Clamper Gets Himself ARRESTED

Sirdan

robtruscott wrote: »

seems the Sun has picked up on this as well

Odd how their version differs from others ...the Sun making up the news ..surely not ? :rotfl:

taffy056

You got to admit though it is funny as hell, fancy the wheelclamper becomes a victim :rotfl: just sorry it weren't trev and his crew, there would be a 15 page press release by now lol

HO87

A single officer's word always being evidence beyond a reasonable doubt?

The answer is an unequivocal - "No". If this assertion were true then surely there would be no need for a court hearing? As things stand a formal allegation has been made and the matter has been put before the court where the credibility of the officer's evidence will be tested. Not every officer's evidence is credible just as not every officer is credible.

In any event, is this relevant? I thought there were two officers present? If so, that sounds to me like there's every chance that there is evidence and corroboration.

Btw - the Queen is not HRH but HM[/pendantic mode]

Sirdan

HO87 wrote: »

A single officer's word always being evidence beyond a reasonable doubt?

The answer is an unequivocal - "No". If this assertion were true then surely there would be no need for a court hearing? As things stand a formal allegation has been made and the matter has been put before the court where the credibility of the officer's evidence will be tested. Not every officer's evidence is credible just as not every officer is credible.

In any event, is this relevant? I thought there were two officers present? If so, that sounds to me like there's every chance that there is evidence and corroboration.

Btw - the Queen is not HRH but HM[/pendantic mode]

Indeed correct in this case there are at least two Officers according to reports.
It is a well known scientific fact that where doubt is cast on an officer's account any other officer present always has seen and remembered the exact same thing ..strange but true.;)

I believe I did make the gaffe of using HRH in an earlier post but as you will note my latter post has the correct term.
I am a rare beastie indeed an Officer who can admit to mistakes and is happy to be corrected..:rotfl:

Sirdan

A question occurs to me in all of this shennanigans.

Although the Police are exempted from certain provisions of statutory road traffic regulation (in certain circumstances ...parking on DYL to pop in and get a sandwich not being one ..although this is a common enough occurrence that many have witnessed) are they also absolved of any contractual liabilities arising whilst on duty ?

I somehow doubt it.

If not could Shoal pursue the individual driver(s) for a parking charge regardless of the obstruction offence ?


Regardless of any clamping /SIA issue could Shoal not issue a paper parking charge notice..after all their solicitor will have the names of the drivers and C/O the relevant Police HQ would surely be seen as a proper address for service ?

HO87

Sirdan wrote: »

A question occurs to me in all of this shennanigans.

Although the Police are exempted from certain provisions of statutory road traffic regulation (in certain circumstances ...parking on DYL to pop in and get a sandwich not being one ..although this is a common enough occurrence that many have witnessed) are they also absolved of any contractual liabilities arising whilst on duty ?

I somehow doubt it.

This depends whether their act(s) were in connection with their duty and if they were then it is the Chief Constable who is liable, if at all.

Sirdan wrote: »

If not could Shoal pursue the individual driver(s) for a parking charge regardless of the obstruction offence?

In theory, yes. However, in these circumstances I suspect that had the person/body corporate they represent been aware of the circumstances (which would not have been communicated beforehand for obvious reasons) then I suspect they would have waived their conditions.

Sirdan wrote: »

Regardless of any clamping /SIA issue could Shoal not issue a paper parking charge notice..after all their solicitor will have the names of the drivers and C/O the relevant Police HQ would surely be seen as a proper address for service ?

Yes, but they will be passed to the Chief Constable to deal with. I think Shoal will be hard put to prove that the constables' actions were not in connection with their duty unless, of course, the prosecution evidence collapses in court.

Btw - my comment about the misuse of HRH as opposed to HM was a general one and wasn't intended to be directed at one poster. I apologise if my previous post gave that impression.

Sirdan

I am aware that contraventions of statute law such as speeding or parking on DYL if ticketed get passed to the Chief Constable but surely in a civil contractual case it still remains the driver who is liable ...just as it would be for a private individual driving a company car.

I wonder if Shoal are actually stupid enough to issue a charge..maybe they will do so on a tit for tat basis ..ie "we were prepared to waive the charge but since you insist on prosecuting our employee rather than merely giving him words of advice ,we are now issuing a Small Claims action for two parking charges "

They wouldn't ..would they ???;)

HO87

Just thinking about this I think you are correct. Although it is the individual (officers in this case) who might be subject of suit however, if they were on duty, then the CC has a vicarious liability and would also need to be sued.

taffy056

Well as there is no legal need to disclose who was driving, and if these policemen are in fact part of the protection for the queen, they are not likely to disclose their home addresses to shoal, also who are the RK of police cars? Would the DVLA even release RK details to shoal?

esmerobbo

If you read section 7 of UKCPS's ticket http://a.yfrog.com/img51/5812/img012c.jpg it asks that police officers write to them on "Police headed paper" [their phrase] if they are issued with a ticket!

So I assume if they ticketed a police car they would expect a letter from the police saying they were on duty to stop the ticket. However we do know Mr Heswell is in the land of make believe!

Getting back to HM the Queen I think if I was her I would be asking for some better trained personal protection personnel. If two officers cant see one man approaching carrying two heavy wheelclamps a terrorist would not have much of a problem getting past them!:cool: