That argument doesn't quite work. At Tesco, he might pay 80p for a loaf of bread, but I'd also pay 80p and get the same loaf of bread. For a driving fine though, £500 (eg) would hurt me far more than it'd hurt him, he would hardly notice if he were fined £500. Fining people for these sort of things based on their income is fairer than everyone paying the same regardless of their means.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Ant McPartlin fined £86,000.
- Thread starter greyman42
- Start date
- Status
That argument doesn't quite work. At Tesco, he might pay 80p for a loaf of bread, but I'd also pay 80p and get the same loaf of bread. For a driving fine though, £500 (eg) would hurt me far more than it'd hurt him, he would hardly notice if he were fined £500. Fining people for these sort of things based on their income is fairer than everyone paying the same regardless of their means.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
cjmillsnun
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 3,275
IMO he was punished fairly. The supermarket analogy doesn’t fit because you are purchasing goods. It has to be something that has an impact. A weeks wages after tax will have an impact (although it will still not have as much impact as it does for someone on minimum wage)
He’s been punished fairly. You’d be fined 1 weeks take home pay, and he’s been fined 1 weeks take home pay.
Fines are based on pay rather than a set pound figure to hit the rich and poor equally
DavidGrain
Established Member
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 1,488
But what is fair? Remember this is a punishment. To someone earning £300 per week a £200 fine is a lot of money and a real punishment. To someone earning £140,000 per week a £200 fine is loose change and a minor inconvenience. He will have had to pay his lawyers fees and other costs.
His insurance company will have to pay out a massive amount if he wrote off two cars plus his own and you can be sure that this will be reflected in his next insurance premium and will be multiplied for each car as I expect he has more than one car to insure. Although multiple cars may be assessed separately for such things a no claims discount etc, his conviction will be taken into account for every car that he insures for many years to come.
His insurance company will have to pay out a massive amount if he wrote off two cars plus his own and you can be sure that this will be reflected in his next insurance premium and will be multiplied for each car as I expect he has more than one car to insure. Although multiple cars may be assessed separately for such things a no claims discount etc, his conviction will be taken into account for every car that he insures for many years to come.
He's been punished in exactly the same way as anyone else.
Do you think we should all pay a flat tax as well then? £3000 a year no matter what you earn?
This is actually a relatively new law - prior to 2015 all standard fines were capped regardless of someone's earnings - the maximum was £5,000 for the most serious offences (level 5).
Even now, it is only fines in the highest band that are not capped, all lower level fines are (level 4 fines are capped at £2,500).
Even now, it is only fines in the highest band that are not capped, all lower level fines are (level 4 fines are capped at £2,500).
I can't understand why so many here are saying that the crime should determine the actual fine irrespective of means, (unless of course we have a few millionaire posters who drink-drive yet haven't been caught yet).
Even if it destroys his career, (and I hope that it doesn't as I think that he is more talented than his sidekick), that's the price he has to pay through his behaviour. Just like those who drive for a living, they have an additional inscentive to respect road traffic laws, - all of them!
Should be interesting if Bill Gates ever got stopped for drink-driving. His income (including capital gains) recently was around a quarter of a billion dollars per week. Should sort Wimbledon's finances for quite a while.
No because the idea of a fine is to hurt someone financially as a deterrent. The idea of paying for something in a shop is to reward those who produced it. Having said that there is an attitude along the lines of paying for things according to what you can afford, as in discounts for OAPs, the disabled and students (it being asssumed they are poor
)... there is an attitude along the lines of paying for things according to what you can afford, as in discounts for OAPs, the disabled and students (it being asssumed they are poor
As a grouping, it may be true, as a business, it is just a marketing decision to use the perception of such groups' poverty which may bring a reputational boost.
Well quite. But then we have to consider that I assumed he is drawing his nearly £4million a year as a salary. Most people would probably not be taking that all as their salary where there are rather more tax efficient ways of doing it...
Agreed but there are still far more panalties for higher earners as seen in the calculations. In this instance the fine isn’t nearly enough in my opinion. But I say that generally not just for this chap.
His insurance will pay out 3rd party only. It won’t cover his own vehicle as he was drink driving. Same if you crash with no mot they will only pay out 3rd party.
StoneRoad
Member
He was also banned for 20 months ... I think that maybe should have been longer, and perhaps a re-test ?
But another longer term affect will be quite massive increases in car insurance premiums, and for several years.
But another longer term affect will be quite massive increases in car insurance premiums, and for several years.
The footage of someone having a small prang outside the court did amuse me - https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/en...ive-court-hearing_uk_5ad4b33ce4b077c89ceb0d45
that's not correct.
A few insurance companies have a clause like that, but the financial ombudsman wouldn't find it acceptable.
https://web.archive.org/web/2015090...ications/technical_notes/motor-valuation.html
"If the vehicle did not have a current MOT certificate, we will consider how likely it was that the vehicle would have passed an MOT test. If we decide – on the balance of probabilities – that the vehicle would have failed the test, we are likely to say that a deduction of up to 10% is reasonable."
ForTheLoveOf
Established Member
- Joined
- 7 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 6,416
I have myself held (and arranged for others) a number of insurance policies which had clauses denying cover if under the influence of drink or drugs, and specifying that any amounts they pay out due to their legal obligations as insurer will be recovered from the policyholder by any means necessary. I wouldn't want to argue that one in Court!
I think a court would be quite likely to over-ride any such recovery clause.
Confused147
Member
- Joined
- 12 Aug 2017
- Messages
- 155
Whys it an 'excessive' fine? Maybe if all fines were this high and punishments were higher it would deter people from getting behind the wheel while drunken state. People only think its 'excessive' because they're too used to the very lenient and very soft stance justice system and the slaps on the wrist the courts often dish out for drink drivers.
But I do wonder if it had been a middle aged lorry driver and not a millionaire celebrity would they be getting all this support and compassion and would people be saying their 86k fine is too harsh? Nope, probably not because it seems people only want a soft stance justice system when it suits.
I can tell this is just another 'defend this millionaire' bandwagon trying to be created and these bandwagons seem to getting forced fed down everyones throat especially on facebook and twitter. People only going out of their own way to defend him because media tells them too. You know its always the same whenever a celebrity breaks the law they get all this love, support and backup that non-millionaires get - its like its one rule for them and another for the rest of us.
There is no excuse for drink driving and anyone convicted (including these squillionaire TV brats that think they're above the law) SHOULD face very a high fine AND have their vehicle confiscated with their licence took off them for at least a minimum of THREE years.
What, for breaking the law and recklessly and unnecessarily endangering the lives of other people? It is only luck that no-one was killed.
If anything, motoring offences are dealt with too leniently on average. We seem to have an attitude in this country that driving a car is like programming a video recorder, if something bad happens oh dear what a shame. Really, it should be seen as the hazardous activity that it is, where risk is externalised onto others, and reckless behaviour should be harshly punished.
Bromley boy
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Jun 2015
- Messages
- 4,609
If the think the punishment should fit the crime (and I agree that it should), then surely you should also acknowledge it needs to be means tested?!
Someone earning min wage is going to feel a fine of £150. Someone earning circa. £100k per week really isn’t. If they are both fined the same the punishment has a disproportionate affect on the low income earner.
Hence it needs to be means tested in order to deliver a proportionate punishment to the offender, according to his or her means.
But a middle aged lorry driver* wouldn’t receive an £86k fine in the first place. That’s the whole point - it’s means tested.
*unless you know of any lorry drivers earning £100k per week?
Last edited:
I’m not saying he shouldn’t be fined £86k or however much but I’d say it’s nothing compared to his damaged reputation, public image, loss of sponsors and now reduced employability. Given the other one seems to be doing alright on his own this is probably the end of “Ant & Dec”.
Yes they probably do, but anybody who is very well paid on the basis of their public image knows that and it's up to them to protect it by behaving themselves. He wasn't tricked, blackmailed (as far as we know) and certainly can't claim that he couldn't afford a driver or a taxi for when he was unfit to drive himself. As has been said above, mere mortals on average income would suffer just as much as him (or more) despite getting a much smaller penalty. The same goes for footballers who seem unable to handle their fame and wealth. Arguably, for crimes that have a tariff that includes a prison sentence, wealthy miscreants would be better to serve a sentence behind bars in terms of them learning that the law applies to everybody, irrespective of means.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
Indeed. We see a lot of £80 parking tickets through our place, tickets which cause real and genuine hardship to our clients on benefit or minimum wage income. If you can't pay it, all in one go, the bailiffs come and add another £310 to the debt.
On my wage £80 stings, but it's something I can pay and move on from. On £100,000 a week it's shrapnel in your pocket.
Now I agree with the idea that you shouldn't get the ticket if you can't pay the penalty. But that's not the point. It's a huge penalty for someone on low income. For the hyper-rich it's literally nothing. It's cheaper and easier than parking properly. It's not fair.
I'd agree, look at the Sunderland footballer Darron Gibson
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport...ty-sunderland-manchester-united-a8309966.html
He did it less than two years ago, drunkenly ploughing into a group of cyclists standing at the side of the road. A small fine and a few hours community service. No lessons learned, so he does it again, again failing to stop.
Hopefully a spell in Klink might help him understand the error of his ways. Should have happened first time.
- Status