Addie Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 We don't have amounts of money raised in fines, but we do have figures for the number of offences prosecuted according to the Chief Constable Report 2012-13 USE MOBILE PHONE WHILST DRIVING: 2010-11 132 2011-12 138 2012-13 156 FAIL TO REMOVE DOG FAECES (p28): 2010-11 1 2011-12 0 2012-13 0 The maximum fine for mobile phone use is £2,500, though I would presume most fines are less than that. Dog dirt however is clearly not a big money spinner. Thanks Roger, the report's an interesting read on lots of topics. BTW I thought that the doggy-doo fine a huge one, but maybe I'm wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 Amy Burns. Same person then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 BTW I thought that the doggy-doo fine a huge one, but maybe I'm wrong. Well I found one report where the defendant "was fined £150 and ordered to pay costs of £122.50 to the Council". I'm not sure if it's the solitary example in the CC's Report as it looks like it should have been in 11-12 or 12-13, but it suggests at that rate of prosecution that there is more money for the Government in looking at charging a different species for its excretory habits, ie humans. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 It's even made the media across and some mates of mine, while on a trip back last week, mentioned it in jest. It appears the IoM Gov doesn't understand how much of a laughing stock they are with this. What a farcical way to go about increasing revenue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fly in the ointment Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 What's that? Is their toilet tax being poo-pooed across as well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 Wow. So according to Roger Mexico's statistics in 4 years we lost more than £30 in costs by way of the one fine that was levied. Ignoring the time cost in bringing the dog poo legislation in, and staffing the dog poo response team, all that legislation was brought in to get one person for £150 for letting their dog poo on a street. Madness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 Wow. So according to Roger Mexico's statistics in 4 years we lost more than £30 in costs by way of the one fine that was levied. Ignoring the time cost in bringing the dog poo legislation in, and staffing the dog poo response team, all that legislation was brought in to get one person for £150 for letting their dog poo on a street. Madness. It's not madness if it keeps a civil servant or three in a job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Border Terrier Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 Douglas rather conveniently does not have a central square we could occupy like in Cairo or Kiev Any ideas? There's the town square - provided it isn't occupied by the ice rink - the demonstrators could occupy at their leisure. From there I could escort the terriers up prospect hill to drop a symbolic 'log' outside tynwald. Tbt. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Addie Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 It's even made the media across and some mates of mine, while on a trip back last week, mentioned it in jest. It appears the IoM Gov doesn't understand how much of a laughing stock they are with this. What a farcical way to go about increasing revenue. Absolutely, and so deeply embarrassing. Come and invest your millions in the Isle of Man, even though we're so deep in the financial manure that spending a penny has been upped to £50.00! We demand Freedom to Flourish. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Apologies if I've missed it somewhere obvious, but do we know who voted in which way? Ta. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 (edited) 'No-one wants to pay for things they have previously had free of charge but we have to do it.' The Chief Minister (quoted on page 9 of today's Examiner) Can you believe this? Free of charge? So I take this to mean that the Government, in its magnanimous, gracious and charitable spirit, has been providing taxpayers with a "free" water service for all these years. Does he not understand where government gets its spending money from? I can't tell whether Mr Bell is deliberately spinning away, if he's just unwittingly reading from a script written for him by some civil servant, or if he genuinely believes what he's saying. To quote Mrs Thatcher: "There is no such thing as public money; there is only taxpayers' money." Mr Bell, may I humbly propose that you take your "No-one wants to pay for things they have previously had free of charge but we have to do it" mantra and speak those EXACT same words to your buddies in the government who get their pension contributions paid for by the Isle of Man taxpayer. From the same page of the Examiner: He [Mr Houghton] said he was sympathetic, adding Ms Humphries or anyone else was welcome to contact him. He said there would be no criminal sanctions for non-payment and anyone in difficulty should make that known. "This is a civil matter and no-one will go to prison," he said. Mr Houghton, please can you come on here and tell us who poor pensioners and minimum wage workers are supposed to contact to advise you that they will have difficulty paying the tax? Do you need bank statements or a wage slip? Please explain the exact procedure involved for people on low incomes. Thanks in advance. Edited February 25, 2014 by Thomas Jefferson 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Apologies if I've missed it somewhere obvious, but do we know who voted in which way? Ta. From someone on Facebook: The following members of Tynwald opposed the toilet tax moved by John Houghton MHK (Wiilaston and North Douglas) and seconded by David Quirk MHK (Onchan). They are Kate Beecroft MHK, Alf Cannan MHK, Brenda Cannell MHK, Zac Hall MHK, Peter Karran MHK, Bill Henderson MHK, Steve Rodan SHK, Chris Thomas MHK, and Juan Turner MLC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tameelf Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 this tax is to pay the cost .last i heard was 130 quid a ton of the NFFP end product pellets.so why not just dump them at sea.oh that too will incur a cost . a 50 quid fine may be a days stay at jurby hardly worth the prosesing ill take a day in the nick .and if 20 thousand say jail me thatll be them in the shit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 (edited) a 50 quid fine may be a days stay at jurby hardly worth the prosesing ill take a day in the nick .and if 20 thousand say jail me thatll be them in the shit Mr Houghton has said no prison for non-payment. It'll probably be a fine. Edited February 25, 2014 by Thomas Jefferson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tameelf Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 ok so its jail for non payment and a court case so if they want to rack up the charges so will i Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.