Why is it that when a government like tony blair's wants to implement speeding cameras, car penalties etc.

Question

do it in 1 day and why does it take thousands of years to bring in some simple laws like the protection of children etc.. and then there have to sittings to commitees etc... and the investigations, etc... like the cash for Lords tony blair scandal... why dont we see quick justice for those rich people, when a ticket on my car means pay the fine NOW.

Answer 1

If you're caught on camera there's no argument, no expensive court costs and no gaol penalty unless the speed's excessive. On the other hand, a court case for a rapist, child molester or common theif costs the tax payer money so they place all their revenue in catching the easy targets.

Answer 2

If it was just for money, then why not promote smoking instead of banning it, or encourage more drivers on to the roads. I agree that many speed camera's are there for a quick bit of cash, but the original idea was good. It was to prevent accidents and unnecessary deaths at accident black spots. It's the same now as increasing the tax rate on your wage packet, for those that earn a wage.
However some of the above is relevant, Laws take time to change because they have to be thought through and not rushed through to suit public opinion. Also due to the criminal justice system there is a thing called evidence. This has to be collected, sifted, reviewed and all the facts have to be found before any form of judgement can be made. I expect you would want the same if you were accused of a crime. A speeding or parking ticket is a sure thing. You were exceeding the speed limit or you were parked in the wrong place, or had no valid parking permit. A photo or ticket from the authority is evidence enough.
So if you want an unjust judicial system carry on, if you want a fair judicial system sit down and think a bit, then back off.

Answer 3

It's 30 MPH for a reason hit a child at 30MPH it has a fair chance of surviving; around about 80% faster than 30MPH and that fair chance diminishes acutely. So speed cameras have a vital roll to play although I dislike them intensly when on an open road with no one in front as far as the eye can see and you get nicked for speeding.

The laws you talk about are in place. It's the Crown Prosecution Service and the doddering old judges that fall asleep during trials that are at fault.

The government make the laws. It's the Judicary's job to implement them. But proving malice aforethought is most difficult to prove.

Answer 4

It's all about the money. Less car crashes, less use of taxes to pay for emergency services, rehab, hospitals, traffic police, surgery and paying out benefits and compensation. This all cost the government alot including tax income from us. It's cheaper for them to pay for the prevention of accidents, aiding fines, and serving out penalties. It's more money and alot simpler to them to penalise in truth. In many of the eyes of the people (who i'm sure most of those have chauffers anyway) It's better for upholding the law, safer for the road, a deterrent, and also a big money saver (But not for the public! Or is it?)

I just lost my daughter trying to get custody myself as her mother was visibly bad at looking after her. Althoug myself and everyone else supporting agreed that there were not really any solid grounds or negative reasons for me not to take custody, they used twisited stories and information and used this information to their advantage and mostly ignored the clearly outweighing positive stuff. They are never on the parents side. and yes it's for the children, but it's less pressure and potential liability on them to foster and adopt children. And I think it's because Social Services are afraid to make mistakes in handing over custody, as they now ar accountable for any negative results. But that's another story! Basically put it's alot easier for the court and social services to put children into care and be prejudice than to really put FAMILY first. They don't protect the children first, they protect themselves. And Fathers still have no more parental rights than a stranger would. the process of child protection still needs alot of work! I guess this is something which will take a long time to fix and make fully justified in familie's and social eyes worldwide. It's alot more complicated. Government never really changes. They want to stay in power so they keep that interest most at heart by protecting themselves, making money, pretending to care about it's workers. We are part of a proverbial beehive. But the workers kill the queen in the end, and even after that the same thing happens again.

Rich people can buy time with lawyers and injunctions and court extentions, they can buy evaluations, lawyers that know the law and it's loopholes like the contents of a bucket of water.

Power is money and creating ignorance and blind faith. It's not a conspiracy, it's an iron curtain. Law is also made to keep hte man standing aswell as protecting the public vulnerable, it is the cement in the bricks.

My Theory anyway, i'm a deep thinker a times!

Hope this helps!

Answer 5

Because justice costs money. You have to pay the judge, all the court employees, and everything. The government doesn't make any off it. But speeding cameras are big business-- I live in a medium-sized town and they only put cameras in school zones, and widely publicized it as well, and they still made millions in a matter of weeks. It's all about the money.

Answer 6

I think you will find all the government decisions have to go through numeros bills before they are passed and made law.
Some are easier to resolve than others, you should be grateful that they close all the loopholes in many of the laws or this country would be total anarchy.
But obviously people only ever see the bad but never give credit for the good.

Answer 7

No. it is no longer component to our electoral technique. mutually as the government are at the instant preoccupied with whilst Blair leaves and who his successor would be, it is heightened with the aid of the media interest. yet to declare they are 'tearing themselves aside from interior' is erroneous. 'putting powerful persons' sounds comparable to a protection stress dictatorship. the present government gained an election below 18 months in the past. they do no longer seem to be 'henchmen' - they are the democratically elected representatives, chosen with the aid of the voters. mutually as you won't like it, they are legitimately in potential. The 'conflict on terror' does not want a coalition government to deal with it, somewhat as purely the Lib Dems genuinely adversarial the Iraq invasion. So what may be the component?

Answer 8

They want to pass the laws quickly with no fuss specially when they know the public wont like them.
The more popular laws like those for sex offenders are slower because they want to use them to gain popularity.
Governments can never take enough money off us so laws get passed quicker just in case the public kick up a fuss and wont pay

Answer 9

It is about raising taxes. Of course the Govt. would need the money in the early days, after all, if they were hitting your pocket so heavily near the day you go to polls, you might not vote for them.

People tend to forget what the Govt. did to get their hands on your money if there is enough time for it to become the norm.

End result, you vote them back in.

Answer 10

The same old story owe the bank (government) £10 htey threaten to prosecute. Owe the bank (government) £1 million pounds thye ask if you have time to see them.