Some thoughts on the news, religion and life in general
Archive for March, 2008
New parking ticket rules – hmmm…
Mar 31st
As someone who has been ‘awarded’ the odd parking ticket now and again, I am a little unsure how to receive the new parking regulations which have come into force throughout England. Ruth Kelly, the transport secretary, has suggested that they will be more “motorist friendly”, I should hope so!
In 1993 parking enforcement was taken out of the hands of the police and handed over to local authorities, along with the revenues generated by fines and since then the number of parking tickets has increased at an unbelievable rate, in London alone they went from 3.2m to 5m between 1996 and 2006. Indeed parking fines have been an all too easy way of raising money. Many local authorities subcontract parking enforcement to private, profit-making companies that are paid on a performance basis. And here lies the problem. By its very nature a profit making company will inevitably be motivated to extract as much money as possible from motorists. This will possibly explain why some local authorities or their subcontractors have not only set targets for traffic wardens but have also been known to offer incentives such as free televisions and holidays to wardens who hand out the most tickets.
The new guidelines are clear “Raising revenue should not be an objective of parking enforcement, nor should targets be set for raising revenue or the number of penalty notices to be issued”. Also Drivers will be able to have their appeals heard by telephone instead of attending hearings or ask for appeals to be switched to their home town. However with the introduction of CCTV footage to enforce rules and impose fines the new rules could make it more difficult for motorists to appeal as parking ticket will be received several days after an alleged offence.
The AA’s head of road policy Paul Watters explains the problem:“It does introduce an element of delay, because these things won’t land on people’s doormats for a few weeks perhaps, so you’ve forgotten the offence probably, it doesn’t give you an opportunity to check the signs and lines and make sure everything’s in order,” he said.
So although I would like to be optimistic and broadly welcome the new changes I cannot help think that most local authorities will not be able to wean themselves off one of the most lucrative sources of income. Did you know that in 1997 councils made £638m from parking fines, in 2005 the figure was £1.16 billion, that’s a lot of tickets and a lot of money!
The slow death of the United Nations
Mar 31st
Is it just me or do other people also believe they are witnessing the slow demise of the UN?
It’s probably prudent to firstly state that this isn’t the usual rant of how the UN is anti-Muslim because the Unites States almost always vetoes any criticism of Israel.
The decision to intervene in the attempted genocide in Kosova was probably the first and most pronounced example of this demise. If you recall, the Western powers – led by Tony Blair (to his credit) – decided that they couldn’t have another genocide in Europe’s backyard and had to intervene. With Russia certain to veto a UN resolution to authorise action, the ‘Allies’ decided to intervene anyway.
Then came the illegal Iraq war of 2003. The important point here was that the US would’ve gone to war without UN approval. The first-second resolution issue was a face saving exercise for Blair and others.
The major powers now know better than to bring contentious issues to the UN. The open secret of the UN Security Council is that only if there is a consensus, then it gets a vote/resolution. Otherwise the major powers do their own thing anyway. The Kosovan declaration of independence is a perfect example of this.
It seems Libya has now decided to call time on this love-in between the major powers. Reports are suggesting that Libya is deliberately tabling a resolution to attract a US veto. The usual excuses that it wasn’t balanced are being made by the US. But the question is – if two parties are fighting, with one party to blame, why is there a need for balance? In a court judgement of a house burglary, does a judge also need to blame the victim for being rich?
