The official version of this document can be found via the PDF button.
The below content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost, therefore it should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments.
I personally cannot abide inequality in any form. The policy of "user pays" is a fair one, if applied to all users equally. It is not fair to say these users pay but those users are exempt.
One man's meat is another man's poison. Who is to say that Jersey Live shouldn't be policed free and that the Battle of Flowers & the Air Display shouldn't pay their way at the full commercial rate?
Some of the clubs & events that I like to attend occasionally cause inconvenience to others, mostly road closures. But likewise there are many more events in which I have no interest but have to put up with being inconvenienced all the same.I consider that fair enough.
In an Island of limited resources, both of space and police capacity, it should be obvious that a reasonable balance of the greater enjoyment for the greater number could be providedmore efficiently if we don't need the administrative overhead of accounting for ever penny.
There will inevitably be some groups who benefit more than others. Why do we have so many golf courses and football pitches when the trail park promised 20 years ago got buried? But if we treat the hill-climbers and the battle watchers with equality then the different scale of disrupted traffic should be a compromise we can all tolerate to live with.
Either EVERY user pays EXACTLY their share of the costs, or we alldip intoa bigger kitty and accept a little imbalance. Personally I would like to believe that we can all tolerate the latter but that's partly because I doubt very much we would ever see the former.
Opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily those of my employer. --
Phill Rogers