The Stealth Tax that is Non-Enforcement of the Law

We know that crime costs us money, not least by way of increased insurance premiums. Sometimes one gets an inkling of just how much.

Today I had the annual pleasure of renewing my car insurance, as part of which process I was offered additional cover against the eventuality of suffering at the hands of an uninsured driver, of which there are estimated to be well over a million. Living in Saaf London, I confidently assume I travel the same roads as a goodly number of the uninsured, (whose documentation is likely to be deficient in more ways than one): so I accepted, and can thus put a personal price on this particular little crime.

Such crimes – lack of car tax and lack of insurance – must be some of the easiest offences to detect, prove and punish. Vehicles tend to poke their noses out into the world of surveillance cameras, and are themselves assets – presumably of some value to the driver, if not much to the motor trade.

The usual reason for a policy of ignoring crime is to keep the numbers in check and assure us that “crime is down”. In this case, to find it is to be able to prosecute it, so one would imagine it would boost the clear-up rates rather nicely.

So one can be fairly certain that the reason these laws are enforced with such dilatory negligence is that various NuLab client groups are disproportionately involved. Result – privatisation of the consequences, and a yet another tax on the law-abiding.

The list of parallels – TV licences, fly-tipping etc ad nauseam must be lengthy. It would be interesting to know (a) if instructions to go easy on selected ‘demographics’ have ever been issued in writing; and (b) if any think-tank is making a systematic reckoning of this doubly-disguised stealth-tax.This, surely, represents a target for tax-cuts that George Osborne could sign up to.

ND

PS – any comment starting with the words “well, overall crime is down” may receive an uncharacteristically discourteous response