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

bristol_pilot

John Thornhill, chairman of the Magistrates' Association...

"There's £40m of unpaid compensation so if you were a victim and awarded compensation, the chances of receiving that compensation are very, very low," he said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8437440.stm

sjaypink

bristol_pilot wrote: »

John Thornhill, chairman of the Magistrates' Association...

"There's £40m of unpaid compensation so if you were a victim and awarded compensation, the chances of receiving that compensation are very, very low," he said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8437440.stm

Hes talking about something different. That is the money -compensation- that the guilty party is ordered to pay direct to the victim. There is always a backlog in these payments because many of the perpetrators are on benefits/ low incomes with no savings and so there is a legal maximum the courts can take off them (eg £5 per week), no matter how many hundreds of pounds the actual compensation order amounts to.

What Mr Thornhill is saying is that the victim surcharge payments, which currently are used to fund 'several victim services including Victim Support, the Victims Fund and the Crown Prosecution Service's witness care', should be paid into the individual compo pot instead.

I personally don't agree with this. I think improved victim services for all are more beneficial than widly varying individual payouts for individuals

Gorgeous_George

Slightly off-topic but it amused me.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8323997.stm

GG

Gorgeous_George

I believe firmly that speeding tickets are issued to raise revenue and it has very little, if anything, to do with road safety.

All I ask is that we all make a New year's resolution not to speed at all, ever. The accident rate will increase but you will really annoy the local Police (who's prosecution rate will collapse) and the Government (who will lose the revenue).

Get yourself a TomTom with safety camera alerts - it will help reduce the number of drivers who inadvertantly break the limit.

GG

wolvoman

sjaypink wrote: »

Well, if they were innocent, they're now guilty in my eyes for being damn lazy
Thats half the problem in this country- all [STRIKE]moan[/STRIKE] talk, no action

What about the recent govt proposal to NOT pay legal fees for those found INNOCENT of motoring offences?

Who in their right mind will take a case to court if they know it will cost them more than the £60 fine (or £75 with this silly surcharge)?

Arcaine

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

I believe firmly that speeding tickets are issued to raise revenue and it has very little, if anything, to do with road safety.

All I ask is that we all make a New year's resolution not to speed at all, ever. The accident rate will increase but you will really annoy the local Police (who's prosecution rate will collapse) and the Government (who will lose the revenue).

Get yourself a TomTom with safety camera alerts - it will help reduce the number of drivers who inadvertantly break the limit.

GG

Why would the accident rate increase if no one speeded?

sjaypink

wolvoman wrote: »

What about the recent govt proposal to NOT pay legal fees for those found INNOCENT of motoring offences?

Who in their right mind will take a case to court if they know it will cost them more than the £60 fine (or £75 with this silly surcharge)?

If you are referring to what I think you are, it not a proposal, it is already now in force, although your take on it is wrong.

Legal fees ARE still paid, although the refunds are now capped to the legal aid rate of £60 per hour.

Part of the thinking behing this is so that rich offenders can not employ high flying legals to spend weeks searching for technicalties to get them off blatant speeding or drink driving offences which leads to, A, guilty persons getting off scott free, and B, the tax payer paying for the best lawyers in the country to live a champagne lifestyle for choosing to defend wealthy cowards :rolleyes:

It is perfectly possible to defend yourself successfully for most motoring offences- I have on a few occasions.

Gorgeous_George

Arcaine wrote: »

Why would the accident rate increase if no one speeded?

I'm pleased that you asked.

In order to maintain your speed within the limit (30mph, not 31 or 32mph) a driver needs to focus more on their speedometer than they would otherwise need to. This inevitably means that they spend less time focussing on the road and pavements ahead. I'm not talking about the difference bewteen 30mph and 40mph in a 30mph zone. I was prosecuted for 35mph and I have heard of people being fines for 33mph (the 10% +1 used to be the safe guidelines issued by ACPO bt they were only ever guidelines).

Other drivers get impatient. I've driven at 30mph and been overtaken by frustrated motorists - sometimes on double white lines and corners.

If I drive 330 miles to visit my parents I could stick to all the limits - even on motorways. The journey would take longer and when I reach the smaller roads around my parents home I'd be that bit more tired. I'd get there when it is dark. Driving at 70mph on motorways can be boring - allowing the driver's reactions to fade.

Most accidents are not caused by speed alone. Driving too close at 70mph is far more dangerous.

I'm not saying that there should not be speed limits - that would be daft. I just ask to be treated with respect by the Police. If 30 years without an accident, a driver with 20/20 vision, no previous convictions, road and weather conditions perfect, a well maintained car and a fit driver cannot mitigate a 35mph innocent mistake then there is no hope and I have less respect for the law.

A few years after my crime an elderly lady failed to notice the traffic queuing ahead of her. She drove into my wife's car, writing the car off and damaging my wife's neck. The police arrived and very helpfully breathalysed both driver (both negative). Nothing to punish they left. Was the elderly lady fined and awarded points on her licence? No.

So, I can only that my speeding at 35mph was clearly more dangerous and worthy of punishment than carelessly driving into another car at 50mph.

GG

Bootski

Well I got done for speeding back end of 08'. Driving through a well known speed camera city area in Herts, 5 cameras within a half a mile - so was shocked as I knew the area well. Like posters have said, I just plead guilty though I knew I wasn't speeding (read the ticket properly months later - hand held camera (yeah! hiding behing the bushes, no sign - nothing))

I couldn't be bothered with the fight, cost of defending myself, nor the cost of getting to court which would have cost me more than £15!

I was charged this £15 back then. I offered to pay the fine of £60 in installments and was told couldn't and it had to go to court.

Plead guilty, payed in instalments anyway -£10 / 2 weeks

Very angry then and moreso now as if this is new news, should I have paid it at all back then.

Arrgh! But they know it's easier for people to "just pay up" like I did.

Gorgeous_George

How much is a digital tachograph? I'm sure many people are fined when they are nor speeding. Maybe digital tachographs shpiuld be fitted to all new cars.

There was a time when I wanted to join the Police Force. I lost some of my respect for them when I was fined.

GG