|
As usual without knowing the full facts it is difficult to comment.
|
|
A victim surcharge is totally inappropriate if there is no possible victim apart from himself.
|
|
|
|
Yes, of course.
The motorist will pay up whereas the proud owner of the ASBO has no resources to pay anything.
What more do you expect from a government that has lost control of crime but has equally lost control of the economy?
|
I would guess there is a lot more to the story than we are told here.
A £160 fine for not wearing a seat belt and a £15 victim surcharge?
I thought it was fines for criminal offences that carried the additional "victims surcharge" of £15 and the surcharge didn't apply to fixed penalty notices.
Clarification?
|
I had a £100 Honda runabout stolen and set on fire 10 years ago.
I was surprised to receive a letter from the Victim Support Unit (Or something) offering me counselling after my loss.
All I could think of was how much did it cost to send that letter?
"We are sorry to hear that you have been a victim of crime. Please call us on 0845 ******
if you feel depressed or traumatised etc etc."
No thanks - I would rather have £10 off next years council tax!
|
The 'victim surcharge' is plainly ridiculous and needs to be looked at by parliament (some hope).
As for the non-belt wearer being fined more than the real toerag, surely we have got used to that sort of thing and have always been used to it? Magistrates have wide latitude in sentencing, and the carphounds don't always use it wisely. We are used to that too, just as we are used to having our wallets rifled by grubby bureaucrats on the pretext that we have caused irreversible climate change.
|
|
"I thought it was fines for criminal offences that carried the additional "victims surcharge" of £15 and the surcharge didn't apply to fixed penalty notices." - He obviously went to court. When I got a speeding ticket and went to court for a minor speeding offence of which there were no human witnesses, no damage, no complainants or anything, I was fined £275 all in all including the victims surcharge.
|
|
|
It's because the non-seatbelt wearer dared to challenge the offence and went to court rather than pay a fixed penalty. Magistrates hate that at the best of times and if they think you're taking the mick then they'll ratchet the fine up even more.
Guy from our area went through a red light to get out of the way of a Police car, and then decided the safest thing to do was to proceed right through the junction. So he went to court and pleaded not guilty. He got fined £120 and also £250 costs.
|
"It's because the non-seatbelt wearer dared to challenge the offence and went to court rather than pay a fixed penalty"
Bit odd that he didn't accept the fixed penalty. After all he either was or he was not wearing a seatbelt. If he was not he's guilty (and stupid).
The only defence would be that he was wearing a belt but the police officer was lying. If the magistrate chose not to agree with him he would unlikely to be be lenient.
|
|
CG, any comment about disproportionality of punishment? No one (nobody, zero, zilch) is saying that you should be free to choose to wear a seatbelt.
|
CG, any comment about disproportionality of punishment?
The fixed penalty non endorsable fine for not wearing a seatbelt is a fairly trivial £30. Not disproportionate at all. The man chose to plead not guilty and waste police and court time. He suffered the consequence. Not a problem.
|
|
So you say but I'd still be interested to know your thoughts on the actual question being asked :)
|
"So you say but I'd still be interested to know your thoughts on the actual question being asked :)"
The question asked by HJ was
"Is it me or are they making easy money from the motorist here?"
My answer is no. The motorist could have paid a small fine of £30 . He chose not to.
Is that clear?
|
|
|
|
when i had my car stolen last year i got letters from the police, one to say how sorry they were that i was a victim of crime, one to say they had caught the scumbags and when the court hearing would be, then i got a letter explaining the sentencing,and another with the name of the scumbag but not his address
|
...he name of the scumbag but not his address...
The address will be on the magistrates' court list, which is a public document, although some courts would try to make you believe otherwise.
Had you gone to court, you would have heard the address as it is the second question the clerk asks the defendant.
The first is what is your name.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is it me or are they making easy money from the motorist here?
We're dutiful heifers who're milked dry. And then the dairy maid spits a mouthful back at us so that we might just survive.
It's patently true that motorists are routinely punished where other criminals are not, as other posters have already pointed out. Of course we are.
Now, let's take the plethora of BBC traffic police-based documentaries. And let me just add that the BBC comes to the table ready to bust "myths" that criminal behaviour doesn't attract punishment. It's in its cultural remit. I don't have a problem with officers per se, but every time one of these programmes comes on, it's worth sticking it out 'till the end to hear just how supine our authorities can be when faced with recidivist behaviour.
Take the case of two scrotes on a stolen moped. Out comes SY99 heliciopter which then follows them across footpaths, around a school, along several other footpaths to one of their homes (a marvellous getaway plan by a brilliant criminal mind). Helicopter guides ground-based police officers to the offenders and programme cuts to next incident.
At the end, Jamie Theakston says "no charges were brought..."
Most of these car chases attract virtually no punishment. I'd have thought trying to give the police the slip would make a difference but apparently not.
Meanwhile...Mrs 79 year old Doris McDonald's tax disc is approaching renewal. KEEP AN EYE ON HER.
|
To be fair to the magistrates, they have little discretion over the victim impact surcharge - it is a stealth tax.
Fines are now means tested to a limited extent, so it could be the non-seatbelt wearer is stupid enough to have worked hard to get a well-paid job to look after himself and his family.
Always best to be skint if you're going to appear in court.
|
fines are levied having regard to your income....and have been for quite some time.. and that was imposed by govt
so Mr Low Life who sponges off the rest of us anyway for all his 'essential' needs won't get much of a fine
the average motorist who does have something to show for their life, will of course be earning something, so will have to cough up more of a fine
(my above comments relating to 'sponging' are in no way intended for those genuine people who have fallen on hard times and for whom I do not begrudge one little bit of my taxes..it is the people who are just too lazy to get off their back sides and have decided to rely on the rest of us, because the welfare state has become too comfortable for them...with a dose of criminality added to provide the extras in life)
Edited by Westpig on 05/03/2009 at 18:48
|
.. and that was imposed by govt
Quite so Mr Pig. Personally speaking I cannot blame low ranking officers of the law; it doesn't do anyone any good to do that and will only encourage them to abuse their powers. Our gripe has to be with government AND the very high-ranking police officers which stream in and out of Whaitehall daily, so politicised is the police force now.
I've resolved NEVER to get shirty with a policeman/woman. Forget pride, forget rights, forget innocence; the legislators are slowly but surely hacking out thousands upon thousands of pages of statute in the mistaken belief that that's what legislators do. More and more laws governing more and more aspects of our lives. Even the Guardian's Henry Porter is on the case now. And he's going on like what a Guardian reader might, one day, have tiresomely called a "Daily Mail agenda".
|
|
|
|
If you want to see disproportionate or complete lack of punishment, watch the last
Series 2 Episode 11 shown at 8pm, 2 Mar 2009 on five
demand.five.tv/Series.aspx?seriesBaseName=PoliceIn...s
It makes me want to join Mr X's political party if he sets one up, or any other party which will reverse the damage done by the current socialists.
Edited by jbif on 05/03/2009 at 19:54
|
I think another problem, is that you can't get legal aid for motoring offenses (unless imprisonable), but you can for most other offenses.
There also seems to be much less burden of proof required for speeding etc... certainly it falls well short of 'beyond all reasonable doubt'.
Maybe this is because the Courts are named partners of the very same Safety Camera Partnerships who are trying to prosecute you rather than being neutral as they are supposed to be by law! Fancy that!
|
|
What about the regular £100 fines for no insurance? Mine costs in the region of £700 (with a clean record etc).
|
|
|
Hamsafar,
Can you provide a link/evidence for a court that is a partner in a SCP?
|
A friend who is constable had to meet his target for offences for feb.
he worked over time this past saturday (despite bieng on his rota to take the day off) to get the 4 convictions he needed.
Despite later regreting it, he and his buddie went to a known motorway bridge where the police patrol slope is fairly well hidden and got his 4 convictions.
target completed.
|
|
|
Correct HJ. A fixed penalty of 80 quid for a prem footballer is hardly the same as for someone on 100quid a week is it ?
|
|
|
Can you provide a link/evidence for a court that is a partner in a SCP?
I have abooklet produced by Warwichshire Casualty Reduction Partnership given to me as a speed awareness workshop over three years ago.
It lists the members as . . .
Warwickshire Police
Warwickshire County Council
NHS
Highways Agency
CPS
Warwickshire Fire and rescue Services
AND
Warwickshire Magistrates' Courts Service.
That enough?
|
It lists the members as . . . Warwickshire Police Warwickshire County Council NHS Highways Agency CPS Warwickshire Fire and rescue Services AND Warwickshire Magistrates' Courts Service. That enough?
The legally qualified "uniformed" judiciary are far too protective of their independence to even think about getting involved in a camera scheme and if what you say is right I'm horrified that lay justices ever thought it appropriate to do so.
The current site for the WCRP lists its members as the police and the CountyCouncil. County Magistrates Court Services were subsumed into Her Majesty's Court Service from around 2005/6.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
About five years ago I got home from work to find that my car was missing from outside my house (I then lived in the London Borough of Waltham Forest and did not have a drive so parked on the street). I asked my wife if she'd moved it, but she hadn't. I then walked to my local police station to report it stolen, and on the way there I suddenly remembered that I had parked with one wheel on the pavement. The police officer confirmed that it had been 'towed'. I asked him whether he would have asked for the same punishment to be meted out, and he said certainly not. If he was feeling in a very bad mood he may have given me a ticket, and commented that this was very harsh indeed. I went to the local council pound, handed over £200 and got the car back. Apparently my one wheel on the pavement was causing an obstruction.
My mood was not helped much when I saw a car parked on double yellow lines very near a bus stop on a busy main road a few days later. There it stayed for a fortnight till it was finally removed. As it was probably nicked or abandoned, the council had no interest in it, even though it was a major obstruction, presumably because there was no money to be made from it.
I thought of challenging my penalty, but I was about to relocate to the West Country and frankly had enough to think about. I now wish I had, as even five years later it still irritates the hell out of me. I realise that I should not have left the car with a wheel on the pavement, but the punishment doled out really did seem to me to be very disproportionate. The council clearly weighed up that I needed my car, so I'd have no option but to pay up. I just hope that my £200 went towards something useful...
|
HJ, you seem quite keen on starting the police / court / legal bashing threads lately? Is this a case of finally at end of tether or are there other motives?
Are you and Mr X one and the same person??
|
When I lived in Hamersmith I got a parking ticket for causing obstruction. Fine you might say but my van was in a dead end behind the shops over which I lived! Obstruction to what exactly? Fortunately the parking appeal office thought the same and canceled it.
|
I got a parking ticket for causing obstruction. Obstruction to what exactly? >>
By parking/stopping/waiting on that section of roadway, you were obstructing it.
Other road users could not drive over/along that stretch of road because (on your own admission) you were parked there.
Edited by drbe on 06/03/2009 at 08:46
|
|
i got a parking ticket for parking on a parking bay because there happened to be a football match on over half a mile away, there were no signs near or at the parking bay to warn me about the no parking zone as they were half a mile away too
|
|
|
|
