Unmarked Police Car Clamped

molerat

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kentonline/news/2009/july/23/clamped.aspx Seems to be causing a bit of a stir down in Kent

anewman

He's actually committing Criminal Damage to the clamp and could be charged as such (other people have been so I do not see why a Police officer should be exempt from the law).

Doodles22

To be fair, why the hell should they get away with it.

The Police officer should have had a notice in his screen or not parked there, or if so, paid like everyone else has too.

One law for them, another one for all of us

Nilrem

The important bit is the police phoned the parking company and told them to get the clamps off the vehicle.

IIRC it's an offence to impede the officers, and once notified that the car was a police vehicle and being used on official business it should have been unclamped immediately.
Hence the officer is probably acting well within the law to try and remove the clamp by any means necessary (and most likely got authorisation from his superior), as whilst the car is tied up with the clamp it's preventing officers from being able to respond to calls.

It's worth noting that the clamping companies have in the past clamped marked police cars, cars with notices that they are police vehicles (but no markings), and I think in one case a Fire car, so having it marked probably wouldn't have made any difference.

anewman

Nilrem wrote: »

Hence the officer is probably acting well within the law to try and remove the clamp by any means necessary (and most likely got authorisation from his superior),

One rule for them, another rule for everyone else. We're not allowed to say we do not know who was driving the car if we're caught by a speed camera, suddenly it's a police car, they're not on official business, and that rule does not apply to them. If he was on worthwhile official business, would he not have had a marked car?! I thought the unmarked ones were more for the traffic cops.

starsky365

One rule for them, another rule for everyone else. We're not allowed to say we do not know who was driving the car if we're caught by a speed camera, suddenly it's a police car, they're not on official business, and that rule does not apply to them. If he was on worthwhile official business, would he not have had a marked car?! I thought the unmarked ones were more for the traffic cops.

It was a police STAFF (civilian) vehicle for a scenes of crime officer, it does not need to be marked and it is also a crown vehicle, hence an exemption to VED etc. Next time you have a car that is owned by the queen Im sure the police would be more than happy to help you remove a clamp from it.

Nilrem

anewman wrote: »

One rule for them, another rule for everyone else. We're not allowed to say we do not know who was driving the car if we're caught by a speed camera, suddenly it's a police car, they're not on official business, and that rule does not apply to them. If he was on worthwhile official business, would he not have had a marked car?! I thought the unmarked ones were more for the traffic cops.

Yes, one rule for them, another for us.

The difference as already noted is that one is an authorised representative Her Majesty acting in accordance with his/her job, a job that actually requires them to be exempt of various laws to do it, and gives them certain powers that we don't have (not to mention various responsabilities we don't have to put up with in our daily lives)

You don't need an officially marked car to be on official police business (indeed many aren't because it would reduce their ability to do the job, or are support vehicles).
The key thing in this sort of case is that
A: The clampers were informed after the fact that it was a police vehicle on police business.
B: They still refused to release the vehicle.
C: The vehicle being tied down would have reduced the operational abilities of the force to do it's job (an offence - iirc the article does mention that the police are taking action).

The police gave the clampers the chance to remove the clamp with no further action, and probably warned them that if they didn't remove it there would likely be further action taken, and I'm guessing some smart alec clamper thought it was bluster and wouldn't amount to anything.
Cue the police taking action to remove the clamp and get the vehicle back on the road by any means necessary (short of frog marching the clamper back to it).

It would be extremely hard for the police to do most of their job if they didn't have this "one law for them another for us" thing going for them*, as other examples of that are such things as their ability to use force to restrain people, the ability to carry weapons (the asp is legal for police, but not for say private security guards), the exemption that allows them to break the speed limit (although if they are even near an accident whilst doing so they get investigated), the ability to have pretty flashing blue lights (and non standard horns!).


*And against them.

Snakeeyes21

..........

Happychappy

anewman wrote: »

One rule for them, another rule for everyone else. We're not allowed to say we do not know who was driving the car if we're caught by a speed camera, suddenly it's a police car, they're not on official business, and that rule does not apply to them. If he was on worthwhile official business, would he not have had a marked car?! I thought the unmarked ones were more for the traffic cops.

If you don't know, make it up....:rolleyes:

geoffky

If all of you balloons took time to read the law you will find the rule is the same for all of us... if you get clamped ..cut it off... and it is not criminal damage.or pay the charge(notice its not a fine) then go to the small claims and get it back... but some people like to shout but not act.

anewman

geoffky wrote: »

If all of you balloons took time to read the law you will find the rule is the same for all of us... if you get clamped ..cut it off... and it is not criminal damage.or pay the charge(notice its not a fine) then go to the small claims and get it back... but some people like to shout but not act.

I'm not sure that this guy would agree. http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=yrDyoTUfYwU

Many people have been charged for causing criminal damage to a clamp by attempting to remove it. The clamping itself may be illegal (extortion etc) but everyone turns a blind eye to that.

Apparently if you can get the clamp off and dispose of it before you're caught, there's then no evidence of the criminal damage

This guy is a legend http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGQMq3hNv-g&feature=related he's in the same area as the clamped police car, maybe the police could have called him up.