Stafford - Drowning under a sea of litter

[Gramaisc]

£550 for dropping a dog-end - http://www.staffordshirenewsletter.co.uk/News/Woman-fined-for-dropped-cigarette-22012013.htm

 

[proactive]

£550 for dropping a dog-end - http://www.staffordshirenewsletter.co.uk/News/Woman-fined-for-dropped-cigarette-22012013.htm

 

[Nicedave]

Yes but what chance of getting her to pay up?

 

[proactive]

Yes but what chance of getting her to pay up?

Oh, sod all obviously. Chav...

 

[The Stafford Beast]

Bailiffs are the highest level of enforcement when somebody has a fine to pay.

 

[Franklin_Delano_Roosevelt]

Bailiffs are the highest level of enforcement when somebody has a fine to pay.

That is of course assuming that if a Bailiff goes to visit the accused actually has anything worth taking away. If everything in the place is essentially on the tick from "Pay us 10p a week for the rest of your life and you can have this nice sofa and flat screen tv to watch Jeremy Kyle on" then there is little way of retrieving the fine.

One would think that if this person had any means (and brains) she:

a) Wouldn't smoke in the first case as it most probably means you and those around you will die of hideous cancer
b) Wouldn't litter
or c) If she was caught bang to rights littering then she would just pay up th £75 quid without the hassle of courts and spiraling costs

 

[Gramaisc]

Indeed - but, it's the thought that counts.

Maybe it's a start? Perhaps we're at the 'pretending to pretend' stage?

 

[Franklin_Delano_Roosevelt]

Indeed - but, it's the thought that counts.

Maybe it's a start? Perhaps we're at the 'pretending to pretend' stage?

It is the thought that counts, but if the ultimate result is that the person gets away with it because she has no money then where is the incentive for her (or any of like probably likeminded friends) not to carry on regardless? I would much rather have a system whereby if a person gets a fixed penalty for littering and doesn't pay up initially then rather than have an expensive and probably pointless court appearance process the person is automatically instructed to attend a community litter picking session - if they turn up then the fine is waived, if they refuse or don't turn up then the £75 is automatically deduced from any benefits the person recieves. Job done.

 

[Gramaisc]

It is the thought that counts, but if the ultimate result is that the person gets away with it because she has no money then where is the incentive for her (or any of like probably likeminded friends) not to carry on regardless? I would much rather have a system whereby if a person gets a fixed penalty for littering and doesn't pay up initially then rather than have an expensive and probably pointless court appearance process the person is automatically instructed to attend a community litter picking session - if they turn up then the fine is waived, if they refuse or don't turn up then the £75 is automatically deduced from any benefits the person recieves. Job done.

I don't disagree. Of course, this may just be a 'raising awareness' event, in the (forlorn?) hope that it may provoke some beneficial behaviour change somewhere.

Failure to pay should result in an adequately enforced Community Work scheme - litter-picking, ideally.

 

[The Stafford Beast]

She has enough money to spend on fags. Therefore enough to pay at least £5 per day to the courts.

 

[Nicedave]

. I have recently been in contact with one of the founding members of KEEP STONE TIDY who has provided me with all the necessary files and documents etc required to set up a KEEP STAFFORD TIDY website. However I do not have the necessary skills to setup such a website and therefore I am appealing to fellow Forumites who maybe able to help me or who would themselves be willing to run the website and showcase the good work being done by Stafford residents. It would be my aim (if allowed) to somehow link this website to Stafford Forum and StreetScene so forumites are able to see the progress being made and comment on any litter problem araes. Incorporated in this I would like a MAP showing all the streets which have become adopted by residents. However I have no idea how to do this.

Thankyou all for your time.

Ben[/quote]

Ben

How has this project progresssed? I havent the skills but thought someone on here would have

I am in Coton ward and do litter pick and have done for some time (not that you would know by the amount of detritus still around)

It would great if one could see what other areas being cleansed by like minded people

 

[Sk84goal]

It is the thought that counts, but if the ultimate result is that the person gets away with it because she has no money then where is the incentive for her (or any of like probably likeminded friends) not to carry on regardless? I would much rather have a system whereby if a person gets a fixed penalty for littering and doesn't pay up initially then rather than have an expensive and probably pointless court appearance process the person is automatically instructed to attend a community litter picking session - if they turn up then the fine is waived, if they refuse or don't turn up then the £75 is automatically deduced from any benefits the person recieves. Job done.

A bit off topic, but I find the whole concept of fixed penalty fines morally indefensible.

The fact that an unemployed person should lose 100% of their weeks income for an offence that for another person would be pocket change is something I have never understood. All crimes should be punished with community service or prison. The church abolished the payment of “indulgencies” to remove sin many years ago. If, and I don’t know why, Society still wishes to use money as punishment then it should be based on a percentage of income not a fixed amount. I know a particular obnoxious person who refers to parking fines as “Privileged parking charges”!

 

[Franklin_Delano_Roosevelt]

A bit off topic, but I find the whole concept of fixed penalty fines morally indefensible.

The fact that an unemployed person should lose 100% of their weeks income for an offence that for another person would be pocket change is something I have never understood. All crimes should be punished with community service or prison. The church abolished the payment of “indulgencies” to remove sin many years ago. If, and I don’t know why, Society still wishes to use money as punishment then it should be based on a percentage of income not a fixed amount. I know a particular obnoxious person who refers to parking fines as “Privileged parking charges”!

I hear what you say but I think that the process of fines have their place. Rightly or wrongly people understand the consequence of having money taken away from them, it is therefore a deterent - I take the point that if you are mega wealthy then £75 quid for the odd littering charge here or parking fine there isn't going to break the bank but we are only talking about a very select few in society (probably mostly Tory MPs) who this would apply to - and besides rich people are generally rich because they are careful and/or tight with their cash and so probably aren't going to be as cavalier to want to give it away as you might suggest.

I agree that more community litter pick orders for offenders would be a good idea as it hopefully has an element of rehabilitation built in but there needs to be a backstop if people don't turn up or don't comply - otherwise what is to stop people just carrying on littering? We can't put everyone in prison & so therefore outside of community punishment if the person proves hostile to that a monetary penalty is really the only thing left that will actually make people think twice from doing likewise again

 

[Sk84goal]

I hear what you say but I think that the process of fines have their place. Rightly or wrongly people understand the consequence of having money taken away from them, it is therefore a deterent - I take the point that if you are mega wealthy then £75 quid for the odd littering charge here or parking fine there isn't going to break the bank but we are only talking about a very select few in society (probably mostly Tory MPs) who this would apply to - and besides rich people are generally rich because they are careful and/or tight with their cash and so probably aren't going to be as cavalier to want to give it away as you might suggest.

I agree that more community litter pick orders for offenders would be a good idea as it hopefully has an element of rehabilitation built in but there needs to be a backstop if people don't turn up or don't comply - otherwise what is to stop people just carrying on littering? We can't put everyone in prison & so therefore outside of community punishment if the person proves hostile to that a monetary penalty is really the only thing left that will actually make people think twice from doing likewise again

Apart from the point that why should the rich be able to buy they way out of community service by paying a fine, it's more the "Fixed" element of fines I am against, Fines should at least be based on a percentage of income to be more fair. Even then the poor are worse off, 5% loss of income to the poor could be the difference between heating and eating but for the rich, although a lot of money, makes little difference to their lives but at least it would be more just than the current system.

 

[My Name is URL]

Even then the poor are worse off, 5% loss of income to the poor could be the difference between heating and eating but for the rich, although a lot of money, makes little difference to their lives but at least it would be more just than the current system.

If thats the case then surely the "poor" should be a lot more careful not to drop litter, then "the system" could milk all of the rich people who drop litter for £££'s to fund hospitals and schools....

 

[Franklin_Delano_Roosevelt]

Apart from the point that why should the rich be able to buy they way out of community service by paying a fine, it's more the "Fixed" element of fines I am against, Fines should at least be based on a percentage of income to be more fair. Even then the poor are worse off, 5% loss of income to the poor could be the difference between heating and eating but for the rich, although a lot of money, makes little difference to their lives but at least it would be more just than the current system.

Ahhh good old means testing. It tends to start out with good intentions but quite often has unintended consequences. To turn your argument around if I am a rich person and I get a fixed penalty £75 fine and a poor person next to me carries out exactly the same crime (let say littering to try and at least remain on thread) and yet gets a lesser penalty then why should I be penalised just for being wealthy? If we have both done the same thing then surely the crime is the same and thus so should be the punishment.....Perhaps poor people should get fed a better diet in prison than wealthy people because they probably haven't eaten as well and have a worse standard of general health..?
I can understand the logic of making for example richer people pay more through the tax system as they have more to pay in but when it comes to crime and punishment if you have one rule for one and one rule for another purely because of the size of your bank balance then I just don't think it is either fair or that it would work

 

[Sk84goal]

If thats the case then surely the "poor" should be a lot more careful not to drop litter, then "the system" could milk all of the rich people who drop litter for £££'s to fund hospitals and schools....

Yes, if you want to use money as a punisment, you can

Ahhh good old means testing. It tends to start out with good intentions but quite often has unintended consequences. To turn your argument around if I am a rich person and I get a fixed penalty £75 fine and a poor person next to me carries out exactly the same crime (let say littering to try and at least remain on thread) and yet gets a lesser penalty then why should I be penalised just for being wealthy?

Because the punishment/pain you receive will be more equal. And the deterrent greater. Is that not the point of fines?

I can understand the logic of making for example richer people pay more through the tax system as they have more to pay in but when it comes to crime and punishment if you have one rule for one and one rule for another purely because of the size of your bank balance then I just don't think it is either fair or that it would work

There is not more than one rule, the rule would be X% of your income.

But you argument goes to re-enforce my original point that punishment by money can never be fair. Better to use community service and prison. But if you are going to use money then punish the rich more than the poor. They can afford it. In many posts and in the papers the poor are vilified for not paying fines. I think there would be a lot more middle/upper class people joining them if the fine was based on a % of their income.

 

[Franklin_Delano_Roosevelt]

Yes, if you want to use money as a punisment, you can




Because the punishment/pain you receive will be more equal. And the deterrent greater. Is that not the point of fines?



There is not more than one rule, the rule would be X% of your income.

But you argument goes to re-enforce my original point that punishment by money can never be fair. Better to use community service and prison. But if you are going to use money then punish the rich more than the poor. They can afford it. In many posts and in the papers the poor are vilified for not paying fines. I think there would be a lot more middle/upper class people joining them if the fine was based on a % of their income.

So what you are basically saying is punish people who are successful for committing exactly the same crime as someone who is poor because it is their fault for being wealthy. Who judges and administers this means testing? Does the litter warden have to march you to the cash point and demand to see your bank account to make a judgment as to whether you are wealthy or not? How do you define wealthy? To someone on minimum wage then someone who earns £30K a year is wealthy - should that person be classed as rich? Where is the line drawn?
If you can't answer these sort of questions then it can't work.

 

[Gramaisc]

Our masters have discussed this - http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1988/jun/20/income-related-fines .

 

[Sk84goal]

So what you are basically saying is punish people who are successful for committing exactly the same crime as someone who is poor because it is their fault for being wealthy. Who judges and administers this means testing? Does the litter warden have to march you to the cash point and demand to see your bank account to make a judgment as to whether you are wealthy or not? How do you define wealthy? To someone on minimum wage then someone who earns £30K a year is wealthy - should that person be classed as rich? Where is the line drawn?
If you can't answer these sort of questions then it can't work.

No! I am saying the effect of the punishment should be the same whatever you earn. With the current system the poorer you are the more you are hurt by the punishment and vice versa. The current system is completely regressive and the more you earn the less the punishment effects you. I struggle to see how this is justifiable. As far as how the system is run, the government already knows what most people earn it’s called the tax system.

Again I say that the system of punishment via money can never be made to be completely fair but the current system punishes those who can least cope more. A % income fine would go some way to rectify this.