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

Lum

bazster wrote: »

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.

I've already stated my reasons for doing so. Jkdd77 also adds some more examples above, as well as making my point a lot more elegantly than I am capable of.

Plus if the police weren't called in the more extreme examples, e.g. where someone was threatening to hold a child hostage I think that says a lot about public confidence in the police. A confidence level that is certainly consistent with my own dealings with various police forces.

Of course, most of this ultimately comes down to the Blair government's introduction of targets and league tables. When you're being judged on number of crimes solved you go after the easy ones. The generally law abiding citizen who removes a clamp is one easy "solved" crime for the stats, but the rogue clamper is a lot harder to prosecute, requires a lot more resources and still only gets you one "solved" crime. It's simple business sense to not bother with them.

HO87

GraceCourt wrote: »

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.

And the situation that obtained prior to Edmund Davies was neither savage nor part of modern history, presumably? The Met being within a hair's breadth of striking; police forces being understrength and prevented from recruiting; having to buy second-hand uniform and equipment; officers unable to afford to run cars; children of police officers in receipt of free school meals and detectives having to work 80 hours of overtime a month (only paid for 20 and no time in the book) and they enjoyed "quality time" with their families? Not that that expression existed then.

So, do you think an anti-police attitude is something new? Not only did we have an entire government that was anti-police, the press and TV were at it all the time too and, what's worse, we are now painted by today's officers as being a generation of illiterate, inefficient and corrupt dinosaurs who routinely beat prisoners, manufactured evidence and falsified admissions.

I'm out of the job now but La HO87 Jnr isn't. She is only a couple of years older than Nicola Hughes and as an unarmed officer routinely attend calls in which firearms are reported. As we all have.

Now, I'm just as capable of playing the emotional card as the next man but all I'd like to say is, with the benefit of over 34 years investigative experience, "Welcome to the real world, there's nothing new under the sun when it comes to policing." Except, that is, a measure of humility.

crittertog

Lum wrote: »

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

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

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?

The royal bodyguard one was local to me. In some ways, I can understand the actions of the clamper (unmarked car, plain clothes, and they didn't appear to identify themselves until it was "too late"). However, the clamper then acted like a plank by refusing to remove it once they had identified themselves (until that point, an "honest mistake" could have been believable). They were indeed tried, and received a custodial sentence for wilfully obstructing a police officer.

HO87

crittertog wrote: »

They were indeed tried, and received a custodial sentence for wilfully obstructing a police officer.

Imprisoned?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-15496114

RENEGADE_2

My own attitude to the police is a bit different. I don't so much dislike the police, as much as I criticise the police (the chosen individuals). In my experiences, there are some very decent ones who do a great job and exercise common sense; and there are those knuckleheads who swear by bureaucracy being the only way - these are the inefficient ones. I am not party to what the ratio is: ideally one wishes to have as little involvement with the police as possible when living life, nothing personal but we don't wish for occasions whereby we'd need to liaise with the ambulace of fire brigade either.

To this end, I fully support the police on having nailed that idiot who famously clamped them. I'm not saying, "they just look after themselves!", why shouldn't they? I just wishes they looked after the other vulnerable people the same, instead of spouting rubbish, "obstructing a clamper". What is the charge there? Perverting the course of justice? Obtaining property by deception?

crittertog

HO87 wrote: »

Imprisoned?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-15496114

Doh - I could have sworn I remembered seeing a newspaper article that said they were imprisoned briefly.