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

[eldar]

10 Pence Short said:

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.

Exactly. There are some people on this thread who are either being purposely obtuse or excessively and unexpectedly stupid.

I don't think so, really. It is really pointing out that there is an incentive to be less than honest, and because of that there is a bureaucracy, to check that dishonesty, which provokes more dishonesty, and so on.

The more dishonest you are the less you have to lose, hence the growing underclass.

[Finlandia]

vonhosen said:

Finlandia said:

vonhosen said:

Finlandia said:

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 ? = Yes, on a payment plan.

EFA

No it's not, because it has to be paid within 12 months

Change the law, sorted.

No because that would be unreasonable to impose financial penalties over longer periods.

The current system is unfair and beyond logic. Councilhouse chav on benefits gets no, or minimal fines, coz dey avent gut da money to pay any fines. So they keep doing the same petty crimes over and over again, without penalty/fines.

[vonhosen]

randlemarcus said:

vonhosen said:

No because that would be unreasonable to impose financial penalties over longer periods.

Erm, what's the justification here? Their phone contracts will be 24 months, their Sky contracts 12 months, their car loans 5 years. And yet they don't whinge about those.

So which bleeding heart liberal decided that they cold only suffer for 12 months because they broke the law (and then decided that points stayed on, and thus financially affected folk for four years)

There is choice with phones, TV etc, it's not an imposition as it is with a fine.
The rich can pay off their fine there & then at the court, the poor aren't in that luxurious position.
Their points stay for the same time as yours.

[vonhosen]

Finlandia said:

vonhosen said:

Finlandia said:

vonhosen said:

Finlandia said:

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 ? = Yes, on a payment plan.

EFA

No it's not, because it has to be paid within 12 months

Change the law, sorted.

No because that would be unreasonable to impose financial penalties over longer periods.

The current system is unfair and beyond logic. Councilhouse chav on benefits gets no, or minimal fines, coz dey avent gut da money to pay any fines. So they keep doing the same petty crimes over and over again, without penalty/fines.

If they keep doing the same offences then they do end up in prison, just as the rich will.

[Broccers]

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.

[Finlandia]

vonhosen said:

randlemarcus said:

vonhosen said:

No because that would be unreasonable to impose financial penalties over longer periods.

Erm, what's the justification here? Their phone contracts will be 24 months, their Sky contracts 12 months, their car loans 5 years. And yet they don't whinge about those.

So which bleeding heart liberal decided that they cold only suffer for 12 months because they broke the law (and then decided that points stayed on, and thus financially affected folk for four years)

There is choice with phones, TV etc, it's not an imposition as it is with a fine.

You're having a larf, ain't ya?
How about don't do the crime, don't get the fine?

[vonhosen]

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.

[cs02rm0]

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.

That's because you're not a communist.

Edited by cs02rm0 on Friday 16th April 21:56

[Finlandia]

vonhosen said:

Finlandia said:

vonhosen said:

Finlandia said:

vonhosen said:

Finlandia said:

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 ? = Yes, on a payment plan.

EFA

No it's not, because it has to be paid within 12 months

Change the law, sorted.

No because that would be unreasonable to impose financial penalties over longer periods.

The current system is unfair and beyond logic. Councilhouse chav on benefits gets no, or minimal fines, coz dey avent gut da money to pay any fines. So they keep doing the same petty crimes over and over again, without penalty/fines.

If they keep doing the same offences then they do end up in prison, just as the rich will.

You mean to the the already over full prisons?

Edited by Finlandia on Friday 16th April 21:58

[vonhosen]

Finlandia said:

vonhosen said:

randlemarcus said:

vonhosen said:

No because that would be unreasonable to impose financial penalties over longer periods.

Erm, what's the justification here? Their phone contracts will be 24 months, their Sky contracts 12 months, their car loans 5 years. And yet they don't whinge about those.

So which bleeding heart liberal decided that they cold only suffer for 12 months because they broke the law (and then decided that points stayed on, and thus financially affected folk for four years)

There is choice with phones, TV etc, it's not an imposition as it is with a fine.

You're having a larf, ain't ya?
How about don't do the crime, don't get the fine?

They accept the guilt & the fine, but it has to be able to be paid within 12 months for all.

[Broccers]

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.

[vonhosen]

Finlandia said:

vonhosen said:

Finlandia said:

vonhosen said:

Finlandia said:

vonhosen said:

Finlandia said:

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 ? = Yes, on a payment plan.

EFA

No it's not, because it has to be paid within 12 months

Change the law, sorted.

No because that would be unreasonable to impose financial penalties over longer periods.

The current system is unfair and beyond logic. Councilhouse chav on benefits gets no, or minimal fines, coz dey avent gut da money to pay any fines. So they keep doing the same petty crimes over and over again, without penalty/fines.

If they keep doing the same offences then they do end up in prison, just as the rich will.

You mean to the the over full prisons?

If people keep offending your options diminish.

[Finlandia]

vonhosen said:

Finlandia said:

vonhosen said:

randlemarcus said:

vonhosen said:

No because that would be unreasonable to impose financial penalties over longer periods.

Erm, what's the justification here? Their phone contracts will be 24 months, their Sky contracts 12 months, their car loans 5 years. And yet they don't whinge about those.

So which bleeding heart liberal decided that they cold only suffer for 12 months because they broke the law (and then decided that points stayed on, and thus financially affected folk for four years)

There is choice with phones, TV etc, it's not an imposition as it is with a fine.

You're having a larf, ain't ya?
How about don't do the crime, don't get the fine?

They accept the guilt & the fine, but it has to be able to be paid within 12 months for all.

So we are back to, change the law, sorted.

[vonhosen]

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.

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

[vonhosen]

Finlandia said:

vonhosen said:

Finlandia said:

vonhosen said:

randlemarcus said:

vonhosen said:

No because that would be unreasonable to impose financial penalties over longer periods.

Erm, what's the justification here? Their phone contracts will be 24 months, their Sky contracts 12 months, their car loans 5 years. And yet they don't whinge about those.

So which bleeding heart liberal decided that they cold only suffer for 12 months because they broke the law (and then decided that points stayed on, and thus financially affected folk for four years)

There is choice with phones, TV etc, it's not an imposition as it is with a fine.

You're having a larf, ain't ya?
How about don't do the crime, don't get the fine?

They accept the guilt & the fine, but it has to be able to be paid within 12 months for all.

So we are back to, change the law, sorted.

The line is drawn somewhere & that's a reasonable line.
It's a fairer system

[Finlandia]

vonhosen said:

Finlandia said:

vonhosen said:

Finlandia said:

vonhosen said:

Finlandia said:

vonhosen said:

Finlandia said:

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 ? = Yes, on a payment plan.

EFA

No it's not, because it has to be paid within 12 months

Change the law, sorted.

No because that would be unreasonable to impose financial penalties over longer periods.

The current system is unfair and beyond logic. Councilhouse chav on benefits gets no, or minimal fines, coz dey avent gut da money to pay any fines. So they keep doing the same petty crimes over and over again, without penalty/fines.

If they keep doing the same offences then they do end up in prison, just as the rich will.

You mean to the the over full prisons?

If people keep offending your options diminish.

What was the case of a 50+ sentences burglar still out on the streets? Bibs on that thread told about 250+ sentences criminals being out roaming the streets, committing crimes, why aren't they in jail for then?

[Finlandia]

vonhosen said:

Finlandia said:

vonhosen said:

Finlandia said:

vonhosen said:

randlemarcus said:

vonhosen said:

No because that would be unreasonable to impose financial penalties over longer periods.

Erm, what's the justification here? Their phone contracts will be 24 months, their Sky contracts 12 months, their car loans 5 years. And yet they don't whinge about those.

So which bleeding heart liberal decided that they cold only suffer for 12 months because they broke the law (and then decided that points stayed on, and thus financially affected folk for four years)

There is choice with phones, TV etc, it's not an imposition as it is with a fine.

You're having a larf, ain't ya?
How about don't do the crime, don't get the fine?

They accept the guilt & the fine, but it has to be able to be paid within 12 months for all.

So we are back to, change the law, sorted.

The line is drawn somewhere & that's a reasonable line.
It's a fairer system

It's not fair in any way or form though. You don't want to receive a fine, don't do the crime, and if you do, then bloody well pay the fine in full, how ever long it takes.

[Broccers]

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.

[vonhosen]

Finlandia said:

vonhosen said:

Finlandia said:

vonhosen said:

Finlandia said:

vonhosen said:

randlemarcus said:

vonhosen said:

No because that would be unreasonable to impose financial penalties over longer periods.

Erm, what's the justification here? Their phone contracts will be 24 months, their Sky contracts 12 months, their car loans 5 years. And yet they don't whinge about those.

So which bleeding heart liberal decided that they cold only suffer for 12 months because they broke the law (and then decided that points stayed on, and thus financially affected folk for four years)

There is choice with phones, TV etc, it's not an imposition as it is with a fine.

You're having a larf, ain't ya?
How about don't do the crime, don't get the fine?

They accept the guilt & the fine, but it has to be able to be paid within 12 months for all.

So we are back to, change the law, sorted.

The line is drawn somewhere & that's a reasonable line.
It's a fairer system

It's not fair in any way or form though. You don't want to receive a fine, don't do the crime, and if you do, then bloody well pay the fine in full, how ever long it takes.

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.

[Finlandia]

vonhosen said:

Finlandia said:

vonhosen said:

Finlandia said:

vonhosen said:

Finlandia said:

vonhosen said:

randlemarcus said:

vonhosen said:

No because that would be unreasonable to impose financial penalties over longer periods.

Erm, what's the justification here? Their phone contracts will be 24 months, their Sky contracts 12 months, their car loans 5 years. And yet they don't whinge about those.

So which bleeding heart liberal decided that they cold only suffer for 12 months because they broke the law (and then decided that points stayed on, and thus financially affected folk for four years)

There is choice with phones, TV etc, it's not an imposition as it is with a fine.

You're having a larf, ain't ya?
How about don't do the crime, don't get the fine?

They accept the guilt & the fine, but it has to be able to be paid within 12 months for all.

So we are back to, change the law, sorted.

The line is drawn somewhere & that's a reasonable line.
It's a fairer system

It's not fair in any way or form though. You don't want to receive a fine, don't do the crime, and if you do, then bloody well pay the fine in full, how ever long it takes.

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.

Tough on crime etc. Hopefully the next government will have the balls to actually be tough on crime.