag with a Nova and no job.
I see the logic completely.
It's the same sort of logic as "I drive a Porsche therefore I can get away with drinking 4 pints".
We should have a different set of rules for rich people, isn't that right? After all we suffer with our dedication and hard work and bad conditions for a better cause. Rich people deserve to pay less because they ultimately pay more with lost youth and freedom? That's right and to be quite honest, sound like a "Bush" policy.
Having a policy relating an offence to wage gives us an equal "Bank Shagging". Therefore we all suffer the same percent of loss. Looking from a different angle, perhaps the redundant ship builder should pay 0.6p for his fine relative to Beckham? If you ask me, the proposal is completely fair. Deal with it.
I do agree that uninsured, unregistered Kevs knocking lefthanded lesbian trombonists with triplets down on council estates should be shot on site.
I will be dealing with the threat of speedcameras by fitting an electromagnetic solenoid to remotely operate my swinging numberplate on my 1966 Mini (rather quick but bad brakes)!
Stu
I see the logic completely.
It's the same sort of logic as "I drive a Porsche therefore I can get away with drinking 4 pints".
We should have a different set of rules for rich people, isn't that right? After all we suffer with our dedication and hard work and bad conditions for a better cause. Rich people deserve to pay less because they ultimately pay more with lost youth and freedom? That's right and to be quite honest, sound like a "Bush" policy.
Having a policy relating an offence to wage gives us an equal "Bank Shagging". Therefore we all suffer the same percent of loss. Looking from a different angle, perhaps the redundant ship builder should pay 0.6p for his fine relative to Beckham? If you ask me, the proposal is completely fair. Deal with it.
I do agree that uninsured, unregistered Kevs knocking lefthanded lesbian trombonists with triplets down on council estates should be shot on site.
I will be dealing with the threat of speedcameras by fitting an electromagnetic solenoid to remotely operate my swinging numberplate on my 1966 Mini (rather quick but bad brakes)!
Stu
TBH, I do think that fines related to income would provide more of a deterrent for those earning more money, but it's the way and real reason for introducing these sorts of schemes that annoys me.
David Blunkett> "Oh, we're not getting enough revenue from fines, because most of the people we fine can't afford to pay"
Tony Blair> "Oh no David, the people will think we're weak on crime and think we're lying again when we say how wonderful it all is. What ever will we do?"
Gordon Brown> "Och well, why don't we just fine those can pay, larger amounts of money? The total revenue will go up, and we never need to admit that only about 30% of fines ever get paid"
Tony Blair> "Oh, what a wonderful idea Gordon. We'll find an upper-class Tory twit and make an example of him for something trivial and get the guardian to write up something showing how wonderful we are"
David Blunkett> "Tony, I've got another idea, perhaps we could change the punishments for a number of minor crimes like assault and murder, perhaps just punish them with fines. That'll free up loads of prison space for all those nasty motorists who speed everywhere"
Tony Blair> "I like it David, especially as we never have to worry about getting caught speeding as we have drivers to do the work for us. Motorists, pah, it's time we got these vermin off our streets"
David Blunkett> "Oh, we're not getting enough revenue from fines, because most of the people we fine can't afford to pay"
Tony Blair> "Oh no David, the people will think we're weak on crime and think we're lying again when we say how wonderful it all is. What ever will we do?"
Gordon Brown> "Och well, why don't we just fine those can pay, larger amounts of money? The total revenue will go up, and we never need to admit that only about 30% of fines ever get paid"
Tony Blair> "Oh, what a wonderful idea Gordon. We'll find an upper-class Tory twit and make an example of him for something trivial and get the guardian to write up something showing how wonderful we are"
David Blunkett> "Tony, I've got another idea, perhaps we could change the punishments for a number of minor crimes like assault and murder, perhaps just punish them with fines. That'll free up loads of prison space for all those nasty motorists who speed everywhere"
Tony Blair> "I like it David, especially as we never have to worry about getting caught speeding as we have drivers to do the work for us. Motorists, pah, it's time we got these vermin off our streets"
kneegrow said:
"I work very hard and I live in London".....therefore I should pay the same speeding fine as some Valleys scumbag with a Nova and no job.
I see the logic completely.
It's the same sort of logic as "I drive a Porsche therefore I can get away with drinking 4 pints".
We should have a different set of rules for rich people, isn't that right? After all we suffer with our dedication and hard work and bad conditions for a better cause. Rich people deserve to pay less because they ultimately pay more with lost youth and freedom? That's right and to be quite honest, sound like a "Bush" policy.
Having a policy relating an offence to wage gives us an equal "Bank Shagging". Therefore we all suffer the same percent of loss. Looking from a different angle, perhaps the redundant ship builder should pay 0.6p for his fine relative to Beckham? If you ask me, the proposal is completely fair. Deal with it.
So your saying that just because people have jobs and work hard supporting their family they deserve more of punishment than some youth who is a menace to society and can't hold a job down?
Maybe it would work if the "rich" could trade their points for an extra fine?
To punish someone based on their financial security is just not fair. Would you agree "rich" murderers should get an extra 5-10years over a "poor" murderer for the same crime?
kneegrow said:
"I work very hard and I live in London".....therefore I should pay the same speeding fine as some Valleys scumbag with a Nova and no job.
I see the logic completely.
It's the same sort of logic as "I drive a Porsche therefore I can get away with drinking 4 pints".
We should have a different set of rules for rich people, isn't that right? After all we suffer with our dedication and hard work and bad conditions for a better cause. Rich people deserve to pay less because they ultimately pay more with lost youth and freedom? That's right and to be quite honest, sound like a "Bush" policy.
Having a policy relating an offence to wage gives us an equal "Bank Shagging". Therefore we all suffer the same percent of loss. Looking from a different angle, perhaps the redundant ship builder should pay 0.6p for his fine relative to Beckham? If you ask me, the proposal is completely fair. Deal with it.
I do agree that uninsured, unregistered Kevs knocking lefthanded lesbian trombonists with triplets down on council estates should be shot on site.
I will be dealing with the threat of speedcameras by fitting an electromagnetic solenoid to remotely operate my swinging numberplate on my 1966 Mini (rather quick but bad brakes)!
Stu
that bloke's a nutta....OI NUTTA!
knowley said:
To punish someone based on their financial security is just not fair. Would you agree "rich" murderers should get an extra 5-10years over a "poor" murderer for the same crime?
Knowley, I think the point is that a fine may be small to one person but a huge burden to another. This almost gives the discrepancy that a rich person can afford to break the law. Take speeding for example (and ignoring for a few minutes the arguements over enforcement, points etc).
For a footballer earning £50K a week, £60 is nothing, but for a labourer earning £300 a week, £60 is 20% of his weekly pay. This means the labourer has to be more careful than a footballer as far as being caught speeding goes. If the fine was 20% of a weeks income, then the footballer would pay £10,000 for a speeding offence.
As far a jail is concerned, prison is prison. Doesn't matter if you're rich or poor, so jail times don't need any adjusting.
As to whether this sort of scheme could/would be implemented, then I sort of think that in an ideal world, it would be a good idea, but in reality it would be rather unworkable, and only the honest people would get stung for more than the minimum ammount.
So look out for it in the next labour manifesto!
If you go to court its means tested anyway.
My Dad got caught at 100mph - 2 week ban and a £500 fine.
My mate got caught at 105+ (Can't remember the exact figure) and got a month ban and a £130 fine.
Depends on the magistrates I suppose.
Whats wrong with the current system???? (It must make them plenty of money!!)
Saying that a bloke round my way drives a rolls royce and always parks on the double yellow lines cos a £30 fine is nothing to him.
My Dad got caught at 100mph - 2 week ban and a £500 fine.
My mate got caught at 105+ (Can't remember the exact figure) and got a month ban and a £130 fine.
Depends on the magistrates I suppose.
Whats wrong with the current system???? (It must make them plenty of money!!)
Saying that a bloke round my way drives a rolls royce and always parks on the double yellow lines cos a £30 fine is nothing to him.
Sheepy, thats a good point, but just because someones income is, for agruments sakes, 10 times larger it doesn't mean they have 10 times more cash!
At the end of the day the real punishment is the points, 12 of them totaled up and you can't drive.
No matter how rich or poor you are you will still loose your licence at 12 points.
So are we also saying higher income earners are perfectly happy to lose their licence frequently through totting up points because they can afford the fines?
>> Edited by knowley on Monday 2nd February 14:49
At the end of the day the real punishment is the points, 12 of them totaled up and you can't drive.
No matter how rich or poor you are you will still loose your licence at 12 points.
So are we also saying higher income earners are perfectly happy to lose their licence frequently through totting up points because they can afford the fines?
>> Edited by knowley on Monday 2nd February 14:49
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff