Detained by police for unpaid PCN

[Fair-Parking]

It was indeed. A late night show called 'Nightwitch or similar'. (that's the 5th time the keyboard has substituted an 'i' for an 'a'. Sorry). Can anybody post a copy of this?

 

It is becoming questionable that the hostile attempt to marginalise Watching You by GMP may well be motivated by self interest rather than public responsibility and duty. It is also apparant that the directions are coming from the top, and if senior police officers feel the need to close ranks so vigorously then one cannot rule out the possibility that it is senior police officers who have something to hide.

 

Without checking I believe that one of my earlier posts suggested that the implimentation of a 'stop and detain policy' could only have come into being via the approval and order of senior police officers. To suggest otherwise would be to believe that the rank and file had implemented this themselves without the knowledge of their superiors. That would be implausible.

 

So the top officers must have introduced what was an anti-social and illegal 'stop and detain' policy which could only be doomed to fail. Having reached that inevitable failure which senior police officers within GMP clearly never envisaged, for some the time may well have come for self protection to override common sense, honesty and decency. Otherwise it could be seen that anything which has happened to Watching You doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.

 

One also wonders why these people never the learn the lessons from history that when any public body cover up is exposed, the fall out is always far worse with reputations and careers being shredded without mercy.

 

And perhaps the police might ponder the reality that there is no defence to this.

 

It happened - and the senior police officers of GMP were entirely responsible.

Edited December 23, 2008 by Fair-Parking
spelling mistake

[lamma]

try you tube for cops cars bailiffs

[Rob S]

It is becoming questionable that the hostile attempt to marginalise Watching You by GMP may well be motivated by self interest rather than public responsibility and duty. It is also apparant that the directions are coming from the top, and if senior police officers feel the need to close ranks so vigorously then one cannot rule out the possibility that it is senior police officers who have something to hide./quote]

 

The potential problem for Watchingyou is he has stated that he has made other complaints about GMP. If they have been substantiated in the past then it would be difficult to deal with him as a vexatious complainer, but if the vast majority have not been substantiated then that would explain why GMP have taken this step. The question remains as to whether or not they have followed their policy correctly in dealing with an alleged vexatious complainer. That is why it is important to get a copy of their policy to see if they have followed it correctly.

[letshelp]

It is most likely the vexatious complainant policy that Watchingyou has most likely fallen foul of. All police services will have such a policy, as do other public bodies like local authorities and the NHS. It would be a good idea for him/her to write to the PSD and ask them to supply a copy of their policy.

 

I had experience of this recently when NHS Suffolk tried to apply it to me. I have been fighting the NHS to pay for my fathers nursing home costs, and they tried to label me as an unreasonably persistent complainer and then threatened me with legal action if I "persisted with writing aggressive and derogatory" letters to them. I replied by advising them they had not followed their own policies and that to threaten someone without intending to carry out the threat was harassment under the POH act. I gave them 14 days to either take action against me, or to write to advise me they were not going to take action.

 

 

WTF is going on, Watchingyou and Rob S are pursuing lawful grievances, one against the NHS the other against the Police, They are subsequently called vexatious complainants and threatened with legal action.

Welcome to Stalins Britian.

regards

[pin1onu]

WTF is going on, Watchingyou and Rob S are pursuing lawful grievances, one against the NHS the other against the Police, They are subsequently called vexatious complainants and threatened with legal action.

Welcome to Stalins Britian.

regards

The old saying don't get mad get even sounds like it might apply here.

 

I'd suggest it's time to write to the Home Office who ultimately control the police and also the Secretary of State for health.

 

It might be that the legal action would be a good thing. At least the case can be heard in public. You might want to tip off the press, media etc to what's going on. Strikes me as both organisations don't want you to proceed and playing the system to try and get you to stop. You have to ask the question why?

 

I'd suggest you call their bluff and ask go after them big style - use the press, media etc.

[nigel_bytes]

Dont waste youre time writing to the home office you will be ignored, I wrote to Ms Jack Smith and the reply was 'we only answer complaints from our constituants' My complaint was about an illegal immigrant who used forged documents to enter the UK (Fact is i married her) So i went to the Media and my story was printed.

If i were you i'd go to the Nationals.

[Fair-Parking]

Rob - When it comes to stopping and detaining motorists in order to allow Marstons bailiffs to collect alleged parking fines, there can be no policy as this practice is illegal, which is why we (this forum) had it abruptly terminated in July.

 

Senior police officers within Grerater Manchester Police either implemented this illegal act, or stood by and allowed it to happen or had no idea that their subordinates were implementing this policy.

 

Whichever one you wish to pick, its the senior police officers who must carry the can for what was an authorised abuse of civil liberties.

 

Covering up and marginalising those who want answers will not save them on this.

[lamma]

"Senior police officers within Grerater Manchester Police either implemented this illegal act, or stood by and allowed it to happen or had no idea that their subordinates were implementing this policy.". Nicely put - but as they often had TV crews along with them can't see how senior officers did not know.

[pin1onu]

Dont waste youre time writing to the home office you will be ignored, I wrote to Ms Jack Smith and the reply was 'we only answer complaints from our constituants' My complaint was about an illegal immigrant who used forged documents to enter the UK (Fact is i married her) So i went to the Media and my story was printed.

If i were you i'd go to the Nationals.

I'd agree with you they'll probably just ignore. However if you alert them to the fact that you are copying the media with the same letter the response may be a little different. Get your local MP on board as well if you can.

 

Of course if the minister doesn't respond then maybe a letter to the PM's office (go for the top) may help; the cynic in me say he won't give a toss but hey its worth a try.

[Rob S]

Rob - When it comes to stopping and detaining motorists in order to allow Marstons bailiffs to collect alleged parking fines, there can be no policy as this practice is illegal, which is why we (this forum) had it abruptly terminated in July.

 

Senior police officers within Grerater Manchester Police either implemented this illegal act, or stood by and allowed it to happen or had no idea that their subordinates were implementing this policy.

 

Whichever one you wish to pick, its the senior police officers who must carry the can for what was an authorised abuse of civil liberties.

 

Covering up and marginalising those who want answers will not save them on this.

 

I did post up a reply to this earlier, but it took 4 days for it to appear:rolleyes: and when it did it found its way into the NHS forum! Lets hope this one gets posted more promptly.

 

It's necessary to seperate the initial actions of assisting the bailiffs (which has stopped) and the action by the professional standards branch against Watching You, as they are 2 seperate issues. Watching you has stated that he has made a number of complaints against GMP, and they have now decided to deal with him as vexatious/unreasonably persistent. They do have to follow procedures and they have to prove to the IPCC that they have done so.

 

Look at page 37 here and it explains the procedure.

 

http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/stat_guidelines.pdf

 

 

 

I agree with the level of knowledge within GMP on this. It is something that could not have been agreed at divisional level (i.e station level) and would have had to have been agreed within the HQ somewhere.

[scaniaman]

Yea-it's a complete waste of time writing 44DD, she won't answer questions on anything, the arrogant cow. Certainly contact your MP and papers, as, if you are harrassed as one of "THE" cars to stop, you can bring this into the public domain, which will further discredit GMP.

[watchingyou]

I have today been contacted by a representative of the Information Commissioner’s office who is following up on my complaint regarding the response I have received to my FoIR which was sent to Greater Manchester Police.

 

At this moment the Information Commissioner is looking at 2 outstanding issues that may have not been fully answered by GMP. I have given the URL of this forum to the Information Commissioner’s representative so there is a good chance that the comments made here will be perused.

 

Also if there are more issues that interested viewers feel GMP have not sufficiently answered in their reply to my FoIR then please feel free to voice them here so they may be brought to the attention of the Information Commissioner and taken into consideration.

 

The Outstanding issues the Information Commissioner is looking at are questions :-

 

2 Which Law or Act of Parliament permits GMP to stop vehicles and detain drivers for unpaid Parking Penalty Charge Notices or matters of alleged decriminalised contraventions?

 

And Question :-

 

7 A PCN is a civil matter please say which part of the Data protection Act allows the passing of this kind of information.

 

With regard to question 1 in my FoIR I would have thought GMP would know how many people they have detained because not to record when and the reason for it they detain a person would be unlawful.

 

Looking at the response to question 4 GMP have provided no evidence at all that the data passed to them was passed to them by the Marston Group to assist with their policing obligations as per research into offender “self selection” I strongly suspect that the only reason the data was passed to the police by the Marston Group was to simply pursue the recovery of unpaid civil parking penalty charges. To be clear on this the Data Protection Act is concerned at the reasons why data was passed and therefore processed and not only or specifically how it was put to use and because I believe this data was passed for the purpose of recovering a civil debt and this data was then processed by the Marston Group and then by Greater Manchester Police the Data Protection Act has been breached.

 

 

Edited January 9, 2009 by watchingyou

[Zamzara]

Just found this clip:

 

YouTube - Cars Cops + B/03

 

where they seize a black cab and openly discuss the fact that it is essential to the owner's business and is in use as such. This would make the seizure unlawful because the cab is exempt goods.

[joe1965]

And why are the police helping the bailiffs in the first place?

[seylectric]

Just found this clip:

 

YouTube - Cars Cops + B/03

 

where they seize a black cab and openly discuss the fact that it is essential to the owner's business and is in use as such. This would make the seizure unlawful because the cab is exempt goods.

 

The whole issue is a farce, from the over-the-top "fine" for the most minor of misdemeanors in most cases, the overzealous policing of often needless no-parking areas and enforcement and collection of the fines, that remember are issued without the law (or even the council) now needing a trial to prove your "guilt".

 

But when it comes to situations like this where the councils, and more importantly private companies whose sole purpose in life is to make a profit, are using the police to illegally stop motorists to relieve them of their cash then something needs to be done to reverse the trend. I warned years ago that people's apathy would lead to this sort of thing, but it's now far worse than anybody ever envisaged, and I hope the Information Commissioner realises how serious this is - the very fabric of our society is based on fair trials and as far as motorists are concerned in 21st century Britain, all that's been snatched away from us.

 

I personally have had bailiffs force their way into my house, breaking a door and causing £650 worth of damage on the way, to try to enforce a single unpaid council-issued parking ticket. The police did nothing. I've had police threaten me with arrest if I didn't allow collection agents - not bailiffs, and without a court order - take away my £8,000 car which was on HP, and I've had the local council trying to illegally tow awy my car for parking in a suburban residents parking zone because my permit had expired 36 hours previously (and the renewal office had been closed throughout the 36 hour period). It's now gone way too far and needs to be stopped.

[JonCris]

And why are the police helping the bailiffs in the first place?

 

That's what we ALL want to know cos they ain't fighting crime that's for sure as parking has been decriminalized.

[Fair-Parking]

Well well well. Mr Waller appears again. Anywhere the law can be broken by lies and deceit he seems to be in the middle of it. Now he's either stupid or very stupid. That is there is an unlikely chance that after so many law breaking offences he still doesn't understand the law because he's stupid or much more likely he does, but is far too arrogant and intent on law breaking because he thinks he can get away with it. Very Stupid

 

The evidence mounts......

[lamma]

where has he just appeared ? ?

[Fair-Parking]

On Zamzara's clip

[lamma]

Thanks. hadn't watched it. (guilt......)

[joe1965]

Surely all this video evidence could be used in a complaint to the relevant authorities?

He wouldn't be able to deny anything as it's all there in colour.

[Fair-Parking]

Indeed. As I say, the evidence mounts. Its not going into my scrapbook.

 

Referrals to 'fines'. Intent on taking money from anybody who has control of a VEHICLE (rather than the person) which has allegedly attained an unusally high number of decriminalised monetary demands.

 

The man's 'ignorance' is quite astounding. This time not just supported by the police but actually invited by them to carry on like this.

 

GMP also have a lot to answer for. It will come to a head, I promise you.

[crem]

God, I am going to hate typing this post but....

 

once a council fine has been to court, even under a decriminalised parking scheme, doesn't it become a criminal offence not to pay it which is when police and court bailiffs may be involved?

 

He does seem to be quite happy that the driver of the range rover is not responsible for any payments and speaks to the owner, even then not finally threatening to take it until he confirmed that some of the outstandings were against his particular name.

 

I told you I'd hate typing that!

 

I now need a large drink and a lie down.

[Fair-Parking]

Jamie B. Waller is not a court bailiff, even though he stated precisely that in an edition of Car, Cops & Bailiffs shown in December 2007.

 

The following day I asked his company to which court he was attached. They couldn't answer and swiftly broke off all contact

[lamma]

a civil debt is just that - civil, not criminal.