Beware ! Traffic Police and civil parking matters
Discussion
V8forweekends said:
DoubleSix said:
You honestly think Average Joe would applaud the use of Police resources in this matter?
Actually, I do, because most Joe Public are stupid "if you've done nothing wrong you've got nothing to fear" morons.They aren't right though.
I agree it is tricky.
Ethics again.
If we accept that private bailiff companies are the legal and lawful means of collecting money owed for the courts then I have no problem with the police helping.
It's all broadly the same legal system.
However, I personally think private companies collecting debt on behalf of the courts is a terrible idea.
I'd rather see CCJ debt collected by a govt agency rather than a private company.
If we accept that private bailiff companies are the legal and lawful means of collecting money owed for the courts then I have no problem with the police helping.
It's all broadly the same legal system.
However, I personally think private companies collecting debt on behalf of the courts is a terrible idea.
I'd rather see CCJ debt collected by a govt agency rather than a private company.
Snowboy said:
Ethics again.
If we accept that private bailiff companies are the legal and lawful means of collecting money owed for the courts then I have no problem with the police helping.
It's all broadly the same legal system.
However, I personally think private companies collecting debt on behalf of the courts is a terrible idea.
I'd rather see CCJ debt collected by a govt agency rather than a private company.
But are the lines not being blurred?If we accept that private bailiff companies are the legal and lawful means of collecting money owed for the courts then I have no problem with the police helping.
It's all broadly the same legal system.
However, I personally think private companies collecting debt on behalf of the courts is a terrible idea.
I'd rather see CCJ debt collected by a govt agency rather than a private company.
Joe Public see's Police and immediately feels compelled to comply with whatever demands are being made by the bailiff, reasonable or not - upon fear of arrest, although no such outcome is possible. No opportunity for counsel or understanding of the facts.
It feels inherently wrong/unethical.
DoubleSix said:
But are the lines not being blurred?
Joe Public see's Police and immediately feels compelled to comply with whatever demands are being made by the bailiff, reasonable or not - upon fear of arrest, although no such outcome is possible. No opportunity for counsel or understanding of the facts.
It feels inherently wrong/unethical.
But, I don't see it as "Joe Public" being asked for the money.Joe Public see's Police and immediately feels compelled to comply with whatever demands are being made by the bailiff, reasonable or not - upon fear of arrest, although no such outcome is possible. No opportunity for counsel or understanding of the facts.
It feels inherently wrong/unethical.
I see it as "Joe the git who's been judged by a court to owe money".
These aren't innocent people getting fleeced by the cops.
It's not parking eye ripping people off.
It's court judged debt that someone seems to be avoiding.
DoubleSix said:
I don't like fine dodgers either. But why are Police resources being channelled into what is, as has been said, a civil matter?
I think there are two answers to that;1, because the baillifs are unable to resolve it themselves and have asked for help.
2, because it is no drain on police resources. The police are already doing traffic stops, so pulling a few extra cars isn't any extra drain.
ks though isn't it...DoubleSix said:
You are unfamiliar with the legions that chant; "you want to go and catch some real criminals!, I wos burgled last year and you did noffink". Reckon they outnumber the "nothing to fear" types 2-1.
I agree it is tricky.
I agree it is tricky.
Er, ironically I suspect considerable overlap between those two groups of morons.
Snowboy said:
Why do you think that?
From reading this thread and watching last nights program I feel there is a compelling case to argue that the Bailiffs are 'leading the show' , whilst suggesting Police would have been there anyway is a smokescreen. Couple that with the fact that funds are changing hands and the whole thing really stinks.DoubleSix said:
Snowboy said:
Why do you think that?
From reading this thread and watching last nights program I feel there is a compelling case to argue that the Bailiffs are 'leading the show' , whilst suggesting Police would have been there anyway is a smokescreen. Couple that with the fact that funds are changing hands and the whole thing really stinks.Do you mean the legal recovery of avoided debt, or do you mean something else?
Snowboy said:
When you say 'funds are changing hands'.
Do you mean the legal recovery of avoided debt, or do you mean something else?
I think he means that the police are assisting those who provide funds for them whilst saying "It's a civil matter, sir" to anyone else who would like assistance with their debt recovery.Do you mean the legal recovery of avoided debt, or do you mean something else?
As for 'legal recovery', read the bit where unlawful methods are used.
DoubleSix said:
From reading this thread and watching last nights program I feel there is a compelling case to argue that the Bailiffs are 'leading the show' , whilst suggesting Police would have been there anyway is a smokescreen. Couple that with the fact that funds are changing hands and the whole thing really stinks.
That is the impression I got. Of course, video editing can make almost anything give a false impression, but it did look as if the Police on the scene were hanging around looking a bit sheepish and not really doing anything - hence my question about whether anyone had seen a Bib actually perform a stop. As for "funds changing hands" I think the Bailiffs/Council are paying for Bib presence. I am conflicted about this - Football clubs pay for Bib because fans can't behave - I think that's legit, but offences are criminal in that case.
V8forweekends said:
Football clubs pay for Bib because fans can't behave - I think that's legit, but offences are criminal in that case.
My understanding is that the police choose to be at matches due to trouble & the clubs are forced to pay for it. That's a very different situation, especially as the police are specifically not under the football club's control.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff