Helping the victims of crime.

Great idea, make the offender pay money toward the victim. But what if there isn't a victim as such? What if we're talking about things like speeding, the prototypical victimless crime?*

Motoring fines to rise by £15 for Victim's Surcharge.

Yes, this cuntish idea raising it's boot ugly head again. As I said last May:

The point here is a very simple one - what fucking victims? Speeding may be annoying, it may be antisocial, and it can be intimidating. But it's overwhelmingly a victimless crime. Cue outrage from the Helen Lovejoys... why won't you think of the children Angry Exile, you fucking bastard. Well, actually I am. Speeding, despite what many governments (the UK, Australian Commonwealth and Victorian state governments among others) like to say, is not a big killer. Driving like a fucktard is the real problem, and since many people who drive like fucktards also exceed the speed limit we have simplistic policies from simpleton governments to try to achieve road safety by tackling speeding because they haven't a clue how to tackle fucktardishness. And if we're truly thinking of the chiiildren we really must concentrate efforts on the fucktards regardless of what speed they're doing. Here in Victoria we're fast (no pun intended) approaching the point where almost any example of fucktard driving below the speed limit goes unpunished unless it happens right under the nose of a cop with nothing better to do, and since they're often looking for speeding they do have something "better" to do (I'd just argue that it's only better for a given value of "doing any good at all"). Conversely regularly exceeding the speed limit is likely to get you a pretty hefty fine sooner or later even in the complete absence of fucktardary. And the UK was getting much the same way when I left it although a £60 fine, even £75 if Jack Straw's proposal goes through, is pretty light compared to here. But what really winds me up about the UK idea is that even though it'd still be cheaper to commit the victimless crime of speeding there it fucks me off that a victim surcharge could be levied where no victim exists.

It occurs to me now that I was wrong about one thing there: there is a victim, actually. Oh yes, even if no-one is hurt, even if no-one is even inconvenienced and no crash occurs, even if no-one even sees it take place and the incident is noted only by cameras and computers there is still a victim. It is the poor, poor state that has been made a victim of crime, because its orders and decrees have not been obeyed. Hmmm, that kind of rings a bell.

The Fall of Man, or simply "the Fall," in Christian doctrine refers to the transition of the first humans from a state of innocent obedience to God, to a state of guilty disobedience to God.

Obviously I'm not saying that governments are run by lunatics with god-complexes (well, not all...) or collectively think they have some kind of divine wisdom and therefore must be obeyed without question (again...). No, of course not. But they mostly fucking act like it.

Unfortunately with NuLab's track record on sneaky revenue raising it's a foregone conclusion that it will also be seen as a stealth tax, just as everyone said when Jack Straw suggested it last year. So let's get some genuine victims lined up to try to justify it, and so the Tele's sub heading is:

Fines for motoring offences such as speeding and having dirty windscreens are to rise by £15, under government plans to help victims of domestic violence or sexual assaults.

Yeah, right, who cares if they're not actual victims of offences to which the Surcharge is being applied but completely unrelated crimes? Well I suspect everyone forced to pay it will care, you bunch of self righteous, evil cunts. Partly because you've increased the penalty for a crime that doesn't actually have a victim by parading someone else's victim. Would you add ten years to a burglar's prison sentence because not all victims of crime see someone convicted for it, or because they were unable to sue the criminal for compensation whether they were caught and convicted or not? Of course you fucking wouldn't, so why the fuck do you think it's okay to do it to someone whose crime is basically disobedience and whose only victim - and it's severely fucking stretching the definition of victim - is the state itself? On top of that who the fuck thought it was remotely a good idea to imply that doing 80mph on a motorway is somehow close enough to committing a sexual assault that the driver should be forced to contribute to a rape victim's or a battered spouse's compensation fund? You cunts. You evil, lazy cunts. Tell the fucking police to go catch the real fucking criminals, the actual rapist, the violent partner, and bleed them for compensation. Don't go after someone whose only crime is that they neglected to obey your fucking diktats and combined being conveniently easy to catch with being reliably likely to pay up without a fight. And if you can't catch the real criminal or if you can't convict them or if they have no money don't think that gives you the right to turn around and go after someone with deeper pockets just because they lack the innocent obedience to the state that you demand of everyone.

As an aside I'd like to know why the state compensates victims of crime anyway. Does it compensate victims of lightning? I'm sure crime victims and the public in general would be more comfortable with the resources being used to catch the bastards, who could then at least be sued if they have anything. But if I'm a crime victim I don't want the fucking state committing another crime against someone else in my name, and as far as I'm concerned that's exactly what forcibly taking some of their money from them for some minor transgression that didn't affect me at all is. Like so many other things, including the Victims Surcharge, state supplied crime compo is their lazy alternative to actually tackling crime. Worse still, it's a crime in and of itself and completely fucking wrong, even if Harritwit Harmong has to pay it for her little collision.**

* Speeding in itself harms no-one. Seriously. It's an all X are Y but not all Y are X thing. Driving like a fuckwit certainly can harm people and fuckwits will often be speeding, but it's the fuckwittery that's the problem. The speeding is no more than a symptom, and a misleading one at that since fuckwits can be just as fuckwitted below the speed limit.
** I fucking loathe the woman but no injuries occurred, her insurance would cover the damage she caused if she hasn't/doesn't cough up for it herself, and the point remains that even with a genuine victim (of property damage) she should not be forced to pay towards compensation for a completely unrelated crime that didn't involve her at all.