Jewish men attack parking warden
Discussion
La Liga said:
The group detain him in what seems a perfectly reasonable way. They seem calm enough and tell him to get on the floor etc.
Everything is going to depend on what has occurred before the recordings start as to whether or not detaining him was appropriate.
Calm? After watching the vids, I would say all the episode was anything but!Everything is going to depend on what has occurred before the recordings start as to whether or not detaining him was appropriate.
Perfectly reasonable way? 'Tell' him to get on the floor? 'Forced' onto the floor more like.
In one the warden's head is barely visible with the others on top of him.
Regardless, the telling point is that just one person - a 30-year-old man - has been arrested, and on suspicion of GBH and taken away.
Was that the warden? (doubtful, he was the only person who was taken to hospital).
And the council (who have the warden's bodycam footage say they will be pressing for crim. charges against the offender's').
Await with interest.
As an aside, from the legal pov, if you do a citizen's arrest, do you have to utter the word citizen? ie: 'I am making a citizen's arrest'.
Or (as in this episode) just shout 'You are under arrest'? I thought that was only a copper's prerogative?
audidoody said:
Rude-boy said:
As for those saying that the religion of the men surrounding and detaining the Parking Warden is not germane, i would suggest that the group that they belong to, and the well known attitude that that group holds towards laws and customs which are opposed to their view on the World, means that identifying them as such is warranted.
It is sometimes forgotten that it is not only radicalised Muslims who seem to think that they can impose their laws and customs upon us. There are other religious idiots who think the same about their views on law and life, and there are even some who have not religious conviction who would seek to impose their warped view of life on others.
When was the last time a Hassidic Jew knocked on your door asking if he could have a word about converting you? When was the last time a Jewish UK citizen blew himself up on a crowded London bus/train/? When was the last time a Hassidic Jew climbed on a soapbox outside a synagogue and demanded Jews kill non-Jews, or that the entire country should eat kosher food as one step on the road to seeing the Star of David flag hanging from Buckingham Palace? When was the last time a couple of Jews tried to behead an off-duty soldier for reasons best known to themselves? Etc etc. It is sometimes forgotten that it is not only radicalised Muslims who seem to think that they can impose their laws and customs upon us. There are other religious idiots who think the same about their views on law and life, and there are even some who have not religious conviction who would seek to impose their warped view of life on others.
Which is not to say that if you intended to set up a pop-up shop in parts of North London selling different varieties of bacon you would have difficulty attracting investors.
Mind you I have never had a single Muslim I have discussed religion with disagree with my view that there is something deeply wrong about certain religious leaders who distort and sully their chosen faith.
FWIW I have also seen reports of the contemptible behaviour of fundamentalists from almost every single recognised religion the World over that I have come into contact with.
baldy1926 said:
That's just around the corner from where i live, Literally 1 street away.
Those flats were built by a Jewish charity and advertised as only for ultra orthodox from 1 small sect.
They were forced to take the advertising down but surprisingly it was only occupied by their 'target' audience.
It started with 1 block which had no parking so the residents just left their cars on the road on doubles and singles all day.
They then built another block which has parking but cars are still left on the road anyway.
Parking is a nightmere round there its on a bus route with a blind right hand corner.
Cars are double and tipple parked all day right on the corner as well.
There are industrial units there as well as a garage which trades and repairs on the road.
As soon as the parking warden turns up, which is not very often everyone piles out of the flats and surrounding business to intimidate the warden and delay him.
It would not be one or two people but 20 plus.
Just for a bit of back ground.
Once you weed out the usual name calling posts, this seems to be a very fair post.Those flats were built by a Jewish charity and advertised as only for ultra orthodox from 1 small sect.
They were forced to take the advertising down but surprisingly it was only occupied by their 'target' audience.
It started with 1 block which had no parking so the residents just left their cars on the road on doubles and singles all day.
They then built another block which has parking but cars are still left on the road anyway.
Parking is a nightmere round there its on a bus route with a blind right hand corner.
Cars are double and tipple parked all day right on the corner as well.
There are industrial units there as well as a garage which trades and repairs on the road.
As soon as the parking warden turns up, which is not very often everyone piles out of the flats and surrounding business to intimidate the warden and delay him.
It would not be one or two people but 20 plus.
Just for a bit of back ground.
Perhaps this time it got out of control ?
dandarez said:
Calm? After watching the vids, I would say all the episode was anything but!
Perfectly reasonable way? 'Tell' him to get on the floor? 'Forced' onto the floor more like.
Yes, obviously the verbal aspects were alongside the force being used. Calm is a relative term. Untrained people detaining someone isn't going to be neat and tidy. Even when trained people do it it's often more of a 'pile on'. Perfectly reasonable way? 'Tell' him to get on the floor? 'Forced' onto the floor more like.
It depends on the circumstances as to whether or not it's reasonable.
dandarez said:
Regardless, the telling point is that just one person - a 30-year-old man - has been arrested, and on suspicion of GBH and taken away.
Was that the warden? (doubtful, he was the only person who was taken to hospital).
I'd speculate it's more likely to be the warden.Was that the warden? (doubtful, he was the only person who was taken to hospital).
Him being taken to hospital is no indication he wasn't arrested. Plenty of people who are arrested go straight to hospital prior to custody.
dandarez said:
And the council (who have the warden's bodycam footage say they will be pressing for crim. charges against the offender's').
Await with interest.
There's always two sides to a story and usually the truth is somewhere between. Await with interest.
dandarez said:
As an aside, from the legal pov, if you do a citizen's arrest, do you have to utter the word citizen? ie: 'I am making a citizen's arrest'.
Or (as in this episode) just shout 'You are under arrest'? I thought that was only a copper's prerogative?
The theory is more complex than how it works practically. Or (as in this episode) just shout 'You are under arrest'? I thought that was only a copper's prerogative?
S.24A PACE said:
Sections 24A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 provides the power of arrest for persons other than constables.
24A(1) A person other than a constable may arrest without a warrant -
(a) anyone who is in the act of committing an indictable offence;
(b) anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an indictable offence.
24A(2) Where an indictable offence has been committed, a person other than a constable may arrest without a warrant -
(a) anyone who is guilty of the offence;
(b) anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of it.
24A(3) But the power of summary arrest (see note (v)) conferred by subsection (1) or (2) is exercisable only if -
(a) the person making the arrest has reasonable grounds for believing that for any of the reasons mentioned in subsection (4) it is necessary to arrest the person in question; and
(b) it appears to the person making the arrest that it is not reasonably practicable for a constable to make it instead.
24A(4) The reasons are to prevent the person in question -
(a) causing physical injury to himself or any other person;
(b) suffering physical injury;
(c) causing loss of or damage to property; or
(d) making off before a constable can assume responsibility for him.
24A(5) This section does not apply in relation to an offence under part 3 or 3A of the Public Order Act 1986.
24A(1) A person other than a constable may arrest without a warrant -
(a) anyone who is in the act of committing an indictable offence;
(b) anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an indictable offence.
24A(2) Where an indictable offence has been committed, a person other than a constable may arrest without a warrant -
(a) anyone who is guilty of the offence;
(b) anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of it.
24A(3) But the power of summary arrest (see note (v)) conferred by subsection (1) or (2) is exercisable only if -
(a) the person making the arrest has reasonable grounds for believing that for any of the reasons mentioned in subsection (4) it is necessary to arrest the person in question; and
(b) it appears to the person making the arrest that it is not reasonably practicable for a constable to make it instead.
24A(4) The reasons are to prevent the person in question -
(a) causing physical injury to himself or any other person;
(b) suffering physical injury;
(c) causing loss of or damage to property; or
(d) making off before a constable can assume responsibility for him.
24A(5) This section does not apply in relation to an offence under part 3 or 3A of the Public Order Act 1986.
catso said:
Can't be bothered to watch the video or read the article, but if this puts just one person off from becoming a bottom-inspector then I'd say it's a result.
Hey if it is just a bit off less than respectful debate one on one then it goes with the job - I doubt every person who has told a PC to FO has been arrested for doing so (many PCs will take far more verbal before slapping the cuffs on and often will give many warnings first (absent of any other factor) IME).Having a forceful debate with a Traffic Warden who is acting like super cop or is being a jumped up goon is also fair game.
Having 20 of your mates surround them crosses the line from standing up for yourself and into direct intimidation.
All of that said one thing that does occur to me is that if this was such a problem parking area and with an apparent history of questionable interactions from MOPs with Traffic Wardens why did they send him out there on his own, or in fact would it not have been more sensible to use one of their enforcement cars (which i think that they have, those lovely ones with the cameras on top that drive round pinging you without fear or favour.)
Rude-boy said:
catso said:
Can't be bothered to watch the video or read the article, but if this puts just one person off from becoming a bottom-inspector then I'd say it's a result.
Hey if it is just a bit off less than respectful debate one on one then it goes with the job - I doubt every person who has told a PC to FO has been arrested for doing so (many PCs will take far more verbal before slapping the cuffs on and often will give many warnings first (absent of any other factor) IME).Having a forceful debate with a Traffic Warden who is acting like super cop or is being a jumped up goon is also fair game.
Having 20 of your mates surround them crosses the line from standing up for yourself and into direct intimidation.
All of that said one thing that does occur to me is that if this was such a problem parking area and with an apparent history of questionable interactions from MOPs with Traffic Wardens why did they send him out there on his own, or in fact would it not have been more sensible to use one of their enforcement cars (which i think that they have, those lovely ones with the cameras on top that drive round pinging you without fear or favour.)
The only people that should have problems with civil enforcement officers (that's what we arre) are the ones that cannot/will not park properly. And even then, they should just accept they are in the wrong, rather than shouting, swearing, threatening and intimidating, all while stating they know the law better than we do!
Randy Winkman said:
The Mail makes me puke. Surely the only worthwhile weapon a traffic warden has is a parking ticket? Why would he attack anyone? But I can see loads of reasons why a traffic warden would be subject to violence. Imagine the Mail if it'd been a bunch of black fellas.
Don't forget it was the Daily Mail who helped to bring justice to them murdering thugs who killed Stephen Lawrence.Raygun said:
Randy Winkman said:
The Mail makes me puke. Surely the only worthwhile weapon a traffic warden has is a parking ticket? Why would he attack anyone? But I can see loads of reasons why a traffic warden would be subject to violence. Imagine the Mail if it'd been a bunch of black fellas.
Don't forget it was the Daily Mail who helped to bring justice to them murdering thugs who killed Stephen Lawrence.Randy Winkman said:
Raygun said:
Randy Winkman said:
The Mail makes me puke. Surely the only worthwhile weapon a traffic warden has is a parking ticket? Why would he attack anyone? But I can see loads of reasons why a traffic warden would be subject to violence. Imagine the Mail if it'd been a bunch of black fellas.
Don't forget it was the Daily Mail who helped to bring justice to them murdering thugs who killed Stephen Lawrence.speedchick said:
While I agree that some 'traffic wardens' are odd to say the least, having a go at one while they are doing their job is nor fair game, I have had more than my fair share of idiots taking pops at me, so much so that one resident in a local town has an harassment order against him, and on Monday, a man that I asked to move off the yellow line and into a parking bay actually drove at me.
The only people that should have problems with civil enforcement officers (that's what we arre) are the ones that cannot/will not park properly. And even then, they should just accept they are in the wrong, rather than shouting, swearing, threatening and intimidating, all while stating they know the law better than we do!
Seriously with some jobs it goes with the territory. Mine means I get called all sorts of things and often not to my face and with far more potentially damaging results than being called a "jumped up mini Hitler who was obviously bottom of the class or they'd have a proper job or be a pig." For example.The only people that should have problems with civil enforcement officers (that's what we arre) are the ones that cannot/will not park properly. And even then, they should just accept they are in the wrong, rather than shouting, swearing, threatening and intimidating, all while stating they know the law better than we do!
There are good and bad in all walks of life but you do get a feeling some don't help themselves when they turn up at a pay and display town centre car park at 5pm on a Saturday evening but ignore a busy street on their patch where people park in 1 hour spots for days at a time...
Nothing justifies harassment, but being on the receiving end of a bit of vitriol has to be accepted as an occupational hazard in some walks of life. If you don't like it, and unless it's against equality, disability, etc. laws, find another job.
CoolHands said:
that's what it looks like to me, anyway. The story pitches it the opposite way. Whadyya think?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4132678/Tr...
I think we need to know what you think. It is utterly contemptible to post up a polemical article like this and throw it out there, you know what you're doing and anyone with half a brain sees through it. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4132678/Tr...
CoolHands said:
Their attempt to stop him getting away is what caused him to run over people and do a wheelie - he clearly wasn't in control as it looks they were trying to grab him off the moped, which led to the throttle going wide open as he hung on to it.
Assuming this has arisen from an issued parking ticket, seems a bit out of order. If they disagreed on the ticket there are appropriate ways to dealing with it. Wonder if the warden had a body cam?
Depends who gives you the ticket. If it was Newham council (London) then those "appropriate channels" are basically a round about way of saying any appeal will be dismissed out of hand as we already have your money (they impound cars at the drop of a hat).Assuming this has arisen from an issued parking ticket, seems a bit out of order. If they disagreed on the ticket there are appropriate ways to dealing with it. Wonder if the warden had a body cam?
b
ds.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff