Avon and Somerset Council Tax to pay for Speed Cameras
Discussion
I happened to be watching the local news yesterday evening when a spokesperson for the A & S Camera Partnership was interviewed about the level of damage to their Speed Cameras. It seemes that the cameras along the Bristiol to Weston Super Mare route have all been put out of action.
Anyway Mr Grumpy Boll*cks stated that the Council Tax payers of the region may have to pay for the repairs as it's costing the Partnership millions of pounds to repair/replace them and that equates to the amount of money coming in from their use. As a consequence, Council Tax may have to rise to meet the cost of repairs.
So whether or not you agree with them or whether or not you even drive a car, as a Council Tax payer, you could be funding more cameras for them to catch us with.
I wonder if the Pro-camera lobby will be happy to fund them from their OWN pockets?
Anyway Mr Grumpy Boll*cks stated that the Council Tax payers of the region may have to pay for the repairs as it's costing the Partnership millions of pounds to repair/replace them and that equates to the amount of money coming in from their use. As a consequence, Council Tax may have to rise to meet the cost of repairs.
So whether or not you agree with them or whether or not you even drive a car, as a Council Tax payer, you could be funding more cameras for them to catch us with.
I wonder if the Pro-camera lobby will be happy to fund them from their OWN pockets?
I've already paid for a cash camera in my town. Grieving relatives campaigned for one but the Manchester scam partnership said their weren't enough KSIs so my local council (Bury) stumped up the 50k. This is the same council who last week auctioned off a valuable Lowry painting from the art museum to cover some of the millions of debts that it has.
Funny, I thought they didn't cost us anything to run, as all the money generated from fines runs them... So, use the fines money to repair the scamera?
In all honesty it sounds to me like bull***t to get people not leave the cameras alone rather than damage them, as they will be "made to pay" through their council tax...
In all honesty it sounds to me like bull***t to get people not leave the cameras alone rather than damage them, as they will be "made to pay" through their council tax...
dazren said:
francisb said:
i guess they will have to make a few £60k a year bollard cleaners redundant
Quite so. Operate within their revenues, lay off some parasites and slash the marketing budget which currently includes advertising on buses.............
... and you haven't even mentioned the cost of their generous pensions...
james_j said:
dazren said:
francisb said:
i guess they will have to make a few £60k a year bollard cleaners redundant
Quite so. Operate within their revenues, lay off some parasites and slash the marketing budget which currently includes advertising on buses.............
... and you haven't even mentioned the cost of their generous pensions...
I think Puggit did.......
Don said:
puggit said:
Council taxes are already capped quite strictly - if the sandal wearers could increase them higher they would.
afterall, public sector pensions must be paid for (25% of council tax at last count...)
afterall, public sector pensions must be paid for (25% of council tax at last count...)
Und then there ist the waste on airy fairy schemes...
- like the council handbook telling staff that ist not "politically correct" to say something ist "politically correct" ... und are so condescending as to assume a woman ist offended by any word which has the word man within it.... as it "leaves them out" :rolleye: 
jasandjules said:
Funny, I thought they didn't cost us anything to run, as all the money generated from fines runs them... So, use the fines money to repair the scamera?
In all honesty it sounds to me like bull***t to get people not leave the cameras alone rather than damage them, as they will be "made to pay" through their council tax...
In all honesty it sounds to me like bull***t to get people not leave the cameras alone rather than damage them, as they will be "made to pay" through their council tax...
No.
The whole premise of hypothecation under the SCP scheme is that it is under written by the partners in the partnership, not the government. They should recover their running costs, but if they don't break even, then the partners cover the shortfall not the government.
They can't make a profit, they shouldn't make a loss.
They should break even & the benefit should be reduced speed & casualties at the camera sites.
vonhosen said:
jasandjules said:
Funny, I thought they didn't cost us anything to run, as all the money generated from fines runs them... So, use the fines money to repair the scamera?
In all honesty it sounds to me like bull***t to get people not leave the cameras alone rather than damage them, as they will be "made to pay" through their council tax...
In all honesty it sounds to me like bull***t to get people not leave the cameras alone rather than damage them, as they will be "made to pay" through their council tax...
No.
The whole premise of hypothecation under the SCP scheme is that it is under written by the partners in the partnership, not the government. They should recover their running costs, but if they don't break even, then the partners cover the shortfall not the government.
They can't make a profit, they shouldn't make a loss.
They should break even & the benefit should be reduced speed & casualties at the camera sites.
But even breaking even mean they have to rely on some blipping the cams...
They should then always run at loss .. if they are supposed to have the "benefit of reduced speed und KSI at camera sites .
It should be about improving standards so that all road users wherever they are have benefits of a safety led und better skilled road user standard.
Edited by WildCat on Tuesday 21st November 16:38
vonhosen said:
The whole premise of hypothecation under the SCP scheme is that it is under written by the partners in the partnership, not the government. They should recover their running costs, but if they don't break even, then the partners cover the shortfall not the government.
They can't make a profit, they shouldn't make a loss.
They should break even & the benefit should be reduced speed & casualties at the camera sites.
I hate to have to agree with VH (!), but it is not down to Council Tax payers to fund replacement cash cameras after the machines have been trashed by persons unknown.
I suspect that this is a bit of "spin" put out by A&S SCP to make Joe Public feel indignant about people who break their toys.
By the tone of some of the posts on this thread, they are succeeding!
rs1952 said:
vonhosen said:
The whole premise of hypothecation under the SCP scheme is that it is under written by the partners in the partnership, not the government. They should recover their running costs, but if they don't break even, then the partners cover the shortfall not the government.
They can't make a profit, they shouldn't make a loss.
They should break even & the benefit should be reduced speed & casualties at the camera sites.
I hate to have to agree with VH (!), but it is not down to Council Tax payers to fund replacement cash cameras after the machines have been trashed by persons unknown.
I suspect that this is a bit of "spin" put out by A&S SCP to make Joe Public feel indignant about people who break their toys.
By the tone of some of the posts on this thread, they are succeeding!
That's not what I said
It is down to council tax payers. The council are a major stakeholder in the SCP.
SCP defecits are to be met by the stakeholders.
Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 21st November 16:52
vonhosen said:
rs1952 said:
vonhosen said:
The whole premise of hypothecation under the SCP scheme is that it is under written by the partners in the partnership, not the government. They should recover their running costs, but if they don't break even, then the partners cover the shortfall not the government.
They can't make a profit, they shouldn't make a loss.
They should break even & the benefit should be reduced speed & casualties at the camera sites.
I hate to have to agree with VH (!), but it is not down to Council Tax payers to fund replacement cash cameras after the machines have been trashed by persons unknown.
I suspect that this is a bit of "spin" put out by A&S SCP to make Joe Public feel indignant about people who break their toys.
By the tone of some of the posts on this thread, they are succeeding!
That's not what I said
It is down to council tax payers. The council are a major stakeholder in the SCP.
SCP defecits are to be met by the stakeholders.
Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 21st November 16:52
But that does not mean they hike up council tax to pay for it or reduce bin collections to pay for it.
They fund it by foregoing the micky mouse jollies und not by further penalising the public.
esselte said:
james_j said:
dazren said:
francisb said:
i guess they will have to make a few £60k a year bollard cleaners redundant
Quite so. Operate within their revenues, lay off some parasites and slash the marketing budget which currently includes advertising on buses.............
... and you haven't even mentioned the cost of their generous pensions...
I think Puggit did.......
Oops. Oh well, worth mentioning again, plus the endemic overmanning.
vonhosen said:
That's not what I said
It is down to council tax payers. The council are a major stakeholder in the SCP.
SCP defecits are to be met by the stakeholders.
Good. So that saves me having to agree with you!
If the SCP happen to make a loss (which, given their turnover, is pretty unlikely) then the shortfall would have to be made up by the partnership as a whole (or, as you prefer to describe then in your post, the stakeholders), not just the local Council.
Even if a shortfall were to exist, any requirement by the Local Authority to contribute to it would be just that - a contribution, and not the whole cost. This of course is not the spin that is being put on the matter by the SCP.
But it wouldn't be in their best interests to tell the whole truth, would it?
rs1952 said:
vonhosen said:
That's not what I said
It is down to council tax payers. The council are a major stakeholder in the SCP.
SCP defecits are to be met by the stakeholders.
Good. So that saves me having to agree with you!
If the SCP happen to make a loss (which, given their turnover, is pretty unlikely) then the shortfall would have to be made up by the partnership as a whole (or, as you prefer to describe then in your post, the stakeholders), not just the local Council.
Even if a shortfall were to exist, any requirement by the Local Authority to contribute to it would be just that - a contribution, and not the whole cost. This of course is not the spin that is being put on the matter by the SCP.
But it wouldn't be in their best interests to tell the whole truth, would it?
Yes, but look who the stakeholders all are & how they are funded.
They are all funded by the tax payer & if they have to meet SCP shortfalls that comes from making savings on other services or collecting extra money.
vonhosen said:
rs1952 said:
vonhosen said:
That's not what I said
It is down to council tax payers. The council are a major stakeholder in the SCP.
SCP defecits are to be met by the stakeholders.
Good. So that saves me having to agree with you!
If the SCP happen to make a loss (which, given their turnover, is pretty unlikely) then the shortfall would have to be made up by the partnership as a whole (or, as you prefer to describe then in your post, the stakeholders), not just the local Council.
Even if a shortfall were to exist, any requirement by the Local Authority to contribute to it would be just that - a contribution, and not the whole cost. This of course is not the spin that is being put on the matter by the SCP.
But it wouldn't be in their best interests to tell the whole truth, would it?
Yes, but look who the stakeholders all are & how they are funded.
They are all funded by the tax payer & if they have to meet SCP shortfalls that comes from making savings on other services or collecting extra money.
If you're not careful you'll be agreeing with me!
The only "nit pick" I can find in your post is that some of the stakeholders (eg the health Authorities) are funded by national government rather than the Council Tax, but we (ie. the contributors on this thread) ought to be looking at the practicalities:-
1. The likelihood of the SCP making a loss is remote.
2. In the unlikely event that they do, part and only part of the shortfall would come from Council tax.
3. The effect on individual Council tax bills would be negligible because
a)it would be spread over all Council tax payers (and, for example, £1 million extra expenditure spread over a tax base of 500,000 taxpayers would equate to 50 pence per person per annum), and
b) Council Taxes can be capped if disproportionate increases are proposed
4. It is a standard ploy used by those in government and QUANGOS to "put the frighteners on." many of us (like me, unfortunately!) are old enough to remember the Tories capping Labour Councils in the 80s and became quite immune to their bleating "This cap will mean we have to close old peoples homes" etc, when all that ever happened was they had to knock a few quid off the budget for paper clips and everything was OK again.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff