once saw a young copper ask the bouncers at an establishment if they knew who the driver of the aston parked outside on the double yellows was, they said yes, copper demanded they go get him and ask him to move it, 30 seconds later the duke of westminster arrived and applogised to the copper and drove the car presumably to a car park somewhere
in oxford
was funny to me anyway, dont think the young copper knew he was talking to the richest man in the country at the time
|
|
|
Reminds me of a relative of mine.
He had a very good job and used to drive a Jag which he parked where he liked and just paid the fine.
Unfortunately things went a bit wrong in life for him and now he's a delivery driver, delivering drugs to chemists shops. Has to be *very* careful where he parks now...
|
Last week a delivery driver stopped to hand a package into our office in Camden.
By the time he'd rung the bell there were two parking attendants and a ticket.
That ticket probably equates to a day's wages at least, and for stopping for 45 seconds to do his job.
He'd have been better off on the dole that day.
The congestion charge and Camden's parking people are starting to put people off delivering to our premises. How are we supposed to run a business?
|
The congestion charge and Camden's parking people are starting to put people off delivering to our premises. How are we supposed to run a business?
Move somewhere else and make sure the local council knows why you have taken your rates & employment elsewhere? If more businesses vote with their feet and move away from places that make life difficult then things will change. Or am i naive optimist?!
teabelly
|
"Or am I naive optimist?"
The answer to that one is "Yes".
|
|
A long time ago I was watching a parking warden writing a ticket for a jag parked on a double yellow just outside M&S in our small northern town. A well dressed woman came out of the store loaded with bags and said to the parking attendant "Is there a problem?" and suggested he threw awaythe ticket. Fortunately he insisted on giving it. She clearly could afford the measly fine. So the answer is yes - get the rich pink fully dice for as much as you can. Money shouldn't be able to buy relative immunity.
|
Does this extrapolate into hanging sentences for the politicians and judiciary who are supposed to set an example?
If so, I'm all for it.
Kevin...
|
|
dont forget civil servants and local govt officers
|
In reply to original post, I think the idea is fair enough in principle. A penalty needs to have a deterent effect.
However, with most driving offenses, the penalty with the deterent effect for well-off motorists is not the fine, but the penalty points, and the threat of a fine. A larger fine might have some slight deterent effect, depending on how large it was.
The other side of the coin is that the fine should not be so small for the not-so-well-off motorists (e.g. some teenagers) that it would have no deterent effect at all. I understand that this was the issue which led to widescale driving without insurance.
|
However, with most driving offenses, the penalty with the deterent effect for well-off motorists is not the fine, but the penalty points, and the threat of a fine. A larger fine might have some slight deterent effect, depending on how large it was.
How is the threat of a fine a deterrent for someone who is wealthy, if it is a derisory amount of money in relation to their wealth? In addition, parking offences carry no points at all and, as has been said in previous posts, parking fines are often ignored by wealthy people,
Add this to the fact that very wealthy people can afford the best legal brains to defend them, in the case of serious offences, like dangerous driving charges. There have been many accusations, in this forum, that the courts are powerless to do anything about serial offenders who are guilty of driving without insurance, etc. How many times, I wonder, has wealth resulted in offenders receiving token fines or sentences, or, in some cases, no punishment at all?
|
Which of the following is the purpose of the fine;
1) deterrent
2) punishment
3) revenue
4) indicative of level of guilt
Let us assume that I have £1 and you have £10m. You will be fined more for speeding then I will be fined for driving drunk as a skunk, stoned, and whilst already banned from a previous driving while off my trolley. Which would be, presumably, contrary to the seriousness of offence and level of guilt.
Are you comfortable with that ?
|
Let us assume that I have £1 and you have £10m. You will be fined more for speeding then I will be fined for driving drunk as a skunk, stoned, and whilst already banned from a previous driving while off my trolley. Which would be, presumably, contrary to the seriousness of offence and level of guilt. Are you comfortable with that ?
>>
It is obvious that something other than a fine is due in cases like that. We are dealing here with cases where fines are applicable (so I believe).
The case that I referred to earlier, about the racing motorcyclist, illustrates quite clearly the lack of impact the fine is likely to have on someone like him, even with a fine of £1000. This wasn't a case of someone exceeding the speed limit by a marginal amount, he was travelling at 130 mph, so done quite deliberately.
He pleaded that he wouldn't be able to meet his business obligations if he was banned for a lengthy period. I don't know why, as I assume he wouldn't have been banned from racing. Driving bans don't stop people from travelling, just driving. He was lucky to get away with just a 60 day ban, in my opinion. I would imagine he was able to call on good legal representation to plead his case.
|
>>as I assume he wouldn't have been banned from racing
Actually I do seem to recall reading somewhere that the two things were connected. Or maybe that was rally drivers.
|
>>as I assume he wouldn't have been banned from racing Actually I do seem to recall reading somewhere that the two things were connected. Or maybe that was rally drivers.
Yes, it is obvious really, if the rally drivers have to drive on public roads, which they often do. However, I doubt it applies to offroad racing circuits, or else how would youngsters involved in kart racing ever be allowed to compete, where they are not old enough to have a licence to drive on public roads.
|
whoops!
What I meant to write was "the deterent (i.e. the real deterent) for well-off motorists is not the fine, but the penalty points, and the threat of a BAN."
Sorry about that.
< >
Ha! Now there's an idea for a deterent that might have an impact on the plutocrats who park anywhere they like! Or at least those without very, very good lawyers :-)
|
"There have been many accusations, in this forum, that the courts are powerless to do anything about serial offenders who are guilty of driving without insurance, etc."
IIRC, most of these cases have been scroats who have no assets and no income and change address as soon as a summons is received.
I can live with someone paying "only" £60 or whatever for overstaying their time on a meter by five minutes or straying into a bus lane (although my personal opinion is that these rates are too high for something which does not cause a danger), but I cannot countenance unlicenced, uninsured drivers in unregistered cars who race around with no worries of being caught, identified or penalised.
|
but I cannot countenance unlicenced, uninsured drivers in unregistered cars who race around with no worries of being caught, identified or penalised.
>>
As I said above, something other than a fine needs to be meted out in cases like that. I am quite comfortable with that.
|
The thing is - if someone is going to have difficulty affording a fine, it seems to me they'll also have difficulty paying for insurance / road tax / MOT etc.
If you can't afford to run a car (and that includes possible fines) then you shouldn't be driving.
|
I think the debate here is whether wealthy people should be fined more in accordance with what they are able to pay, not that the low paid should be fined more than they can afford to pay.
When I was fined what was effectively two weeks wages, some 33 years ago, I could not have got to my workplace without a car. Not much choice then really.
|
the penalties for those on beneits are low but similar really need looking at
they dont get fined or if they do its 2 p a week
they get community chance i mean service and dont bother to turn up
they get summons and dont bother to turn up
they have to be really bad to lock em up and deprive their precious babys someone to look after em
where as for a working man with rent/mortgage/car to pay for legit etc a fine can be a big dent
for some of tonys underclass there really are no deterants at all
|
There is a valid issue that for the genuinely rich, a fine that is crippling to a poor offender is peanuts and no deterrent.
Do not be fooled that this is any part of HMG's thinking, however. They detest the well-off and want to remove as much cash as they can.
My concern is that HMG seem to have a very optimistic view of "income", flowing from the fact that they are all on a salary and have no experience of life as a self-employed businessman. They seem to think that issuing an invoice automatically means that you are better off by that amount, instantly. This means that the taxman's view of my income is so grossly inflated that the tax I will have paid for this 12 month period, excluding VAT and motoring taxes, amounts to about 65% of my actual cash income*. Justify that if you can. And, yes, it is correctly calculated.
Thus, while there is some justice in variable fines, I have no faith whatsoever that HMG could competently implement a sensible and fair system.
|
|
"means tested" fines will be nothing to do with some people paying less and all to do with some people paying more. And that is more revenue for the government, which is the primary motivator.
|
.My concern is that HMG seem to have a very optimistic view of "income", flowing from the fact that they are all on a salary and have no experience of life as a self-employed businessman. They seem to think that issuing an invoice automatically means that you are better off by that amount, instantly. This means that the taxman's view of my income is so grossly inflated that the tax I will have paid for this 12 month period, excluding VAT and motoring taxes, amounts to about 65% of my actual cash income*. Justify that if you can. And, yes, it is correctly calculated.
Think you need to hire a good accountant. I operate as a limited company and did the accounts three weeks ago. I'm not paying anything like that percentage of tax.
|
I believe that the point being made was not the tax rate, but taxable profit compared the cashflow.
Profits generated from invoices issued to the last day of the accounting year are included in the assessment, but the money may not come in until months later.
However the first instalment of tax is payable before the year end and the second may have to be paid before the cash from the last invoices issued has been received.
|
>>Let us assume that I have £1 and you have £10m. You will be fined more for speeding then I will be fined for driving drunk as a skunk, stoned, and whilst already banned from a previous driving while off my trolley. Which would be, presumably, contrary to the seriousness of offence and level of guilt.
Are you comfortable with that ?<<
Well Mark's on form today I must say. I think this could go a little too far. Let's say, hypothetical of course, Mark's loaded ;-) and I'm a hobo on the street... ok then - someone in a dead end job. Now lets say I go and shoot DD (sorry Dave - making it realistic) Let's say Mark shoots Alan. (Not motoring ok but I'm highlighting the idea in general). Let us also assume Dave and Alan are on the same social standing (ahem.) Same motive, same weapon etc.
Now if I get sent down for 10 years, I'm going to find it considerably difficult to get back on my feet etc than Mark who has his millions waiting for him when he gets back. Does that mean Mark should go to prison for longer than I do? Of course it doesn't.
I'm not au fait with this new system but I presume endorsable offences falls under it. I thought the very reason we had the points (cynical view) was that some people find 60 quid in their back pocket so would htink differently with the points? A fair system in terms of equality wouldn't you say?
--
Adam
|
fairness has nothing to do with it
its all to do with an extra tax by the backdoor
|
Now if I get sent down for 10 years, I'm going to find it considerably difficult to get back on my feet etc than Mark who has his millions waiting for him when he gets back. Does that mean Mark should go to prison for longer than I do? Of course it doesn't.
Loss of freedom is hardly on the same level as a fine. The loss of freedom would hit anybody in the same way. Although anyone with a lot of money would generally be able to buy better defence lawyers, maybe get a lower sentence (looking at crime in general), and would also be likely to let out of jail sooner.
However, the debate here is about fines and fines only, not the justice system in general.
|
Ok so maybe I went a little too far.
>>However, the debate here is about fines and fines only<<
And the points which surely hit everyone in the same way? Although I'm sure if you had enough money you could hire a chauffeur. Should we lock up the rich to ensure they feel the full effect of the punishment?
--
Adam
|
|
Well Adam...if Albert Pierrepoint was still in busines neither yourself or Mark would be concerned about when you got out....
|
Sadly, I'm either too young or too stupid to know who Mr. Pierrepoint is/was. I'm sure it was a tic comment though ;-)
--
Adam
|
|
he was her majestys hangman
|
Ah....I see. Perhaps best that neither of us get sent down then ;-)
--
Adam
|
What would happen to fixed penalty offences under this scheme? Would every parking/speeding offence have to go before magistrates in order to decide ability to pay or would there be other methods? If the scheme does not include fixed penalty offences wouldn't that make it even more unfair in that ability to pay would only be taken into account for some offences rather than all?
|
IMHO fixed penalties should never haver been introduced.
With a courts based system you would be procecuting a few tens of thousand deserving cases, properly evidenced and conducted, and not ten million per year speeding/parking offences.
|
I believe that the point being made was not the tax rate, but taxable profit compared the cashflow.
Spot on. "Income" tax is anything but.
Add in stamp duty and CGT paid on a "disposal" that has not yet been paid for, and suddenly I feel like Gordon's personal banker.
|
|
|
