Middle class to pay more for crimes

So if Wayne is caught speeding in his ghetto-chic Peugout Saxo whilst toked-up, he will pay less than one of us "normal" easy targets?!?

Meanwhile, Wayne probably does a runner without paying, meaning that this is a means of the rest of us subsidising his defaulting.

It is time for a non-co-operation campaign. Refuse to give the police or authorities any assistance above the bare minimum required by law. Remember, never disclose your bank details to "the man" for direct debits or anything otherwise you could end up paying later in the event of a dispute!

From the Torygraph:

Middle class to pay higher fines for the same offence
By Philip Johnston, Home Affairs Editor
(Filed: 14/01/2005)

Better-off people will have to pay heavier fines for offences such as speeding under a Bill published yesterday that links penalties to income.

The level of the fine will also be governed by the offender's ability to pay.

At present, magistrates work from a scale of fines depending on the gravity of the offence and can reduce the sum if the culprit cannot pay.

But under the new system - to be applied only to adults in magistrates' courts - the fine level would be dictated by the income of the offender.

High earners would face fines of up to three or four times more than now. A minor offence that at present carries a maximum fine of £200 would attract a penalty of £750 for the wealthy.

The maximum fine for an offence such as failing to give particulars after an accident would jump from £5,000 to £15,000.

The Government said the Management of Offenders and Sentencing Bill, "would help rebuild fines as a credible punishment for low-risk offenders''.

It is partly based on "day fine'' schemes used on the Continent, though these tend to be linked to a prison term in the event of default.

Under the proposals in the Bill, the fine would be determined by the number of income units imposed for the seriousness of the offence, multiplied by the financial value of each income unit based on the offender's disposable income.

The Bill sets upper limits for fines, with a maximum income unit of £75.

For level 1 fines, which include minor offences such as being drunk in a pub, the maximum number of units would be 10, making a fine of £750, compared to £200 now.

For a level 3 offence, such as being drunk and disorderly or excessive speeding, the maximum fine would rise from £1,000 to £2,800.

The Home Office said it was not intended to raise the level of fines "but to provide the potential for higher fines where the offender had the means to pay".

Since courts already had to take into account an offender's means when setting a fine, the new scheme would "provide for greater fairness and consistency''.

Courts already consider income but making the rich pay more will widen the gap between what they and somebody worse off would be fined for the same offence.

Also, the better off tend to pay their fines, so the new move risks being seen as a revenue-raising exercise.

David Davis, the shadow home secretary, said: "This is a cynical attempt by the Government to make the middle classes pick up the bill for their failure to manage the criminal justice system.

"This is less about justice, more about raising money."

A scheme to link fines to income was scrapped in 1993 after grotesque anomalies emerged.

These included a drink-driver marginally over the legal limit being fined £1,500 while another driver more than twice the limit was fined £104 at the same court on the same day because he was receiving income support.

A man was fined £1,200 for dropping a crisp packet but this was reduced to £48 because he failed to fill in his income details properly.

The new Bill will for the first time require magistrates to take into account the availability of prison places when deciding punishment.

This was seen as an attempt to hold back record rises in the prison population.

Mr Davis said: "Sentencing should be determined by the crime not by the number of prison places available."

In the period July to September last year, fines totalling £71.7 million were imposed but only £56 million in payments were collected.

The National Audit Office found that £74 million in unpaid fines and compensation was written off in 2001, largely because the offenders could not be traced, and a further £77 million was cancelled by the courts.
If anyone is still in doubt as to who really won the Cold War, just look at this!!!! They are ensuring that the lumpenproletariat (Neue Arbeit's core voters) don't have to pay much at all, whilst screwing over the borgeoisie (the Tories' core voters).

Right. All we have to wait for now is confiscatory taxation, nationalisation of all industry, and we shall be a step closer towards the Dictatorship of the Proletariat (what a contradiction in terms that is!)!

As for the specifics of the scheme in hand, I am a firm believer that the punishment should fit the crime. A middle-class guy getting fined over a grand for littering whilst a chavscum is fined a couple of hundred quid for drink driving is inappropriate, and sends the message to the chavs that they are effectively untouchable...


War Hero
This seems to work pretty well in some Scandinavian countries, but they don't have such a prevalent "under-class" (horrible phrase but still..) like we do over here
Typical Liberal PC BS
I wonder if this propostion will affect the royals, the landed gentry, the very wealthy or any politician that gets caught?

Perhaps that's just too cynical? :twisted:


Kit Reviewer
tattybadger said:
I wonder if this propostion will affect the royals, the landed gentry, the very wealthy or any politician that gets caught?

Perhaps that's just too cynical? :twisted:
I think the first two will get hammered, and the last absolved.
As to 'the very wealthy,' I'm sure The Glorious Leader will make a fair & just decision based soley on the amount they have donated to the 'Tone & Cherie' club......

Cynical Tatty ? Not cynical enough !
This was tried in the 1980's. I believe it was called compound fining (or something) It was an unmitigated disaster and was quietly allowed to lapse after some business man was fined thousands for littering.

Remember if this happens to you the HRA says your treatment has to be PROPORTIONATE. See you at the Hague

Another example of the very British trait of penalising successful people who have done something with their lives and have a good job, whilst making allowances for the poor "it not their fault they're poor/thick/lazy".


Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
I hate to be controversial but I'm not sure I agrea with the previous speakers. For some people being fined a couple of hundred quid is just no punishment at all, they just laugh it off. It would hurt me.

What is nonsense is fining chavscum (is there any other sort of chav?) It just gets taken out of thier benifits. I work for the DWP on Jobseekers Allowance you, the taxpayer, would be horrified at the number of calls we get from scumbags desperate for thier money so they can start paying thier fines of at £5 a week. All that happens when these scum get fined is 1 lot of civil servants priocess thier claims and another lot process their fine the taxpayer losses at both ends.

Bring back the birch, HARRUMPH! At least its something that chavscum and hoorah Hernys would feel equally. Discuss....
Another example of the very British trait of penalising successful people who have done something with their lives and have a good job, whilst making allowances for the poor "it not their fault they're poor/thick/lazy".
You do realise of course that a lot of people on benefits would rather have a job; oddly ironic since our Primary industry was decimated by Thatcher and unemployment sky-rocketed, that it's Thatcherites who are normally most vocal about the so-called "lazy" people on the dole.

I think the best suggestion for all the people worried about getting fined more for having a job is this - don't commit crimes.

Similar threads

Latest Threads