Why the argumentative tone? I’ve given an opinion that’s all. My brother is worth less than 2% of Dreyfus. Yet he paid £200 less for a far less serious offence. I’m also not the only one who thinks the amount is, in relative terms, unfair
KLD banned ...
- Thread starter Smug in Boots
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Remember he's married now as well so he'll never be rich againVery true. Never thought of it like that. I must be rich then….
Yes it did, 30 mph over any speed limit used to mean a trip to court and a ban.
I can remember doing over a ton on the M62 going to Hull then when, slowing down due to Mrs D moaning, I got pulled over by the bill and was hugely relieved that the average speed they clocked me at was only 94mph. I was sweating on a ban. I got a £30 ticket and 3 points.
As it was, Mrs D going on and on with the 'I told you so' was probably worse punishment!
This was back in 1994 and I've no idea when things changed.
A couple of weeks after I was stopped one of my Technician's was stopped just after midnight doing 62 in a 30 zone on a residential street.
She got away with a warning and a producer for her documents. She had no MOT and got away with one done that day. I was inwardly fuming I can tell you!
It’s not an argumentative tone.
But you still haven’t answered my questions.
Do you think it’s fair for people to display their full financial circumstances to the public domain, when receiving a fine for speeding offence?
is that the question you asked as an answer to my question which you haven’t answered?
The answer to your question is. I don’t believe people, rich or poor should be discriminated against when breaking the same rule.
Nor do I believe people should have to release their full financial circumstances to the public domain to determine the size of their fine.
Your turn...
That wasn’t my question. I asked if you thought it was fair. I disagree with what you say there. I think it should be properly means tested . But, as has been said, rich people often “earn” very little.
The courts do not have to publish everything. If there is sensitive information they can choose not to. So someone’s earnings do not become public domain, only the court should get to know. Easy to submit financial stuff online to the courts nowadays too.
So I don’t believe they should be forced to publicise their earnings, but I do believe they should be forced to advise the court of their earnings. Both are not mutually exclusive.
also not exactly sure where the discrimination is. If you break a law which carries a fine, the fine should be means tested. If I earn £100 a week, a £100 fine is a weeks earnings. If I earn £50k a week, a £100 fine is like losing a penny or less. How is that not discriminatory?
So after breaking the speed limit you think it’s reasonable for the court to demand to know someone’s earnings?
If you change punishments based on people’s earnings, your going down a very rocky road of discrimination, which in modern day society is unacceptable.
Did you know, the fine for a yellow or red card for a premier league footballer, is the same for a Sunday league footballer?
I didn’t! But let’s not open that can of worms eh as that seems an absolute joke! Besides, footballers wages are public information and have to be in accordance with the way football, as a business, is run.
I believe that all fines should be means related. Just an opinion and I don’t understand why it’s discriminatory to fine a rich person more for the same offence when the values are relative.
I agree with that Marcus. If, as we are always told, that a fine is meant as a deterrent then means testing is the only way to go.
That being said all fines/judgements should have a mandatory minimum. (No deterrent if someone earns nothing and therefore gets fined nothing)
The object of a fine is to punish for a wrong doing. If the fine is proportionate to wealth (I believe savings etc should also be taken into account) then the punishment is equal. If someone who is worth £100,000 is fined £50 and the next person worth £2,000 is fined the same amount, then they are being punished more for the same offence. That’s not fair. But life’s not fair. What if the person with £100,000 is struggling to feed a family and to send one of his children abroad for an expensive operation? And the one with £2,000 is single and without a worry? There are so many factors that would have to be taken into account it would just clog-up the system. So a standard fine is the most operable. But it sticks in the craw when billionaires are fined the same as a hospital cleaner would be. I guess the answer is: don’t commit the offence!