Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, is considering extending a £15 surcharge for victims to those handed on-the-spot fines and fixed penalties.
Currently the extra payment is only added on to fines handed out by the courts, but any extension to fixed penalties would pave the way for millions of people including speeding drivers to be hit as well.
Surcharge - no it is a Brown Tax - another one!
|
If you can afford to run a car, you can afford to pay the increase in fines. People with the money, especially those who work hard, should give it to those of us who would rather stay in bed than bother going out to work.
And who is going to pay for the MPs who turn up in the Commons, yes it's you.
|
Interesting one, this. Coincides neatly with a substantial depletion in governmental available cash, of course. Not that I'm cynical!
But: who are the victims of speeding? Maybe in a general way you could say "everybody", if you were to take the tack that it increases risk overall. Which I think is bunk, of course. I cant think of any direct victims in this, can anyone?
tt
|
This coincides with a change in policing policy. I'm not sure if the two are related.
Two colleagues of mine were stopped for speeding last week. One was given as ASBO(!), the other a police caution. No speeding tickets were issued and no automatic fines will be levied on them.
Are the police sending the government a message? Collect your own taxes.
|
|
He'd need to be taken to Court to get an ASBO so I think some wool pulling.
|
|
And isn't accepting a "police caution" an admission of guilt and goes on your criminal record.
Edited by martint123 on 27/04/2009 at 15:50
|
|
Depends people confuse between a "Police Caution" and a finger wagging exercise - speeidng isn't a recordable offence anyway (ye)
|
|
|
|
If they were given alternative punishments to a fine and points may I suggest the police felt a fine wasn't adequate punishment?
Both an ASBO and a caution have potentially further reaching effects than paying a few quid and having a tarnished licence for a few years.
|
|
Before this gets into another moan about taxes - I've taken the liberty of contacting the Dept of Justice contact in the original explanatory notes that came out in 2007. I'm hoping that he'll post a response on here. The policy is quite clear that money from this source will be used to support Witness Support programmes across the country. I'm sure if one of you could be bothered to write to the Department they'd provide with a Freedom of Information response as to how the funds are distributed and audited.
|
Mixed messages here. PU is calling it a Witness Support Programme and Jack Straw et al are calling it Victim Support (Surcharge). This looks to me like an admission that some who give evidence in court against other people will become victims of vile retribution from the relatives of the criminals! Start as a witness and you may become a victim.
|
|
There's a little bit more to it than that. Supporting vulnerable witnesses etc. I would argue that funding these programmes actually save the tax payer a proportion of the millions lost on failed trials where victims don't turn up for various reasons, be it threats or simple fear of the system.
|
|
|
|
Before this gets into another moan about taxes - I've taken the liberty of contacting the Dept of Justice contact in the original explanatory notes that came out in 2007. I'm hoping that he'll post a response on here.
If he does it will be in his own time - this site is blocked on the MoJ's network. Making a business case to bypass the netnanny is only for masochists with time on their hands.
|
|
|
|
|
Two colleagues of mine were stopped for speeding last week. One was given as ASBO(!) the other a police caution. No speeding tickets were issued and no automatic fines will be levied on them.
If they've been stopped at the roadside. They haven't been given either an ASBO or a caution.
One's probably had a talking to and the other may have had a Sec 59 warning for driving in an anti-social manner.
|
|
|
|
|
Not having had a speeding 'ticket' in 30 years' driving I can't say it bothers me too much.
Calling it a 'tax' is being sensationalist.
|
Not having had a speeding 'ticket' in 30 years' driving I can't say it bothers me too much.
Likewise - bothers me not one bit.
You choose to drive above the speed limits - no one makes you do they?
Can't afford or don't want to pay the fine - don't commit the crime.
Agree it is still a stealth tax though. Soft targets are the easiest to knock over after all
;-)
|
|
|
OK - not a tax - legalised extortion!
|
|
|
Not having had a speeding 'ticket' in 30 years' driving I can't say it bothers me too much. Calling it a 'tax' is being sensationalist.
44.5 years driving and no speeding tickets/no points but I still regard a fine as a fine and a surcharge as a tax!
|
|
|
|
The £15 is a "Victims Surcharge" meant to be used to in a fund to compensate those who have suffered loss or injury as a result of a crime.
As speeding is a victimless crime (whether or not you agree with the principle of fining speeding per se) how can a Victim Surcharge be appropriate?
|
The treasury recieve £59 billion from motorists in the shape of taxes, vat, ved, mot's, fuel duty, tolls etc every year. basically it is the motorist who keep the country running and they pay for it. We even pay for our own CO'2 emmissions, does anyone know any other group who do. The trouble is we get bad press and poor infrastructure. This is because motorists do not use a powerful lobby, Is there even a powerful lobby for motorists.
|
|
|
|
BrainW - does the Govt build breweries with the tax it claims on beer?
|
The legal principle on which the Victim Surcharge was introduced was to establish a fund from which to compensate victims of criminals where compensation would not otherwise be available.
E.g. a mugger gets £15 slapped on top of his sentence and that goes towards financial compensation for the person he mugged.
You simply cannot use the same justification for an addition to a speeding or parking fine. There is no victim to compensate.
It's a typical example of "mission creep" where a law introduced for one specific purpose e. g. the Terrorism Act, is then used for another e.g. fly tipping.
|
|
|
|
|
