Motorists face fines of £15 towards helping victims of domestic and sexual violence

wymondham

sjaypink wrote: »

No no no! People still not getting it!

It is not hitting 'the motorist'. It is hitting those who choose to commit offences.

As for everyone paying up- that is the idea. Those convicted in court (of a variety of offences) already pay victim surcharges. This scheme is merely extending the victim surcharge requirement to those who commit an offence but are dealt with by way of FPN rather than court action.

I'm just trying to see the link between where the money comes from and where it goes to .... seems to be unconnected?

Blackpool_Saver

wymondham wrote: »

I'm just trying to see the link between where the money comes from and where it goes to .... seems to be unconnected?

It is but it doesn't matter.

sjaypink

wymondham wrote: »

I'm just trying to see the link between where the money comes from and where it goes to .... seems to be unconnected?

Perhaps you have just thinking of the headlines this story has generated: 'the motorist to cough up for dv refuges' etc?

Fact is, the idea of a ring fenced victim support fund is that money is paid in from all those guilty of commiting an offence (any offence).

Previously victim surcharge payments could only be obtained from those who had been dealt with through the courts. The scheme is to be extended to those guilty of various offences which are dealt with via fixed penalty notices.

What about the headline: 'speeding motorists to pay £15 each to pay for support for those whose loved ones have been killed by speeding motorists'

Would that make more sense to you? Because that is what is happening- those convicted of crimes (or 'contravening the road traffic act' ;-) ) paying to help victims of crimes

Graham_Devon

sjaypink wrote: »

Huh? This news as I have read elsewhere is just that £15 is going to be added to motoring offences fines as they already stand.

I don't see how this should make any difference to the way they are issued?

Same as it always has been- if you agree to the offence you can pay up, if you disagree you can opt to have your case heard at magistrates.

I would assume it's the way the government collects such revenues.

Mostly by setting up traps. Traps on the safest roads. Traps on parts of the road they know you are more likely to be going faster due to A) the good road the good visibility C) the road is designed to be a fast road and D) other factors are contributing to your speed, such as surroundings.

Alongside these traps they have set up automated systems rather than using common sense.

With most, if not all other offences, traps are not set up. Most other more severe offences are carried out with full intention to carry them out, such as buglary, violence, drunken stupidnes, and a real person will actively use their own judgement as to what to do based on the severity.

Why not charge all of those who are drunk and disorderly this money?

Simple. They have set up the motoring system so that you are guilty and you have to prove your innocence. However, it's nigh on impossible to prove your innocence. In this case, regardless of if you are driving the car, you are guilty if you cannot prove you are innocent.

There is no other crime like this, therefore the motoring crimes, speeding being the biggest "crime" by a long margin and the biggest revenue generator. Easier to slap the fines on these people as they have no real means of contesting it. If you do try to contest it, you are faced with court costs straight away.

In the end, it's just another tax. Just like flight taxes of £10 were just another tax. No one can tell you where the money from flight tax has gone. Though it is under the umbrella of "environment" therefore ok.

sjaypink

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I would assume it's the way the government collects such revenues. .....

Evening Devon :A

I havn't read your post yet, I'll get back to you on that

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

With most, if not all other offences, traps are not set up. Most other more severe offences are carried out with full intention to carry them out, such as buglary, violence, drunken stupidnes, and a real person will actively use their own judgement as to what to do based on the severity.

because these types of crime are more expensive to prosecute and don't always get the right result. as you say the automated system is a bigger revenue generator...

but the tax revenue is needed for a number of different areas - does it matter what it's specifically used for if it goes to good use.

Graham_Devon

sjaypink wrote: »

Evening Devon :A

I havn't read your post yet, I'll get back to you on that

Evening! :question:

sjaypink

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Evening! :question:

We've been admiring you...

Graham_Devon

sjaypink wrote: »

We've been admiring you...

Have you? Who's we?

Edit seen it now!

sjaypink

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Have you? Who's we?

Erm, well (this is nothing new really) I don't actually know who they are, but I have chosen to spend the evening with them nonetheless