Agreed, butthe old fundimental policies are what resulted in B.Liar getting in in the first place.

Labour had to change to gain power. They did to imaginitively named "new labour", and hence they won.

The Conservative party needs to adapt to regain power. It needs to change (some of) its policies to appeal to a wider spectrum of the voting public, not just the "traditional" tory voter.

 

OK, generalisations and sterotyping ahead but...

Wealthy guy commits a minor offence - £3000 fine but was unlikely to commit the same crime again anway.

Scum bag on the dole, repeat offender, nicks an old dear's handbag and gets fined £5, which he gets by promptly going out and mugging another old dear. At some point fines are ineffective and if the person can't afford the fine at a reasonable level, let them do some stir instead.

 

Fair enough. Deterrent plus, as you highlight, punishment. 3k is enough of a punishment (more so than £50). And the notion of poor people not having the money to pay fines (drug addicts in particular) is not new.

If David Beckham gets a £200 fine for speeding, I don't expect to see much sympathy for him here.

 

lol watched an episode of Yes Prime Minister the other week, they had New Labour quotes on there. Labour have just been watching episodes of Yes PM to get 'their' ideas

 

taking your communist propaganda to the Nth degree Pete,

the cost to the state for two identical crimes is the same in each case, the tragedy to the victim does not vary depending on the wealth of the wrong-doer

 

MY ****

So a pikey breaks in to your house, is caught, is told "be a good boy, on your way now"
A wealthy person breaks in to your house, is caught, is told "your wealthy, I think we can fine you £10k.

It would never happen. The only crime they are interested in wealth-fining would be the motorist, AGAIN.

Paul

PS. I put "is caught" into the example for a laugh. That never happens in real life, the police are too busy fining motorists.

 

The first punishment is wrong, NOT the 2nd.

Or would you prefer the current:
So a pikey breaks in to your house, is caught, is told "be a good boy, on your way now"
A wealthy person breaks in to your house, is caught, is told "be a good boy, on your way now"

What is actually being proposed (or should be) is:
So a pikey breaks in to your house, is caught, is told "£2,000 fine"
A wealthy person breaks in to your house, is caught, is told "£10,000 fine"

Persistent ones should be jailed of course, but the above highlights the point.

In a way currently the law favours rich people over poor although this is about CRIMINALS, NOT law abiding people. Any law that punishes criminals and helps prevent re-offending has to be good. The ONLY people affected by this are the criminals.

 

Wealthy person can afford to pay fine so does.
Pikey person can't, so breaks into another house to get goods to sell down pub to pay fine.

 

OK, so the solution is

Pikey goes straight to jail, wealthy person pays £10,000 fine (half of which goes in compensation to the home owners the other half of which goes towards cost of jailing said pikey )

That ought to do it

 

Does not pass GO, does not collect £200 giro

 

Magistrates already ask for a "means" form to be completed so that they can adjust fines related to income (usually lessening them if they will call extreme hardship). Also they may grant favourable payment terms, like 2 quid a week for a year to pay a 100 quid fine.

It sounds like this proposal simply allows them to inflate fines upwards in cases where they deem the person can afford to pay.

 

i dont know why people seemed stunned what else do you expect from this government a (good idea)

 

Some very sensible posts here, agreeing with me - sense is out there somewhere then

So, we all agree then - the rich get fined more so the 'relative' deterrent effect remains the same.

I am sure Tony doesn't read this - so, it doesn't matter It WILL be law when Labour get in again!!

So, stick that in your Tory brains and smoke it!!

Pete

 

I don't know why lewis shows so much glee and the destruction of our country. He is truely a fool of the highest order.

 

Taking the Retards argument one step further then ....

Will they please agree with me that I should NOT have to pay 40% Tax??

That would give me a massive payrise if thats the case - thank you all!!

Pete

 

FUKC OFF to a country you feel happy with then? Or can't you be bothered? Too lazy are we?

Shut Up!

Pete

 

Don't worry I'm working on it. You and all the other thick losers can enjoy their chavtastic third term together.



lmao

 

However it goes, the Government will make more cash out of it, that will be the real reason behind it all, if it attracts Pikey votes, so much the better for the government. If the pikeys etc bother to vote that is.

That will be on top of the extra stealth taxes which are coming!

Les

 

How about this then:

For a wealthy person to go to jail is a proper PITA/inconvenience. They have a job, a nice lifestyle, maybe a family etc etc.

For a pikey person to go to jail is no big deal. They have f*ck all esle to do in any case. At least in jail they get regular meals and sex.

Therefore, for the deterent effect to be equal, the pikey person should go to jail for several years and get f***ed up the ****hole with a baseball bat to make sure it isn't enjoyable, whereas the wealthy person should only go to jail for a few days.

Seem fair?

 

ProperCharlie, just thinking the same thing. Seams very fair to me.

So what do we think the chances are of that actually happening???

 

what load of ****. so youre telling me when i buy my insurance and tax its cheaper for me to be on the road because i have more money, because i could be bothered to get my **** through school and earn some hefty wonga. get stuffed! lazy gits should have got their ***** in gear in the first place and be earning more! not richer peoples fault other people are lazy gits. Get fined for being successful in this country. And what do we see for it, more illegal immigrants, crap health care, cant get a dentist and tax tax tax. ugh!

anyways, theres no speed cameras on roundabouts. plenty of fun to be had there too. Theres a tail, friend got caught sliding his car round a round about in his Westy, pigs got him and tried to do him for driving without due care or something to which he said "have you been on a driving course?" "yes" "can you do that sort of thing without 100% concentration?" "no" hehe. but thats for another time.

Damn Bliar wants sacking. I bet if he got caught it would be a different story, or cherie earning a loverly £300k a year.

 

Yeah, Yeah - talk is cheap and you are weak!!

You will do NOWT!

Pete

 

not everyone who is on a low income is a lazy git
in fact in my experience the majority of big earners are right tired b*stards who have the people below them do the work
richie(less than 12kpa total household income)

 

Best thing UB is to make sure that the President wannabe and his egregious cronies don't get another term and then we stand a chance of getting our country back.

You never know, the likes of his supporters might leave for the Eu to throw in their lot with the rest of the lefty Roman sandal wearers which would be another immense improvement I reckon. Wonder how they would feel about the Commissioners ripping them off with their dodgy financial dealings which never pass an audit! Not for the last ten years anyway!

Les

 

That may be true in very generalist terms poor guy, but there is, as a always, more to being rich or being poor or (as most people are, somewere in between).

If, at the end of the day, the point here is that the punishment should have the same net effect, it doesn't really matter how hard you worked to get somewhere.

If a speeding fine was £600 not £60 together with the 3 points then I would most certainly drive differently. And that basically says to me that the principle is correct here.

 

If that's the case it should be £600 for all. That way EVERYONE will think twice before doing it.