I can see a few blood vessels bursting..

One more thing uk.tosspot will no doubt get apopleptic over.

See

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm...atestheadlines

"Speeding drivers 'should pay £5 extra to victim fund'

The Home Secretary says motorists should pay a £5 surcharge on speeding tickets
to help raise extra cash for crime victims.

David Blunkett has floated the idea as part of a major shake-up of the way the
Government funds victim support services.

Responsibility for paying criminal injuries compensation to people attacked
while at work - including police, health workers and teachers - should be
transferred to employers, said a consultation paper.

The existing Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme (CICS) - which currently
pays out £160 million a year - should also stop giving awards to train drivers
who have suffered trauma from seeing someone commit suicide by jumping in front
of their train, it said.

Under the proposals - first leaked last summer - speeding tickets would go up
by £5 to help pay for a new Victims Fund.

More serious motoring offences such as uninsured driving and failure to give
driver's details to police would carry a £10 surcharge. Parking fines would be
exempt from the new levy.

Other on-the-spot fines, such as being drunk in public or making a hoax 999
call, would also carry the extra charge.

Criminals would also have to pay out, with a suggested £30 surcharge handed to
every new prison inmate and everyone ordered to do a community service order,
provided the sentencing judge agreed.

Offenders handed a fine would also have to pay extra to the fund - with today's
consultation paper suggesting levies of £15 to £30 depending on the level of
the fine.

All the money raised by the surcharges would go towards setting up schemes to
help victims rather than being paid direct to individuals.


Story filed: 11:54 Monday 12th January 2004"

Cheers, helen s
--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
to get correct one remove dependency on fame & fortune
h*$el*$$e**nd***$o$ts***i*$*$m**m$$o*n**s@$*$a$$o* *l.c**$*$om$$

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers wrote:
One more thing uk.tosspot will no doubt get apopleptic over.

See

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm...atestheadlines

"Speeding drivers 'should pay £5 extra to victim fund'



Why should drivers caught on camera, or cyclists prosecuted for cycling on
the pavement or through re lights, fund the services to victims of burglary
or violent attack? Such things should correctly be funded through general
taxation.

pk

In article , dirtylitterbo
xofferingstospammers writes

This 'pigeonholing' of revenues never makes much sense to me - more like
trying to make a point which doesn't really need to be made, i.e. crime
is bad so criminals give money; victims should receive money.

Responsibility for paying criminal injuries compensation to people attacked
while at work - including police, health workers and teachers - should be
transferred to employers, said a consultation paper.

Um, aren't these people employed (directly or indirectly) by the
government anyway? Or maybe there's something we don't know about
planned privatisation...

ttfn

Martin

--
"I'm a materialist hippy - I like having lots of stuff,
I'm just not sure where some of it is" - Bill Bailey

Martin Harlow

"dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers" wrote in
message ...

Criminals would also have to pay out, with a suggested £30 surcharge
handed to
every new prison inmate and everyone ordered to do a community service
order,
provided the sentencing judge agreed.

Note criminals are different to speeders in this article :-(

Offenders handed a fine would also have to pay extra to the fund - with
today's
consultation paper suggesting levies of £15 to £30 depending on the level
of
the fine.

Mmm, information retrieval charges.

cheers,
clive

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers posted ...

One more thing uk.tosspot will no doubt get apopleptic over.

Why ? It's one thing to be a petrolhead, but it's another thing when
someone's been caught doing something unlawful. If you've been caught, for
whatever 'crime' then the resultant fine should, IMHO, both penalise the
criminal and possibly compensate the victim. This seems a most apt way of
trying to do so.

Whether it's right that motoring offences go to pay to help burglary
victims, and vice-versa, is another argument entirely I guess.


http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm...atestheadlines

"Speeding drivers 'should pay £5 extra to victim fund'

Many drivers would have no problem with this, I guess. If you're caught,
you're caught .. and should suffer the well-known and published
consequences.

If you don't want to suffer the consequences, don't do the crime ... or at
worst, don't get caught when you do ..


--
Paul

On 12 Jan 2004 12:06:45 GMT someone who may be
omcom (dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers) wrote
this:-

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm...atestheadlines

"Speeding drivers 'should pay £5 extra to victim fund'

Good.

The existing Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme (CICS) - which currently
pays out £160 million a year - should also stop giving awards to train drivers
who have suffered trauma from seeing someone commit suicide by jumping in front
of their train, it said.

Bad.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs2/v...nsultation.pdf
has the whole thing, in bloated Acrobat format.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

Paul - xxx wrote:
dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers posted ...

One more thing uk.tosspot will no doubt get apopleptic over.

Why ? It's one thing to be a petrolhead, but it's another thing when
someone's been caught doing something unlawful. If you've been caught, for
whatever 'crime' then the resultant fine should, IMHO, both penalise the
criminal and possibly compensate the victim. This seems a most apt way of
trying to do so.


I have to admit unease at what is being proposed as it mixes up taxation and
criminal justice. The money is not proposed to go to the victims but to pay
for services.

"All the money raised by the surcharges would go towards setting up schemes to
help victims rather than being paid direct to individuals."

That sounds very much to me like supplementing taxation to pay for public
services rather than judicial penalty and deterrent. My own view is the two
should be kept well apart - as soon as the guilt decision becomes a means of
raising revenue you are crossing a very dangerous line IMHO

Tony

"Clive George" wrote in message
...

Mmm, information retrieval charges.


And woe betide you if your name gets mis-spelled :-)

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

"PK" wrote in message
...

Why should drivers caught on camera, or cyclists prosecuted for cycling on
the pavement or through re lights, fund the services to victims of
burglary
or violent attack? Such things should correctly be funded through general
taxation.


I see no reason why revenue from fines for crimes should not be treated in
the same way as revenue from taxation.

Frank X wrote:

"PK" wrote in message
...

Why should drivers caught on camera, or cyclists prosecuted for cycling on
the pavement or through re lights, fund the services to victims of
burglary
or violent attack? Such things should correctly be funded through general
taxation.


I see no reason why revenue from fines for crimes should not be treated in
the same way as revenue from taxation.

Because the government may come to rely on the income, and will have little
incentive to reduce crime.

In fact they may even turn a blind eye to certain crimes, or in some cases even
encourage it.
Would you trust them not to?

This is a nasty slippery slope.

John B