Speeding motorists to finance police force

[Vague_Boy]

The majority of speeding fines result from cameras which give a black or white result,rather than motorway cops who could make a judgement.

 

TRANSLATION: Speed cameras are far too accurate and don't take doughnut breaks like policemen do.

[999tigger]

Btw people might want to read the article this was based on and then you can see what was actually said.

[Eater Sundae]

I know that to some extent this is already the case.

However ,the proposal of the Chief Constable of Bedfordshire police to raise revenue of an estimated £1 million p.a by fining drivers travelling at 1 mph over the motorway limit is a step too far and has nothing to do with motorway safety.

The majority of speeding fines result from cameras which give a black or white result,rather than motorway cops who could make a judgement.

I sympathise with his stark decisions on providing a service within the reduced government funding and this is the root of the problem.

I want the government to properly fund the police service in the interests of the general public and not in a way that alienates us.

Its the everyday criminal and anti social activities that affect most of the population and if the police service was closer to the communities they serve I for one would be grateful.

 

The government (on our behalf) decide the level of policing it thinks we want/can afford, and funds it accordingly.

 

The Chief Constable wants to have extra policemen, over and above those determined by our elected representatives. If the Government decide that this is the level of policing we should have, is it right that the Chief Constable is able to fund the extras in this way? I think not.

 

What happens if every driver were to stick to 70, how would he fund his extra policemen then?

 

---------- Post added 06-11-2015 at 12:53 ----------

 

So some police chief wants to finance police from fines.

Next step will be targets for officers to issue certain amount of fines.

Then that will be all they will do.

They will try to extort fines in any possible way, 1 mph over limit is just beginning.

Was there an organisation that did that already?

Extort money out of people for 'protection' when only protection they were getting is when extortionists weren't around?

Fines should never go to people that can impose them.

This gentleman needs to be sacked to prevent further deterioration of police image.

 

Re the bib. The truth.

 

---------- Post added 06-11-2015 at 12:55 ----------

 

Just proves what we have always known . Motorists are seen as a cash cow for local authorities and the Government.

 

Well, it clearly doesn't. if it were he wouldn't have bothered raising the subject. He'd just have done it.

 

---------- Post added 06-11-2015 at 12:59 ----------

 

Best bet is to fine anyone doing above, say 80 mph on a motorway. (Not just Bedfordshire).

 

With the resulting cash pot, 50% to the police for their budgets, and the other 50% is redistributed back amongst drivers who have received no convictions that year.

 

Result is a better funded police force and an extra incentive (and cash reward) for drivers who behave.

 

Win win...

 

The problem will be if everyone starts to stay below 80, then the police will lose some of their funding. (off set by a reduction in accident costs, hopefully).

[999tigger]

The government (on our behalf) decide the level of policing it thinks we want/can afford, and funds it accordingly.

 

The Chief Constable wants to have extra policemen, over and above those determined by our elected representatives. If the Government decide that this is the level of policing we should have, is it right that the Chief Constable is able to fund the extras in this way? I think not.

 

What happens if every driver were to stick to 70, how would he fund his extra policemen then?

 

---------- Post added 06-11-2015 at 12:53 ----------

 

Re the bib. The truth.

 

Yes the government decides what level of funding they get but:

 

1. It doesnt mean they probide the right level of funding.

2. It doesnt mean they know how to do the job better than the people on the ground.

 

The chief constable has a responsibility to do his job to enforce the law amd provide a service to his local community.

 

 

Osborne has indicated cuts of 25-40%, so the police will have to prioritise and make cuts accrodingly. If there are opportunities to raise additional income by enforcing the law a little more strictly then the funds can be used to lessen the effect of some of those cuts.

 

They are talking about a reduction from 122,000 police down to 100,000 so 22,000 fewer officers. If the opportunity is there for the CC to lessen some of the impact, then I cna see why he might want to explore those avenues.

[Annie Bynnol]

The policing of motorways should be paid for by the users of the motorway not by the local residents and businesses many of whom will never use it.

 

The costs incurred in processing, charging and prosecuting the offenders should be paid by the offenders on conviction and not be paid by the local residents and businesses.

[geared]

 

The problem will be if everyone starts to stay below 80, then the police will lose some of their funding. (off set by a reduction in accident costs, hopefully).

 

Judging by current accidents most of them are below 70 and more to do with people not paying attention, not driving to conditions and/or just being pillocks.

 

There was a rash of them these last few weeks, it was more down to the clocks changing and the fog.

 

You couldn't get much above 60 on the motorway when it was running smoothly, but it just seems like abit of darkness and fog and people loose the ability to control their car.

 

---------- Post added 06-11-2015 at 13:18 ----------

 

The chief constable has a responsibility to do his job to enforce the law amd provide a service to his local community.

 

It's also partly his job to try and get as much finding for his force as possible, but coming out in public and saying what he has is absolutely the wrong way to go about it.

 

He's gone and put himself on the idiot list, and the people in charge aren't going to listen to him anymore.

 

It's political game, he wants to be lobbying government, promoting his force and the work they do and want to do.

[999tigger]

Judging by current accidents most of them are below 70 and more to do with people not paying attention, not driving to conditions and/or just being pillocks.

 

There was a rash of them these last few weeks, it was more down to the clocks changing and the fog.

 

You couldn't get much above 60 on the motorway when it was running smoothly, but it just seems like abit of darkness and fog and people loose the ability to control their car.

 

---------- Post added 06-11-2015 at 13:18 ----------

 

 

 

It's also partly his job to try and get as much finding for his force as possible, but coming out in public and saying what he has is absolutely the wrong way to go about it.

 

He's gone and put himself on the idiot list, and the people in charge aren't going to listen to him anymore.

 

It's political game, he wants to be lobbying government, promoting his force and the work they do and want to do.

 

 

Partly agree. Have you readthe interview it was based on?

[truman]

Yes the government decides what level of funding they get but:

 

1. It doesnt mean they probide the right level of funding.

2. It doesnt mean they know how to do the job better than the people on the ground.

 

The chief constable has a responsibility to do his job to enforce the law amd provide a service to his local community.

 

 

Osborne has indicated cuts of 25-40%, so the police will have to prioritise and make cuts accrodingly. If there are opportunities to raise additional income by enforcing the law a little more strictly then the funds can be used to lessen the effect of some of those cuts.

 

They are talking about a reduction from 122,000 police down to 100,000 so 22,000 fewer officers. If the opportunity is there for the CC to lessen some of the impact, then I cna see why he might want to explore those avenues.

 

It's the police and crime commissioner ,not the chief Constable that has suggested this..

[DT Ralge]

I suspect there's some politicking going on here. Let's write/say something outrageous to publicise the funding cuts that the Police are having to face up to ... (The number of PCSO's is on a slippery slope downwards, too.)

Oh, and they need to find a way around the fact that the bulk of the fines go to the Treasury (and have for some time - since 2007, from memory) for redistribution as Road Safety grants (until it got messed up by the credit crunch and the Treasury got meaner with their grants).