Serves him right

[Housey]

A Koenigsegg CCXR worth £1.2m and a £350,000 Lamborghini Murcielago LP670-4 SuperVeloce were both clamped outside the Qatari owned Harrods store in Knightsbridge on the afternoon of 22 July. The council of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea said that £120 penalty charge notices were issued, but the cars were released for £70 each as the fines were paid within 14 days.

LINK


Well, I 'm sure that those guys will be more careful about where they park in future!

An eye-watering £70 penalty for the victimless crime of illegal parking outside your own corner shop - what IS this country coming to

They were at an important meeting about how to avoid paying more tax to feed people who have 18 kids by 37 fathers but presently eat from other peoples bins while wearing shell suits and smoking 100 a day then going home to watch Sky TV.....HD......on their 50 inch plasma. Personally I'd have poor people rounded up and shot, though I'd charge their poor smelly gutter dwelling scum families for the bullets.

Gotta love easy targets, great for amplification of smugness....

 

[DM]

The same could be said about footballers incurring fines, the amount they are fined is so pitifully small that it is just the loose change they have in their pockets. It's hardly going to put them off. The same with this driver. I thoroughly endorse fines based on a fraction of your wealth.

Sod that, they need to be capped somewhere.

 

[DM]

They were at an important meeting about how to avoid paying more tax to feed people who have 18 kids by 37 fathers but presently eat from other peoples bins while wearing shell suits and smoking 100 a day then going home to watch Sky TV.....HD......on their 50 inch plasma. Personally I'd have poor people rounded up and shot, though I'd charge their poor smelly gutter dwelling scum families for the bullets.

Gotta love easy targets, great for amplification of smugness....

Iv padlocked my bins, starve the swines!

 

[Housey]

Iv padlocked my bins, starve the swines!

Rat poison, they make funny noises and you can sit there in a Wesley and Barrel chair watching them die. Occasionally you can find stuff in their pockets and everything and those shell suits compost well.

 

[DM]

Rat poison, they make funny noises and you can sit there in a Wesley and Barrel chair watching them die. Occasionally you can find stuff in their pockets and everything and those shell suits compost well.

Proactive.... i like that.

 

[Housey]

Proactive.... i like that.

Hungover, so laptop and West Wing box set for the day I feel.

 

[DM]

Im glued to this bloody computer all day every day because i refuse to go out and let the stinking builders out of my sight till they catch up the lost time here.

 

[lovedaddy]

No, because they are completely irrelevant. Punitive fines works because they punish and therefore act as a deterrent. If you can afford the fine without batting an eyelid, the deterrent doesn't work. For offences like these I think means based testing is highly appropriate and the only way to ensure that they equally punish / deter everyone.

Nail on the head. Deterrent based punchments have to act as such, and in this case a 60 quid fine wouldn't have done so.

 

[thecremeegg]

Because, in the UK justice system, the punishment is based on the crime, not the criminal, and percentage fines are not based on the crime.

Would you also support basing punishments on other irrelevant factors to the crime such as gender or sexuality?

Eh? We already have means tested fines, and for speeding too. Go to court for doing 100mph and they'll fine you dependent on your income

 

[Captain_Slick]

No, because (for about the 5th time in the thread), punishments are based on the crime, not the criminal. If you want to tear up centuries of British justice, then fine, but at least give a good and valid reason for doing so, rather than the usual jealousy or class warfare, preferably one working around how the severity of the crime changes depending on what the criminal earns.

What are you on about?

You and your merry band are the ones preaching on about 'equality' and 'justice being blind' which is completely at odds with charging someone on minimum wage the same fine as someone on tens times the minimum wage.

You can't have it both ways.

 

[Dolph]

What are you on about?

You and your merry band are the ones preaching on about 'equality' and 'justice being blind' which is completely at odds with charging someone on minimum wage the same fine as someone on tens times the minimum wage.

You can't have it both ways.

What are you on about? Are you saying that the effect of the crime (which is what determines the punishment in the UK system) varies from person to person depending on unrelated factors?

Justice being blind means judging the crime, not the criminal. Likewise equality means treating the crime equally no matter who committed it.

 

[Jokester]

That only really applies to prison though doesn't it, the idea that a £60 fine has any real bearing on someone who earns a million a year compared to someone on the bread line is frankly ludicrous Dolph.

 

[snowdog]

That only really applies to prison though doesn't it, the idea that a £60 fine has any real bearing on someone who earns a million a year compared to someone on the bread line is frankly ludicrous Dolph.

It's hardly the 60 quid that is the real punishment in the UK though is it ?

The points or driving ban are...


Someone on the bread line driving a car ?

 

[Captain_Slick]

What are you on about? Are you saying that the effect of the crime (which is what determines the punishment in the UK system) varies from person to person depending on unrelated factors?

Justice being blind means judging the crime, not the criminal. Likewise equality means treating the crime equally no matter who committed it.

I'm saying that the effect of the crime shouldn't determine the punishment, because that's inherently unfair with some crimes. Someone in America who can't afford bail has to give up their freedoms for longer than someone who's rich, for example.

A fine is a deterrent. It should deter people regardless of their income and in order to do so, it has to hit them in the wallet proportionally to have the same effect.

Now if we had an alternative that didn't take the persons income into account that'd be great, but we don't so fines should be decided depending on income.

This brings up a bigger question, really.

If a man kills an innocent person, should he receive a longer sentence than the person who kills a convicted paedophile/murderer/etc? If Justice is blind, he shouldn't but I'm sure their would be public outcry if he did.

There's no point arguing really. I'm just saying that a fine should affect the well off person just as much as the person living on JSA, which is fair and morally right. Otherwise what's the point in the fine if the well off person can afford to commit the same offence as many times as he wants?

Personally I'd be in favour of harsher points/bans for speeding.

 

[Jokester]

It's hardly the 60 quid that is the real punishment in the UK though is it ?

The points or driving ban are...


Someone on the bread line driving a car ?

Points fall off after a certain time in the UK, so someone could repeatedly speed and never actually get banned if they weren't caught enough times within any 3 year time frame or what ever it is.

And yes, even poor people are allowed cars in the UK.

 

[snowdog]

Personally I'd be in favour of harsher points/bans for speeding.

Why are you in favor for punishing victimless crimes more ?

By the swiss system, some rich **** can go vandalize a couple of homes and cars and be let off more lightly than for just having a bit of fun in his car nobody is affected by...

Points fall off after a certain time in the UK, so someone could repeatedly speed and never actually get banned if they weren't caught enough times within any 3 year time frame or what ever it is.

Which is good as speeding is already punished way too much.

And yes, even poor people are allowed cars in the UK.

But should they, sorry but if someone can't pay his bills or food yet continues to drive in a car I have little respect for them. Bike or moped gets you to work too at a fraction of the costs...

 

[DM]

You can only do means related fines up to a point, or it just gets stupid.

For example when i go up for my speeding, i firmly expect to get 1500 quid fine, someone skint would get 300 quid.

Thats fair enough, but if my fine was going to be 25 grand to make it a real deterrent, well **** that, it is only speeding after all.

A line must be drawn.

As for the poor person in america not getting bail, well **** happens thats life, communism dont work, we are not all going to be equal.

 

[Jokester]

Why are you in favor for punishing victimless crimes more ?

The entire point of speed limits enforced by fines, is to "encourage" people to not drive at reckless speeds. Yes the limit is entirely arbitrary, but it is what it is. It's entirely aimed at risk reduction.

The alternative is that we don't have a limit and people are only punished once they kill or maim someone through reckless speed, and with subsequent higher levels of road deaths, people in prison etc.

 

[Captain_Slick]

Why are you in favor for punishing victimless crimes more ?

By the swiss system, some rich **** can go vandalize a couple of homes and cars and be let off more lightly than for just having a bit of fun in his car nobody is affected by...

As speed increases, the chances of causing an accident increases. If you want to have fun, go on a track day or buy some private land. The public road, which is maintained for everyone's benefit, is not there to be enjoyed for fun (though it often can be completely legally within the speed limit) and breaking the rules which we agree with in order to continue using it isn't big or clever.

 

[Captain_Slick]

But should they, sorry but if someone can't pay his bills or food yet continues to drive in a car I have little respect for them. Bike or moped gets you to work too at a fraction of the costs...

We're not talking about people living in poverty. We talking about people earning just a modest wage that probably have less than £60 left once they've paid all their bills, bought all their food/fuel and put a little away.