Clamping threats

The_Deep

In Burma the military establishments carried notices saying that trespassers would be shot at.

trisontana

When I worked in Trinidad many years ago I remember a notice on a property saying "Trespasser will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law". The property was owned by the Sisters of Mercy Convent.

pogofish

bazster wrote: »

I can't see anything much wrong with that,

Apart from it being deception - which is a pretty unequivocal breach of the good character requirements of their licence.

bazster

pogofish wrote: »

Apart from it being deception

No it isn't. Telling porky pies isn't deception unless someone acts on the false information to their detriment. By deterring someone from trespassing you're trying to prevent them committing a tort themselves, so if anything it is to their benefit rather than to their detriment.

pogofish wrote: »

- which is a pretty unequivocal breach of the good character requirements of their licence.

Whose licence to do what?

vrbarreto

Trespassers will be shot.
Survivors will be prosecuted..

pogofish

bazster wrote: »

No it isn't. Telling porky pies isn't deception unless someone acts on the false information to their detriment. By deterring someone from trespassing you're trying to prevent them committing a tort themselves, so if anything it is to their benefit rather than to their detriment.



Whose licence to do what?

Not as far as the Fraud Act 2006 (E&W) is concerned. It seems made for just this. The definition of gain/advantage is drawn pretty wide and covers more than direct financial gain.

That alone would be quite incompatible with any Personal Licence.

Guys_Dad

pogofish wrote: »

Not as far as the Fraud Act 2006 (E&W) is concerned. It seems made for just this. The definition of gain/advantage is drawn pretty wide and covers more than direct financial gain.

That alone would be quite incompatible with any Personal Licence.

Oh come on! Get real. If any public money was spent on any prosecution on this it would be scandalous.

Seems to me that the hotel owner wants to deter people from parking and as long as he doesn't actually clamp anyone, tghen his notice is doing a good job.

Judging by the ignorance of the law shown by OPs on here - worried about CCJs and not understanding under what circumstances they can be earned as well as thinking the PCNs by PPCs are fines, then I reckon that it will deter a good number of fly parkers and good luck to him.

Iceweasel

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Oh come on! Get real. If any public money was spent on any prosecution on this it would be scandalous.

Seems to me that the hotel owner wants to deter people from parking and as long as he doesn't actually clamp anyone, tghen his notice is doing a good job.

Judging by the ignorance of the law shown by OPs on here - worried about CCJs and not understanding under what circumstances they can be earned as well as thinking the PCNs by PPCs are fines, then I reckon that it will deter a good number of fly parkers and good luck to him.

I agree - I know loads of places where the land-owner or local residents have posted signs such as 'No Turning', 'No Through Road', or 'Private Road' when it's no such thing.

Such signs scare off most people who are unaware of the law - but I can't see anyone having any success making a fraud case out of it.

Half_way

pogofish

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Oh come on! Get real. If any public money was spent on any prosecution on this it would be scandalous.

I happen to think that it would be a very good thing - After all its not like there is any shortage of examples of pub owners/managers making-up the law to suit themselves!

Anything that reminds them that responsibility as a landlord cuts both ways can only be a good thing.