Safe Speed Forums

Just as I came in from work tonight BBC Radio News announced that the Government plans to fine the better off more for their crimes.

For example - if you have an accident and fail to stop - the maximum fine of £5,000 will increase to a whopping maximum of £15,000 which will be levied against a rich guy who fails to stop. Johnny the Crote will continue to pay a pittance of 50p from his dole money of course.

Tories have condemned this as a "blatant attack on the middle classes"

Have googled but not seen this on on-line yet - but I'd keep an eye out for the story for the band of fines they are proposing.

Hope I misheard this story - but with this mob, I fear anything is possible.

Wasn't it a Tory idea back in the dark days of Thatcher?

Happens in Holland...read a story a few years ago. I wealthy dutch driver got a £16,000 fine for speeding.

Another "stealth" tax don't you think.

In the mean tim get you house screwed by a dole scrounger and there is a good chance he will end up with a "handout" to get him back on his feet...

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

Let's apply the same logic to other sanctions than fines to see if it stacks up.

If I earn a lot, should I serve more days of community service for an offence than a low earner?

Should I be sent to prison for longer if I am wealthy?

This is confused thinking evidenced by the comment on the news where one of the proposers of this idea said "obviously people who earn more should pay more". Obviously? I don't think so.

This is all to do with improving the proportion of fines collected. High earners are more likely to pay up and if they constitute the majority of the total fine value imposed then the proportion collected will rise and the Government will trumpet this as a success. Meanwhile, it will be considered as not worth pursuing the small fines imposed on professional (and unemployed) burglars.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

That's the way to do it - go after the toffs, and leave me alone.

_________________
I stole this .sig

No, because in these examples the influence of the punishment is independent of your personal wealth. On the other hand, the influence of a fine is not independent of your personal wealth - for some people paying a 60 quid fine means having no money to spare for a week, for other people paying a 60 quid fine means having no money to spare for a couple of minutes.

Should someone be punished more severely because they're poor?

But is it fair to punish someone more severely because they have worked hard and saved rather than frittering their money away on fags, booze and gambling?

I seem to recall the Tories doing something similar in the early 90s which was scrapped after an outcry.

The result seemed to be that scrotes were getting away with negligible fines, while people in reasonable jobs but by no means wealthy were being disproportionately stung.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Oh, absolutely not, and I'm in no way a supporter of the idea of variable fining given that it would be nigh on impossible to implement it in a way that was genuinely fair (if fair is a word that can be used in association with such a scheme ). However, in principle, if you want to use financial penalties as a means of deterrence/punishment, then the penalty applied to each individual HAS to affect them all in an equal manner - it's simply no good fining, say, a premiership footballer the same amount as someone working a minimum wage job who's barely able to make ends meet, because the deterrence/punishment effect is clearly not the same.

And to reword your comment in a slightly different way - is it fair to punish someone more severely because they've inherited a fortune, rather than working hard their entire life in a series of low to middle paid jobs? Not everyone who's rich deserves to be rich, and not everyone who's poor deserves to be poor. Which is, of course, why it would be so difficult to properly implement variable fines.

So whilst I'm opposed to the idea of variable fines, I'm also opposed to the people who oppose the idea simply because they think it's unfair to penalise the wealthy more than the poor, despite the fact that the present fixed fine system penalises the poor more than it does the wealthy.

There is one historical Englishman who stands out head and shoulders above the lot of you - Robin Hood! He wouldn't put up with treating a poor old man with barely two pence to rub together the same as a premier footballer! Why should people who have helped the economy by spending their money as soon as they get it be penalised the same as hoarding moneygrubbers and overpaid prima donnas who won't part with a penny and have more than enough to pay large fines and taxes?

_________________
I stole this .sig

I think we should scrap motoring fines completely.

If the intention is to punish people there are more effective and fairer ways of doing it, be it penalty points, driving bans, community service or even imprisonment.

The problem with fines is that they will NEVER equally affect people of different income levels and life styles, so all they do is offer a massive temptation to the gov't to misuse them as a means of raising additional revenue.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

And I thought I was radical! But I see what you mean. I think we should do that. As far as I can see, the purpose is to prevent certain activity that we (as a society) agree should be discouraged. There are other disincentive systems that could be used. The birch is one that springs to mind, or the cat of nine tails. How many strokes of the cat of nine tails should one receive for (e.g.) driving without insurance?

Another possibility is an updated form of the 'stocks', which would be a sort of chair with manacles that you have to sit in and watch repeats of East Enders or Big Brother. How many hours should you have to endure for 'failure to display a valid tax disc’?

_________________
I stole this .sig

The fairest way is community service as an hour of a person's free time is pretty much of the same value regardless of the actual monetary amount earned during it. Of course this wouldn't raise any revenue and treats people fairly so it won't happen

I thought courts were supposed to take account of whether the punishment would cause unreasonable hardship anyway!

Maybe this should be in the brainstorming section, but perhaps we should we specify fines in terms of "days' net income".

That way everyone would pay the same in a truly practical sense...

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

This would not, however, be justice.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Not a bad idea, but probably a cruel and unusual punichment that would never be allowed by the EU. I'm not sure it'd be that harsh for some people. Eastenders and reality TV fans might enjoy your suggestion but be prepared to chew their own hands off to escape the History Channel.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

We should speak to Kilroy-Silk and ask UKIP to campaign for this. Brits should be allowed to use unusual punishments because we have an unusually large problem with louts of all persuasions.



In that case, manacles should be used on their heads and feet as well. Alternatively, they have a rather good “scold’s bridle” in Chester museum, and the torture chamber of Schloss Berghausen offers all manner of inventive solutions to social loutishness.

_________________
I stole this .sig

I can see the fetishists queueing up to race past Gatsos.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

If a "poor" person is fined £50 for an offence (based on the day nett income model) and a "rich" person is fined £500 for the same offence, what would happen if they both refused to pay and were sent to jail?

Would the £500 defaulter be sentenced to a longer stretch than the £50 convict? Which is the more serious crime?

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Oooh, that does get rather interesting - presumably the seriousness is proportional to the income. So billy gates could probably get around 2 hours in gaol for the full 15 grand fine, where as a tramp would get life for £50....