Clamper Gets Himself ARRESTED

robredz

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.
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!

Exactly, plod cannot have it both ways, either it is CIVIL, in which case they should have paid up and claimed it back in small claims track, or when a member of the public is clamped by a man with a dodgy badge, they should act also. I think we know the answer to that one don't we

davidlizard

I don't know who to laugh at the most.

The clamper for obvious reasons, or the police who usually turn a blind eye to any illegal clamping and say its a civil matter.

Sirdan

robredz wrote: »

Exactly, plod cannot have it both ways, either it is CIVIL, in which case they should have paid up and claimed it back in small claims track, or when a member of the public is clamped by a man with a dodgy badge, they should act also. I think we know the answer to that one don't we

Actually they can have it both ways..because obstructing you from using your vehicle is entirely a civil matter but obstructing a police officer from using his car in pursuance of his duties is entirely a criminal matter.

robredz

Sirdan wrote: »

Actually they can have it both ways..because obstructing you from using your vehicle is entirely a civil matter but obstructing a police officer from using his car in pursuance of his duties is entirely a criminal matter.

Well let's hope the beak throws the book at him next week, and plod take peoples complaints about dodgy clampers more seriously in future

vax2002

A demo outside the court may help him on his way to justice. Public opinion and all that, I am sure a few of his other victims will oblige .

Sirdan

robredz wrote: »

Well let's hope the beak throws the book at him next week, and plod take peoples complaints about dodgy clampers more seriously in future

I don't expect any book throwing..it is a simple case of obstruction.

The fact that the obstruction may have prevented the officers from adequately protecting HRH can not be used as an aggravating factor in sentencing IMO unless this was made clear to the defendant at the time the obstruction occurred ..the defendant via his company maintains it was not ..

As for not displaying the badge I suspect the only evidence is the word of the obstructed constable ..IMO the word of a single Police Officer against the word of a A N Other should never be sufficient evidence for a conviction..however some magistrates have been known to find otherwise.

I expect a fine to be the outcome which will no doubt be paid for out of clamping fees !!:mad:

bingy_burge

robredz wrote: »

Exactly, plod cannot have it both ways, either it is CIVIL, in which case they should have paid up and claimed it back in small claims track, or when a member of the public is clamped by a man with a dodgy badge, they should act also. I think we know the answer to that one don't we

Police officer on duty and a private individual are two different matters. If its private land and your private individual its a civil matter if your police officer on duty its obstruction. He will not be a in position to draw his weapon or identify himself as anything more than a plain clothes police officier. When you work in something specialist like royal protection the information is not for public consumption.

He is doing a specialist job. At the end of the day the clamper can moan about the police we can moan about the police but when the poo hits the fan 99-100 people phone the police for help so they can't be obstructed whilst on duty.

Hadeon

Sirdan wrote: »

As for not displaying the badge I suspect the only evidence is the word of the obstructed constable ..IMO the word of a single Police Officer against the word of a A N Other should never be sufficient evidence for a conviction..however some magistrates have been known to find otherwise.

Based on that logic, are you seriously suggesting that a lone patrolling constable should not be able to secure a conviction for any offence that he may witness?
Nah, wasn't me driving/dropping litter/peeing in the street etc etc your worships, the officer has made it all up.
Case dismissed?

Sirdan

Hadeon wrote: »

Based on that logic, are you seriously suggesting that a lone patrolling constable should not be able to secure a conviction for any offence that he may witness?
Nah, wasn't me driving your worships, the officer has made it all up.
Case dismissed?

Yes, what is needed is evidence beyond all reasonable doubt,is an Officer's word always beyond all reasonable doubt ..do they not make mistakes ?

"Not me driving" isn't exactly the best example ..are you seriously suggesting that if a Police Officer sees my car go through a red light but for whatever reason is unable to do anything other than note the event ..then I can be convicted because that Police Officer says it was definitely me driving ..when it could easily have been my brother (for example) ???

It is without doubt most unlikely that a Police Officer would arrest someone for no reason and go through the process of lying to a Custody sergeant and falsifying notes and a statement ..however if the evidence is "I didn't see his SIA badge" ..is that really enough...as a defence my first question has to be "how hard were you looking for this badge constable or were you more concerned with getting your car released in order to protect Her Majesty ..is it possible that the badge was displayed but you missed it ....well..is that at all possible constable ?"
Is it beyond all reasonable doubt that this badge was not displayed ..I mean if the defendant possesses such a badge why wouldn't he display it ?

I suspect this charge may not make it into court ..after all it's not a hanging offence ..the far more serious offence of obstruction is in all likelyhood going to be easier to prosecute successfully.

It is worth remembering that our courts are supposed to be operating on an "innocent till proven guilty" basis ..not a "guilty because one person (whatever their status) says so unless you can prove you are innocent" basis !!!

robtruscott

seems the Sun has picked up on this as well

The cops claim they explained their role, showed warrant cards and warned him he was putting the Queen's security at risk.

But the wheel clamper allegedly told them: "Rules are rules - pay the fine and I'll let you go or you'll be towed away."

An eyewitness said: "The clamper shook his head and pointed out a 'No Parking' sign. The next thing he was nicked."