Speeding fine for imaginary speed?

Franz_Ferdinand

GingerBob wrote: »

Well here's a thought. Why don't we not pay police at all, and exempt them from council tax. They can then live off the money that would have been collected by the council. I wonder how they'd make out?

Well given we had a police service before council tax what happened then?

Still I bet your council tax pays about £140 a year into the police pot so your argument of paying their wages doesn't really add up does it?

Franz_Ferdinand

Stoke wrote: »

You're banging your head against a wall. Franz Ferdinand, sorry Constable probably still thinks those drunk ticketless hoodlums at Hillsborough are what killed all those people.

I'm fully aware it was down to incompetence. But thanks for your concern.

Stoke

phoenix_w wrote: »

I believe this as well, and I believe they close rank and that professional standards/IPCC are there to protect them unless it's a high profile thing.

I still think those officers would probably do their best when it comes to matters of life and death, though. It's just the low level stuff they can't be arsed with - and I've seen it for myself.

Closing rank isn't a natural thing. It is something that usually requires a co-ordinated effort. It may feel small time when we consider my experience with them, but when you see the efforts that the police went to when Hillsborough was being investigated.... yup, that really is closing ranks and that is something that is being taught to young officers, as was back then.

Matters of life and death? Yeah maybe. Police aren't wholly bad people. They know the difference between right and wrong. That said, no matter how low level, corruption is corruption and yes, I've seen it and it wasn't a particularly nice experience for me and the others involved.

Franz_Ferdinand wrote: »

Well given we had a police service before council tax what happened then?

Still I bet your council tax pays about £140 a year into the police pot so your argument of paying their wages doesn't really add up does it?

You're right, the £140 doesn't go very far towards paying the wages of the officer. However, he doesn't have his own police officer does he? He, like many others, pay their taxes which when put together covers their wages. Incredible what maths can explain eh?

Stoke

Franz_Ferdinand wrote: »

I'm fully aware it was down to incompetence. But thanks for your concern.

Fantastic.

Franz_Ferdinand

Stoke wrote: »

Closing rank isn't a natural thing. It is something that usually requires a co-ordinated effort. It may feel small time when we consider my experience with them, but when you see the efforts that the police went to when Hillsborough was being investigated.... yup, that really is closing ranks and that is something that is being taught to young officers, as was back then.

Matters of life and death? Yeah maybe. Police aren't wholly bad people. They know the difference between right and wrong. That said, no matter how low level, corruption is corruption and yes, I've seen it and it wasn't a particularly nice experience for me and the others involved.

You're right, the £140 doesn't go very far towards paying the wages of the officer. However, he doesn't have his own police officer does he? He, like many others,including police officers pay their taxes which when put together covers their wages. Incredible what maths can explain eh?

Fixed that for you.

GingerBob_3

Franz_Ferdinand wrote: »

Fixed that for you.

Editing posts in that way is frowned on. You should take it out.

agrinnall

Nasqueron wrote: »

The camera was moved from being a safety device to a revenue raiser.

Are you sure? I don't think that was one of the locations that was included in the list of reactivated cameras.

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/birmingham-solihull-speed-cameras-everything-11721860

Having said that, I live near to there and I agree that many people do drive too fast along that stretch of road.

Franz_Ferdinand

GingerBob wrote: »

Editing posts in that way is frowned on. You should take it out.

Ignore it or report it. Your choice.

Stoke

Franz_Ferdinand wrote: »

Fixed that for you.

But so what? The fact they pay council tax doesn't negate the fact that we all contribute to their wages. If it was an opt-in scheme I'd get your point.... but it's not.

Franz_Ferdinand

Stoke wrote: »

But so what? The fact they pay council tax doesn't negate the fact that we all contribute to their wages. If it was an opt-in scheme I'd get your point.... but it's not.

Well you've hit the nail on the head haven't you and it should be clear that gingerbob contributes to and doesnt pay their wages.