Proper fines for people not paying their tolls

Who is judging people.

T McGibney said:
The problem with increasingly burdensome laws and regulations is that there is a significant minority of vulnerable people out there whom are barely able to cope with the attendant responsibilities to society, owing to mental or physical ill-health, intellectual weaknesses, or other difficulties.
Click to expand...

i am merely saying that IF people are unable to cope with an NCT perhaps they are also unable to cope with driving.
 
cremeegg said:
Some of these people are that way because nothing has ever been demanded of them. It is common in schools to see less demanded of kids who come from what the teachers see as difficult backgrounds. It kind of stands in their way of achieving.
Click to expand...
There are very few people from "good" areas in district courts.

We need to stop talking about socially deprived areas or economic black spots. What defines those areas is that they are educational black-spots. Everything else flows from that. We also need to stop talking about how many people go to third level from those areas as if that is somehow the root cause of anything. We need to look at their educational attainment and attendance between the ages of 5 and 10.
 
Purple said:
There are very few people from "good" areas in district courts.

We need to stop talking about socially deprived areas or economic black spots.
Click to expand...

Well which is it. Either we can talk about "good" areas and "socially derived" areas or we can't.

I wouldn't know. Its largely a Dublin thing. In many country areas all the kids go to the one school.


Purple said:
What defines those areas is that they are educational black-spots. Everything else flows from that. We also need to stop talking about how many people go to third level from those areas as if that is somehow the root cause of anything. We need to look at their educational attainment and attendance between the ages of 5 and 10.
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree.

I am not happy that children who attend schools classified as DEIS get more taxpayers money spent on their education than my kids do.

In fact one of my children went to a school refused DEIS funding because it did not meet certain criteria. This refusal was accepted for 10 years until a new Principal was appointed. When he investigated he discovered that the school secretary had been entering incorrect data on a particular return. The school would have qualified if the information had been correctly entered. Second level education in this country is a mess.
 
cremeegg said:
Yes.

I can also read stop signs, yield signs etc. All of which I would have thought was necessary to drive safely.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that someone who is functionally illiterate can't tell the difference between a stop sign and a yield sign?
 
T McGibney said:
So if someone suffers episodes of depression they shouldn't be driving, even though they have passed the same test and have the same licence and insurance as you and I? Maybe we should go back decades and start locking them up in secure institutions? Nice social empathy there. :mad:
Click to expand...

If they are not capable of independent living it sounds like they should be in an institution or some form of shared care in the community facility. If they are capable of independent living then they must obey all the same laws as any other citizen.

One of the reasons why we have "increasingly burdensome laws and regulations" is because there is a significant cohort of people who don't seem capable of observing norms (such as not littering or staggering around drunk screaming at 3 in the morning), so what was once a norm now becomes a law.
 
odyssey06 said:
If they are not capable of independent living it sounds like they should be in an institution or some form of shared care in the community facility.
Click to expand...

I just hope you never have a bad episode in your own life.

odyssey06 said:
One of the reasons why we have "increasingly burdensome laws and regulations" is because there is a significant cohort of people who don't seem capable of observing norms (such as not littering or staggering around drunk screaming at 3 in the morning), so what was once a norm now becomes a law.
Click to expand...

Social disorder and drunkenness has nothing to do with social incapacity or isolation. The laws against social disorder are clearly not increasingly burdensome either.
 
T McGibney said:
I just hope you don't have a bad episode in your own life.
Click to expand...

The reason we have laws and fines is that when someone is having a bad episode, they don't get into an unsafe car over the limit on drink, drugs or medication, and cause an accident that means their 'bad episode' affects more than just themselves.
 
odyssey06 said:
The reason we have laws and fines is that when someone is having a bad episode, they don't get into an unsafe car over the limit on drink, drugs or medication, and cause an accident that means their 'bad episode' affects more than just themselves.
Click to expand...
Except none of this is about road safety nor about public disorder nor drunkenness.

Do read back please before you drag this off topic.
 
cremeegg said:
I am not happy that children who attend schools classified as DEIS get more taxpayers money spent on their education than my kids do.

In fact one of my children went to a school refused DEIS funding because it did not meet certain criteria. This refusal was accepted for 10 years until a new Principal was appointed. When he investigated he discovered that the school secretary had been entering incorrect data on a particular return. The school would have qualified if the information had been correctly entered. Second level education in this country is a mess.
Click to expand...
I am happy about it, in fact I'd like to see more spent. Better that than what will be spent on welfare and courts and "free" legal aid and possibly prison for the rest of their life. Better that we spend more on early education and that person spend their adult life working and paying taxes.
All to that the desire to see my fellow citizens have something approaching a level playing field at the start of their journey through life.
 
I dont know what some people are proposing here. The opposite of benefit of clergy? Fail a literacy test fines dont apply???
 
What's benefit of clergy?
Are you talking about the ancient exemption from the law they enjoyed?
 
Purple said:
What's benefit of clergy?
Are you talking about the ancient exemption from the law they enjoyed?
Click to expand...

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_of_clergy
At first, in order to plead the benefit of clergy, one had to appear before the court tonsured and otherwise wearing ecclesiastical dress. Over time, this proof of clergy-hood was replaced by a literacy test: defendants demonstrated their clerical status by reading from the Latin Bible. This opened the door to literate lay defendants also claiming the benefit of clergy. In 1351, under Edward III, this loophole was formalised in statute, and the benefit of clergy was officially extended to all who could read... It could save one's neck by transferring one's case from a secular court, where hanging was a likely sentence, to an ecclesiastical court, where both the methods of trial and the sentences given were more lenient
 
Bronte said:
No way is that guy paying any fine. And the judge knows it. He gave him a whopping fine for the headlines. So the optics look good.
Click to expand...

I often wonder in situations like this where someone will not pay should the time in prison be linked to time in jail at the Minimum Wage level? In this case, the judge has fined the individual 16,000. Dividing the national minimum wage of 9.25 into this, the individual would spend 72 days in jail, or alternatively, just pay the fine.
 
cremeegg said:
But there is no generally accepted definition of "can't pay". Does it mean that someone doesn't have the money, or would you include someone who doesn't have the money for the fine and food, or would you allow that and draw the line at someone who doesn't have the money for the fine and food and clothes. And shoes and schoolbooks, and a doctors appointment.

There is no such thing as "can't pay" in it's true sense. Just different standards.
Click to expand...

It's that sort of nonsense that has facilitated so many dishonest people to date .... can't pay means that to pay would result in the person not having enough money for basic food, light, heat and shelter for themselves or their immediate dependents. Anything more than that, is an optional luxury and does not prohibit ability to pay so it then becomes won't pay.

....That would cost far more than most fines.
Click to expand...

Short term yes, long term no ... it's an investment to illustrate that those looking to defraud the system won't be let get away with it. In time, the actual knowledge that an investigator would be hired to check up on someone, should be enough of a deter most people from making false claims and particularly, if the findings result in them incurring further punishment (including the costs associated with the investigation).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top