Beware ! Traffic Police and civil parking matters
Discussion
Variomatic said:
As long as the driver refuses calmly (and remains calm, polite and non-confrontational) I totally agree. Any breach of the peace would come from the bailiffs if they attempted to force the matter, and I'm not sure on the legality of arresting the potential victim of a breach (the one fearing violence) in order to prevent the offender commiting it - it'd be a bit like arresting the old dear at the cashpoint to prevent the thief snatching her cash!
Not forgetting too that distraint on a public highway is unlawful too. The Police would be aiding and abetting an unlawful act. Variomatic said:
Will be interested to get their response......
Four of the five standard excuses might be used:1 The Anthony Blunt excuse There is a perfectly satisfactory explanation for everything, but security prevents its disclosure
2 The Comprehensive Schools excuse It's only gone wrong because of heavy cuts in staff and budget which have stretched supervisory resources beyond the limit
4 The Munich Agreement excuse It occurred before important facts were known, and cannot happen again (The important facts in question were that Hitler wanted to conquer Europe. This was actually known; but not to the Foreign Office, of course)
5 The Charge of the Light Brigade excuse It was an unfortunate lapse by an individual which has now been dealt with under internal disciplinary procedures
I'm not going to rehash what's already been said.
But do consider that the editing of the TV programming might not show things exactly as they happened and might not show the full story.
These shows are not designed to be factual and educational, they are designed to be sensational and entertaining to encourage people to watch them.
But do consider that the editing of the TV programming might not show things exactly as they happened and might not show the full story.
These shows are not designed to be factual and educational, they are designed to be sensational and entertaining to encourage people to watch them.
Snowboy said:
But do consider that the editing of the TV programming might not show things exactly as they happened and might not show the full story.
Probably not the full story, but what they showed did actually happen & can't easily be denied.Unlawful acts clearly took place and were condoned by the police standing nearby. Even you cannot dispute that.
Rovinghawk said:
Snowboy said:
But do consider that the editing of the TV programming might not show things exactly as they happened and might not show the full story.
Probably not the full story, but what they showed did actually happen & can't easily be denied.Unlawful acts clearly took place and were condoned by the police standing nearby. Even you cannot dispute that.
Variomatic said:
. . . . and I'm not sure on the legality of arresting the potential victim of a breach (the one fearing violence) in order to prevent the offender commiting it - it'd be a bit like arresting the old dear at the cashpoint to prevent the thief snatching her cash!
Yep, dimly recall a precedent from c.150 years ago (apparently the Salvation Army was controversial then!), in which they were the potential victims but were stopped from marching as that would have resulted in a BoP. Judged unlawful? As an example.
Earlier someone said a bailiff can't take someone's taxi.
Broadly true.
But what if it's an unlicenced taxi?
An uninsured taxi?
A taxi where the licence address doesn't match the drivers address?
It's a whole different story then?
These TV shows give you just enough details for you to be angry, but not enough to explain the full story.
Earlier someone said a bailiff can't take someone's taxi.
Broadly true.
But what if it's an unlicenced taxi?
An uninsured taxi?
A taxi where the licence address doesn't match the drivers address?
It's a whole different story then?
These TV shows give you just enough details for you to be angry, but not enough to explain the full story.
Snowboy said:
As an example.
Earlier someone said a bailiff can't take someone's taxi.
Broadly true.
But what if it's an unlicenced taxi?
An uninsured taxi?
A taxi where the licence address doesn't match the drivers address?
It's a whole different story then?
These TV shows give you just enough details for you to be angry, but not enough to explain the full story.
Unless they invented the whole show using CGI, a bailiff standing on camera and saying clearly "you were stopped because of an outstanding parking ticket" can't really be misunderstood.Earlier someone said a bailiff can't take someone's taxi.
Broadly true.
But what if it's an unlicenced taxi?
An uninsured taxi?
A taxi where the licence address doesn't match the drivers address?
It's a whole different story then?
These TV shows give you just enough details for you to be angry, but not enough to explain the full story.
Variomatic said:
Unless they invented the whole show using CGI, a bailiff standing on camera and saying clearly "you were stopped because of an outstanding parking ticket" can't really be misunderstood.
No. That point isn't misunderstood.Some people think that's it's unlawful, illegal, unethical for police to assist balifs in stopping cars. Other people don't think it's illegal.
Unless there's some new information from what's been discussed in the last 20 pages there's little point in continuing that specific line.
I was looking more at the accusations that bailiffs are doing illegal/unlawful stuff while police stand around ten yards away.
Snowboy said:
I was looking more at the accusations that bailiffs are doing illegal/unlawful stuff while police stand around ten yards away.
"You were stopped because of a parking ticket" is unlawful.Doing all the bailiff stuff on the highway is unlawful.
Police were involved in this activity.
It seems fairly clear-cut.
Snowboy said:
DoubleSix said:
I think it's unethical.
As I suspect would most MOP if they had the situation adequately explained to them.
I suspect that most MOP would consider it ethical.As I suspect would most MOP if they had the situation adequately explained to them.
Just goes to show that there's a wonderous diversity of opinion in the world.
DoubleSix said:
Snowboy said:
DoubleSix said:
I think it's unethical.
As I suspect would most MOP if they had the situation adequately explained to them.
I suspect that most MOP would consider it ethical.As I suspect would most MOP if they had the situation adequately explained to them.
Just goes to show that there's a wonderous diversity of opinion in the world.
Discussing ethics rather than legality gives a much broader scope for opinions rather than quoted legislation.
So, with that in mind.
These people who owe money are bad people.
They have ignored their debt to the point it's gone to court and the court has stated they owe money.
The court appointed baillifs have been unable to get that money back for the courts, so they have asked the police for some help.
The police have agreed to help.
I agree with your first point Snowboy. I am not a lawyer so for me discussing the legalities is not likely to result in any great revelations, however reading the last 35 pages has been educational.
As for the rest... sorry but I think you would be surprised at what most people consider worthwhile Police work and a sensible use of limited resources.
As for the rest... sorry but I think you would be surprised at what most people consider worthwhile Police work and a sensible use of limited resources.
Variomatic said:
Will be interested to get their response......
Hats off to you, a very interesting post, especially the first freedom of information link and I am also interested to see how they respond to your own request.Edited by Variomatic on Thursday 24th April 22:37
Thanks for that.
Did anyone see a Copper stop a vehicle in that TV prog (Parking Mad)?
I watched on iPlayer - my recollection is that no stops were actually shown, although I thought I saw a bailiff begin to stride out to stop a vehicle.
This is tricky, innit?
Clearly the Police shouldn't be involved, but equally clearly, if you get a £60 ticket you ought to cough up if it's valid, or appeal if not. Two wrongs don't make a right (and I'm implacably in agreement that the Police shouldn't be involved) - but I have no time at all for the "park where/when I like and ignore all the tickets and letters" folk who are gits.
I watched on iPlayer - my recollection is that no stops were actually shown, although I thought I saw a bailiff begin to stride out to stop a vehicle.
This is tricky, innit?
Clearly the Police shouldn't be involved, but equally clearly, if you get a £60 ticket you ought to cough up if it's valid, or appeal if not. Two wrongs don't make a right (and I'm implacably in agreement that the Police shouldn't be involved) - but I have no time at all for the "park where/when I like and ignore all the tickets and letters" folk who are gits.
jbsportstech said:
<snipped a bit>
These fine are based on threats if everyone appealed the system would crash, people
Any the £60 cause they are scared it will be £400 if they don't! It's a system based on extortion of large amounts of money totally disproportionate to the original contravention.
But it doesn't turn into £400 if you appeal. It turns into £400 if you just ignore it, for a long time.These fine are based on threats if everyone appealed the system would crash, people
Any the £60 cause they are scared it will be £400 if they don't! It's a system based on extortion of large amounts of money totally disproportionate to the original contravention.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff