ProperCharlie

UB - ok, i see where your argument is coming from. However, as i understand it, the proposal is to levy this £5 against all offences that are punishable by fines. It just happens that motoring offences make up a huge part of this, and are the easiest to collect. New Labour have clearly got major paradoxes in their transport "policy". They admit that other forms of transport are overused and under resourced, they allow railways to be priced out in favour of road haulage, yet they still see road transport as a massive cash cow. it's all up sh*t creek.

Tel - I can see compensation being justified if someone suffers an injury where they need specialised help or care or something, but IMO this attitude that you should be financially rewarded for every little bad thing that happens to you is a load of sh*te.

TelBoy

PC, oh absolutely, i couldn't agree more. But if it means that genuine victims of road accidents and so on are benefitted, then i can see some sense in funding it from those people who commit road crimes, even though "crime" for 33mph in a 30 is a bit of a misnomer.

At the end of the day, this surcharge/fine/whatever you want to call it isn't mandatory, let's not forget that. It is entirely avoidable, even though some are claiming the motorist is being victimised.

ajm

Will the extra money go to fund road accident victims just like road tax goes toward road improvements?

The cynic in me says its just another tax that will go into the central coffers and be spent on whatever Labour's next whim is.

Also, why is this scheme just aimed at motorists breaking the law? Why not all of the other crimes? Why aren't burglars being forced to work to pay off their victims belongings?

[Edited by ajm - 1/13/2004 8:49:55 AM]

speedking

It isn't. The 'levy' will apply to many criminal fines. Of course most rapists, burglars and drug addicts cannot afford to pay the fine, let alone the levy as well. Therefore it is the middle class (i.e. motorists) who will be the only ones who can and do pay[img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img] Wait until they introduce targets for collecting the revenue

ajm

I wasn't aware that there were any fines for "proper" criminals if they go to prison? Don't they just get a jail term?

Its about time they were forced to pay (or work to earn it) in order to compensate their victims and the state for their stay at Her Majesty's pleasure.

If it is across the board i.e. all crimes no matter how "poor" the they claim to be, and all money is publically accounted for (so Labour can't blow it on crap like the dome!) then I don't have a problem with it in principle.