Safe Speed Forums

On my car's forum someone has said something like "the safety camera partnerships don't keep the money from fines any more but if you're caught by a real policeman then the police do".

I know he's right about the first bit, I'm fairly sure he's wrong about the second. Can someone advise?

No, fines levied in court go to the treasury.

Even the SCP's didn't get to "keep" the fines, they simply submitted their (often inflated ) expenses to the DfT and were reimbursed.
Once that link was broken the writing was on the wall for them - as quickly realised by Swindon, and more lately by other authorities affected by the cutbacks.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

He isn't right about the first bit. The Safety Camera Partnerships never "kept the money from fines" at any stage; they made a claim for a grant based upon activity that was paid from fines that were collected by the treasury.
In 2007 the mechanism and amount of the grant was changed when the treasury discontinued netting off and DfT introduced a system that calculated an enhancement to the annual road safety grant paid to County and Metropolitan Councils. The enhanced amount was related to the average number of annual casualties in each county based upon the years of 1994-1998 with an adjustment for annual expenditure of the partnerships in the 2005/6 financial year. The latter mechanism effectively fixing the amount paid to each county. The mechanism for granting finance to safety camera activity in each county was then in the charge of the councils with the camera enforcement activity being a separate business area that had to bid and justify their claim for funding on an annual basis to the council. If the enforcement case was compelling then they would be awarded funding, if not it would be reduced and in some cases was not awarded at all as in Swindon.
The treasury received about the same amount in fines as they paid over to the Safety Camera Program Office during netting off, up to 31 Mar 2007. The ratio of treasury income to outgoings since 1 Apr 2007 is not known to me but it will be close to netting to £0 give or take a few £million.
It is not difficult to see that the activity/income link was broken in 2007 however the link between treasury income and payments for safety camera activity is still firmly in place 2007 to 2011. It is this link that some councils may have decided to either challenge or ignore when they say words to the effect of "we want fines generated here to be returned here" as the fines collected were, in a way being granted back to councils to do with as they wished via the enhanced road safety grant. Some councils who decided to pay some or all of their enhanced grant to budgets other than road safety did it either in the knowledge that the enhancement was funded by income from speeding fines or were simply ignorant of that fact. That is entirely up to those councils to justify to their electorate. Perhaps a problem would arise when treasury income from speeding fines is reduced when its source is removed by paying for school dinner ladies instead of road safety activity through enforcement, who knows.
The Police do not keep the fines from speeding fines or any other fines; fines are collected by Her Majesty's Courts Service and sent to HM Treasury.
The man-in-the-pub seems to have been replaced by the-man-on-the-forum in cyber-world; who do you believe?
It's up to you whether you accept the explanation above or that of those who are bound to disagree with me but I may well have been involved in what I have just explained, have any of your mates?

I only tend to believe people if I have built up a relationship with them or I am aware of their credentials, both on the internet and in real life.

You do have to be careful. Even you were wrong to believe yourself on the first point.

COME IN ROGER - remember those Excell expense reports we did from the SCP accounts, some years ago ( Any kicking about to inject into the argument) . What did strike me was the variance from one SCP to another on what was claimed for various things, and how the amounts/percent of the take returned to central varied. Be very interesting to shove up a copy of some, showing how/what was claimed for. .But then ,I always read GS as a perfect Gent( he always said he was an officer ,so perhaps gent must be read in ) in the respect of honesty - so Cumbria's returns were accurate as opposed to some partnerships who could be suspected if being involved in "culinary accountancy" , in respect of returns to central Govt -unlike some others whose returns would have made certain Hon Members expenses claims look reasonable .

As for "the-man-on-the-forum in cyber-world" - I'm only recounting the info that the SCP gave out into the cyber world .

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on