Sunday, May 29, 2005

A Fine lottery

Since the introduction of fines for driving whilst using a mobile phone, the number of such 'offences' has not diminished at all in my experience. Why does the Government therefore believe that £30 on-the-spot fines for yobbish behaviour will have a positive effect? It only penalises those people unlucky or stupid enough to be yobbish when a Police Officer is present. As most of their time is spent shuffling paperwork around their desks back at the station, the chances of being caught will remain as distant as for car driving mobile phone users.

If fines work as the Government thinks they do, maybe teenagers who become pregnant should be fined £30!!
Posted by at

10 comments:

Albion Blogger said...

Anything - ANTHING - but send them to prison.

Yet it's the one thing that would slash yobbery in an instant. Such behaviour is of such low-value - even to the yob (not like stealing a car - there could be money in that) - that the first sign of a nasty consequence would put many off it immediately.

But Blair can't exceed his 60,000 prison limit so they continue their awful behaviour while he blames the parents.

If people get the government they deserve what did we do to desrve this?

(We voted for them...)

AB

11:22 pm
Anonymous said...

a thirty pound fine for teenage pregnancy? don't you think the cost of having a kid is considerably higher than that?

10:13 am
Snafu said...

Jacob, I doubt the cost is considerably greater than that for someone relying on benefits!!

5:13 pm
Anonymous said...

Snafu, don't be a moron. The related benefits in no way reflect the cost of looking after a child.

8:11 pm
Snafu said...

Jacob, you're right, sometimes the benefits can be higher than the cost of the children too. Whilst remaining the minority of cases, it's a growing minority according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (not an organisation noted for it's right wing bias).
"Changes over time, though, are the same: child-contingent support is becoming more important to the family budget, and the proportion of households whose child-contingent support exceeds the costs of children implied by key equivalence scales has risen gradually over time, and particularly quickly since 1999, while remaining a minority."

"One-child households are more likely than larger households to have the cost of their children covered, even using equivalence scales that allow for economies of scale within households; this gap has grown over time."

9:53 pm
Anonymous said...

but surely you're not taking lost earnings into account ?

10:17 pm
Snafu said...

Jacob, "lost earnings" assumes teenagers have jobs in the first place. For those under 16, I assume their "lost earnings" will be minimal.

10:45 pm
Anonymous said...

No, you've missed the point. Having dependents clearly increases your cost of living but, by the same token, having dependents consumes the time that could be spent earning money to support the child. I appreciate that most 15-year old girls won't work full time but the burden has to fall on to someone, usually their parents.

12:04 am
Albion Blogger said...

Jacob,

So what about lost earnings?

Most people who have kids lose out financially. When my wife and I start a family we will have to manage on one salary. Financially we'll take a bit of a kicking. Otherwise, the value of one of us staying at home with the kids is immeasurable.

People who have children should not be receiving benefits in the first place. The real point is if you can't afford them don't have them. I certainly won't expect you, Jacob, to put food in my kids' bellies.

AB

7:28 pm
Anonymous said...

AB,
The original post jokingly suggested that teenage mothers be fined. I was simply saying that the cost of being responsible for a child was enough of a financial penalty. I'm glad you don't disagree with me.

8:03 pm

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)