Thames Valley Scammers get political (£££)
Discussion
http://w3.cambridge-news.co.uk/motors/motoringmatters.asp
Camera debate hits spin city
Published on 20 February 2004
IT LOOKS like the speed camera debate is set to continue, especially following the news that the Thames Valley Safety Camera Partnership has launched itself into the political arena.
This group, made up as it is from members of the police, magistrates, local councils and the Highways Agency, are said to be spending public (ie taxpayers) money on opposing a motion put forward by Tory transport spokesman, Damian Green. It seems that the partnership has produced and sent out a glossy leaflet to MPs, beseeching them to vote against, and not sign up to, his motion - a request which arrived too late for around 60 MPs who have already confirmed their support.
Basically, the motion itself urges the Government to only situate speed cameras in places which are considered, or known, to be accident blackspots.The motion also recommends that money raised from speeding fines should be ploughed back in to make roads safer - rather than be simply added to the Government's already hefty revenue raised from motorists.
Needless to say, a rival motion has now been put forward, by Labour MP,Alice Mahon, which backs the placement of yet more cameras and, at the same time, condemn vandalism against the cameras themselves which, she claims, is being "fuelled by anti-camera articles" in the media.
With the backing, support and lobbying (some might say "political interference") of the Thames Valley Partnership,Alice Mahon's motion has now moved ahead in the race, with support coming from around 80 MPs at the last count.
According to the partnership's PR manager, Daniel Campsall:"There was no intention to dabble in party politics." He added that the group was "not abusing public funds", and further alleged that the total cost of the glossy circulars was only £29.82 in any case. Now this guy really does need to tell me where he gets his printing done! I wonder how they delivered the circulars in any case?
The postal costs to 80 MPs alone comes to nearly that amount!
John Redwood,Tory MP for Wokingham, who also received a "flier", not surprisingly had much to say on the issue, commenting:"This is an astonishing abuse of taxpayers' money. It is pure propaganda.
"They have crossed the line. It is one thing for them to explain their role in implementing Government policy. But telling MPs how to vote is going too far."
From my own perspective it seems clear that there is a vested interest involved.The Thames Valley Partnership is itself funded by the "cash for cameras" scheme - and taxpayers.With a reported 226 fixed speed cameras in the Thames Valley area alone, it stands to rake in even more cash if they can encourage MPs to support Alice Mahon's motion.To put this into some perspective for you, the number of speeding tickets issued in the Thames Valley Police area (which covers Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire) makes up approximately one-fifth of the total number of tickets issued in the whole of England and Wales combined.
The partnership made a cool £6.9 million in 2002-3 from speeding fines, and re-invested £4.2 million into the speed camera scheme.
I don't need to tell you, of course, that the Government snaffled the remaining £2.7 million for the Treasury.
Camera debate hits spin city
Published on 20 February 2004
IT LOOKS like the speed camera debate is set to continue, especially following the news that the Thames Valley Safety Camera Partnership has launched itself into the political arena.
This group, made up as it is from members of the police, magistrates, local councils and the Highways Agency, are said to be spending public (ie taxpayers) money on opposing a motion put forward by Tory transport spokesman, Damian Green. It seems that the partnership has produced and sent out a glossy leaflet to MPs, beseeching them to vote against, and not sign up to, his motion - a request which arrived too late for around 60 MPs who have already confirmed their support.
Basically, the motion itself urges the Government to only situate speed cameras in places which are considered, or known, to be accident blackspots.The motion also recommends that money raised from speeding fines should be ploughed back in to make roads safer - rather than be simply added to the Government's already hefty revenue raised from motorists.
Needless to say, a rival motion has now been put forward, by Labour MP,Alice Mahon, which backs the placement of yet more cameras and, at the same time, condemn vandalism against the cameras themselves which, she claims, is being "fuelled by anti-camera articles" in the media.
With the backing, support and lobbying (some might say "political interference") of the Thames Valley Partnership,Alice Mahon's motion has now moved ahead in the race, with support coming from around 80 MPs at the last count.
According to the partnership's PR manager, Daniel Campsall:"There was no intention to dabble in party politics." He added that the group was "not abusing public funds", and further alleged that the total cost of the glossy circulars was only £29.82 in any case. Now this guy really does need to tell me where he gets his printing done! I wonder how they delivered the circulars in any case?
The postal costs to 80 MPs alone comes to nearly that amount!
John Redwood,Tory MP for Wokingham, who also received a "flier", not surprisingly had much to say on the issue, commenting:"This is an astonishing abuse of taxpayers' money. It is pure propaganda.
"They have crossed the line. It is one thing for them to explain their role in implementing Government policy. But telling MPs how to vote is going too far."
From my own perspective it seems clear that there is a vested interest involved.The Thames Valley Partnership is itself funded by the "cash for cameras" scheme - and taxpayers.With a reported 226 fixed speed cameras in the Thames Valley area alone, it stands to rake in even more cash if they can encourage MPs to support Alice Mahon's motion.To put this into some perspective for you, the number of speeding tickets issued in the Thames Valley Police area (which covers Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire) makes up approximately one-fifth of the total number of tickets issued in the whole of England and Wales combined.
The partnership made a cool £6.9 million in 2002-3 from speeding fines, and re-invested £4.2 million into the speed camera scheme.
I don't need to tell you, of course, that the Government snaffled the remaining £2.7 million for the Treasury.
Look; they're right, you're wrong. Get over it.
Or at least, that's the way it seems.
Good editorial in one of the papers yesterday on how T B'liar launches the "Big Coversation" to listen to the electorate ... but ignores public opinion (and his party and Parliament) on every major issue: Iraq, GM foods, Top-up fees, reform of the HoL, etc., etc., etc.
Elected dictatorships are the worst kind, because they believe the public want them - despite, or possibly because, they are so protected from the real world.
Streaky
Or at least, that's the way it seems.
Good editorial in one of the papers yesterday on how T B'liar launches the "Big Coversation" to listen to the electorate ... but ignores public opinion (and his party and Parliament) on every major issue: Iraq, GM foods, Top-up fees, reform of the HoL, etc., etc., etc.
Elected dictatorships are the worst kind, because they believe the public want them - despite, or possibly because, they are so protected from the real world.
Streaky
Don said:
Lying, cheating, theiving scum.
Come the revolutions (election) brothers they'll be first up against the wall...
This in no way constitutes a death threat to even the most loathsome of scamera "partnership" employees = merely one of swift redundancy come the new administration...
I wish it were that simple Don. I will vote tory at the next election but this will be a get the scum out vote. In reality though the tories have not really declared war on the speed cameras. In some respects it would be better to encourage the lentilists to shaft us to the nth degree so we can come down hard on them ie total reversal of all the silliness that has occured over the last 10 years. I fear a tory victory will just slow the pendulumn down a little not send it back the other way.
nonegreen said:
I wish it were that simple Don. I will vote tory at the next election but this will be a get the scum out vote. In reality though the tories have not really declared war on the speed cameras. In some respects it would be better to encourage the lentilists to shaft us to the nth degree so we can come down hard on them ie total reversal of all the silliness that has occured over the last 10 years. I fear a tory victory will just slow the pendulumn down a little not send it back the other way.
You're probably right, mate. After all - even old Letwin is only talking about reducing taxes by 2% of GDP from 42 to 40 IIRC. So the parties are actually much more similar than different.
However - the "end the war on the motorist" promises are terribly attractive - even if I know it won't all be reversed.
And finally: A get the scum out vote is a vote nonetheless. Almost every vote I've ever made has been a "get the scum out" vote. I don't think I've ever found a party/candidate that I could really identify with and say: "Yes. Those are my principles,too."
Two subjects guaranteed to to get our backs up, and bank accounts emptied.Scameras and Council Tax.In march 2003 we in the Thames Valley had to Increase our Police Contribution by 45% , so that many "improvements" could take place.There will be another Increase This year.Now as we can see, Thames Vally Police Authority and the Slime scamera partners have shown they are part of the Blair Political spin and compulsive liars machine.They dont need an increase this year, they can use the £6:7 Million stolen from drivers last year.We really cannot stand the shock of even more Improvements this year.
Thames Valley Police website with all the Info you need is www.thamesvalley.police.uk The HQ is at at Oxford .
B 7 VP said:
In march 2003 we in the Thames Valley had to Increase our Police Contribution by 45%
Yes I know that is horrendous, but the North Yorkshire Police share of our Council Tax increased by 76% last time.
I think they may need to get a cell ready for me in due course, when I am convicted of refusing to pay yet another grossly excessive increase in Council Tax.
By the way, do any PHers from the Devon area have any local knowledge of the case of Miss Elizabeth Winkfield, who at the age of 83 is under serious threat on account of her Council Tax stance?
Best regards all.
Dave.
The latest I heard about Mrs Winkfield is that the council are trying to contact her because the now believe she might not have filled in her forms correctly and should never have been asked for the amount of council tax they wanted.
So, if that's the case why didn't they try and find that out BEFORE they took her to court?
So, if that's the case why didn't they try and find that out BEFORE they took her to court?
sounds like a good team up to me, or have I read it wrong? group said:
the motion itself urges the Government to only situate speed cameras in places which are considered, or known, to be accident blackspots.The motion also recommends that money raised from speeding fines should be ploughed back in to make roads safer - rather than be simply added to the Government's already hefty revenue raised from motorists.
Needless to say, a rival motion has now been put forward, by Labour MP,Alice Mahon, which backs the placement of yet more cameras
they want cameras used properly, and the revenue used properly. seems good to me.
i have been doing some "digging", to get the guidelines on where cameras are to be situated. thus far from what i have found i think that the majority of cameras are NOT located/positioned i.a.w. the available guidelines to the local authorities. unless there are guidelines which are not/have not been made public.
i think that if it could be proven that if this is the case and many cameras are not at accident black spots, close to junctions, etc, then there is no justification for them being there. so get the "rules" made available and those that have "sprouted in the wrong place" removed.
i think that if it could be proven that if this is the case and many cameras are not at accident black spots, close to junctions, etc, then there is no justification for them being there. so get the "rules" made available and those that have "sprouted in the wrong place" removed.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff