Clamper Gets Himself ARRESTED

trisontana

HO87 wrote: »

Much as was thought. I thoroughly recommend reading some of Mr Eames pronouncements on Shoal's Press Release page - Clicky Here - for a little light entertainment.

IIRC going back some years Shoal actually offered a monthly prize draw for those unlucky enough to have been clamped by them. The top prize was a week's holiday at Butlins. :eek:

Looking at the website I see it's breaking BPA rules by talking about "Civil Penalty Charges"

taffy056

That is interesting, we had a thread a week or so about clamping and towing on private roads, now shoal claims to offer a service for untaxed cars, and they tow them, and inform the dvla!

Now if as suggested the dvla has no powers on private land, what the hell can they do ?

http://www.shoalenforcement.co.uk/untaxed-vehicles

taffy056

Oops just reread what they said, they get the rk details from the dvla , still the quagmire of clamping a vehicle on private land is just excuse to extort money from more people , what has it got to do with them ?

robredz

Perhaps Shoal will use their press release in the clampers defence, after all they were unmaked cars, and the coppers were not in uniform. :-) In a residents bay I wonder if shoal will be as careful when the harrass residents in the future

esmerobbo

OK unmarked police car in residents bay, no permit, all signs warning of clamping are legit! So basically clamping is legit! [it would happen to us] So now if clamper is taken to court and he is found guilty, he has committed a crime by clamping the cars? Would it not follow that every other car they clamped was illegally clamped.
The Police were waiting for HRH to eat her din dins on the Yacht, the same as many Joe public have sat and waited and I expect been clamped. What's the difference except for the embarrassment of explaining to HRH sorry you will have to wait while we pay to get your escort unclamped.

Seems very convenient the the clamper had a discrepancy with his SIA badge, so the clamps were fitted illegally. How many thousands have been clamped in the same way only to be told sorry sir/madam its a civil matter.

Don't get me wrong I am quite happy seeing the clamper busted, but would he be arrested for doing the same to me or you?

Edit; I see Robredz has similar thoughts as I was typing!

HO87

esmerobbo wrote: »

OK unmarked police car in residents bay, no permit, all signs warning of clamping are legit! So basically clamping is legit! [it would happen to us] So now if clamper is taken to court and he is found guilty, he has committed a crime by clamping the cars? Would it not follow that every other car they clamped was illegally clamped.

No. That argument falls because Mr Andrews was not arrested for, and nor it would seem has he been charged with, illegal clamping per se but with obstructing a police officer and failing to display his SIA badge.

esmerobbo wrote: »

Seems very convenient the the clamper had a discrepancy with his SIA badge, so the clamps were fitted illegally. How many thousands have been clamped in the same way only to be told sorry sir/madam its a civil matter.

See above. Whilst I agree with the overall sentiments the essential difference is that police are rarely present when clamping takes place. On this occasion they were and acted accordingly. Its very easy to throw carp in these sort of circumstances because other officers have acted differently in other situations but I think that allows incidents where officers have, for example, directed clampers to "unclamp" or risk arrest to fade from the memory. We naturally tend to remember only those cases where the police have failed to come up to our expectations rather than those where they do.

I suspect the problem here is that confronted with (probably) a sunglass-wearing suited gentleman seeming to "come it" a little - and then producing a warrant card - our clamper friend failed to engage brain and back off. Not an uncommon problem I suspect.

vax2002

To be honest, these cops are challenged with keeping our Queen safe from terrorist threats, they do an absolutely sterling job of it as well with minimum impact on the public.
Can you imagine if they had to move out quickly due to an incident and this goof has clamped them ? WE ARE AT WAR You Know!
How on earth could these officers protect our Queen whilst dealing with a clamper, they asked him to remove the clamps, once should have been enough, this "Pollock" "fish pun" was luck he was not shot, I dont think he would have had many sympathisers if he was.
Absolute and utter Idiot ! who put the security of our Queen in jeopardy I hope they throw the book at him .
Do we still use the Tower of London ?

Sirdan

Shame that as usual we don't know all the facts, on balance the clamper is a total moron.
That said the prevailing opinion running through most of these posts seems to suggest that on production of a warrant card the car should be unconditionally unclamped.
Does that mean that Police Officers are automatically exempt from clamping ? i.e. can a copper park whereever they choose and if clamped whip out their warrant card ?
Surely that isn't right.
If Shoal are to be believed these Police Officers "declined" to prove they were on official Police business..seems like they were taking the stance of "we are on duty because we say we are" ..and as we all know the Police never ever lie nor do they ever use their warrant cards whilst off duty to obtain special treatment..:rotfl:

I wouldn't have thought it too onerous a task to persuade the clamper that they were indeed on offical business but there again why should they when they can simply nick him...

Be interesting to see how it plays out in court ..do the prosecution need to prove that he knew they were acting in the line of duty to prove obstruction ...I mean if I obstruct a copper from jumping the queue to get into the local nightclub using his warrant card am I obstructing a police officer or am I obstructing someone who is taking the p**s by abusing his official position ?

oldone_2

The BBC report says a police officer produced a warrant car and asked for the clamps to be removed.The clamper refused until it was proved that the occupants were on duty.

Normally this would be reasonable, but these were under cover officers in an unmarked car. Do we now expect police in this situation to display a sign saying this, never mind terrorists then knowing the location of unmarked vehicles.

The clamper was approached by a police officer who showed his warrant card and asked for the clamp removal. He should have complied whatever his thoughts.

This clamper, like many have been working on the fringes of legality, and because of the police mantra "this is a civil matter", now think they are above the law in general, and any requests from a police officer in particular. This is just not how law enforcement works in this country.

Sirdan

oldone wrote: »

The BBC report says a police officer produced a warrant car and asked for the clamps to be removed.The clamper refused until it was proved that the occupants were on duty.

Normally this would be reasonable, but these were under cover officers in an unmarked car. Do we now expect police in this situation to display a sign saying this, never mind terrorists then knowing the location of unmarked vehicles.

The clamper was approached by a police officer who showed his warrant card and asked for the clamp removal. He should have complied whatever his thoughts.

This clamper, like many have been working on the fringes of legality, and because of the police mantra "this is a civil matter", now think they are above the law in general, and any requests from a police officer in particular. This is just not how law enforcement works in this country.

Without all the facts it is impossible to know how stupid this clamper really was but ...
I would have thought the presence of two vehicles with at least two officers would have given the clamper a big clue that this was not a copper on a jolly taking the p ..so on balance the clamper is a complete idiot and got what he deserved.

What is not clear is if the clamper was arrested for not removing the clamp(s) when so requested ...how did they get the clamps off ? ..or did he then see sense and comply.

As an aside for clarity these are not undercover officers ..they are plain clothed officers.