suicide_circus wrote: » If I was a Sinn Fein candidate I'd change my name to Chucky R. Law
Fr_Dougal wrote: » Terrorists aren’t known for being law abiding.
end of the road wrote: » he removed a clamp belonging to a private clamping company. the biggest non-issue possible. absolutely scraping the barrel here lads in an aim to have a go at sf.
Gatling wrote: » Sure aren't they all innocent
Fanny **** wrote: » Did he break the law? Private clamping is a grey area in many jurisdictions I can't stand SF, would never vote for them but this smacks as a media circus over nothing
mfceiling wrote: » And you thank a post saying that clampers are the lowest form of life and rank up there with paedophiles. Talk about barrel scraping.
Brendan Bendar wrote: » You miss the point totally. He is an MLA, justice and police spokesman. That would make it a big issue.
Chrongen wrote: » Ah come on now, if Gerry Kelly was really that fearsome nobody would dare clamp his car. Punishment beatings for the clampers.
end of the road wrote: » the comment was tongue in cheek. if i thought the poster actually believed what he wrote i'd call him out on it.
end of the road wrote: » the comment was tongue in cheek. if i thought the poster actually believed what he wrote i'd call him out on it. not at all. it's a non-issue that has been blown out of all proportion to make a news story.
Chrongen wrote: » Clamping should be outlawed. Who gives some private outfit the right to tamper with someone's private property and then have the audacity to cry foul when someone cuts the clamp off? If you want to get technical about it aren't clampers effectively interfereing with someone's freedom of movement? Kind of like standing in front of Joan Burton's car? If a person is parked illegally then note down the details of the car. Take a photograph with timestamp and GPS coordinates, slap a ticket on the windscreen and send a summons in the mail and leave it at that.
Brendan Bendar wrote: » John, forgive me for being a bit pedantic, but the clampers are either legal or they are not. I suppose we will have to wait for the 'court case' to establish that. Mary Lou is stepping into a bit of turbulence here as a lot of her 'subjects' seem to think they are above the law? For a party who were Teflon clean in the very recent past it looks like the mask may be slipping a bit. Surprised that an experienced punter like Kelly would 'do a Barry' as it were.
Phoebas wrote: » It's been reported to the PSNI so time will tell. Kelly is SFs Police and Justice spokesman, so this might have legs. He's also on the policing board, so we potentially have a man who oversees the police and leads SF policy on justice blatantly breaking the law.
Chrongen wrote: » Well if clamping is a legal "grey area" then so is removing one, no?
Are Am Eye wrote: » Sin Fein want jam on both sides of their bread. But they're going to have to choose between the bolt cutters and the ballot box.
Pepefrogok wrote: » Honestly clampers/traffic wardens are hated but without them you literally would not be able to drive through the city! Even private property need some enforcement or it would be a free for all, if it was a private company Gerry will be done for criminal damage unless he managed to get it off without damaging it. The optics are terrible due to his roll on policing and justice boards, he really should know better.
BalcombeSt4 wrote: » Well if people think removing a clamp is the worst thing Gerry Kelly ever did ...
Brendan Bendar wrote: » Grey area of the law, John. Could you back up that assertion with a tad of evidence.
Johnny Dogs wrote: » Here's an idea Brenner - up in the search area of the site, type out "private clampers" and enlighten yourself. Like I said. If Ian paisley emerged from the sod himself and removed a clamp from those **** - I'd applaud him myself.
arctictree wrote: » Love the way the police/guards are on it like a shot if 'criminal damage' is done to a clamp. Yet if you reported criminal damage to your car they couldn't give a ****.
cycle4fun wrote: » Did he not shoot a ............... in the head once?
Johnny Dogs wrote: » I think you missed this post from earlier. As for criminal damage, happened the brother before, he called his pal who arrived out to him with a set of bolt cutters, went through the padlock like a hot knife through butter so it did. Called the cops telling them what he did. Wanted to get his side of the story in first. "So long as you didn't damage the clamp, nothing we can do about it - civil matter" he was told. He left the clamp leaning against a wall with his details informing the company that it was interfering with his private property, said he would glady replace or pay for the padlock he damaged by removing it. Now sit down Brenner, cos you might wanna prepare yourself foe what I'm going to tell you next. He never did get a call from the clampers - and if you wanted me to guess why, I'd say it was because a private company interfering with another person's private property is in dodgy legal territory. And so long as you don't damage theirs on removing it, not another word about it either. So (and at the risk of sounding like a broken record here) I couldn't give a shyte what political persuasion any man or woman Is, if they remove a clamp from those **** I say well done, fair play, might even buy them a drink. Hope I've made myself clear.
FTA69 wrote: » I opened this thread expecting to see some proper offensive howler Kelly might have come out with or some grisly revelation about his IRA past, but no, it's just the usual whingers feigning outrage because he wouldn't allow himself to be gouged by some private clamper, who lets be honest here, are probably some of the biggest f*cking pricks you'll ever encounter. These muppets operate solely on commission and operate on seriously dodgy territory, they've even clamped hearses and ambulances over here. The hands-on-the-hips finger wagging moralising on here is gas, and it has absolutely shag all to do with the issue and all about Gerry Kelly. There's plenty you could criticise him and SF for, give over if you think people are going to be up in arms (forgive the pun) about some tosser's clamp.
Jawgap wrote: » If he snipped the clamp that's criminal damage right there, regardless of whether he was on public or private property. If he dismantled the wheel, then no problem, from a criminal damage perspective.
BalcombeSt4 wrote: » Well thanks to Gerry lots of people are missing their arms.
cycle4fun wrote: » What if everyone parked on double yellow lines and used boltcutters to escape the consequences?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c599644a213e5f18742e0afff85076a6.svg)
