This is breathtaking effrontery

Times
Editorial, January 13

"So anxious have western societies been to separate justice from retribution that until recently victims of crime had almost no claim on those who had robbed or harmed them. This absurdity began to change with the payment of criminal injuries compensation. But the result is far from satisfactory ... and instead of fostering rehabilitation, the money has instead encouraged a greedy culture of vexatious litigation.

"The measures announced by David Blunkett recognise these shortcomings ... [The home secretary] is proposing to set up a separate fund, which would not pay money directly to individuals but would finance the many effective charities and government services helping all those whose lives have been blighted by crime ...

"Far more controversial are his proposals to raise the money ... A £30 levy on every prisoner and everyone ordered to do community service ... is hardly a punishment and not worth the cost of collection ... Mr Blunkett ... wants to raise substantial funds from surcharges to routine on-the-spot fines, such as speeding ... making hoax emergency calls and being drunk in public ... The danger is that there will be popular contempt for the victims' fund ... Worse still for the government, it will be seen as another stealth tax."

Daily Telegraph
Editorial, January 13

"[Mr Blunkett's] justification for the measure ... won't wash ... The idea of compensating someone who's been hit over the head by a crook in west London, say, just because you've driven through Maidenhead at 36mph is a ludicrous non sequitur ... [He] is trying to justify the scheme by whacking on even greater surcharges for the perpetrators of serious crimes, with a £30 fine paid by every prison inmate. But it is exactly those serious criminals who don't pay up, while the trusty motorist ... can be relied upon to cough up ...

"Some new source of cash was needed to fill up a yawning gap in the government's balance sheet: its liabilities under the criminal injuries compensation scheme have risen to £170m, despite an attempt to limit claims ... Claims have shot up ... even though the government says that crime has gone down. That may be true of property crime, for which government compensation is not payable, but, by the government's own admission, it is not true of violent crime, which has increased, and is compensated for."

Daily Mail
Editorial, January 13

"Just when it seemed that even New Labour could not devise any more ways of persecuting motorists, comes a scheme of breathtaking effrontery. Drivers, who already face fines and penalty points for technical breaches of the law, will have to pay an extra £5 to help finance a fund for the victims of crime ...

"There [is no] logic in taking money from motorists, whose offences are usually victimless, to finance a fund which will support victims of the most vicious crimes ... But isn't that what modern policing has become? ... Of course there are many brilliant and dedicated police in the country - but isn't it time that they focused on catching violent criminals rather than acting as uniformed tax collectors?"

Daily Mirror
Editorial, January 13

"Most people are in favour of increasing compensation for victims of crime ... But every time more money is needed, it seems that the motorist is hit ...

"Penalising motorists who speed in areas where they could kill is not an issue. What causes real anger is that so many cameras are installed on open roads, especially where they can trap drivers going only a few miles over the limit. That is why what started as a sensible safety measure is now under attack. It is time for speed cameras to be restored to their original purpose."

Sun
Editorial, January 13

"How much more money does the government think it can squeeze out of motorists? ... What's daft is the inequality of the scheme ... The government says the £25m a year raised will help to compensate the victims of crime. But drivers and drinkers aren't criminals. Why should they be penalised even further? The only answer is because the government reckons they're a soft touch."

Herald
Editorial, Scotland, January 13

"Cathy Jamieson ... the [Scottish] justice minister, said [on Monday] she supported the principle underlying many of the proposals ... However, there is an argument to say that Mr Blunkett's plans undermine that principle. Many of the crimes covered by the proposals would be victimless ...

"Certainly, people should not speed or make hoax calls to the emergency services ... Neither should the government exploit them because they are an easy target to take money from. Offenders will be less likely to respect the penalty imposed by the state if part of it is to ease the pressure on finite public funds that do not stretch far enough to meet government spending plans ...

A fund that relies on people to break the law to work for the victims of crime is an ineffective fund. What next if motorists drive carefully? A levy on readers who return library books late? Ms Jamieson said the proposals would be scrutinised before being considered for implementation in Scotland. They are so flawed that they should be ruled out, now."