magistrates courts

[gjgm]

dont know if anyone is going to read through all the posts on VHF penalties. Lets get real here.. magistrates courts have maximum penalties that they can apply, and that is £5k and 6 months holiday with no tax payable..er I mean prison.
Nothing to do with vhf licences.., thats the limit of their powers. Its going to have to be a nutter of a JP to hand out that.... Anyway, plead hardship due to running costs of the predator 68 and ask for the measily fine to be spread over 10 decades.


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Bergman]

Quite right - thats the maximum that JPs can dish out so fine would be smaller - depending upon disposable income.

The thing to watch out for in this sort of prosecution is costs. When prosecution is brought by organisation other than CPS the costs can be quite alarming.

For example fine for littering - a few pounds -

costs -£300

Maybe Mr Martin would care to comment?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Bergman]

Quite right - thats the maximum that JPs can dish out so fine would be smaller - depending upon disposable income.

The thing to watch out for in this sort of prosecution is costs. When prosecution is brought by organisation other than CPS the costs can be quite alarming.

For example fine for littering - a few pounds -

costs -£300

Maybe Mr Martin would care to comment?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Mike_Martin]

I think that everyone thinks I'm cleverer than I am!!

That's right, the max fine through magistrate is £5000 and/or 6 months and forfeiture of the equipment usually only applied when it's illegal kit and the Mag,. decides how much of it to levy and yes the costs get added on top. I think the point of the Fixed Penalty is that there is no need to take people to Court unless they've been seriously bad, thereby making it easier to enforce the requirements.

Mike



<hr width=100% size=1>Team Executive,
Maritime & Aeronautical Team, Ofcom

 

[graham]

Does anyone have faith in magistrates courts ability to dispense justice??

Apologies to any concientious local masgistrates and JPs but there are some terrible examples of your colleagues work that we can all quote.



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Trevethan]

See I thought the note about penalties was a subtle warning that the enforcement men would be out in droves checking up on people....

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Mike_Martin]

The whole point of the original post was to try and get some feedback about the change itself.

Funny how things never go as planned isn't it!

Mike

<hr width=100% size=1>Team Executive,
Maritime & Aeronautical Team, Ofcom

 

[Jools_of_Top_Cat]

Feedback?

To be fair Mike, and I realise you might be a little frustrated with me since my scuttlebutt posting, but.

You swamped the boards with a post regarding fines for non compliance with ships radio license, a subject close to many peoples hearts as they see or feel very little of the benefits of removing £20.00 from their bank accounts each year.

Your approach seemed heavy handed and I took it as a warning rather than a discussion. Walk into a restaurant as a H&S official and start dictating fines to the chef for not keeping his kitchen in order and see if he politely discusses the virtues of being fined on the spot or takes a back foot and becomes defencive.

People have asked straightforward questions which have gone ignored, if people have attempted discussion you have slapped your official hat on and 'told them that is how it is'.

Your approach, has been very heavy handed; Which is very much like the reminder sent out to us and then the red letter, I paid when the reminder was received but still received a red letter, I was actually expecting a bailiff to knock on the door.

People on here do not like to feel threatened and made to feel like petty criminals, you would get a lot further by at the very least having a little empathy with the boat owners you call customers. We on the whole do want to comply to the numerous regulation, but we also as intelligent people question what our finance covers.

All you say is it is a safety payment, I have to say I don't feel any safer since paying.

I am not knocking your service either, this week I spoke to your department regarding acquiring an MMSI number and had one the next morning, can't say fairer than that. Though your website and the links from offcom are a shambles and really should be sorted ASAP. The site also lacks security, it takes some courage to enter personal details on-line when you have to check it really is an official website. Also from what I remember you are not even using secure pages when collecting personal details, this makes me very uneasy. Does this affect the data protection act, i.e. you are not taking care of my personal details.Discuss?

£20.00 is not even that big a deal in reality, but as said above what is the money used for? Also, should someone get fined, lets say for £1000 for continually not complying, what will the money be used for, or is it due to go straight to the treasury? Another tax?

<hr width=100% size=1>Julian

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.topcatsail.co.uk>

</A>

 

[richardandtracy]

Re: Feedback?

Jools,

There is one thing you should remember.
The money in your pocket is only there because that state has decided to permit you to think you own something. This will change on the day the state decides otherwise. Until then, you must regard your posessions as being on a temporary loan, subject to withdrawal in large or small amounts as and when you do something that interferes with the command and control perogatives of the state.

Or in English - the state will tax you until the pips squeak. To expect otherwise is irrational.

Regards

Richard.


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Trevethan]

Mike, I may have posted this elsewhere, but I can see it and was having computer probs in essence

£20 isn't a lot of money... but what I seem to be getting for it is not much either -- somebody enters my details into a database which are made available to the CG etc.
This doesn't represent great value for money, but hey its a necessary evil. However when year 2 rolls around and you come knocking for your next payment, I am seeing even less value -- you don't even have to enter my address, you just tick "yes he paid"

I think given the fact that boats, tend to be owned by teh saqme person for several years, usually, there is a very strong case for making the licence last for 3 or 5 years and cost £20-30.

It will mean less revenue for you, but at the same time you'll be able to reduce your overheads as you won't need all those lovely folk in Bristol entering details and chasing us up -- I had a very nice call from one of them yesterday btw.

No matter how small the fee is in order for it to feel less like a tax, the payer should see some value, which I am afraid we don't.

I would also like to re-echo TCM's point about being a customer -- one doesn't feel like a customer when the consequence of not buying the venfors product in a £5 grand fine levied by the self same vendor.



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Bergman]

Point taken

But

Perhaps worth considering that the sort of case you refer to is often (always) quoted second hand from a press report which is more concerned with a story rather than an objective analysis, and almost never present the full facts of the case.

Also not widely realised the quantity of cases that are completed in magistrates courts - over 95% of all crininal cases (100% actually pass through!)

Can't remember the total number but probably around 100,000 cases a year of which a handful result in a press report, and some of these come from District Judges (Stipendary) courts!

So I would suggest that things not quite as bad as you perhaps have been lead to believe.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[AOWYN]

We have a legal system, we do not have a justice system. Justice is a completely different matter despite the claim by the lawyers that they work in courts of justice.

Just remember, every court case in the country has at least one set of lawyers telling lies to the court. They are professional journeymen liars, that is what they are paid to do. It is not a coincidence that so many Members of Parliament, or even the current Prime Minister, are barristers by profession.

Legal systems are in place to keep lawyers rich (and of course judges used to be lawyers, which is why they are not very good at dismissing cases because that would stop lawyers "earning" fees).

Once we all recognise that lawyers are liars and that courts have nothing to do with justice it might be a little bit easier to live with the stupidities and injustices of both the legal system and our judges.

Cynical! MOI?


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Newbieknownowt]

Cynical? possibly
Wrong - certainly
Straying off-topic - absobloominlutely
Lawyers do not "tell lies to the court" - they present the best case possible on the basis of the representations made by their clients - if they know that their client has lied they have to stop representing him, and do. Judges dismiss cases whenever appropriate - judges do not earn more by sitting through unnecessary litigation - in fact, they generally take a considerable drop in income when they agree to become judges. Sounds like you've had a bad experience in court - that doesn't justify your ill-considered rant, however.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Bergman]

And your alternative would be?

<hr width=100% size=1>