Printable View
Quote:
Speeding motorway drivers could be fined up to £10,000 under plans being considered by the Government.
Maximum penalties for offences including drink-driving and driving with defective tyres or brakes could all increase to £10,000.
The increase would mean magistrates are able to impose fines four times larger than at present.
http://www.nottinghampost.com/Speedi....html#comments
Thats alright - we are riders not drivers :-)
It's being badly reported. It's about raising more than just motoring fines but even were it to happen it would still be based on a persons ability to pay and financial hardship that would be caused, so only the richest tossers would really feel it.
They have a similar set-up in some scandinavian customers, might be better to be a poor tosser after allQuote:
Originally Posted by WR6133
If they follow the letter of the law any fine should equal the same financial punishment in terms of proportion to the persons circumstance, so no savings, minimum wage worker should be at the low end of the scale while an investment banker should be at the higher end. That applies now, so if they raised the upper limits unless you are pretty wealthy it should make little difference and if you are that wealthy maybe a more meaningful fine can be imposed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trev
That's in an ideal world though I suspect in reality the poor sap with the legal aid solicitor ends up paying back the big fine in instalments while the rich guy with the high flying law firm onside pays b-all
This is all scaremongering as far as I can see. Punishment for most crimes is so lenient in the UK, as the prisons are already full to bursting point!!
Take the latest story in this area.
Chap plunders literally thousands from a disability charity, goes to court, gets a suspended sentence, fined £1000 and ordered to do 21 hours at an attendance centre and a curfew.
But, the curfew will be lifted for a fortnight because he's off on his holidays.
Whoever said that crime doesn't pay is talking a load of old b******s. End of rant.
Depends on the crime. Good old working class crime like armed robbery can carry (what I think are) stupidly disproportionate sentences. Posh white collar crime like huge frauds do seem to carry little if no meaningful punishment. Just those at the top looking after their own while stomping hard on any one from below that dares to say f*ck the system.
I agree the penalties don't relate to the crimes. It seems you are better off murdering someone but make sure you dont speed away from the scene.
Armed Robbery (bank, nobody hurt) - 15 years + 5 more if you use a section 5 weapon...... lucky if you net more than few thousand pounds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Conehead
Fraud (bank, over £500000) - between 5 - 8 years.... if its under £20k you could get 2 years and walk out after 1. That's so pathetic, if you can find a way to ensure the money isn't recovered it's actually not a bad career choice...... 8 years inside on half a million equals over £62k a year!
wow, first time I've heard the old class distinction thing applied to types of crime. Fingers crossed that if the Building Society my daughter works at on a Saturday morning is hit by armed robbers it will be the good old fashioned working class types who will give her a nod and a wink as they rob the tills, unless of course they judge her to be white collar and then........ : (Quote:
Originally Posted by WR6133
There is a 50 mph average speed reg on the M5 around WsM. I noticed that ALL the cameras face south. So, if you are biking southwards they can get your plate. If you are travelling northwards...they can't.
Great, so those like me who work hard, pay massive tax per year will have to pay more money to the government.....Quote:
Originally Posted by WR6133
That's why your government loves you :DQuote:
Originally Posted by WhyNot
By the letter of the law though (not that it seems to be applied properly) before fining anyone they should take in to account earnings, assets, etc and make any fine proportionate to that so that no matter what your income the hardship caused by the fine should be equal.Quote:
Originally Posted by WhyNot
The fine is punishment not revenue generation so why should a poor person be (proportionately to their wealth) punished more than a wealthier person, raising maximum thresholds just evens things up.
Although those on benefits who don't actually earn money still get let off easily because the fine will just be taken out of their weekly beer and fags allowance.....
Rant over....
But large rich corporations don't pay taxes or fines ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by WR6133
Virtually every paragraph contains the words "proposed" or "could".
Hype. Non story.