Part of the reasoning behind this, so I understand, is to make it simpler for the Government to update the value of those fines. Rather than having to change every law in the land - and have tedious votes on them - it's possible to change one law and have its provisions cascade down to all others. Efficient!

The modern Standard Scale was brought in by the Criminal Justice Act 1991. The fines are:

(Source: Sentencing Act 2020)

As you can see, the fines increased quite dramatically from their old value.

And, since 1992 the fines have increased by... nothing!

The Bank of England's Inflation calculator estimates that a £5,000 fine in 1992 should be approximately £10,000 in 2023.

As I understand it, the Standard Scale can be increased via a Statutory Instrument. With the stroke of a pen (and a lot of behind the scenes work) the Justice Secretary could increase these fines so they kept up with inflation.

And that nearly happened! In 2014, a Draft statutory Instrument was published. It proposed increasing the Levels 1-4 fines by 400% - so Level 4 would go from £2,500 to £10,000⁰.

Quite why it was never published, I was not able to find out.

All I know is that during this time of rapid inflation, it appears that the Government are doing nothing to make sure crime doesn't pay.

It is estimated that in 2021, 77% of all offenders received a fine. That's approximately 737,000 offenders who are paying less than they would have thirty years ago.

The very least the Government could do is ensure that the criminals who do get caught, charged, and convicted have to pay a fine which reflects the severity of their crime.

In 1940, the Nazi's communications encryption had been broken by the British. Military Intelligence were able to decrypt a signal which indicated that the city of Coventry was to be bombed. The military chiefs took this information to the Prime Minister, Winston Churchill. If he ordered the evacuation of the city, he would save hundreds of thousands of lives - but the enemy would know that their encryption was compromised.

What, gentle reader, would you do? Is it worth sacrificing lives now in the hope of saving more in the future? Is revealing your hidden knowledge a price worth paying if it means saving a city?

This utilitarianist problem was probably not actually placed in front of Winston Churchill - but it is an interesting thought experiment.

This brings us to the recent revelation that the security services of the world are tapping our communications, listening to our phone calls, and tracking our every move.

So why is there still crime?

If "Prism" (which I'll use as a shorthand for all digital surveillance) is so good and effective, why is there still any form of crime or terrorism?

There are, I think, several possibilities.

• It doesn't work - either it can't capture the data or it's impossible to sift.
• Criminals don't communicate via electronic means.
• The Government don't want Prism revealed.

To go down the conspiracy theory route, is it acceptable to allow a major criminal attack in order not to reveal how intelligence is captured?

Or, to look at it through a different lens, is Prism stopping 99% of crimes, and the ones which do occur are statistical outliers?

If Prism is as amazing as claimed - and assuming revelations don't push criminals to secure crypto and unmonitored communications - why can't it be used to ticket speeding cars, foil bank robberies, or stop traders manipulating LIBOR?

Are minor and major criminal acts the price that governments are prepared to pay in order to keep Prism secret?