The reasoning is clear and simple: if you drive a car, you must have too much money for your own good. It is time that HMG relieved you of some of this burden:
Motorists convicted of speeding may have to pay compensation for victims, the government has proposed.
The plan, published on Monday, is one of several changes to the funding of victim support services.Motorists given a prison term or suspended sentence would pay £30 to a Home Office fund providing victim and witness compensation and support.
Those fined for speeding or driving without insurance would face a levy of £5 or £10…
He said a victims fund would put more money into services such as practical support, information to victims of rape and sexual offences, road traffic accident victims and those who have been bereaved as a result of crime.
So, if you get caught speeding, you get punished for sexual offences and murders.
Not that the absurdity will matter in practice. I predict that not a single real victim of any real crime will ever see a single penny of that money ever.
Well, who knows. Since this is the kind of terminally dumb, patronizing, statist rule France is so famous for the world over, they might sue you for unfair competition.
Speeding is a crime against the state?
–Motorists convicted of speeding may have to pay compensation for victims–
Who’s the victim of speeding, other than the parents who own the car?
D Carr: “I predict that not a single real victim of any real crime will ever see a single penny of that money ever.”
Would it matter if they did? Why would you be funding victims of sexual aggression because you’d gone over a couple of speed bumps without slowing down? What would Gilbert & Sullivan, in a saner age have to say? “To make the punishment fit the crime, the punishment fit the crime”? Or to make the punishment fit the politically correct straight jacket of the self-serving socialists seeking an ever-wider pool of victims to service?
Toneboy’s on shakey ground here.
And I’d like to address the elephant in the living room. Blunkett is blind. He cannot see the devastation wrought by Nulab’s policies in Britain. He’s driven around in a limousine seeing nothing. To have a blind home secretary is the ultimate jackboot on the necks of the British electorate.
He can’t even see the physical damage wrought by their self-serving, re-elected-at-any-price programmes. He can only listen. To his “government advisors”.
Verity,
“Would it matter if they did?”
Of course, I would still be opposed to it. The whole idea is ludicrous. However, I just wanted to make it clear that this is really just more tax take for the public sector and the parasite classes.
I just wanted to make it clear that this is really just more tax take for the public sector and the parasite classes.
Which is a very important general point. We naturally assume that gasoline taxes go into some sort of transportation fund, cigarette taxes go directly toward health, social security payments in become social security payments out, the meals tax funds restaurant inspections and so on. That government funds are made of discrete buckets and taxes collected for certain purposes are somehow earmarked to pay for related services.
Taxes wouldn’t be any less obnoxious if that were true, but it isn’t true. And it’s amazing what a difference it makes in how people feel about taxation once that idea really penetrates.
It all goes into one big, squishy fund and the only reason to associate certain taxes with certain services is to make the need seem more plausible.
We have the victim surcharge here in Ontario, Canada.
It is annoyingly ludicrous.
David: “I just wanted to make it clear that this is really just more tax take for the public sector and the parasite classes.”
The perversion of our tax pounds is the issue (if you’ll forgive me, given that it’s your post). More thought-control circumlocution. It’s more sinister than just double entry bookkeeping. There’s an intelligence (certainly not that of T Blair, Esq) behind it. It’s a machine lumbering forward. We either jump out of the way, or stop it.
What seems to be addressed here is the very foundation of having a State in the first place and what happens when the State is hijacked by bureaucrats. The State exists as an efficient method whereby people can be made whole if harmed, or, if that is no longer possible, bound people from harming others similarly. But the State is hijacked by those who realize that, once established and calcified, the bureaucracy can continue to run up taxes and levies that have little to do with protecting property, making a victim whole, or preventing similar conduct in the future. Until people demand that laws be specific and effectual it will only get worse. It falls into the main category of the mass who feel some oblique security when such nonsense is put before them and don’t reckon the consequences – most likely, using previously pilfered levies to staff the next bureau to find more levies.
toolkien writes:
State is hijacked by bureaucrats
I almost choked on my Beaujolais there, toolkien. The state is never hijacked by bureaucrats. The state is bureaucrats.
The first bureaucrat robbers carry a great big sword, call themselves King, and said things like “If you don’t do exactly what I say and pay me taxes and obey the laws and decrees that I make up, I will put you in my gaol”.
The later ones carry great big pens, call themselves public servants, and say things like “If you don’t do exactly what I say and pay me taxes and obey the laws and decrees that I make up, I will put you in my jail”.
Now the spelling of the word gaol/jail may have changed over the ages, but little else has.
The first five buildings any new bureaucrat builds, when coming into power, are a courthouse, a treasury, a jail, a police station, and an army barracks, all usually wrapped with some kind of security cordon provided externally by the army, and internally by the police.
If you don’t then pay into the treasury, the police will be sent to drag you to the courthouse, where the bureaucrat will sentence you to the jail, where you will remain kidnapped at the bureaucrat’s pleasure.
They’re all robbers, toolkien, they’re all thieves, and when the revolution comes, brother, we’re going to make the suckers get out there and work for a living, for once, rather than living off our backs.
The State exists as an efficient method whereby people can be made whole if harmed, or, if that is no longer possible, bound people from harming others similarly
Double choke. Efficient? Crikey, I’d hate to see Britain under NuLabour if the state actually became inefficient. Blimey, we’d all be living in dirt scrapings before they’d finished ‘getting there’ with the NHS.
The state exists as a monopolist of crime. They wish to be the only ones allowed to steal from you. The state exists as a monopoly of force, in order to protect this monopoly right to steal from you. So they disarm you to prevent you from protecting yourselves from their depradations. The state exists as a monopoly of law, so you must obey what they say or suffer the consequences. They also provide you with some feeble level of security (keeping heavy iron gates, and heavy police security mainly for themselves), so that you’ll be able to go out and make enough money for them to later steal from you.
The purpose of the state is to act as a vehicle for a self-appointed ruling class to terrorise everyone else in their area of control, for their own personal benefit. Yes, they have to temper this terrorism in order to obtain some level of grudging acceptance, as if they act too violently they in turn will be overthrown by another self-appointed ruling class (as happened in the UK with the Feudal barons being overthrown by the Tory barons, who in turn were overturned by the Labour barons).
But let’s just call all the representatives of the state, over the ages, what they are.
Thieves. With menaces.
And basically useless at everything else they do, except thieving with menaces.
The problem is not the state itself, the problem is that states are not constitutionaly limited to their sole legitimate function of defending the lives, freedom and property of citizens. The only act which can be banned in a free society is the initiation of force and fraud and the only legitimate function of government is uphold the principle of the non-initiation of force and fraud and to defend citizens against against such initiation.
The idea is a lot worse than ludicrous. It is yet another perversion of the legal system, creating injustice for political ends.
The sentences given by the courts are supposed to be just punishment for the particular crime. One may argue about whether the court has got it right in a specific case, or whether certain acts ought to be punishable less or more severely. However, the government appears to be saying that the tarriff will now be set at the just punishment determined according to court rules, plus a little bit. So it is guaranteeing that criminals will always be punished just a bit more than its own sentencing guidelines say they deserve.
Why are there victims of crime? Because the state has failed in its primary duty – to protect its citizens and their property. Why should I be fined for malfeasance by the state? The fault lies therefore with the Tony Blair coterie, not citizens in their cars.
Unfortunately the judicial system in Britain has been taken over by the 60’s theoretical thinking where “prison is bad should be avoided at all costs” and “criminals commit crime because of bad backround etc… ie. Tony Bliar’s precious root causes.”
As a result, our judicial system has shifted to benefit criminals by the expense of the victims.
Studies have shown this approach is outdated and leads into large increases in crime and lawlesness.
Only effective deterrant to prevent crime is efficient enforcement enforcement of the law, by both police and the courts.
But try telling that to the caffelatterevolutionares of Islington, and you will be in breach of european human rights, imprisoned by the Met and thrown into some inquisition by the CRE.
Front4UK open a day-release prison in Islington.
My prediction “Lock ’em up and throw away the key” will be the Grauniad headline the day after it opens!
What I don’t understand is the systemic difference in England that causes these problems.
Here in the USA stupid laws get passed every now and then (cough*DMCA*cough), but we relatively quickly realize they are stupid and fix them. Even big, institutional entitlement programs get reformed fairly regularly. Does this not happen in Britain, and if not, why?
Is this a cultural thing, and the people really wants laws like this? Or is it a problem with the way the government is organized? Something left over from feudalism maybe, where the folks in power are not answerable to the people?
“hijacked by bureaucrats”
This happens in the USA too, but it isn’t the way it always is, or has to be. The Executive Agencies are operated by bureaucrats, but they are run by elected officials who catch a lot of crap if things go wrong. Executives are accountable, and often have had successful private-sector lives before and after their time in office.
The Legislative branch has lifers – but only if they are flexible enough to change with the times. A Congressman who hasn’t changed his views in 20 years wouldn’t be in Congress any more.
The Judicial Branch is fairly bureaucrat free too. The judges on the bench are mostly semi-retired lawyers who have already had successful careers in the private sector (even law school professors & deans have lucrative private consulting practices). They aren’t government toadies, and they know government’s place.
What I’m trying to say is that the US government can be hijacked, but it gets taken back by citizens fairly regularly too. Does this not happen in Britain?
Why not?
Brock
PS – And has anyone else had problems with the Comments feature remembering their information, or is it just me?
Not only is the law a ass, ‘e’s a mean, vindictive old bastard, too.
I humbly submit that the only reason the mention of rape victims is put in there, is to vilify anybody who opposes the tax hike.
“Oh, you’re against the tax hike that would benefit the poor, ‘elpless rape victims then? Why then, you must be in favor of rape.”
We in the U.S. have had a similar thing for years – it’s called “for the children.”
If the 1st U.S. Cavalry Division showed up on your doorstep, to eat your food, sleep on your sofa, watch football on your TV and bugger you during the ads, a legion of lefties would step up in a heartbeat to explain that really, it’s all for the children, and if you are opposed to being buggered, pushed off your sofa, denied the remote control, and eaten out of house and home, why by God, you must feel that way because you hate the cute wittle chirrets.
If somebody is stupid enough to use this line on me, I simply cop to it. “Of course I hate children. Who doesn’t? Those little bastards don’t pay taxes. They’re worse than the rich.” That usually moves the conversation right along. Sadly, you can’t do this with journalists or elected legislators, who seem to be stuck on the meme.
For the rape victims though… that’s a good one. I’ll have to write my congressman, and suggest he writes a rape victims benefit into every bill he proposes. “Against travel to Mars… why, my God man, it means you are in favor of rape.” “Against subsidizing a 20 year study, involving 500,000 human subjects, to determine if grape jelly consumption declines with age? Why, you must be a rapist, then, or at least fans of them.”
See, it’s brilliant.
Of course, if they wanted to really stigmatize people in the U.S., they’d introduce bills with riders to fund conservative and libertarian think tanks. That way, anybody opposing a new bill would be characterized as libertarian, or worse yet, conservative. Once you were so characterized, nobody in decent society would talk to you again, ever.
For a certain class of people, being called conservative probably is worse than being called a rapist. See e.g. Clinton, Bill; Kennedy, Ted.
Hmmm.
No offense to those of you living in Britain but your government is completely nuts. I think it might be time to wrap a 40 feet of chain around Gordon Brown and dump him into the Channel. Seriously what’s next? Have you guys ever had a tax cut? In your lives?
Man I thought New Jersey was the land of Death by a Thousand Taxes but now I see that my state government is nothing but a bunch of amateurs.
Over the years I have met a number of leftists from many parts of the world (partly because to my shame I used to be one myself). Not all leftists are alike. There are some who believe in some form of left wing ideology, but who are also skeptical about any kind of authoritarianism. Obviously these people are confused, but their hearts are more or less in the right place.
But then there are leftists who are not only not skeptical about authoritarianism, they advocate it in full, and are utterly contemptuous of any notion of individual freedom. And I have to say that most of those I have met who take this line have been British. I have no idea why this should be so, but for some reason many British leftists seem to have an almost fascist attitude towards any notion of indivual freedom except in highly limited areas, like recreational drugs or sexuality. One British leftist I met not only believed that the U.S. should be forcibly inavded by the rest of the world and placed under direct U.N. rule, she believed that the very notion of individual freedom was a right wing lie designed to undermine progress towards global socialism. She was fond of using the word ‘impose’ when talking about how a global socialist government would put the world to rights, as in such a government would impose racial tolerance on people by force.
Mabey its just that I have met more than my share of fringe idiots, but there is something very scary about the British left.
…only the left?
I dont know that its just a british thing, we have em here in the states too. Granted, most of the lefties here are pacifists, but there is always that fringe…
The state exists as a monopolist of crime. They wish to be the only ones allowed to steal from you. The state exists as a monopoly of force, in order to protect this monopoly right to steal from you. So they disarm you to prevent you from protecting yourselves from their depradations. The state exists as a monopoly of law, so you must obey what they say or suffer the consequences. They also provide you with some feeble level of security (keeping heavy iron gates, and heavy police security mainly for themselves), so that you’ll be able to go out and make enough money for them to later steal from you.
The purpose of the state is to act as a vehicle for a self-appointed ruling class to terrorise everyone else in their area of control, for their own personal benefit. Yes, they have to temper this terrorism in order to obtain some level of grudging acceptance, as if they act too violently they in turn will be overthrown by another self-appointed ruling class (as happened in the UK with the Feudal barons being overthrown by the Tory barons, who in turn were overturned by the Labour barons).
But let’s just call all the representatives of the state, over the ages, what they are.
Thieves. With menaces.
And basically useless at everything else they do, except thieving with menaces.
So when’s the revolution? At heart I know where you’re coming from as idealistically I am an anarchist. But perhaps I’ve settled somewhat and deduced that there will always be some level of State in our lives, it is the attempt to prevent its ‘hijacking by Bureaucrats’ (note use of capital B this time). Accepting that there will be a level of State whose function is to make for effecient disposal of those who would violate individual and property rights. I’m in on ultra-self protection if you are. But I can at least see the desire of the all in the masses to create a civil society imperfect as it may be, based on restricting unacceptable behaviors toward others’ property and lives. The key is to prevent mystics from entering the picture, selling Good to malleable masses, taking the reins of power, or those who simply know a good grift when they see one and use the State simply for their own engrandizement.
So yes, deep down, I agree. And further than that, I am too cynical in my middle age to think one perfect circumstance will ever present itself and, if it did, remaining unchanged. The founders of the US knew full well that tyranny was mostly a matter of the passage of time than anything else and that for freedom insurections are a part of the program. But, if nothing else, I accept the existence of a State as an underlying reality that I can’t change and need to deal with it. I do what I can to impress upon people that the government doesn’t create anything, only transfers, and that any gain you get comes at a cost, and we’d all better be clear about what we want as far as services. A minarchy that provides protection of property rights is as about as high as I’m willing to go and implore people, regardless of their own illusions that make up their lives, to leave the State to perform this function exclusively.
Limberwulf, I have never met a lefty who was a pacifist when it came to the domestic initiation of force by the state, so long as it is in service of lefty goals.
Really, it is very hard to be a true pacifist without also being an anarchist. Oddly, most of the so-called pacifists I know are all in favor of various forcible expropriations and redistributions of wealth, and many are in favor of forcible adjustment of attitudes they regard as retrograde. Since they have no apparent qualms about the intitiation of force in principle, only about the use of force to attain goals they do not approve of, I decline to do them the favor of giving them any moral high ground whatsoever.
toolkien writes:
So yes, deep down, I agree.
Excellent! 🙂
And further than that, I am too cynical in my middle age to think one perfect circumstance will ever present itself and, if it did, remaining unchanged.
No perfect opportunity will ever present itself. We will have to work at it. And if we work at it hard enough, one day we’ll get lucky, and make an opportunity present itself, just like those Free State people are doing in New Hampshire (Gawd bless ’em).
The founders of the US knew full well that tyranny was mostly a matter of the passage of time than anything else and that for freedom insurections are a part of the program.
Well, my hero Benjamin Franklin certainly realised the US constitution was heavily flawed in the direction of statism, with this quote:
What a man, Franklin. Surely the greatest American of all time.
But, if nothing else, I accept the existence of a State as an underlying reality that I can’t change and need to deal with it.
No, toolkien, I will not tolerate your defeatism. You CAN change it. Just get the state out of as much of your life as you can manage to do. Obviously none of us can do this completely, or in Ayn Rand’s words, defy the Juggernaut, but we can do something. If there are any circumstances where you can choose to either deal with the state, or not deal with the state, don’t deal with them. You’ll only encourage them! 🙂
This may be a small effort, overall, but just as the state was desperate to get Winston Smith to love them in 1984, they are desperate to get you to love (or at least, to accept) them, now.
Don’t accept them. The road to a libertarian future begins with your first step to a libertarian future. Ghandi destroyed the British Empire in India, by refusing to cooperate with them. We can do the same. One person at a time.
The British Empire was once mighty. It does nothing now except one day dream of taking over the EU from the French. Ghandi did that to it (amongst others), and we can all do the same.
Strangely, I think, by not doing anything. Which seems weird, but which may be the key we’ve been looking for to unlock the genie. Every time we DO get involved, we end up as Tories or Republicans, and keep the sorry saga going.
We can defeat them, and stranger things have happened at sea. Look at communism thirty years ago, about to take over the world. Look at it now. Ashcan of history. In thirty years who knows where we might be? David Carr, world president, about to sack himself, after clearing out the rats’ nest of world bureaucracy?
Unlikely, yes. But wouldn’t it be wonderful! 🙂