Means testing fines

[Morse]

Originally Posted by Hank Silver

I have nothing but good wishes for the genuine unemployed. My issue is the blatant way the system said 'if you're an addict or on benefits we'll fine you less'. Just doesn't seem right to me.

Why are you lumping them together? Maybe I'm wrong here, but you do seem to have a problem with the unemployed.

I know quite a few people on benefits, but I neither know nor have ever met an addict.

[Hank Silver]

Originally Posted by ---Nemo---

Why a summons? I thought it was a fixed penalty option to pay, or take a course.

I wish! The story is that my lads game in the morning was cancelled at the last minute and he was upset so I said (stupidly) never mind if we're quick we can go to Sunderland for the match. It was 111am when we left and its a 3 1/2 to 4 hour drive so I was toeing it. Pulled at 99 so too fast for a fixed. Not arguing about being pulled or about the fine I will get, just about the fact that I will have to pay more than others pulled for the same offence.

Originally Posted by Morse

Why are you lumping them together? Maybe I'm wrong here, but you do seem to have a problem with the unemployed.

I know quite a few people on benefits, but I neither know nor have ever met an addict.

It's Leicestershires finest that lump them together on the same form.

[haway]

Originally Posted by Hank Silver

I wish! The story is that my lads game in the morning was cancelled at the last minute and he was upset so I said (stupidly) never mind if we're quick we can go to Sunderland for the match. It was 111am when we left and its a 3 1/2 to 4 hour drive so I was toeing it. Pulled at 99 so too fast for a fixed. Not arguing about being pulled or about the fine I will get, just about the fact that I will have to pay more than others pulled for the same offence.

Pulled at 99? Did the police actually get a speed on your car from a camera or was it just estimation (as if it was the latter you can deny it and say you were doing 70mph and they're fucked- just don't admit it!).

[---Nemo---]

Originally Posted by haway

Depends how fast you're going - over 45% above the speed limit (I THINK) and you get a summons and are looking at 6 points. Much more than that and it's probably an outright ban.

I see. Fully deserved then.

[Morse]

Originally Posted by haway

But then well done the millionaire for having enough money to be able to afford the fine.

It strikes me as the same principle as saying 'millionaires should have to pay extra for XYZ because they're rich'...

But no? Surely the entire point of a progressive taxation system is the rich pay much more to society in taxes- and then on consumption should pay the same as everyone else.

Surely the same should apply to fines? Surely if I was on the poverty line I wouldn't risk parking on a double yellow line, but if I was a billionaire I would- and no amount of fine will realistically change that.

So fines are not a fair punishment!

Being lucky enough to afford to break the law demonstrates the massive fundamental flaw in flat fines.

[The Voice Of Reason]

Originally Posted by Hank Silver

I wish! The story is that my lads game in the morning was cancelled at the last minute and he was upset so I said (stupidly) never mind if we're quick we can go to Sunderland for the match. It was 111am when we left and its a 3 1/2 to 4 hour drive so I was toeing it. Pulled at 99 so too fast for a fixed. Not arguing about being pulled or about the fine I will get, just about the fact that I will have to pay more than others pulled for the same offence.

Shouldn't be going that fast with your son in

[Paddy O'Dors]

Originally Posted by haway

But then well done the millionaire for having enough money to be able to afford the fine.

It strikes me as the same principle as saying 'millionaires should have to pay extra for XYZ because they're rich'...

But no? Surely the entire point of a progressive taxation system is the rich pay much more to society in taxes- and then on consumption should pay the same as everyone else.

Surely the same should apply to fines? Surely if I was on the poverty line I wouldn't risk parking on a double yellow line, but if I was a billionaire I would- and no amount of fine will realistically change that.

Parking on a double yellow is a fixed penalty offence, not a fine.

[Cookie]

Originally Posted by haway

But then well done the millionaire for having enough money to be able to afford the fine.

It strikes me as the same principle as saying 'millionaires should have to pay extra for XYZ because they're rich'...

But no? Surely the entire point of a progressive taxation system is the rich pay much more to society in taxes- and then on consumption should pay the same as everyone else.

Surely the same should apply to fines? Surely if I was on the poverty line I wouldn't risk parking on a double yellow line, but if I was a billionaire I would- and no amount of fine will realistically change that.

But if the fine doesn't act as a deterrent then what's the point in it?

Do we just let the millionaire drive about like a kunt, doing what he wants until he knocks a bairn down or barrels into the back of another car?

[haway]

Originally Posted by The Voice Of Reason

Shouldn't be going that fast with your son in

Depends on the situation though mate, I'd suggest.

I've been on rush hour roads where everyone's doing 60mph driving up each other's arses and I think that's much more dangerous than 100mph on an empty motorway.

[Hank Silver]

Originally Posted by The Voice Of Reason

Shouldn't be going that fast with your son in

I accept that.