Clamping threats

Guys_Dad

pogofish wrote: »

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.

Well if it is good value for money you could always fund a private prosecution.

bazster

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.

Oh wow, it's not just deception, now it's fraud too! What utter, utter tosh. You might just as well argue that if I hear a burglar downstairs in my house at night and I shout down the stairs "you'd better leave because I've got a gun and I'm prepared to use it!" then I've committed a fraud.

(I ought to clarify, since you are clearly in full nitpicking nitwit mode, that this would be a lie: I do not have a gun).

pogofish wrote: »

That alone would be quite incompatible with any Personal Licence.

You're talking about alcohol licences? What the hell does any of this have to do with alcohol licences?

bazster

pogofish wrote: »

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.

Oh I see, you've got some personal axe to grind against publicans which is making you spout such tosh. Not that anyone even mentioned pubs on this thread, the original post was about a hotel without any clues as to whether said hotel is even licensed.

Not that it would make any difference because the fraud or deception is non-existent except in your fevered imagination.

Half_way

What would be better, fake clamping signs and empty threats, or a ppc infesting the car park?