hitmanNo2 Posted September 29, 2006 Report Share Posted September 29, 2006 I just saw a head line entitled Instant justice for crimes proposed Awesome I thought, perhaps criminals will start to fear the law? But all is not what it appears. Serious crimes such as assault and mugging will be punished by instant fines of up to £100 from as early as next year under proposals to keep offenders out of courts, it has been reported . The plans, drawn up by the Home Office, propose an extension of fixed-penalty notices from early 2007, The Times reported. The penalties would be handed out for offences including assault, threatening behaviour, theft up to the value of £100, obstructing or assaulting a police officer, possession of cannabis and drunkenness, the newspaper said. A spokesman for the Home Office said he could not comment on leaked documents, adding that such proposals had "not gone anywhere near ministers". Cindy Barnett, chairman of the Magistrates' Association, said the proposals made a mockery of the criminal justice system and downgraded the gravity of offences that should go before the courts. The association had been given until next week to respond to the proposals, she said. She told the newspaper: "These are crimes that involve victims, and sometimes violence, and some of them are at the top end of what Government research has shown the public regard as serious. They should not be dealt with by penalty notice. What kind of message does this send out? "Serious offences will end up being sentenced by the police and/or prosecution, and underlying problems such as drug abuse will be missed, because speed is seen as more important than taking people to court through a proper process. Magistrates are unanimous and we have already given the Lord Chancellor the very clear message from every part of England and Wales that the Government has already gone too far with these measures." The Government released a wide-ranging set of proposals in July, entitled Delivering Simple, Speedy, Summary Justice, to shake up the way the courts handle cases. The Home Office said the proposals included rolling out existing conditional cautions in which prosecutors handed out punishments for minor crimes rather than taking the offender to court. Other proposals involve streamlining Crown Court procedures by eliminating unnecessary pre-trial hearings, and allowing youths who commit low-level crime to avoid court if they apologised to their victims. I'm sorry, did I miss the memo that says the courts sole purpose is to provide a bookable venue for private parties now and not to deal with the ###### of this country? Link to post Share on other sites
DarkLite Posted September 29, 2006 Report Share Posted September 29, 2006 Welcome to England, Mate. Leave your brains at the door, Tony Blair will do all the thinking for everyone now. Link to post Share on other sites
Maruta Posted September 29, 2006 Report Share Posted September 29, 2006 Welcome to England, Mate. Leave your brains at the door, Tony Blair will do all the thinking for everyone now. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I thought he stepped down, or did he just tell Labour their groupthink for him is obsolete? Link to post Share on other sites
Chimpy Posted September 29, 2006 Report Share Posted September 29, 2006 Yikes, no longer are you innocent until proven guilty. Link to post Share on other sites
gazchap Posted September 29, 2006 Report Share Posted September 29, 2006 At first I thought the story was going to say that you'd be fined £100 on the spot and still be arrested and have to attend a court hearing. Then I read that they wanted to keep people out of court. Jesus Christ. Where's the source link though? Sounds suspiciously "Daily Mail". Link to post Share on other sites
hitmanNo2 Posted September 29, 2006 Author Report Share Posted September 29, 2006 Can't seem to find the original article (on the BBC) but heres its followup article (replaced origonal) http://news.uk.msn.com/Article.aspx?cp-documentid=1008707 Link to post Share on other sites
cross out the eyes Posted September 29, 2006 Report Share Posted September 29, 2006 Hehe, Blair is going down, and he's taking the whole *fruitcage* country with him, good stuff... Link to post Share on other sites
Smith5 Posted September 29, 2006 Report Share Posted September 29, 2006 Fantastic! Mug some one of £200, pay £100 to the witnessing police officer, walk off scott free £100 up. Brilliant! Or, mug someone of the same £200, say the guy next to you did it, walk away with free money. Anyone see the flaw in this one? Dear god with ideas like this I could run the country. Link to post Share on other sites
rizzo Posted September 30, 2006 Report Share Posted September 30, 2006 At first I thought the story was going to say that you'd be fined £100 on the spot and still be arrested and have to attend a court hearing. Then I read that they wanted to keep people out of court. Jesus Christ. Where's the source link though? Sounds suspiciously "Daily Mail". <{POST_SNAPBACK}> All over every other newspaper yesterday morning as well... Link to post Share on other sites
doc_newstead Posted September 30, 2006 Report Share Posted September 30, 2006 Fantastic! Mug some one of £200, pay £100 to the witnessing police officer, walk off scott free £100 up. Brilliant! Or, mug someone of the same £200, say the guy next to you did it, walk away with free money. Anyone see the flaw in this one? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes - your knowledge of the justice system is useless. Link to post Share on other sites
fido Posted September 30, 2006 Report Share Posted September 30, 2006 I AM THE LAW! ...and lack thereof...mumble,mumble, beard. Link to post Share on other sites
ferg981 Posted September 30, 2006 Report Share Posted September 30, 2006 It would be for dealing with witnessed incidents with a clearly identified offender or named offender. It will be like the current £80 PND which we can hand out for minor breaches of public order etc etc. It would save police time, for instance, last night I spent 5 hrs dealing with some chopper in custody when if he'd of accepted the £80 PND instead of being a bellend, then I could of spent 4hrs and 40 minutes of that time in the town centre instead. Reference the "mug £200 and pay £100 then end up £100 better off" - realistically, the courts would just give them a warning or a fine of like £20 in my experience, so personally i'd rather the f**kers lose £100 of the cash with a PND and the issuing officer takes the other £100 as evidence. With regards to assaulting a police officer, if it goes to court, they usually get conditional discharges, unless they give u a real kicking. Personally, i'd find writing them out a ticket for £100 after you've just batoned them within 20 minutes to be far more amusing then doing a charge file for 2hrs back at the nick.................... ferg Link to post Share on other sites
dirtyazzmutha Posted October 2, 2006 Report Share Posted October 2, 2006 Im moving to the UK and taking ohhhh about $3500 with me. You guys are screwed. What happens if you cant pay right then, do you go to jail? If so that is bad cause you dont go to jail for rape just cause you cant pay the fine! Tell ya what though I would be looking twice at the guy at the ATM getting out 100 bucks, thinkin to myself "what are you planning" Link to post Share on other sites
Connery Posted October 4, 2006 Report Share Posted October 4, 2006 Fantastic! Mug some one of £200, pay £100 to the witnessing police officer, walk off scott free £100 up. Brilliant! Or, mug someone of the same £200, say the guy next to you did it, walk away with free money. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes - your knowledge of the justice system is useless. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Link to post Share on other sites
doc_newstead Posted October 4, 2006 Report Share Posted October 4, 2006 Im moving to the UK and taking ohhhh about $3500 with me. You guys are screwed. What happens if you cant pay right then, do you go to jail? If so that is bad cause you dont go to jail for rape <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Link to post Share on other sites
Kyrian_Zenda Posted October 4, 2006 Report Share Posted October 4, 2006 Judge Dredd ftw Link to post Share on other sites
Md0ggyd0g Posted October 4, 2006 Report Share Posted October 4, 2006 Sure hope we don't end up like that... Link to post Share on other sites
Desolation mkII Posted October 4, 2006 Report Share Posted October 4, 2006 The fact that this country has gone to the dogs was cemented in my mind when I was told not to walk home in my (army) uniform as people would target me on the estate next to the barracks. What kind of country lets its people attack soldiers (or what are for all intents and purpouses soldiers). Link to post Share on other sites
cross out the eyes Posted October 5, 2006 Report Share Posted October 5, 2006 ^ and in a number of cases, cadets Link to post Share on other sites
Chimpy Posted October 6, 2006 Report Share Posted October 6, 2006 The fact that this country has gone to the dogs was cemented in my mind when I was told not to walk home in my (army) uniform as people would target me on the estate next to the barracks. What kind of country lets its people attack soldiers (or what are for all intents and purpouses soldiers). <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That's pretty much standard since the beginning of The Troubles. Link to post Share on other sites
hitmanNo2 Posted October 6, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 6, 2006 Anyone that attacks or allows someone to attack soldiers of this country is asking for trouble IMO and should be dealt with with extreme predjudice. But thats just me, and I have some extreme views on things that i'm sure would be to other peoples distaste. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.