We don't BELIEVE it!

Mororists convicted of speeding may have to pay compensation for victims.

The plans is part of changes to the "Victim Support Service."

Motorists facing a prison term or suspended sentence would pay £30 to the Fund. (Well, fair enough!)

THOSE FINED FOR SPEEDING WOULD PAY £5-£10 EXTRA! As compensation towards the person they NEVER injured in the first place! (WHAT THE....***!)

This is part of the plans to curb "anti-social behaviour!"

But is Jay-walking not anti-social! One of us came across someone WALKING BACKWARDS across a MAIN road, carrying on a conversation with her friend! An ADULT! (Supposedly!)


So why not fine them for having a death wish - not to mention the deaths of the driver and passengers this careless and selfish pedestrian behaviour may cause!

Of course, it addresses other anti-social crimes such as "getting drunk in public" (Oh! If only they would fine the drunken pedestrian instead!), rape and indecent offences, and providing compensation to the bereaved of RTA victims! (This will not apply, of course, to the driver who kills himself swerving to avoid the brick flung from a motorway bridge, or the driver who kills or maims himself swerving to avoid the twazak who crosses the road whilst walking BACKWARDS, in a drunken stupor or harbouring other suicidal wishes!)

The government aims to collect £28m in extra revenue by these tactics which apply to England and Wales only!

Some of the offences they are trying to "right" are perhaps justifiable, but to fine the "just over/ safe speeding" is really OTT.

To make roads safer, they need to get the patrols back on the roads.

That way, they could catch the the truly dangerous who drive without licences, tax, insurance, MOTS.

Oh, but we forgot - they are, as per the recent tragic stories in our papers, the "foreign people", and it would be terribly unpolitically correct to suggest that they drive around killing the UK's taxpayers and their children!

Look forward to your comments on this!

Cheers

The Wacky Gangsters!

Source:

BBC News

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1hi/uk/3390315.stm

Twats. Socialist re-distributors. Another attack on the motorist by a government that has thrown all the tax-payers cash down their black hole of public service wage rises.
I wouldn't mind this if it went on victims of traffic injury, but to pay out the money to general crime victims is just taking the pee.
I'll bet the driving force for this comes from the EU. It has that naive, socialist smell about it.
Luckily, there seems to be a very strong reaction in the press. The Tories are taking pot-shots too.

Speeding fees levy: Your views

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/3390665.stm

 

My contribution:

To the best of my knowledge no speed camera has caught a driver crashing in millions of photos. Regardless of government spin, or otherwise, regarding how "many" (few) "speeding" drivers (eg those fined for doing 60 in a 70 limit in Wales recently) cause accidents official statistics show that the majority of cycle accidents don't involve powered vehicles, the majority of pedestrian accidents are the fault of the pedestrian, and a large minority of fatalities are the result of pedestrians crossing behind a vehicle reversing when the Highway Code says you shouldn't cross behind a vehicle showing reversing lights. How much is raised in fines from these people, never mind in compensation? And how much will the Welsh "speeders" be surcharged?

 

Clearly some posters are quite capable of reading their Anti-Car Activists' cribsheets:

 

-          If you don't like it, don't speed in the first place!

 

-          If you don't want to pay the fine, don't do the CRIME.

 

-          If you don't speed you won't get fined. It really is that simple.

 

The same trite soundbites trotted out at every opportunity.

 

Pity they couldn't manage to read about the thousands of motorists punished for doing a dangerous 60 in a 70 on a motorway in Wales. Or the van drivers punished for doing 50+ in a 30, despite one actually doing a dangerous 27 and the other a homicidal 13mph. Or........

 

And now they are to be surcharged too!

 

Exactly!

What will they dream up next?

Surely if anyone is to be surcharged to compensate victims of crime it should be the Guardian reading PC Chief Constables, the Right On Councils, and the governmant that has abrogated it's duty to protect the public, and is more interested in compensating criminals, courtesy of the Prime Ministers wife?

 

Wonder if I can claim compensation as a victim!

Was overtaken today by one of the Fuhrer's talivans!

Feel really shaken by the whole experience!

He was going SooooooOH FAST!

Well in excess of 37mph in that 30 zone!

It was such aggressive driving on his part!

My car shook with the turbulence as he passed me!

Need compensation for that!! Especially for being overtaken by a speed enforcer who was speeding!

Also want compensation for my kids too! (The ones he nearly killed by his speeding! Of course, they were at home doing their homework - but heck! That doesn't matter does it? They could very easily have been mown down by this maniac of a cop in a police van!)

I WAS speeding at ....29-30mph- ish!!!!! According to the useful gadget on the dash! (The one that warns me of the gatsos! and jams (oooops!) his lasers!)


Also want compensation for being hounded by the speed nazis anyway! It really does my head in!

Do you think I qualify for a hand out from this fund?

Scam Shy (A Wacky Driver!)

The reaction to this on Talksport today was furious. It's pretty obvious to me that there is a further agenda (further to collecting more money) in action here.
I think it is an attempt to smear the car driver with the same brush as the common criminal. A mugger mugs people, a burglar breaks into our houses and pinches our things. A thug drinks 11 pints and beats us up for fun.
A speeder harms no-one. I'm not talking about the nutters who drive in a crazy manner and mount the pavement. I'm talking about the everyday tax-paying driver who creeps a bit over a (recently-lowered) limit. It is generally a victimless 'crime', but this law would pile us in with the genuinely evil bu&&ers who make our lives such a misery.
Well, they've gone too far this time. If they had suggested putting the surcharge on those drivers who actually caused an accident, maybe I could see it.
Of course, it could be a clever way of distracting us from the Hutton Report....
_________________

What a pillock! Blair is now bending his gearstick in a frantic effort to find reverse (I thought he said he had no reverse gear?) and get himself out of this stupid pickle:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3392239.stm

Another attempt:

Am I dreaming, or has the BBC just published the following seven anti-car soundbites without publishing one counterbalancing mention of the fact that nearly every day we read in unbiased media of people who have appealed their speeding convictions and found that they were actually travelling below the speed the camera alleged, the camera was set below the limit, the limit was illegally introduced, or it was illegally signed, or it was another car: With this you have the option of not paying - just stick to the law.

Don't speed and you won't get fined!

If you don't speed, you won't pay. Quite simple really.

If you don't want to pay the fine, don't commit the crime.

If you don't want to pay the fine, don't do the CRIME.

If you don't speed you won't get fined. It really is that simple.

If you don't like it, don't speed in the first place!

 

They didn't publish the last three comments from me.

But they managed to find room for four more comments bringing up variations of the:

Don't speed and you won't get fined!

Lie!

 

Firstly, anyone who says they NEVER speed is telling fibbles!

If you have an "overspeed warning device" - set it and see how many times it bleeps in one journey!

Road lay-out, surfaces, etc can increase your speed even though your foot has left the throttle! The scam merchants know this - and place the scams at those points!

If you do not want to get run over - apply the Green Cross Code! Perhaps if we fined pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders for minor Highway Code violations as planned for the drivers via the Super Warden scheme - we would see less accidents! Just think what a revenue raiser that would be as well! Far greater potential than the drivers' predicament! Just think - £5- £10 for their victims behind the wheel as well!

Course that won't happen - until we have all lost our licences! Then......!

Cheers

In Gear (A Wacky Gangster!)

I think you might have been misquoted, Bogush...

"Don't speed and you won't get fined! If you don't speed, you won't pay. Quite simple really. If you don't want to pay the fine, don't commit the crime. If you don't want to pay the fine, don't do the crime. If you don't speed you won't get fined. It really is that simple. If you don't like it, don't speed in the first place!
Mr B J Mann, Nottingham"

What a stupid response from "hello there".

Condescending, nannying, self righteous, do what i tell you rhetoric!

Since when was it a "crime"..(oxford english definition wicked act ) to exceed the painted numerals on a sign?
Just what IS the problem with it?
Im a prolific speeder. Always have been, always will be. And yet ive never had an accident that occured either above the speed limit, or was my fault!
Where do people like "hello there" get off when it comes to preaching such complete tosh???
Just who does he think he is, telling others that theyre "criminals"?

Id much rather be labelled a "criminal" for exceeding a stupidly low speed limit, than be labelled "criminally stupid" for taking the scamera partnerships/brake's so called safety line.
Its about time the likes of "hello there" pulled their heads from out of that dark, moist area down the back of their trousers and opened their eyes!! The mind truly boggles at such breathtakingly arrogant nannying!

I agree with you Last Straw!

(And with "In-Gear!")

These people keep coming out with the same old line, don't they?

It is all too easy to stray a couple of mph above the speed limit - as the Wacky Gangsters say! We set the overspeed warnings now, and it is surprising how many times they bleep on one journey. There is one stretch of road, which thankfuly does not have a scam yet (and I am NOT going to say where it is - don't want them to get ideas!), but everybody drives at 34-35mph on it - even the police AND the local member of BRAKE! (Almost wish there was one there now - just to convert HER!). In fact, to try to drive at the 30 would be more dangerous! As it happens, the road has wrought iron barriers between the roadway and the pavement, and is a dual carriageway!

As In Gear said - any driver who claims they have never driven above a posted limit is a "tell-lie!" They either do not drive, or they never look at their speedo at all - at any point in their journey.

Because let's face it!

I do drive at 30 on most roads - after that course. I set the cruise contro, the overspeed warning, etc! So, if these people never ever break the speed limit - how come everybody OVERTAKES me!

Of course they are doing 35 mph.

I feel that I am more likely to cause an accident by driving dead to the limit, than I would "keeping to the flow" In fact, to be honest, I do drive at 33-34 to keep with the flow, and ease off when what the Wacky Guys call "the useful gadget" sounds the Scam warning!

These pro-scam guys do talk drivel! They are more dishonest than the so-called speeder because they will not face the facts about themselves!

The sooner they get pinged FOUR times and MORE!!!!

THE BETTER!

And they WILL! Given the number of these monsters and the money-spinning settings - just a matter of time!

Then we will see a change - won't we!

As the Wacky Gang say: TWAZAKS!

Of course it does make for surreal visions!

Magistrate:

I sentence you, young Yobby Brains, to 12 months, suspended plus an extra £30 for terrorising everyone in your neighbourhood.

Yobby Brains:

Ta an' A'Reet yer dozy auld git! It'll come outa me social!

To the wife murderer:

Judge:

I sentence you to a lifetime in prison! In addition you will pay £30 compensation to support your victims!

Wife Murderer:

That's cheap at the price, thank you! Lifetime of luxury on the tax payer for just £30!

With good behaviour as well ......

To the motorist:

Magistrate:

I see you were doing 35 in a 30! That will be £60 + £5 to help compensate everybody else's criminal acts, in addition to the insurance you already pay to compensate anything you may collide with, and in addition to the taxes you already to pay the less fortunate, and also to help keep the criminals who created the victims in a life of luxury at Her Majesty's pleasure!

By the way, I charge the lifers £30! You pay one-sixth of their lifetime's surcharge!

Motorist:

Thank m'lud! Anything else I can do to help the less fortunate?

Can it really get any dafter?

My mistake, perhaps I should explain...

I agree with Bogush. What my message was clumsily trying to point out was that the Beeb site has printed the above under Bogush's name, without also including the paragraph starting "Am I dreaming.....". It therefore looks like Bogush has put his name to the "Condescending, nannying, self righteous, do what i tell you rhetoric!"

Ok, you are forgiven my son...

It really does stick in my craw(like a straw funnily enuff...) when i hear someone say such crap tho.
Theyre so self righteous, so upstanding, so sickeningly moralistic about it....yet when THEY do something, like nicking the office pens, they think thats perfectly acceptable...in other words theyre hypocritical, or, for the benefit of the simpletons from Brake etc; Two faced.

Another thing that sends me to a higher plane of angriness, is the constant bleating and "think of the children", or "how many dead children will it take?" etc etc... quite what 31 mph in a 40zone has to do with some unsupervised sprog running out into the road, is beyond my comprehension!
References are constantly made to "drivers killing kids". Emotive bull! I CANNOT run a kid over in the road, if he's on the dammed pavements! Thats where he's supposed to be!
The onus by these "pressure" groups (unelected incidentally) is always put on drivers, like they have "ultimate" responsibility for all accidents.
When are they going to wake up to the fact that speed as a factor in crashes is a minor one, compared to watching where your going and being alert to idiot "kids" running out, sometimes deliberately so!
They miss entirely the point that just because im exceeding a speed limit by some small margin, that it dosent automatically mean im to blame for some intellectually challenged parent's lack of responsibility to keep their hateful offspring under proper control.
It makes little difference to a dead sprog, whether he got hit by a car at 40 or a 38 tonner at 15...he's still smeared all over the tarmac!
Of course, youll never hear a detailed rebuttal to my arguments, at least not without them playing the "emotional" blackmail, think of the children card....Thats as good as their arguments get. Thankfully, its an easy one to deal with; i dont care about "the children". Keep them educated, keep them under control, keep them educated and youll keep them safe; otherwise thell just end up as another statistic.
I speak from experience (as a child) who cheated death by a bus by mere millimetres.(my fault too!)

Far more important than mere speeds is waht you do in the moments leading up to such incidents as kids in the road.
For instance, actually looking where your going, rather than at your speedo.
Imagine looking out the drivers window all the time....you cant see what youre about to hit, therefore your speed stays high, right up until the impact, as opposed to someone speeding and SEEING where the kid and slowing down before any impact! Speed kills? Yes if youre looking at the speedo all the time.

To "Hello There" -

Sorry!

=================================================

Last Straw!

Been saying this all the time about speedo gawping! Unsupervised kids, etc.

Got into an argument on the "other channel" before Christmas - along with the Wacky Group, Luke S & Hanbo - with some dozy woman who kept quoting the "T200, Brake, and Scamsh!t's" dogma!

She got really upset - like they all do - when the suggestion of teaching kids the Green Cross, ensuring parental supervision unit of age to cross roads safely, etc was made! (Along with some other sound suggestions to promote road safety - we've all made them here too!) Cannot understand why they get so worked up whenever anyone mentions the Highway Code and pedestrians! Yet if the driver makes one minor infringement of the Highway Code - he is supposed to know better and deserves all the punishments!

To underpin her case, she moaned on about kids who bolt across a road to escape a wasp sting, a dog, (allow her the school bully - except that she said the child would ignore Mummy at the gates (if present) and run into the roadway to get away from the bullies! Like the guys retorted - kids in fear will run into arms of loved adult - not roadway under that circumstance!)

If they were really concerned with child safety, then they would ensure that this be hammered into the brain of every child asap! They would not let them play out on main or any other road without adequate supervision!

As you rightly say - emotional blackmail!

The Wacky Mob mentioned somewhere that UKs child pedestrian figures were higher than coninental Europe, and dared make the suggestion that perhaps European parents were making a better job of it! (They did also say that they were retiring to a nuclear fall-out shelter over it!) But maybe they have a point!

The woman on the "other channel" mentioned the adult who would run into the road in a blind panic from a dog! If the person is suffering from that kind of phobia - then he or she is danger to themselves and others and should be encouraged to seek help! But this is the kind of wishy washy dross they use to justify themselves! I am a Nurse (A&E) and have never come across such a case in over 20 years!

Repeat something I said earlier (and echo the Hanbo and the Wacky element!): if pedestrians were fined £100 for "minor" transgression such as failing to cross at pedestrian crossings, tripping a "red man", j-walking willy nilly, not looking after their kids, perhaps the RTA rate would fall to zero overnight!

Makes perfect sense to me Lucy!

As you say, they get all emotional and cant seem to form a coherent argument at all.
They base all their arguments on the "emotional" blackmail aspect, as if we dont agree with them, then there must be something wrong with us!
In actual fact, its something wrong with them.
For example, A new aircraft is designed. Its the fastest plane ever in the world, it can get to USA from london in a half hour and seat 300 people in total comfort. It has the best materials in manufacture, the very best pilots and training and is a general marvel of man.
Because a plane like this has never existed before, it has its doubters. They think that it carries too many people, and goes too fast.
On its first flight out it crashes killing everyone on board.
The doubters stand there screaming that its cos its too fast, that all those people died because it flew so quickly.
The point im trying to make is, that it makes no difference if it did mach 20 or mach 1, if something goes wrong its gonna hurt at any of those speeds.
Should we therefore stop flying? Stop pushing the envelope? Like hell we should!.....The cause of the crash was later established to be a bird strike at high altitude, which in a million to one occurence entered the cockpit through a defective windshield and killing the pilots.
(has happened in the past too!)

To claim that speed had ANYTHING at all to do with such a tragic occurence is plainly nonsense to us, but to the doubters it is the be all and end all of the argument.
Its the kind of situation we can all relate to today regarding "speed kills". Its just twaddle!
You simply CANNOT hit someone in the road if they are NOT IN THE ROAD. Its as easy as that to understand.
Why dont they grasp it? Cos they have ulterior motives driving them. See "The Copenhagen Declaration".

"See "The Copenhagen Declaration".

Indeed. One of many reasons to get the hell out of the EU.
Did you see Newsnight last night? It had a piece on the 'modernising' of Milton Keynes. I can just imagine...bus lanes everywhere, pedestrianisation gone mad, bike lanes (never used, they're all on the friggin' pavement) etc etc. Another Labour Utopian nightmare.

Don't get us started on the EU - or on the Newsnight item! We agree with you, Andy!

We've just been looking at reader comments in the "Metro" - free newspaper which Manchester BUS and TRAM users find distributed on the seats!

Hardly surprising then that EACH of the published comments supported these azz-hole proposals!


"Perhaps we won't block buses at the bus stop any more!"

Manchester does have BUS LANES? We may be young drivers - but most of us in the good ol' North West as a whole are courteous towards bus drivers! Well - they are BIGGER! Not seen any evidence at all to support this!

"The Levy is not aimed just at drivers, but at all criminals!"

So - all drivers are criminals! Take it that includes the BUS driver too? Train drivers? (Could explain why they never turn up - and then turn up in threesomes! Must be mugging purposes! (Fares!)

In fact - anyone who drives, flies anything must be a criminal!

"Drivers must know the Highway Code and if they don't they deserve to be fined £100, £65 and pay for killing people!"

Agreed on the Code bit! But as Lucy, Hanbo and the Wacky Dudes et al have already said: So should the pedestrian and cyclist!

But remember folks - these comments were published in a free newspaper (Manchester Metro) which appears mostly on buses, trams and trains!

Obviously the thoughts of those who do not drive a car, and are jealous of those who can!

We must get our act together and kick azz as you so rightly say!

"bus lanes everywhere, pedestrianisation gone mad, bike lanes (never used, they're all on the friggin' pavement) etc etc"

Now I wonder why they're on the pavement? Could it be anything to do with car drivers making the PUBLIC highway too dangerous?

So it's cars that make the highways dangerous is it George? Nowt to do with the cyclists who ignore red lights and one-way signs, ride without lights and laugh at the regs?
Not the pedestrians who would rather climb over safety barriers and dart across the road, rather than use the crossing 20 yards away?

Hi George

Are you for real?

Listen, son!

Footpaths are for pedestrians.

Bus Lanes are for buses!

Cycle Lanes are for cyclists!

Bridle Paths are for horses!

Roadways are for cars!

Only the dangerous tanked up drunks that we want rid of may mount the pavement! Yobby Brains has been know to whilst out joy-riding with other scrotes!

The rest of us are normal people!

As I mentioned elswhere - if any one of our family were to step off the kerb without looking, we would deserve to be run over! The epitaph would read "Here lies Twazak!"

Of course, we drive according to road conditions, and we cross roads the same way we drive our motors - on the look out for a hazard!

We know some twazaks out there should not have passed their tests! That is why we call for on-going driver education and we want this to take place at least every 5 years with medicals (we admit bias there!) We do not suggest a re-test every 5 years - this should only happen if the twazak driver really requires one!

But it is ASININE of MEGA-NUMPTY proportions to suggest that pedestrians should have a free-for all on the roadways! And that it is the driver's fault if they get run over!


Georgey Boy!

We are all ******* responsible for road safety - and pedestrians and cyclists have just as much a duty of care towrds other road users as the drivers! That is why they should also be fined for dangerous behaviour! By running out into the road, they could kill the driver and his passenger as he or she takes evasive action to avoid them! Not thought of that - have you?

I posted the following to the "Speeding fines levy: Your views" page:

Am I dreaming, or has the BBC just published the following seven anti-car soundbites without publishing one counterbalancing mention of the fact that nearly every day we read in unbiased media of people who have appealed their speeding convictions and found that they were actually travelling below the speed the camera alleged, the camera was set below the limit, the limit was illegally introduced, or it was illegally signed, or it was another car:

With this you have the option of not paying - just stick to the law.

Don't speed and you won't get fined!

If you don't speed, you won't pay. Quite simple really.

If you don't want to pay the fine, don't commit the crime.

If you don't want to pay the fine, don't do the CRIME.

If you don't speed you won't get fined. It really is that simple.

If you don't like it, don't speed in the first place!

 

And the BBC published my counterbalancing complaint with the counterbalancing complaint edited out, leaving it as a further repetition of the seven sounbites of spin and lies it had previously promoted:

Don't speed and you won't get fined! If you don't speed, you won't pay. Quite simple really. If you don't want to pay the fine, don't commit the crime. If you don't want to pay the fine, don't do the crime. If you don't speed you won't get fined. It really is that simple. If you don't like it, don't speed in the first place!
Mr B J Mann, Nottingham

 

Further, as it has not yet been corrected, it would appear that you have ignored my earlier complaint.

Is this how you:

"reflect the balance of opinion we have received so far"?

 

Per "Daily Mail" 17 Jan 04

PALTRY £65 FINES FOR UNINUSURED DRIVERS

According to the article written by the Mail's Social Affairs Correspondent, Steve Doughty, rogue drivers couldend up with a lesser penalty than a parking offender (who would get £100 under the Super Warden Scheme!)

The fixed penalty scheme is being extended to include driving without insurance! It puts the cost of getting caught at far less than the cost of driving LEGALLY! and really makes a nonsense out of their "intention to make roads safer!"

The fixed penalty will be £200. Offenders who can afford to pay will not have to go to court. BUT anyone who will plead poverty, such as those receiving benefits or asylum seekers can go to court and have the fine cut! This latter group make up the greater proportion of such offenders!

The current legislation can issue fines of up to £5000 and has been dealt with by the courts.

The Department of Transport has estimated that there are one million uninsured drivers in the UK. Its research shows that these people are NINE times more likely to crash and kill than the legal drivers and cause more than 7000 KSIs per year! (This makes mockery out of those stats frequently quoted by the BRAKE/T2000 lentilists!)

Yhe Home Office wants to introduce the fixed penalty for such offences because it is cheaper than ordinary prosecution. It will also free up Court time! In addition to the fines, offenders will receive 6 penalty points, and recidivists will receive COMMUNITY SERVICE?????

This of course would mean that the police will be less likely to pick up on other offences associated with uninsured driving - such as false details and defective vehicles!

Elliot Griffiths, Cahirrman of the Magistrates Association is satisfied that this will work, and will be speedier and more efficient at dealing with this type of offender!

The rank and file Mags, have deep concerns. One told the Mail:

"I do not have to tell you how much insurance costs. Do you think a fine of £65 to any person claiming they are on benefit is a deterrent to stop the offence of driving without insurance?

"How much is a parking ticket in London these days? Is driving without insurance to be downgraded to a fine below that of a parking ticket?

"In my vast traffic court experience a great majority of defendants who are on benefit either have no driving licence at all or nowadays are asylum seekers who could not care less about the laws."

The new sentencing guidelines have alos cut punishments for several stealing and drug offences!

Handling stolen goods no longer will attract a prison sentence, but community service! As will cultivating cannabis and other first-time drug offences!

The Mail's leader column calls this "The Road to Despair", and welcomes us all to the new law of MADNESS!

All contributors to this site, and other related sites, all belong to the millions of decent motorists who feel persecuted by speed cams set up to milk money out of us. The Pro-Scammers brand as child killers, with other sinister criminal tendencies when we complain! They even went so far as to accuse the motorist letting of steam as issuing death threats via a web forum!

Yet these same people are making life easier for the REAL criminals on our roads! THE ONES WHO DO THE KILLING!

They no longer need fear the courts under this experimental scheme across half the country!

This is an open invitation to the Yobby Scrotes: insurance costs us hundreds of pounds each year, and they will measure that against the cost of a £65-£200 fixed penalty!

As the "Mail" opines:

"We are witnessing a malign trend in British justice:
hammer the middle classes which can be relied upon to pay up meekly; turn a blind eye to the rogues who are too difficult to catch and punish. No wonder the law-abiding majority despairs!"

Well, folks!

It is about we started to do some rebelling!
A quick perusal of all other forums show we all think likewise!

BIG TIME!!****!!!!

All these protest sites need to get together! We need to go more public and upfront in the media. As LAST STRAW posted - we need to really organise ourselves like the pensioners and the council tax!

We really do need to make it clear to this B'LIARING government that we have had enough on more issues than scams! In fact every darned policy!

Cheers!

SickofScamFarce

A Wacky Gangster

Another paper "on our side"

The GREAT Jimmy Young is the "Sunday Express" writes:

BLUNKETT IS DRIVING THE MOTORIST TO DISTRACTION!

JY asks: Has there ever been a more motorist hating government than the present one?"

We complain that only £2 billion out of the £45 billion we pay in taxes each year goes towards road improvements. The Government reply that all taxes go into the common pot to be dished out as appropriate. JY cannot see how, logically, the Government can hypothecate extra tax from motorists to compensate victims of crime!

JY raises the point we have already made regarding the insurance we pay, which covers compensation to all involved!

JY repeats the points already raised in this forum - that 2 millions are caught speeding with no victim, yet are supposed to compensate vicitms of more violent crimes.

JY accuses the Blunkett of being economical with the truth! (A fact we all agree with!) That they want to introduce a Victims' Fund but do not want to fund it out of direct taxation. so he is bashing the motorist to pay for it instead!

JY argues that we pay loadsa money out in legitimate taxes, and the average law-abiding driver simply pays up. JY asks the question the "Mail" and our SickoScamFarce asked yesterday: Why does the government not do more to get its money from the untaxed and uninsured? The ones who are dangerous? The ones who drive on our roads, and yet should not even be allowed to enter our country?

As for the £30 fine for the more serious offences, JY asks why is the Home Secretary so unaware that barely half of all criminal court fines are collected! The average inmate will just tell Blunkett where to stick his head if he asks them for the money!

Blunkett claims the fund will provide support and advice for victims of rape, sex offences and bereavements though crime.

(AH COUNSELLING!!! Well, that is a fine lot of help! proven to do more harm than good!)

This is his final insult to motorists:

"We want compensation for crime victims to come from appropriate sources!"

As JY so rightly points out; Guess he forgot that the 32 million of us and we know what we will do with our votes at the next election!

Cheers

The Wacky GANGSTERS!

NEWS OF THE WORLD - 18 JAN 2004

"Darling Fury at Car Fine Top Ups"

According to the "News of the World", ol' Beetle Brows has put the brakes on this daft scheme!

Mr Darling is reported by a cabinet colleague as being "livid" because he was not consulted over the scheme, which he woulod have to administrate and defend in public.

The same leak even said the Bliar did not know about it either, and got ambushed by fuming drivers during a radio talk show last Tuesday!

Blair apparently said that there would have to be a lot of consultations before anything like this could be introduced into UK law. (In other words????! WHAT!)

The good news according to this paper is that Whitehall has been told to quietly drop the plans!

Hope the paper has got the story right!

Cheers!


The Wacky QGD News Hounds!

It was that stupid Baroness Scotland that caused all this sh!t. She is a perfect example of yer 'right on' New Labour woman. Full of naive, student-union ideals. Too full of her own importance to consider the consequences of her ridiculous proposal. I hope she is suitably chastened. Knowing her type, she won't see it that way....