Forum Topic

Where will it end...?

Any thoughts on the domestic violence surcharge of £15 on speeding fines?

Keith Iddon ● 6634d21 Comments

If nothing else, just think of the amount of time wasted by Magistrates, Police, Social Services, Probation Officers, Drugs Workers, Customs Officers, the N.H.S. and Uncle Tom Cobleigh and all, and what for? Faffing around this issue is no longer an option and with respect your waffly answer is missing the point completely. Drugs are at the root of the majority of petty crime, and when you get to play with the big boys, supply and dealing, prostitution, people trafficking, fraud etc.etc. Nothing has yet worked, when will we start understanding what have we got to lose by thinking the unthinkable? You cannot apply 1940s morality to life in the 21st Century.

Vanessa Smith ● 6629d

Crumbs!  IMHO Utopia is relative and truly subjective - and we have danced with a teeny piece of it around here recently with the full compliment of Hounslow’s street cleaners wandering around on a weekly basis.  Some might wonder if it is a complete waste of money; us living in street cleaning utopia-on-the-hill just wonder.  One neighbour who has kindly spoken to several of our visitors said that there is an alley which hasn’t been cleaned in donkey’s years – and it has seen the street cleaning team three times in the past month ….  Who tries to create ‘Utopia’, do you think?

Sarah Felstead ● 6629d

legalisation means you can control the supply, we do it with two of the most harmful - alcohol and tobacco. With respect Vanessa, we can never "control" the supply of drugs, I don't believe either, that we "control" alcohol or tobacco. It is also illegal to sell alcohol and tobacco to underage teenagers, yet they still manage to get hold of it/them, even though as you suggest we control them. How would we prevent youngsters getting hold of hard drugs from unscrupulous dealers.  The cost of policing drugs would be horrendous, yes we have for the moment lost the war, but if instead of just banging up the offenders, they are kept there with mandatory rehabilitation for them. Also mandatory 10 years for the dealers and confiscation of their assets. Which I believe they have the power to do now, but is not rigidly imposed. Yes, harsh perhaps, but I was a child of the 40's, when punishment for some crimes was imprisonment with hard labour. I believe that having gymnasiums, playstations, televisions etc in prisons, as is the case now, does nothing to deter criminals.The judiciary have got to come into the real world and stop being fooled by "soft social workers" and smart a**e lawyers who get them off or on a reduced charge.I witnessed on one occasion, when police officers arrested a drug dealer as he was about to deal, at his home they found masses of empty methadone containers, along with evidence of use, wraps of crack cocaine and a large quantity of money. He was arrested and appeared in court, where the charge of dealing was dropped, and instead with a lesser charge of "for his own use"! A week later he was doing exactly the same thing. It was as if the police were being called liars, when he was actually caught red handed dealing!! We have tried the softly softly option, but it hasn't worked has it? Sorry to Keith for straying off the thread, but Vanessa has raised an important issue. I would like to hear what others have to say on the matter of legalisation of all drugs!

w John Michael Atkinson ● 6629d

I didn't say everything was perfect - it never is and never will be and I agree about Worple Ave., although that was a sub contracting deal with the Council's direct services section - who are a law unto themselves, but the fact remains that Hounslow always has been a financially well run council, and is run like a multi million pound business, it has to be in this day and age. I can't think of any example of privatisation being better, that's all about profit and corner cutting. You might not think that any of this is remotely true and we can and do all criticise but Utopia is a long way off.

Vanessa Smith ● 6629d

Can I suggest you read Philip Walsh's letter in this weeks local re this same subject? Reasoned, calm and articulate. Most crime these days is drug related in some way - legalisation means you can control the supply, we do it with two of the most harmful - alcohol and tobacco, perhaps not well enough but that's a different argument. For the record although I was a child of the 60's I have never in my life taken anything remotely illegal, although there was plenty offered, but that was a hell of a time ago and times have changed dramatically. As I have said so many times before the war was lost years ago - now is the time to move on and accept more radical solutions. 

Vanessa Smith ● 6629d

VanessaI can only repeat in the hope it was this one, the sooner drugs are legalised the better.Are you thinking of "chasing the dragon" or a crafty drag on a "spliff". What next may I ask...a spot of meths pehaps?

w John Michael Atkinson ● 6631d

Sorry Vanessa but walk around the borough at any time and see the waste, council workers starting work at 10 am tea at 11 am home at 3 pm and don't say it doesn't happen because it does just take a look at the work that was done in Worple Ave recently 2 months work took about six months to do, also the fact that Sarah took photos of the damage done to paving slabs and nobody will have to pay for that from the delivery firms the builders or the people having the work done on their houses it will be us the council tax Payer. But never mind just screw the people again for more, and this happened when you where in the big house as well.

Patrick James-Scott ● 6631d

"and to do someone's pet whinge would mean not doing something else"Puh-leese!;-)

Sarah Felstead ● 6631d

I can assure you that Hounslow has always been a very well run council financially, and has also had a very high council tax collection rate. Like most people I moan about the tax I pay, although I still think council tax is good value for money by and large - I saw a breakdown of what the services would cost if we had to pay privately service by service - horrendous! But the fact is if we wanted everything done we'd have to pay a hell of a lot more, and to do someone's pet whinge would mean not doing something else, it is very difficult to run good local services and I don't think we have done too bad over the years. The Scottish/Welsh question is another matter, devolution does seem to have cost us dear, with these areas benefitting to our detriment, I actually was surprised by the amount of people who have commented on the new £20 notes with Adam Smith on them- another Scot - on English money! We may well have vanquished the Scots several times, I have a feeling they are now getting their own back!! William Wallace must be cheering.

Vanessa Smith ● 6631d

So what do we do now, do we blockade the A4 and all points south so Tony and Co cant get out of London for their extended holiday and let them know enough is enough. I earn a pretty good wage but now find it imposible to save money like I used to and no I don't smoke don't drink much I do run a car though, have never claimed any dole money sickness benefit or any other benefit. Kids have all left home but it still costs too much to live TAX TAX TAX and for what I wont get anything back the roads are full of potholes and the pavements as Sarah has pointed out in another post are disgraceful what do they do with all our Council Tax monies, we need somebody in the council to run the finances who has experience in running a large company finances. I think I will emigrate to Scotland and see what my money is put to up there as they seem to get the most benefit from English taxes.

Patrick James-Scott ● 6631d

I don't think so - after all people have got really p****d off with the banks and their shenanigans, and public opinion and action has seen them retreat over the so-called 'penalty charges' and the O.F.T. launch an enquiry. So there's life in many old dogs yet! Once people get the bit between their teeth and know the wrinkles I think they can be very feisty. I think the English as a breed are quite slow to anger and quite laid back - but let someone upset them enough and they can still bite.

Vanessa Smith ● 6632d

Patricbut no we are too timid to do anything about it.That applies to many other issues as well. One day we will all wake up and smell the coffee, but I fear it is too late.

w John Michael Atkinson ● 6632d

New to this!But thought I would add my bit. This chancellor has made the British people pay through the nose for everything especially the motorist because we can not fight back or will not fight back, if we were French then the streets would be full of protesters burning sheep and blocking the roads with tractors and such like, but no we are too timid to do anything about it. But I don't think it matters who is in government it would still happen too many quangos and committees and people on the payroll if you want an easy life find an island somewhere and become a castaway.

Patrick James-Scott ● 6632d

Thank-you, although I'm not quite sure what the opinion you refer to is - I can only repeat in the hope it was this one, the sooner drugs are legalised the better.

Vanessa Smith ● 6632d

At least drug users have some choice in the matter of their death unlike people run over.Do the people they rob, burgle and sometimes kill have any choice. Had you not heard of people being shot because of drugs? I don't believe you have really thought this  through have you. Do you agree with punishing millions of motorists for the minority of lunatics? I take it none of your family, friends are not vehicle owners? My apologies to Vanessa Smith for having the temerity to express an opinion!

w John Michael Atkinson ● 6632d

There goes another bicycle.

Edward Fitzgerald ● 6632d

An easy target like people killed and maimed by car and lorry drivers? £15 should be £15000.At least drug users have some choice in the matter of their death unlike people run over.

Norma Harrison ● 6633d

Will they make the perpetrators of domestic violence and other crimes pay for the upkeep of the roads? they have only done it because they are loosing revenue by stopping people smoking. And wasting money by making up jobs in government departments to keep the unemployment figures down. How long before we can get rid of this gang of thieves and put the Monster Raving Loony party in? At least if they did it you could understand why!

Edward Fitzgerald ● 6633d

KeithI agree with you 100%.I'm not a car owner, but I believe that motorists are an easy target, they pay enough already. What about the perpetrators of domestic violence,themselves, hit them very hard with hefty fines, in addition to whatever sentence is appropriate? The same applies to drug dealers as well, who when they have cash seized put this in the fund too!

w John Michael Atkinson ● 6633d

I do not see the connection between domestic violence and speeding.One could argue that there are other'deserving' victims(parents of murdered children,mugged old ladies)Why stop at domestic violence?.A far greater number of men between the ages of 16-40 suffer from random,unprovoked violence on our streets than any other group.This govn. seems to have forgotten that motorists are voters too and it may well make them more cynical and resentful by doing this.It's another easy,lazy and unfair way of raising revenue.How will how it's spent be measured?I can't see how this is right,no matter how I try. I have great sympathy toward victims of any type of violence,but this is wrong minded imho.Maybe the perpetrators(sp?)of violence should be the ones to pay extra,but I supposed there are nowhere near as many of them as there are speeding offenders.Again,nothing really to do with principals,just expediency.

Keith Iddon ● 6633d

Here's the press release from HMChttp://press.homeoffice.gov.uk/press-releases/Domestic_Violence,_Crime_And_VicThis is all part of the Government's stuff about rebalancing the criminal justice system more in favour of victims. One proposal was to have a surcharge (what the BBC calls a "levy") on criminal convictions and fixed penalty notices for criminal offences. That yielded some squeals of protest from motorists. Even to that part of the consultation there were only 55 responses (some in favour). Those included 32 from individual motorists mainly arguing against the proposal to have the surcharge on FPNs for motoring offences, (with the usual claims about "technical offences", "stealth tax", and so on). Anyhow, the Government squirmed before even that flutter of interest. They decided not to add the surcharge routinely to FPNs for road traffic offences, but only to ones for repeat and serious, endorseable offences. Part of the act (Section 14) imposes the surcharge on conviction in a court and came into force yesterday; another (section 16) deals with FPNs for repeat road traffic offences (not yet in force). It's interesting - in many was it looks a bit small, almost trivial when applied to some situations.

David Eales ● 6633d