I suppose the motorists who dominate and infest this transport
newsgroup will claim that this is a revenue making exercise on the
part of the council when, in fact, it is just another example of
criminal motorists.

"For most of us, having a parking ticket costing £70 or more is a
major irritant.

But when you earn upwards of £50,000 a week, the blow is softened
somewhat.

So it's perhaps unsurprising that when top Premiership footballers
need to park their German sports car or monstrous American trucks,
they don't let the small matter of double yellow lines or loading bays
bother them.

With some of the country's highest-paid stars living in the area,
Manchester has become used to the sight of Bentleys and Aston Martins
blocking pavements and bus stops outside its swankier bars and most
overpriced boutiques..."

More:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1031584/Highly-paid-footballers-openly-flouting-parking-laws--70-fines-easy-pay.html


--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

Doug wrote:
> I suppose the motorists who dominate and infest this transport
> newsgroup will claim that this is a revenue making exercise on the
> part of the council when, in fact, it is just another example of
> criminal motorists.
>
Wrong again Doug, it why I disagree with fixed penalties. If the punishment 
is to fit the crime then the fine needs to take into account the income of 
the offender. Self-important tossers such as these are amongst that select 
group of societies offenders who never would be missed and they're on the 
list.

Just as you are.

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:ec6c1aaf-d5ee-43cf-8e0d-28ef5559bbf3@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
I suppose the motorists who dominate and infest this transport
newsgroup will claim that this is a revenue making exercise on the
part of the council when, in fact, it is just another example of
criminal motorists.

"For most of us, having a parking ticket costing £70 or more is a
major irritant.

But when you earn upwards of £50,000 a week, the blow is softened
somewhat.

So it's perhaps unsurprising that when top Premiership footballers
need to park their German sports car or monstrous American trucks,
they don't let the small matter of double yellow lines or loading bays
bother them.

With some of the country's highest-paid stars living in the area,
Manchester has become used to the sight of Bentleys and Aston Martins
blocking pavements and bus stops outside its swankier bars and most
overpriced boutiques..."


Doug, if you're hoping to find anyone on here who actually supports the 
actions of these "sporting heroes", then you're even more barking than I 
thought.......................

On 4 Jul, 05:58, Doug  wrote:
> I suppose the motorists who dominate and infest this transport
> newsgroup will claim that this is a revenue making exercise on the
> part of the council when, in fact, it is just another example of
> criminal motorists.
>
> "For most of us, having a parking ticket costing £70 or more is a
> major irritant.
>
> But when you earn upwards of £50,000 a week, the blow is softened
> somewhat.
>
> So it's perhaps unsurprising that when top Premiership footballers
> need to park their German sports car or monstrous American trucks,
> they don't let the small matter of double yellow lines or loading bays
> bother them.
>
> With some of the country's highest-paid stars living in the area,
> Manchester has become used to the sight of Bentleys and Aston Martins
> blocking pavements and bus stops outside its swankier bars and most
> overpriced boutiques..."
>
> More:
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1031584/Highly-paid-footballe...
>
> --
> World Carfree Networkhttp://www.worldcarfree.net/
> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

Nice to see that normal service from the real Doug Bollen has resumed.

"BrianW"  wrote in message 
news:4f86061f-1b8f-4b7a-b89f-2e764c63ad62@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

Nice to see that normal service from the real Doug Bollen has resumed.

Everything Doug is against you are for or is it too painful to agree with 
him in this instance?

The only glimmer of hope I have is that those cars will block the fire 
engine or ambulance from coming down your road  when you need it :(

On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 08:39:57 +0100, "Brimstone"
 wrote:

>Doug wrote:
>> I suppose the motorists who dominate and infest this transport
>> newsgroup will claim that this is a revenue making exercise on the
>> part of the council when, in fact, it is just another example of
>> criminal motorists.
>>
>Wrong again Doug, it why I disagree with fixed penalties. If the punishment 
>is to fit the crime then the fine needs to take into account the income of 
>the offender.

You got that arse about face, Brimmer.

Money must or at least should have a defined value. Are you receiving
me "Prudence"? Take time out from "Helping the Poorest" to listen.

If people with more money pay have to pay extra for the same things
we'll never know where the hell we are.

People on benefits should get given money to meet their needs and then
pay the same as everyone else.

It's the Mr. & Mrs Braindead Scums of this world that are happy to pay
£50k/wk to people playing ball games via their entrance tickets that
are the root of the footballer problem.

>Self-important tossers such as these are amongst that select 
>group of societies offenders who never would be missed and they're on the 
>list.
>
>Just as you are. 
>

Derek

On 4 Jul, 09:59, "Tooomy"  wrote:
> "BrianW"  wrote in message
>
> news:4f86061f-1b8f-4b7a-b89f-2e764c63ad62@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Nice to see that normal service from the real Doug Bollen has resumed.
>
> Everything Doug is against you are for or is it too painful to agree with
> him in this instance?
>
> The only glimmer of hope I have is that those cars will block the fire
> engine or ambulance from coming down your road  when you need it :(

Tooomy, you might find this useful
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_%28punctuation%29

Francis

On 4 Jul, 09:59, "Tooomy"  wrote:
> "BrianW"  wrote in message
>
> news:4f86061f-1b8f-4b7a-b89f-2e764c63ad62@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Nice to see that normal service from the real Doug Bollen has resumed.
>
> Everything Doug is against you are for or is it too painful to agree with
> him in this instance?

??

Please point to the bit where I disagreed with Doug.  Oh, you can't,
can you, because you are illiterate.  Never mind, Toomtard.

Tooomy wrote:
> "BrianW"  wrote in message
> news:4f86061f-1b8f-4b7a-b89f-2e764c63ad62@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Nice to see that normal service from the real Doug Bollen has resumed.
>
> Everything Doug is against you are for or is it too painful to agree
> with him in this instance?

Where does he agree with Doug, fuckwit??

Mike P

Mike P wrote:
> Tooomy wrote:
>> "BrianW"  wrote in message
>> news:4f86061f-1b8f-4b7a-b89f-2e764c63ad62@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Nice to see that normal service from the real Doug Bollen has
>> resumed. Everything Doug is against you are for or is it too painful to 
>> agree
>> with him in this instance?
>
> Where does he agree with Doug, fuckwit??

Now see, reading your shite has made *ME* type shite!!

Of course, that should have said "where does he DISAGREE with Doug, 
fuckwit?"

Mike P

On 4 Jul, 12:21, "Mike P"  wrote:
> Mike P wrote:
> > Tooomy wrote:
> >> "BrianW"  wrote in message
> >>news:4f86061f-1b8f-4b7a-b89f-2e764c63ad62@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> Nice to see that normal service from the real Doug Bollen has
> >> resumed. Everything Doug is against you are for or is it too painful to
> >> agree
> >> with him in this instance?
>
> > Where does he agree with Doug, fuckwit??
>
> Now see, reading your shite has made *ME* type shite!!
>
> Of course, that should have said "where does he DISAGREE with Doug,
> fuckwit?"

I suspect Toomy can't even go to the toilet without help.  Perhaps his
care assistant can explain what we are saying to him.

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:ec6c1aaf-d5ee-43cf-8e0d-28ef5559bbf3@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
I suppose the motorists who dominate and infest this transport
newsgroup will claim that this is a revenue making exercise on the
part of the council when, in fact, it is just another example of
criminal motorists.

"For most of us, having a parking ticket costing £70 or more is a
major irritant.

But when you earn upwards of £50,000 a week, the blow is softened
somewhat.


****************************

Nope , that one I'm more than happy to agree with.
If you have sufficient income then fixed penalty notices are irrellevant.
I'd support a change to the system so that repeat offenders could be taken 
to court and more substantial income-based penalty imposed

-- 
Alex

"I laugh in the face of danger , then I hide until it goes away"

www.drzoidberg.co.uk

Dr Zoidberg wrote:
> "Doug"  wrote in message
> news:ec6c1aaf-d5ee-43cf-8e0d-28ef5559bbf3@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> I suppose the motorists who dominate and infest this transport
> newsgroup will claim that this is a revenue making exercise on the
> part of the council when, in fact, it is just another example of
> criminal motorists.
>
> "For most of us, having a parking ticket costing £70 or more is a
> major irritant.
>
> But when you earn upwards of £50,000 a week, the blow is softened
> somewhat.
>
>
> ****************************
>
> Nope , that one I'm more than happy to agree with.
> If you have sufficient income then fixed penalty notices are
> irrellevant. I'd support a change to the system so that repeat
> offenders could be taken to court and more substantial income-based
> penalty imposed

There is an alternative which is a mum pushing a wheelchair past with not 
quite enough space ....

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:ec6c1aaf-d5ee-43cf-8e0d-28ef5559bbf3@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
I suppose the motorists who dominate and infest this transport
newsgroup will claim that this is a revenue making exercise on the
part of the council when, in fact, it is just another example of
criminal motorists.

"For most of us, having a parking ticket costing £70 or more is a
major irritant.

But when you earn upwards of £50,000 a week, the blow is softened
somewhat.


****************************

Nope , that one I'm more than happy to agree with.
If you have sufficient income then fixed penalty notices are irrellevant.
I'd support a change to the system so that repeat offenders could be taken 
to court and more substantial income-based penalty imposed

-- 
Alex

"I laugh in the face of danger , then I hide until it goes away"

www.drzoidberg.co.uk

"Brimstone"  wrote in message 
news:2uednY9346jCpfPVnZ2dnUVZ8vGdnZ2d@bt.com...
> Dr Zoidberg wrote:
>> "Doug"  wrote in message
>> news:ec6c1aaf-d5ee-43cf-8e0d-28ef5559bbf3@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>> I suppose the motorists who dominate and infest this transport
>> newsgroup will claim that this is a revenue making exercise on the
>> part of the council when, in fact, it is just another example of
>> criminal motorists.
>>
>> "For most of us, having a parking ticket costing £70 or more is a
>> major irritant.
>>
>> But when you earn upwards of £50,000 a week, the blow is softened
>> somewhat.
>>
>>
>> ****************************
>>
>> Nope , that one I'm more than happy to agree with.
>> If you have sufficient income then fixed penalty notices are
>> irrellevant. I'd support a change to the system so that repeat
>> offenders could be taken to court and more substantial income-based
>> penalty imposed
>
> There is an alternative which is a mum pushing a wheelchair past with not 
> quite enough space ....

I don't think we can rely on well-intentioned criminal damage as a deterrent 
:0)

-- 
Alex

"I laugh in the face of danger , then I hide until it goes away"

www.drzoidberg.co.uk

Brimstone wrote:
> Doug wrote:
>> I suppose the motorists who dominate and infest this transport
>> newsgroup will claim that this is a revenue making exercise on the
>> part of the council when, in fact, it is just another example of
>> criminal motorists.
>>
> Wrong again Doug, it why I disagree with fixed penalties. If the punishment 
> is to fit the crime then the fine needs to take into account the income of 
> the offender. Self-important tossers such as these are amongst that select 
> group of societies offenders who never would be missed and they're on the 
> list.
> 
> Just as you are. 

Is it six months in the slammer that one premiership footballer is now 
doing for being violent?

-- 
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin

"Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOO!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

> Nope , that one I'm more than happy to agree with. If you have
> sufficient income then fixed penalty notices are irrellevant. I'd
> support a change to the system so that repeat offenders could be taken
> to court and more substantial income-based penalty imposed

Just tow the bloody thing.

True, monetary fines make a mockery of marginal utility theory.
Community service is the way forward, I say.

Jaap "Transformer Oil" Everest wrote:
> True, monetary fines make a mockery of marginal utility theory.
> Community service is the way forward, I say.

A non cash punishment would certainly have the same effect on everyone, 
regardless of income. Not only would justice be done, it would be seen to be 
done.

Derek Geldard wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 08:39:57 +0100, "Brimstone"
>  wrote:
>
>> Doug wrote:
>>> I suppose the motorists who dominate and infest this transport
>>> newsgroup will claim that this is a revenue making exercise on the
>>> part of the council when, in fact, it is just another example of
>>> criminal motorists.
>>>
>> Wrong again Doug, it why I disagree with fixed penalties. If the
>> punishment is to fit the crime then the fine needs to take into
>> account the income of the offender.
>
> You got that arse about face, Brimmer.
>
> Money must or at least should have a defined value. Are you receiving
> me "Prudence"? Take time out from "Helping the Poorest" to listen.
>
> If people with more money pay have to pay extra for the same things
> we'll never know where the hell we are.
>
> People on benefits should get given money to meet their needs and then
> pay the same as everyone else.
>
> It's the Mr. & Mrs Braindead Scums of this world that are happy to pay
> £50k/wk to people playing ball games via their entrance tickets that
> are the root of the footballer problem.
>
If people are daft enough to pay that amount of money to watch a load of 
brain-dead pillock kicking a ball about then that's their choice. It's got 
noting to do with the arrogant attitude that causes the twats to park where 
they like with total disregard for everyone else.

Sir Stanly would be spinning in his grave.

On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 15:06:27 +0100, "Brimstone"
 wrote:


>>> Wrong again Doug, it why I disagree with fixed penalties. If the
>>> punishment is to fit the crime then the fine needs to take into
>>> account the income of the offender.
>>
>> You got that arse about face, Brimmer.
>>
>> Money must or at least should have a defined value. Are you receiving
>> me "Prudence"? Take time out from "Helping the Poorest" to listen.
>>
>> If people with more money pay have to pay extra for the same things
>> we'll never know where the hell we are.
>>
>> People on benefits should get given money to meet their needs and then
>> pay the same as everyone else.
>>
>> It's the Mr. & Mrs Braindead Scums of this world that are happy to pay
>> £50k/wk to people playing ball games via their entrance tickets that
>> are the root of the footballer problem.
>>
>If people are daft enough to pay that amount of money to watch a load of 
>brain-dead pillock kicking a ball about then that's their choice. It's got 
>noting to do with the arrogant attitude that causes the twats to park where 
>they like with total disregard for everyone else.

With respect it has everything to do with it.

If they weren't coining it in at 50x the normal wage they wouldn't be
able to afford the £200k cars and wouldn't be able to incurr parking
fines as if they were a matter of total inconsequence to
themselves.They would also have probably never developed the boorish
attitudes that they exhibit.

However, I re-iterate it's his earned money, he will have paid plenty
tax on it, what he's left with is as good as anybody else's. Therefore
he shouldn't pay any more if he gets fined than thee or me,  or do you
still maintain he should pay £4,000 for parking on double yellows,
£150 for a motorway sandwich (£80 for a choc-ice).

Derek

>Sir Stanly would be spinning in his grave. 

Not IIRC without his scandals.

Derek

Derek Geldard wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 15:06:27 +0100, "Brimstone"
>  wrote:
>
>
>>>> Wrong again Doug, it why I disagree with fixed penalties. If the
>>>> punishment is to fit the crime then the fine needs to take into
>>>> account the income of the offender.
>>>
>>> You got that arse about face, Brimmer.
>>>
>>> Money must or at least should have a defined value. Are you
>>> receiving me "Prudence"? Take time out from "Helping the Poorest"
>>> to listen.
>>>
>>> If people with more money pay have to pay extra for the same things
>>> we'll never know where the hell we are.
>>>
>>> People on benefits should get given money to meet their needs and
>>> then pay the same as everyone else.
>>>
>>> It's the Mr. & Mrs Braindead Scums of this world that are happy to
>>> pay £50k/wk to people playing ball games via their entrance tickets
>>> that are the root of the footballer problem.
>>>
>> If people are daft enough to pay that amount of money to watch a
>> load of brain-dead pillock kicking a ball about then that's their
>> choice. It's got noting to do with the arrogant attitude that causes
>> the twats to park where they like with total disregard for everyone
>> else.
>
> With respect it has everything to do with it.
>
> If they weren't coining it in at 50x the normal wage they wouldn't be
> able to afford the £200k cars and wouldn't be able to incurr parking
> fines as if they were a matter of total inconsequence to
> themselves.They would also have probably never developed the boorish
> attitudes that they exhibit.
>
> However, I re-iterate it's his earned money, he will have paid plenty
> tax on it, what he's left with is as good as anybody else's. Therefore
> he shouldn't pay any more if he gets fined than thee or me,  or do you
> still maintain he should pay £4,000 for parking on double yellows,
> £150 for a motorway sandwich (£80 for a choc-ice).

But a fine isn't a commodity, it's a punishment and a punishment is supposed 
to hurt. Thus whereas a £70 FPN will hurt most people these twats don't even 
think about it. I doubt they even lift a finger to actually pay it, they'vve 
probably got a flunky to do it for them. Thus it has no effect and is not a 
punishment.

> Derek
>
>> Sir Stanly would be spinning in his grave.
>
> Not IIRC without his scandals.
>
Perhaps, but one can still be gentlemanly even when behaving in a scandalous 
manner.

On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 19:16:24 +0100, "Brimstone"
 wrote:


>> With respect it has everything to do with it.
>>
>> If they weren't coining it in at 50x the normal wage they wouldn't be
>> able to afford the £200k cars and wouldn't be able to incurr parking
>> fines as if they were a matter of total inconsequence to
>> themselves.They would also have probably never developed the boorish
>> attitudes that they exhibit.
>>
>> However, I re-iterate it's his earned money, he will have paid plenty
>> tax on it, what he's left with is as good as anybody else's. Therefore
>> he shouldn't pay any more if he gets fined than thee or me,  or do you
>> still maintain he should pay £4,000 for parking on double yellows,
>> £150 for a motorway sandwich (£80 for a choc-ice).
>
>But a fine isn't a commodity, it's a punishment and a punishment is supposed 
>to hurt. Thus whereas a £70 FPN will hurt most people these twats don't even 
>think about it. I doubt they even lift a finger to actually pay it, they'vve 
>probably got a flunky to do it for them. Thus it has no effect and is not a 
>punishment.
>

That's the fundamental limitation of a financial punishment. You can't
hurt very rich people by taking anything like reasonable amounts of
money off them. What would you say a proper penalty charge should be
for a footballer on £2,500,000 per year who spends 3 minutes too long
in a "Loading Only" parking place?

Another issue is that it brings the law into dis-repute, especially
these days that the government is overspent and strapped for cash, and
Gordon Mac Shite-Features has pissed away all the Gold Reserves we had
in the Treasury. People will say the government has manipulated the
justice system to turn it into a revenue raising exercise. They say
the same thing already about scameras, late SORN declarations, HIP's
etc.

What's the appropriate fine for a £50,000k /week footballer who puts
his house on the market without first having prepared a "Home
Information Pack", or who repairs a broken window with "The Wrong
Glass".

Derek

Derek Geldard wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 19:16:24 +0100, "Brimstone"
>  wrote:
>
>
>>> With respect it has everything to do with it.
>>>
>>> If they weren't coining it in at 50x the normal wage they wouldn't
>>> be able to afford the £200k cars and wouldn't be able to incurr
>>> parking fines as if they were a matter of total inconsequence to
>>> themselves.They would also have probably never developed the boorish
>>> attitudes that they exhibit.
>>>
>>> However, I re-iterate it's his earned money, he will have paid
>>> plenty tax on it, what he's left with is as good as anybody else's.
>>> Therefore he shouldn't pay any more if he gets fined than thee or
>>> me,  or do you still maintain he should pay £4,000 for parking on
>>> double yellows, £150 for a motorway sandwich (£80 for a choc-ice).
>>
>> But a fine isn't a commodity, it's a punishment and a punishment is
>> supposed to hurt. Thus whereas a £70 FPN will hurt most people these
>> twats don't even think about it. I doubt they even lift a finger to
>> actually pay it, they'vve probably got a flunky to do it for them.
>> Thus it has no effect and is not a punishment.
>>
>
> That's the fundamental limitation of a financial punishment. You can't
> hurt very rich people by taking anything like reasonable amounts of
> money off them. What would you say a proper penalty charge should be
> for a footballer on £2,500,000 per year who spends 3 minutes too long
> in a "Loading Only" parking place?
>
A pro rata amount when compared to (say) an OAP on state pension.

On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 21:13:38 +0100, "Brimstone"
 wrote:

>Derek Geldard wrote:
>> On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 19:16:24 +0100, "Brimstone"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> With respect it has everything to do with it.
>>>>
>>>> If they weren't coining it in at 50x the normal wage they wouldn't
>>>> be able to afford the £200k cars and wouldn't be able to incurr
>>>> parking fines as if they were a matter of total inconsequence to
>>>> themselves.They would also have probably never developed the boorish
>>>> attitudes that they exhibit.
>>>>
>>>> However, I re-iterate it's his earned money, he will have paid
>>>> plenty tax on it, what he's left with is as good as anybody else's.
>>>> Therefore he shouldn't pay any more if he gets fined than thee or
>>>> me,  or do you still maintain he should pay £4,000 for parking on
>>>> double yellows, £150 for a motorway sandwich (£80 for a choc-ice).
>>>
>>> But a fine isn't a commodity, it's a punishment and a punishment is
>>> supposed to hurt. Thus whereas a £70 FPN will hurt most people these
>>> twats don't even think about it. I doubt they even lift a finger to
>>> actually pay it, they'vve probably got a flunky to do it for them.
>>> Thus it has no effect and is not a punishment.
>>>
>>
>> That's the fundamental limitation of a financial punishment. You can't
>> hurt very rich people by taking anything like reasonable amounts of
>> money off them. What would you say a proper penalty charge should be
>> for a footballer on £2,500,000 per year who spends 3 minutes too long
>> in a "Loading Only" parking place?
>>
>A pro rata amount when compared to (say) an OAP on state pension. 
>

That's the problem in a nutshell.

1 weeks state pension say Ca 80 quid. 

3 minutes over on double yellows also Ca 80 quid.

1 weeks pay for a footballer £50,000.

What to do about it ?

Personally I'd sooner he was made to spend 1 match Saturday doing
community service walking the beat with a parking warden, which might
approximate to 1 weeks pay but would also be a punishment to the
stupid club that employs him and the stupid fans who copper up to see
him. It would highlight to all and sundry the fact that he has let his
side, his fans, and the club down.

He wouldn't do it a second time, unless he was getting "Demob Fever".

Derek

Derek Geldard wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 21:13:38 +0100, "Brimstone"
>  wrote:
>
>> Derek Geldard wrote:
>>> On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 19:16:24 +0100, "Brimstone"
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> With respect it has everything to do with it.
>>>>>
>>>>> If they weren't coining it in at 50x the normal wage they wouldn't
>>>>> be able to afford the £200k cars and wouldn't be able to incurr
>>>>> parking fines as if they were a matter of total inconsequence to
>>>>> themselves.They would also have probably never developed the
>>>>> boorish attitudes that they exhibit.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, I re-iterate it's his earned money, he will have paid
>>>>> plenty tax on it, what he's left with is as good as anybody
>>>>> else's. Therefore he shouldn't pay any more if he gets fined than
>>>>> thee or me,  or do you still maintain he should pay £4,000 for
>>>>> parking on double yellows, £150 for a motorway sandwich (£80 for
>>>>> a choc-ice).
>>>>
>>>> But a fine isn't a commodity, it's a punishment and a punishment is
>>>> supposed to hurt. Thus whereas a £70 FPN will hurt most people
>>>> these twats don't even think about it. I doubt they even lift a
>>>> finger to actually pay it, they'vve probably got a flunky to do it
>>>> for them. Thus it has no effect and is not a punishment.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's the fundamental limitation of a financial punishment. You
>>> can't hurt very rich people by taking anything like reasonable
>>> amounts of money off them. What would you say a proper penalty
>>> charge should be for a footballer on £2,500,000 per year who spends
>>> 3 minutes too long in a "Loading Only" parking place?
>>>
>> A pro rata amount when compared to (say) an OAP on state pension.
>>
>
> That's the problem in a nutshell.
>
> 1 weeks state pension say Ca 80 quid.
>
> 3 minutes over on double yellows also Ca 80 quid.
>
> 1 weeks pay for a footballer £50,000.
>
> What to do about it ?
>
> Personally I'd sooner he was made to spend 1 match Saturday doing
> community service walking the beat with a parking warden, which might
> approximate to 1 weeks pay but would also be a punishment to the
> stupid club that employs him and the stupid fans who copper up to see
> him. It would highlight to all and sundry the fact that he has let his
> side, his fans, and the club down.
>
> He wouldn't do it a second time, unless he was getting "Demob Fever".
>
I'm happy with that.

Brimstone wrote:
> Derek Geldard wrote:
>> On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 19:16:24 +0100, "Brimstone"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> With respect it has everything to do with it.
>>>>
>>>> If they weren't coining it in at 50x the normal wage they wouldn't
>>>> be able to afford the £200k cars and wouldn't be able to incurr
>>>> parking fines as if they were a matter of total inconsequence to
>>>> themselves.They would also have probably never developed the boorish
>>>> attitudes that they exhibit.
>>>>
>>>> However, I re-iterate it's his earned money, he will have paid
>>>> plenty tax on it, what he's left with is as good as anybody else's.
>>>> Therefore he shouldn't pay any more if he gets fined than thee or
>>>> me,  or do you still maintain he should pay £4,000 for parking on
>>>> double yellows, £150 for a motorway sandwich (£80 for a choc-ice).
>>> But a fine isn't a commodity, it's a punishment and a punishment is
>>> supposed to hurt. Thus whereas a £70 FPN will hurt most people these
>>> twats don't even think about it. I doubt they even lift a finger to
>>> actually pay it, they'vve probably got a flunky to do it for them.
>>> Thus it has no effect and is not a punishment.
>>>
>> That's the fundamental limitation of a financial punishment. You can't
>> hurt very rich people by taking anything like reasonable amounts of
>> money off them. What would you say a proper penalty charge should be
>> for a footballer on £2,500,000 per year who spends 3 minutes too long
>> in a "Loading Only" parking place?
>>
> A pro rata amount when compared to (say) an OAP on state pension. 

Consider Duhg to be in this category.



-- 
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin