nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Another Sinn Fein blunder?

Brendan Bendar

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/gerry-kelly-removed-clamp-from-his-car-sinn-féin-confirms-1.3379431

Can this be true?

If it is, it would appear that it's another faux pas by SINN Fein following on the Kingsmill sliced pan incident.

A party who it was difficult to lay a glove on up to this seems to have 'pulled the ripcord' ?

First it's wee Barry and O'Muilleoir

Then auld Dessie

Now it appears that Jerry has cracked.

What's going on here.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

McMurphy

Are Am Eye wrote: »

The legal position is that by parking there he enters into a contract whereby he agrees that his car will be clamped and remain clamped until a fine is paid. That signs are up is deemed sufficient notice to him that he is entering this contract. This has been upheld by the courts.
So dont mind your freedom of movement ****e.
Everyone knows that this area needs control and regulation but a few years ago when the issue was being reviewed the govt chose to do nothing. So it is unregulated and often abused.
I wouldn't blame anyone for cutting em off. This guy got caught, was his mistake.

To say your post is slightly misinformed is an understatement. That's not the legal position at all.

Private clamping firms rely on myths such as the above to stay in business.

the sheriff is HERE

Berserker wrote: »

Countless reasons. The other cars might not have been parked there when the clampers arrived. Alternatively, if they were parked there when the clampers entered the car park, the drivers were smart enough to keep an eye out for the clampers and move their cars before the clampers had time to clamp them.

could be alright but it's fishy, did the gym release this video?

Berserker wrote: »

Doesn't have the right to damage their property though.

yes we do, if our right to free movement is been impeded by a private company, and i agree the padlock if broken needs to be replaced that's it.
anyone know the name of said clamping company?

McMurphy

the sheriff is HERE wrote: »

anyone know the name of said clamping company?

Yes it's on the website that covers the story.

The clamp was fitted by a private company called Parking and Enforcement Agency (PEA).

the sheriff is HERE

Are Am Eye wrote: »

The legal position is that by parking there he enters into a contract whereby he agrees that his car will be clamped and remain clamped until a fine is paid. That signs are up is deemed sufficient notice to him that he is entering this contract. This has been upheld by the courts.
So dont mind your freedom of movement ****e.
Everyone knows that this area needs control and regulation but a few years ago when the issue was being reviewed the govt chose to do nothing. So it is unregulated and often abused.
I wouldn't blame anyone for cutting em off. This guy got caught, was his mistake.

he only cut a padlock, that's what i took from the video.

i enter no contract with clampers unless they're local authority, now that's a different story and your points would all be totally valid, but this was a private company.

Jawgap

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

To a padlock?

Get a grip.

Get a grip??

I'd get a lawyer.....

A motorist who damages a wheel clamp to free his car, having parked on another's property knowing of the risk of being clamped, does not have a lawful excuse under the Act: see Lloyd v DPP [1992] 1 All ER 982; R v Mitchell 2004 RTR 14 CA.

the sheriff is HERE

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Yes it's on the website that covers the story.

The clamp was fitted by a private company called Parking and Enforcement Agency (PEA).

NCPS Group of Companies (incorporating NCPS, PEA and parkbytext) most are based in ireland, i just checked LinkedIn and company house register one former director is on the board of the british parking association, theyre cowboys ted!

the sheriff is HERE

Jawgap wrote: »

Get a grip??

I'd get a lawyer.....

real world advice, dont damage the clamp, but the lock.

Brendan Bendar

Jawgap wrote: »

Get a grip??

I'd get a lawyer.....

Jaysus, Noeleen is gone, resigned.

Lot of heads rolling recently.

[Deleted User]

the sheriff is HERE wrote: »

real world advice, dont damage the clamp, but the lock.

Leave the lock alone do the final link in the chain, cheapest part.

Brendan Bendar

Louise is being wheeled out on the 1 pm news to explain the blunders in SF.

Should be a good lesson in how to talk for Ireland but say nothing.

citytillidie

Just got to think why the other cars were not clamped

Jawgap

the sheriff is HERE wrote: »

real world advice, dont damage the clamp, but the lock.

Nope - unless you own the lock you can't damage it. In the case cited above it was a chain that was damaged to free the car and in Lloyd v DPP (1992) 1 All ER 984, the damage was to a lock.....

Brendan Bendar

Hey all the amateur lawyers, looks like the bould Jerry has paid up

A c note apparently.

So much for barrack room lawyers.

VinLieger

the sheriff is HERE wrote: »

he only cut a padlock, that's what i took from the video.

i enter no contract with clampers unless they're local authority, now that's a different story and your points would all be totally valid, but this was a private company.

Cutting the lock is destruction of property though, as long as its not council property hes parked on hes perfectly entitled to remove the clamp any other way and not pay a fine as long as he doesn't damage the clamp, lock or chain which he did therefore they can go after him

Are Am Eye

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

To say your post is slightly misinformed is an understatement. That's not the legal position at all.

Private clamping firms rely on myths such as the above to stay in business.

I'm glad you're slightly informed.
Site the statute or case law that makes clamping on private property illegal.

VinLieger

edit: double post

the sheriff is HERE

Jawgap wrote: »

Nope - unless you own the lock you can't damage it. In the case cited above it was a chain that was damaged to free the car and in Lloyd v DPP (1992) 1 All ER 984, the damage was to a lock.....

ok that's uk law and vaild in the north, what about a link and reattach the link to the clamp when finished?

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Hey all the amateur lawyers, looks like the bould Jerry has paid up

A c note apparently.

So much for barrack room lawyers.

he was made pay up by sinn fein, and here's me defending him, FFS gerry. It's solicitors in the South.

VinLieger wrote: »

Cutting the lock is destruction of property though, as long as its not council property hes parked on hes perfectly entitled to remove the clamp any other way and not pay a fine as long as he doesn't damage the clamp, lock or chain which he did therefore they can go after him

i was hoping you could cut the link, I'll have to check that out.

advice to anyone been clamped by a private company.

ring 1850 ivebeenclamped in the republic.
and 1800 clampersneverwin in the north and they'll disappear.

VinLieger

the sheriff is HERE wrote: »

ok that's uk law and vaild in the north, what about a link and reattach the link to the clamp when finished?

he was made pay up by sinn fein, and here's me defending him, FFS gerry. It's solicitors in the South.

i was hoping you could cut the link, I'll have to check that out.

advice to anyone been clamped by a private company.

ring 1850 ivebeenclamped in the republic.
and 1800 clampersneverwin in the north and they'll disappear.

Like you could cut the chain theoretically if you got lucky with them using a link at the very end of the chain, it would be nigh impossible for them to prove you did that without cctv evidence.

Jawgap

the sheriff is HERE wrote: »

ok that's uk law and vaild in the north, what about a link and reattach the link to the clamp when finished?

.....

Don't know that there's a case like that in the courts - essentially you're asking if you make good on the criminal damage have you still committed an offence? I'd say the answer would be yes.

the sheriff is HERE

Jawgap wrote: »

Don't know that there's a case like that in the courts - essentially you're asking if you make good on the criminal damage have you still committed an offence? I'd say the answer would be yes.

i get your POV but a charge for a broken lock or a link in a chain is overkill, it would cost more just for the gardai or police to just take the complaint never mind it going to the DPP or CPS.

TerrorFirmer

I can't believe people are arguing over such petty technicalities. Regardless of political party, for a high level poltician of ANY establishment to be so utterly stupid and reckless as to do something like this.

McMurphy

Are Am Eye wrote: »

I'm glad you're slightly informed.
Site the statute or case law that makes clamping on private property illegal.

I never said it was "illegal" to clamp, what I was disputing was where you posted this

The legal position is that by parking there he enters into a contract whereby he agrees that his car will be clamped and remain clamped until a fine is paid. That signs are up is deemed sufficient notice to him that he is entering this contract.

It's not the legal position, and the contract/ fine bit is completely wrong info too.

I posted relative info that countered that already. It's they're in my earlier posts - from the AA (not a random boards poster).

the sheriff is HERE

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

I can't believe people are arguing over such petty technicalities. Regardless of political party, for a high level poltician of ANY establishment to be so utterly stupid and reckless as to do something like this.

No he has brought attention to the clamping trade/extortion by private companies north and south and clampers/people have never tested the law in the south.

who released the video, the gym or another private business?

VinLieger

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

I can't believe people are arguing over such petty technicalities. Regardless of political party, for a high level poltician of ANY establishment to be so utterly stupid and reckless as to do something like this.

Especially so considering the irony of being spokesperson on policing, imagine any other parties spokesperson on justice got caught doing this SF would be screaming from the rooftops

Are Am Eye

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I never said it was "illegal" to clamp, what I was disputing was where you posted this

It's not the legal position, and the contract/ fine bit is completely wrong info too.

I posted relative info that countered that already. It's they're in my earlier posts - from the AA (not a random boards poster).

The Automobile Association. Lol.
Knew you were a bluffer.

McMurphy

Are Am Eye wrote: »

The Automobile Association. Lol.
Knew you were a bluffer.

Hmmmm.

Bluffer?

Let me see now, whose word should I take at face value? Legal advice presumably provided by the largest motoring organisation in the country's lawyers, or some anonymous poster on boards? (Or did you give a source)?

Tough one.

Are Am Eye

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Hmmmm.

Bluffer?

Let me see now, whose word should I take at face value? Legal advice presumably provided by the largest motoring organisation in the country's lawyers, or some anonymous poster on boards? (Or did you give a source)?

Tough one.

Someone had to point out to you above that breaking a clamp or its lock was criminal damage. Your only reply to that was "get a grip". You have no understanding of the law and can only utter catch phrases and invective. Now your saying lorraine keane told you there is no contract on private property and your quoting that as an authority. Obviously the AA didn't back up their claim with legal citation or else you would refer to that. Theyre paid to represent motorists interests. Of course they are anti clamping. They are not a court or a legislator. Their unqualified opinion, not backed up by facts or legal citation is no more relevant than the opinion of the vintners association, the italian rugby association or the army council of the ira. Also they cant say roundabout properly.

the sheriff is HERE

the sheriff is HERE wrote: »

who released the video, the gym or another private business?

i checked google streetview and the only camera I can see is the gym, and the twitter video has banging music in it.

what sort of data protection laws are they in the north, seems it was posted just because he's gerry kelly.

Chrongen

cycle4fun wrote: »

As blanch says, "The man has printed sectarian leaflets and is a convicted terrorist. I am not a bit surprised at his behaviour.", but is it true (it says it on wiki )he once shot someone in the head too? I suppose some people here would think that was ok too seeing as that person was doing his job in a state uniform / upholding the law.

Little disregard for the law then,little disregard for the law now (by parking on double yellow lines on a road, and then unwilling to pay the dime for the crime.)

Oh, and to make it good in the eyes of the worlds media, is he not Sinn Feins party spokesperson on policing and justice? The Germans are having a good laugh.

Oh no, don't let the Germans be laughing at us. Quelle horreur. What will the neighbours say? How will we show our faces?

Gimme a fcuking break. As if the Germans give a **** or even heard about this petty episode. Besides I would say their own police have bigger fish to fry what with ballsing up New Year's Eve sexual assault investigations in Cologne and the like.

Oooh, the Germans are laughing. :rolleyes:

Jawgap

the sheriff is HERE wrote: »

i get your POV but a charge for a broken lock or a link in a chain is overkill, it would cost more just for the gardai or police to just take the complaint never mind it going to the DPP or CPS.

I'd agree - that's probably why it would be dealt by way of a caution.