Who was that guy?!

Car_54

Strider590 wrote: »

Whatever you want to call them, they make A LOT of money for certain individuals.

Since the money goes to the Treasury, who are these individuals? George Osborne?

Name names!

Strider590

Car_54 wrote: »

Since the money goes to the Treasury, who are these individuals? George Osborne?

Name names!

Well then you need to brush up on your facts, it doesn't go to the treasury. It goes to the camera partnership, so they can pay themselves a small fortune and to the ACPO.
More recently the govt have been trying to muscle in on a share of the profits, but have (afaik) only succeeded in certain areas of the country.

They're run like a business, they're run to make as much money as possible and the people that man the cameras have targets to meet, which is why they employ questionable tactics (hiding behind bushes, etc).

The whole thing is as corrupt as it gets in the UK, way up there with contract corruption at local councils.

The super rich making themselves richer, whilst elements of the local councils look after their "mates" interests and line their own pockets.

Car_54

Strider590 wrote: »

Well then you need to brush up on your facts, it doesn't go to the treasury. It goes to the camera partnership, so they can pay themselves a small fortune and to the ACPO.

So, is this incorrect? And if so, in what respects?

"The income from camera fines is initially passed to the Department for Constitutional Affairs (formerly the Lord Chancellor's Department), who pass it on to the DfT. The Safety Camera Partnerships originally reclaimed money from the DfT which they then spent on the operating costs of the cameras, additional safety measures such as "speed awareness" courses, public relations, and staff expenses.
Since April 2007 the funding for Safety Camera partnerships has been significantly altered; all funding is now passed to Local Authorities/County Councils in the form of an enhanced road safety grant. Safety Camera Partnerships must bid annually for funding to council budget holders along with other local authority funded organisation for carry out their operations; the funding, while a road safety grant can be used for any local authority expense that is not connected to road safety, ring-fencing of local authority funds not being allowed."

BTW, ACPO no longer exists.

Car_54

Strider590 wrote: »

Well then you need to brush up on your facts, it doesn't go to the treasury. It goes to the camera partnership, so they can pay themselves a small fortune and to the ACPO.

So, is this incorrect? And if so, in what respects?

"The income from camera fines is initially passed to the Department for Constitutional Affairs (formerly the Lord Chancellor's Department), who pass it on to the DfT. The Safety Camera Partnerships originally reclaimed money from the DfT which they then spent on the operating costs of the cameras, additional safety measures such as "speed awareness" courses, public relations, and staff expenses.
Since April 2007 the funding for Safety Camera partnerships has been significantly altered; all funding is now passed to Local Authorities/County Councils in the form of an enhanced road safety grant. Safety Camera Partnerships must bid annually for funding to council budget holders along with other local authority funded organisation for carry out their operations; the funding, while a road safety grant can be used for any local authority expense that is not connected to road safety, ring-fencing of local authority funds not being allowed."

BTW, ACPO no longer exists.

harveybobbles

...and as if by magic... He's uploaded a new vid yesterday:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2KVIebfzHg