OnlyMe Posted August 21, 2010 Share Posted August 21, 2010 Could be better or worse than it looks, if worse this country has some serious problems as well as financial ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pl1 Posted August 21, 2010 Share Posted August 21, 2010 Watched 55 seconds of that and can't be bothered to watch remaining 7 minutes (have to bang rusty nails into my head), can you give us a basic plot, does it get any better? edit: man with heart condition, having car clamped and battery disconnected (never fully discover why), guy from nearby office filming walks over to have look, police get heavy handed with him as he is filming (PC Plod calls it breach of the peace), guy filming bottles it; cut to back in his office filming from safe distance, disabled guy screaming at bailiffs. That's it. It's the usual grey area, guy filming police incident, police shout "breach of peace" at camera guy, camera guy either calls bluff or doesn't, in this case he didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blobloblob Posted August 21, 2010 Share Posted August 21, 2010 Watched 55 seconds of that and can't be bothered to watch remaining 7 minutes (have to bang rusty nails into my head), can you give us a basic plot, does it get any better? Matters take an unexpected turn at 2.37 when they release the leopards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lone_Twin Posted August 21, 2010 Share Posted August 21, 2010 I'm on a slow connection, could you summarise? Pretty please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saving For a Space Ship Posted August 21, 2010 Share Posted August 21, 2010 I'm on a slow connection, could you summarise? Pretty please. 'Did you clamp my car 'cos it's black? ' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnlyMe Posted August 21, 2010 Author Share Posted August 21, 2010 Difficult to summarize, need to watch it really - brings up questions of the interplay of govt/local councils/private corporations and citizens in this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
northwestsmith2 Posted August 22, 2010 Share Posted August 22, 2010 If yor're going to block a car door with an arms folded over chest stand then it helps if the owner is trying to get back in. Not standing in front of you facing away Looked very intimate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustYield Posted August 22, 2010 Share Posted August 22, 2010 If you live in the UK and cannot be bothered to watch an 8 min youtube video which exposes something very wrong in the way police and private security firms / bailiffs conduct their business, then you deserve everything that is coming to you. As to the cameraman bottling it, he is Charlie Veitch and he avoids getting arrested so he can continue pointing out the loss of rights and freedoms you are collectively sleep walking into. It's what he does. The policeman, Blair, aggressively gets him to stop filming on the basis that he is causing a breach of the peace by inciting the man who's car is being impounded. The incitement consisted of Charlie asking the man what was going on and if he had granted permission for the police/security to enter his car, open the bonent and disconnect the battery. PC Blair's aggressive walking into Charlie's chest, finger jabbing and disproportionate threat of arrest should result in some disciplinary action. Or maybe not. If I can care about this from over here in Singapore, you should at least get a clue in the UK. :angry: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkman Posted August 22, 2010 Share Posted August 22, 2010 So what are the facts of the case? Is the vehicle being towed because he didn't pay to park, or because he has outstanding debts? Until we know, any assumptions are just reactionary bullshite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustYield Posted August 22, 2010 Share Posted August 22, 2010 So what are the facts of the case? Is the vehicle being towed because he didn't pay to park, or because he has outstanding debts? Until we know, any assumptions are just reactionary bullshite. Here's some facts: 1 driver who presumably has committed a parking/traffic offence or owes money 2 vans At least 7 police / security Entry into car without permission. Preventing owner gain access to his car. No warrant shown. Wheel clamp. Disconnected battery. Defensive police officer who oversteps his powers. Do you think that is proportionate and reasonable? When did you get used to this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkman Posted August 22, 2010 Share Posted August 22, 2010 If he didn't pay to park, then yes it's the usual daylight robbery of wheel clampers. It's unusual for the police to aid private wheel clampers though. However, if the car is being repossessed by bailiffs, we can assume this guy wasn't keeping up with his payments of some sort. And if he wasn't paying his debts, then eventually his debts catch up with him. This is eerily similar to house "owners" getting repossessed when they don't keep up with mortgage payments? And how much sympathy are those people shown on this site. Precisely zero. But to clarify, if it's a 60p parking offence then the events are disproportionate. If it's a thousand+ debt issue then that's something else. Either way, I suspect our camera hero didn't know the facts behind it all either, but decided he knew best and waded in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionTerror Posted August 22, 2010 Share Posted August 22, 2010 I thought that this thread was going to be about dogging...shame.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bossybabe Posted August 22, 2010 Share Posted August 22, 2010 Here's some facts: 1 driver who presumably has committed a parking/traffic offence or owes money 2 vans At least 7 police / security Entry into car without permission. Preventing owner gain access to his car. No warrant shown. Wheel clamp. Disconnected battery. Defensive police officer who oversteps his powers. Do you think that is proportionate and reasonable? When did you get used to this? Do we know this? How about: Car is subject of HP agreement Owner doesn't pay Car is legal property of HP company HP company send bailiffs in to repossess car Bailiffs accompanied by police - legitimately Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustYield Posted August 22, 2010 Share Posted August 22, 2010 Do we know this? How about: Car is subject of HP agreement Owner doesn't pay Car is legal property of HP company HP company send bailiffs in to repossess car Bailiffs accompanied by police - legitimately True, we don't know anything about the ownership of the car, my bad. Does it not strike you as heavy handed though? 7 versus 1?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted August 22, 2010 Share Posted August 22, 2010 Do we know this? How about: Car is subject of HP agreement Owner doesn't pay Car is legal property of HP company HP company send bailiffs in to repossess car Bailiffs accompanied by police - legitimately I read somewhere that Bailiffs cant repossess a car on private property. So if you owe money on the car, park it on the drive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustYield Posted August 22, 2010 Share Posted August 22, 2010 More reasonable and proportionate police behaviour: Man arrested by armed police at Heathrow... because of a traffic dispute seven months earlier Sorry it's the Mail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deadman Posted August 22, 2010 Share Posted August 22, 2010 That's never happened to me. The police and debt collection agencies leave me well alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted August 22, 2010 Share Posted August 22, 2010 More reasonable and proportionate police behaviour: Man arrested by armed police at Heathrow... because of a traffic dispute seven months earlier Sorry it's the Mail. For all the rights and wrongs of this report, it is emotivated by the use of ARMED POLICE. get arrested in Coventry and a van may turn up and 4 of them take you in. Get arrested in ANY OTHER COUNTRY and the police would be ARMED. Its a fake/ missing facts story. why would Police ARREST a man for an attack that had no evidence, no continuation and an easy prospect of investigation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Sadman Posted August 22, 2010 Share Posted August 22, 2010 This man should be arrested and imprisoned for filming in a public area. Or is that legal again now Snot Gobbler and Jackboot Smith have gone away? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bossybabe Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 True, we don't know anything about the ownership of the car, my bad. Does it not strike you as heavy handed though? 7 versus 1?! Yes, it's definitely heavy handed. Just felt that conclusions were being jukmped to. I read somewhere that Bailiffs cant repossess a car on private property. So if you owe money on the car, park it on the drive. No idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Miyagi Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 I read somewhere that Bailiffs cant repossess a car on private property. So if you owe money on the car, park it on the drive. Under a regulated HP agreement the finance company may not enter your property to repossess the goods without an order from the Courts. The only way the lender can repossess the goods without an order from the courts is if the person has paid less than 1/3 of total of the the goods and the goods are not on/in the lenders own private property. When more than 1/3 had been paid the lender must apply to the Courts for a repossession order in all instances. From looking it's impossible to say what the circumstances are. However the Police should NOT be acting in the way they did especially if the debt is civil and not for example enforcement of non payment of fines etc. Then the Police should only be present to prevent a breach of the peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkman Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 I think in all probability it's a repossession, hence the guy saying "don't take my car" and the police arriving in large numbers. Highly unlikely to be over an unpaid ticket. The conclusions jumped to in this thread surprised me a bit. Oh, and the guy with the camera came across as an asshole poking his nose in someone elses business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkman Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 True, we don't know anything about the ownership of the car, my bad. Yeah your bad, that's just a minor detail right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Miyagi Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 I think in all probability it's a repossession, hence the guy saying "don't take my car" and the police arriving in large numbers. Highly unlikely to be over an unpaid ticket. The conclusions jumped to in this thread surprised me a bit. Oh, and the guy with the camera came across as an asshole poking his nose in someone elses business. Exactly. The black guy would have first got a default notice then would have been given opportunity to attend and give representations to the Judge during the repossession hearing (see 1/3 rule re court hearing). If that was the case; well pay your bills like everyone else. Police should not be behaving in way they did by blocking the guys access to the vehicle and his possessions, unless of course they had reason to believe that a breach of the peace was about to occur or criminal damage to the vehicle. The guy with the camera was d ick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.