MSE News: Cowboy clampers 'could start new parking scams'

GraceCourt

Lum wrote: »

I'm going off the examples given in the story, namely:

• Threatening to hold a 3 year old girl hostage.
• Demanding sexual favours.
• Demanding someone's gold tooth.
• Clamping an AA patrol.
• Clamping a royal bodyguard while they were on-duty.
• Clamping a hearse during a funeral.
• Clamping a police car.

Obviously some of those are more severe than others, but the story implies that only the last one had any action taken against the perpetrator. Are you seriously suggesting that none of the others are worthy of action by the police?

No, you are going off the allegations listed in the story... not the same thing at all - and exactly where in the story does it say that none of these alleged incidents was resolved by police action, or did not even attract any police attention at all? Or was that another of your assumptions?

I will probably regret this, or get a yellow card for going off-topic, but here goes anyway in answer to your question...

• Threatening to hold a 3 year old girl hostage.

Worthy of action - assuming, because of the reference to clampers, that this took place in England and Wales (the Theft Act 1968 doesn't apply to Scotland) then this appears to be an unwarranted demand with menaces, i.e. blackmail, a criminal offence under S.21 of the Act.

• Demanding sexual favours.

Goes on all the time between adults but one must assume that this relates to being a condition for the release of the clamp... not in itself an offence but could be an offence under the Public Order Act 1986, depending on what was said, and how it was said.

• Demanding someone's gold tooth.

Nope. Bizarre, but not serious or even illegal.

• Clamping an AA patrol.

Ditto. A civil dispute, not a police matter. See above, re criminal offences... this isn't one.

• Clamping a royal bodyguard while they were on-duty.

Assuming that the Royal bodyguard in question was a police officer, and on-duty at the time, then I can assure you that it would have attracted police attention. If either of those two pre-conditions wasn't valid, then it's another civil matter.

• Clamping a hearse during a funeral.

Another civil matter, unless the circumstances were likely to lead to a violence, in which case all parties involved would probably be arrested unless they cooled-off. But the clamp would stay on and would be irrelevant as far as police attendance was concerned, neutrality in relation to the dispute between the two parties being an essential part of the police role in those circumstances.

• Clamping a police car.

We've already covered this one!

In summary... there having been nothing whatsoever in the article that even suggested there had been an inadequate police response, your comment that "... the police only bother to do anything about it when it's one of their own that is targeted..." is a non sequitur that any reasonable person might conclude was born out of your own preconceptions and prejudices. It isn't a question of whether they are "bothered" or not, it's a balanced operational judgement based on making effective use of (very) scarce resources against competing demands, and quite frankly demands by clampers to motorists for gold teeth don't even get on to the radar screen.

Which is what makes you a numpty... the thread is hosting a measured debate about the legal status of PPC ticketing after the commencement of the S.54 provisions in the Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012.

You haven't contributed anything even remotely useful to that debate. And I'm trying very hard (but failing) not to make any mention of just how offensive your bigoted and unsubstantiated trivia is to any police officer reading it, coming as it does only a day after two GMP officers were executed in Manchester.

Lum

The article lists the the examples above, states them as fact, and then goes on to state "but one of them bit of more than he could chew ... ending up with an ASBO". This clearly implies that the previous incidents did not have such action taken. Exception that proves the rule and all that.

And if we're going to bring up unrelated news stories involving the police and killings then:
a) I posted that before I had watched the evening news and become aware of that incident in Manchester.
b) I grew up in Merseyside, from a family of Liverpool supporters, and lived there until 2005, so I have a pretty good reason to distrust the police in the light of recent revelations that were the top headline news story until the murders you mention.
I only bring b) up because you are attempting to frame my argument in a very misleading context.

Personally I thought this thread was hosting a discussion of an article posted on the main section of the MSE website.

Edit: Also I can't believe that you are excusing the demanding sex by claiming it "Goes on all the time". I see rape culture is alive and well here.

taffy056

The problem with that is, depending on the circumstances all of the above could have been worthy of police action, saying its simply a civil matter is all to easy for the police to do nothing. I have seen hundreds of threads over the years where the police cop out of doing anything despite it being clearly a criminal matter.

Lum

taffy056 wrote: »

The problem with that is, depending on the circumstances all of the above could have been worthy of police action, saying its simply a civil matter is all to easy for the police to do nothing. I have seen hundreds of threads over the years where the police cop out of doing anything despite it being clearly a criminal matter.

There's a thread about exactly that in the main motoring section right now. A taxi company is threatening to "send the boys round" regarding money allegedly owed - demanding money with menaces, which is basically what cowboy clampers do - and of course the police aren't interested "it's a civil matter". Like hell is it!

GraceCourt

There is clearly a yawning comprehension gulf here. Both of the last two responses use the word "clearly" when the circumstances and issues that the two posters regard as being "clear" are anything but. I will leave it to other readers as to decide whether my (very restrained) reference to the actions of Dale Cregan was in any way an attempt to justify an argument.

Re-read it. The "unrelated news item" to which you refer isn't unrelated as far as I am concerned, because your stereotyping of police officers is just as unjustified and inappropriate as the widespread but equally erroneous stereotyping of people from Liverpool, and like I said, I find your attitude towards police officers and explicit (but patently uninformed) criticism of officers' knowledge and interpretation of criminal and civil law quite offensive - especially so, given recent events.

taffy056 wrote: »

... saying its simply a civil matter is all to easy for the police to do nothing. I have seen hundreds of threads over the years where the police cop out of doing anything despite it being clearly a criminal matter.

Well, taffy056, it's clear then that all of the officers "copping out of doing anything" are either lazy and ignorant, or don't share your incisive and encyclopaedic knowledge and understanding of criminal law - perhaps it's both? Is it too appalling to consider that maybe they don't charge and prosecute anyone for these things because it is completely ineffective to do so, and therefore a waste of time for everyone, including the victims?

Or maybe it's just faintly possible that the posters commenting on those threads have the same naive and uninformed views as Lum, in which case you ought to be undertaking a more objective analysis of police operational deployment and incident handling?

And added to this is the hypocrisy of the Home Secretary, who is systematically destroying policing in England and Wales, presiding over the most savage attack on police budgets and staffing in modern history. Thousands of police officers and soldiers lost serious money and quality family time because they were forced to cancel paid-for summer holidays as a direct consequence of her Government's determination to privatise public sector functions. And on the GMP story, in relation to the issue of arming police officers, the BBC published a wistful quote from one uniformed officer:

But, at the moment, with all the cuts, we can't put enough officers in the cars, let alone give them firearms training.

I doubt that the irony of that will be lost on everyone reading this thread. Armchair critics - enjoy your "ivory tower" sneering about idle police officers whilst it's still funny.

Lum

funny I would have thought on a parking forum that "exception that proves the rule" would be more well known, given that the classic example illustrating that concept is the parking restriction sign "no parking 8am - 6pm" gives explicit permission to park outside those times.

The article states a number of offences commited by cowboy clampers and then states that it was the one that clamped a police car that was dealt with. The only valid interpretation of this is that the other offences were not dealt with.

Now if you want to claim that that section of the article is inaccurate or misleading then fair enough, but in all honesty I doubt it is actually that inaccurate.

Likewise if you want to claim that the police's failure to deal with these cases of demanding money with menaces, rape, threat of kidnapping etc. is due to lack of resources then that would also be fair enough, though it's funny how these resources suddenly become available when it's one of their own.

As for my views being naive and uninformed, I have dealt with police management enough over the years, originally going in with an open mind, but have experienced enough to reach the conclusions I've come to. Rank and file officers I'm generally ok with. The organisation as a whole, somewhat less so, though I will agree that this current government really isn't helping.

bazster

Good grief. Talk about one-eyed (both of you).

GraceCourt, your attempts to whitewash the (imperfect) police comprehensively merely serve to undermine your credibility, as does your attempt at emotional blackmail in referring to the Mottram incident.

Lum, you are assuming that the police declined to become involved in any of the incidents listed in the article, and yet there is nothing in the article to suggest that the police were even called to any or all of them.

taffy056

Gracecourt here are a few times when the police do get it right, perhaps if they operated in a clear consistent way in regards to this, it would be clear that when there is wrong doing people would be more inclined to see the police in a more positive way.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/feb/21/wheelclampers-jailed-conspiracy-to-defraud?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-11851471
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2988933/Thug-clamper-jailed-over-3k-a-day-con.html

jkdd77

. It isn't a question of whether they are "bothered" or not, it's a balanced operational judgement based on making effective use of (very) scarce resources against competing demands, and quite frankly demands by clampers to motorists for gold teeth don't even get on to the radar screen.

I suppose that "scarce resources" would be why the police are so very keen to arrest victims for "criminal damage" for touching a £10 lock on a wheelclamp*, yet insist "it's a civil matter" following complaints when the car is damaged by applying the clamp, when a car is clamped without the authority of *any* landowner, clamped over alleged past debts, when a car is towed away, re-registered and sold (theft), clamped with a forged SIA licence (or no SIA licence), rocking a vehicle to dislodge a permit, then clamping, when the victim is held down and assaulted to prevent them from driving away, etc.

*despite the absence of viable alternatives for a victim who has been unlawfully clamped, since clampers ignore CCJs with impunity and 'paying and suing' is therefore likely to be throwing good money after bad, particularly as county courts are reluctant to hold managing agents responsible for the actions of their clampers.

There are numerous examples of the above on this forum, on Pepipoo, and in the news; if I were to link to all of them, this post would be hundreds of lines long.

The former minister responsible for the clamping ban, Lynne Featherstone, has quite rightly said that the outright refusal of the police to enforce the existing criminal law in a consistent, even-handed manner, or to even consider that rogue clamping might amount to blackmail and extortion, is a key reason why the Government has opted for an outright ban rather than "regulation" of clamping.

It's funny how the police seemingly have unlimited resources to arrest and prosecute victims for damaging £10 clamp locks , although not always successfully:
http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/8980822.Woolworths_developer_who_cut_off_wheel_clamp_wins_court_battle/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2924617.stm
yet, if your post is to be believed, have no spare resources to arrest and prosecute the criminal rogue clampers who have committed far more serious offences.

If you disagree with me, you might care to ask the moderators of this forum, or of Pepipoo, to direct you to the many, many, threads where it is clear beyond all doubt that the actions of the clampers are criminal, yet the police have insisted "it's a civil matter" even after being given a copy of the precise criminal law that has been broken. There are numerous examples where the police have even arrested and given a FPN to victims for removing a clamp *without damage*, or ordered a victim to pay the unlawful ransom demanded immediately or be arrested for "obstructing a clamping officer" (sic).

RENEGADE_2

The Police themselves were not hitherto aware of laws concerning clamping. It was always a shady subject. Having the SIA badge and clamping only in certain conditions never really made clamping legal per se. It just didn't criminalise it. Since we are talking about seizing goods for non-payment of an alleged debt, I fail to see how breaking the clamp could ever be criminal particularly if testified that the driver exhausted diplomacy with the rogues. By diplomacy, I don't mean "all right Mr.Clamper, here is your £500 - shall I lick your boots when I give it to you?", I actually mean, "Get that thing off my car this minute, or I will". Naturally if his answer to your proposition is "no", then this is where your rights apply: your right to a hearing before any money should be surrendered, your right to possess your own property until it becomes seized by authorities acting upon court order. So "obstructing a clamping officer" can only be the words of an incompetent officer, there is no such charge. There is no protocol here, no Act or year it was passed, merely someone in uniform talking rubbish.