Clamped!

Ray Pissed

Cereal Rapist wrote: »

Fair play to Kildare, Bummerboy and Gary. Ridiculously nice gesture with no reward other than the satisfaction of helping someone out.

Threads like this make Boards.

I totally agree with this point.

fasttalkerchat

Ray Pissed wrote: »

I totally agree with this point.

RayPist and CerealRapist... you the same person?!

Wexfordian

Jesus Shaves wrote: »

I was under the impression that anan1 was not allowed to post in this thread again, it's turned a legendary thread into bickering and completely ruined it

I'm absolutely amazed by the number of people who agreed with a ban from the thread for being "a clamping apologist". Not for being in any way abusive, just for disagreeing with the orthodoxy.

Do you really want boards.ie run on that basis?

fasttalkerchat

Wexfordian wrote: »

I'm absolutely amazed by the number of people who agreed with a ban from the thread for being "a clamping apologist". Not for being in any way abusive, just for disagreeing with the orthodoxy.

Do you really want boards.ie run on that basis?

He was totally derailing the thread. I don't agree with banning anyone the way it happens here but I think he should have been sent to make a new thread.

Wexfordian

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

He was totally derailing the thread. I don't agree with banning anyone the way it happens here but I think he should have been sent to make a new thread.

Why though? He was entirely on topic, though it later expanded out on both sides.

frozenfrozen

Wexfordian wrote: »

Why though? He was entirely on topic, though it later expanded out on both sides.

Wexfordian has been banned for this post.

.

BUBBLE WRAP

Wexfordian wrote: »

Why though? He was entirely on topic, though it later expanded out on both sides.

Okay, bye bye.

Anan1

eth0 wrote: »

I think there should be a national "do not clamp" register. Anyone who is against clamping can sign up to it and if they park in the wrong spot they only get a fine instead

All those submissive folk who prefer a more invasive approach to their wrongdoing can stay off the register and get clamped.

You can sign up to never being clamped by a private clamper again right now. It's easy, and it's 100% watertight. Don't park on someone else's property.

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

He was totally derailing the thread. I don't agree with banning anyone the way it happens here but I think he should have been sent to make a new thread.

By derailing the thread you really mean disagreeing with the herd. Every post I made was on-topic and reasoned, even in the face of sustained personal abuse. This thread is the most extreme example of mob mentality i've ever seen in Motors, and i've been around a while. The general attitude can be condensed into three words - burn the witch. It's only now, days later, that some of you are calming down to the point of being able to string together a coherent argument in favour of your point of view.

BUBBLE WRAP

BUBBLE WRAP wrote: »

Okay, bye bye.

BUBBLE WRAP wrote: »

I believe you can get your opinion across without sly little comments like that. :rolleyes:

To Anan1's point many comments towards him have been disgraceful, a sort of bullying imo.

fasttalkerchat

Anan1 wrote: »

You can sign up to never being clamped by a private clamper again right now. It's easy, and it's 100% watertight. Don't park on someone else's property.By derailing the thread you really mean disagreeing with the herd. Every post I made was on-topic and reasoned, even in the face of sustained personal abuse. This thread is the most extreme example of mob mentality i've ever seen in Motors, and i've been around a while. The general attitude can be condensed into three words - burn the witch. It's only now, days later, that some of you are calming down to the point of being able to string together a coherent argument in favour of your point of view.

Ok. I think this has run its course. The thread was about the OP's attempt to get a clamp removed. Thanks to everyone here he got it off. Fair play to everyone involved and I'm finished posting here.

If someone is interested in a legal debate there is a place for that thread and I will enjoy reading both sides of that argument.

BUBBLE WRAP

RoverJames wrote: »

To Anan1's point many comments towards him have been disgraceful, a sort of bullying imo.

That bye bye comment wasnt aimed at anan1

BUBBLE WRAP

BUBBLE WRAP wrote: »

That bye bye comment wasnt aimed at anan1

I know.

You could have gotten your point across without a sly little comment like that though. I'm struggling to fathom you not understanding the hypocrisy tbh.

Stark

Anan1 wrote: »

You can sign up to never being clamped by a private clamper again right now. It's easy, and it's 100% watertight. Don't park on someone else's property.

That's about as inane a statement as "leave the country if you disagree with how things are run". Also doesn't address the issue of other unsuspecting people who get screwed by the cowboys.

Anan1 wrote:

By derailing the thread you really mean disagreeing with the herd. Every post I made was on-topic and reasoned, even in the face of sustained personal abuse. This thread is the most extreme example of mob mentality i've ever seen in Motors, and i've been around a while. The general attitude can be condensed into three words - burn the witch. It's only now, days later, that some of you are calming down to the point of being able to string together a coherent argument in favour of your point of view.

And your attitude is typical of the burn people for the slightest technicality attitude. Having not one shred of compassion for the many people who simply made a mistake and didn't set out that morning to screw some poor property owner and walk home minus €120 of their hard earned cash as a result. Any decent human being would give someone the benefit of the doubt if there was ambiguity rather than giving into greed and robbing them of their cash as soon as they find something to catch them out on.

It's like in your world, someone who spells their name incorrectly on a Ryanair ticket deserves the penalty fee because they set out to "abuse Ryanair" instead of simply making a mistake.

It's lucky we still do have decent human beings like drummerboy who think with motives other than greed and looking to screw people.

What about unsuspecting property owners getting screwed by folks parking on their property?

Two sides to every coin.

BUBBLE WRAP

RoverJames wrote: »

I know.

You could have gotten your point across without a sly little comment like that though. I'm struggling to fathom you not understanding the hypocrisy tbh.

Righty, rj.

Anan1

Stark wrote: »

That's about as inane a statement as "leave the country if you disagree with how things are run".

Nonsense, we're talking about privately owned land. You have no natural right to be there. If you don't like the owners rules then stay away.

Stark wrote: »

Also doesn't address the issue of other unsuspecting people who get screwed by the cowboys.

This is a straw man argument. This thread is about the OP's case, is it not?

Stark wrote: »

And your attitude is typical of the burn people for the slightest technicality attitude. Having not one shred of compassion for the many people who simply made a mistake and didn't set out that morning to screw some poor property owner and walk home minus €120 of their hard earned cash as a result.

This isn't a Hollywood courtroom melodrama, the OP chose to park in a private car park without paying. You're conflating your own issues with clampers with the OP's case.

Stark wrote: »

It's like in your world, someone who spells their name incorrectly on a Ryanair ticket deserves the penalty fee because they set out to "abuse Ryanair" instead of simply making a mistake.

Do you want to address my points, or do you just want to make up things about me and criticize them instead?

Jesus Shaves

Wexfordian wrote: »

I'm absolutely amazed by the number of people who agreed with a ban from the thread for being "a clamping apologist". Not for being in any way abusive, just for disagreeing with the orthodoxy.

Do you really want boards.ie run on that basis?

no, not at all, maybe make a new thread to talk about the legalities of clamping

Jesus Shaves

RoverJames wrote: »

What about unsuspecting property owners getting screwed by folks parking on their property?

Seeing as most car parks are attached to retail land how dare customers park on their private land, personally i think that if you know that clamping exists and enforced on a privately owned car park, don't shop there.

Stark

Anan1 wrote: »

Nonsense, we're talking about privately owned land. You have no natural right to be there. If you don't like the owners rules then stay away.

Plenty of people park in good faith in the belief that they're not going to be screwed by the property owner. It's not people sneaking in after night to places where they shouldn't be, it's people looking to avail of the business owner's services. Any such business owner who turns around and robs them after catching them out on a technicality is a contemptible prick. At least with Ryanair, you have the choice of not flying with them if they catch you out on something. If it was a case of someone deciding they were going to use someone's land while they fecked off to work or whereever else for a couple of hours, fair enough, but I'm not a heartless power tripper who thinks that every single person who parked in good faith but didn't read the signs clearly enough deserves everything they get.

I'm actually somewhat in agreement with the sentiment of not parking where there are clampers (I boycott all businesses that use APCOA personally) but from the point of view of not giving such "property owners" business, not that the people who do give them business deserve to be robbed.

Anan1 wrote:

This is a straw man argument. This thread is about the OP's case, is it not?

It's more general than that.

Anan1 wrote:

This isn't a Hollywood courtroom melodrama, the OP chose to park in a private car park without paying. You're conflating your own issues with clampers with the OP's case.

The punishment for not having change with him was completely disproportionate to the crime of going to get change. Even after being helped out, he still had to hang around for hours, it's like he got away scott free with the <20 mins of "free parking".

Anan1

Jesus Shaves wrote: »

no, not at all, maybe make a new thread to talk about the legalities of clamping

OP was privately clamped, and some boardsies removed the clamp. The legality or otherwise of clamping is central to any discussion of that. You want nobody to be allowed to disagree with you, and you got abusive when you didn't get what you want. Doesn't say much for your faith in your own point of view.

Stark wrote: »

Plenty of people park in good faith in the belief that they're not going to be screwed by the property owner. It's not people sneaking in after night to places where they shouldn't be, it's people looking to avail of the business owner's services. Any such business owner who turns around and robs them after catching them out on a technicality is a contemptible prick.

This was no technicality, the OP left their car there for 20 minutes without a ticket.

Stark wrote: »

At least with Ryanair, you have the choice of not flying with them if they catch you out on something. If it was a case of someone deciding they were going to use someone's land while they fecked off to work or whereever else for a couple of hours, fair enough,

You have the choice with parking too. The OP could have chosen not to use that car park.

Stark wrote: »

but I'm not a heartless power tripper who thinks that every single person who parked in good faith but didn't read the signs clearly enough deserves everything they get.

The OP's getting clamped had nothing to do with not reading the signs, and everything to do with leaving the car for 20 minutes without a ticket.

Jesus Shaves wrote: »

Seeing as most car parks are attached to retail land how dare customers park on their private land, personally i think that if you know that clamping exists and enforced on a privately owned car park, don't shop there.

Now that's fair enough, you choose where to spend your money. If you don't like the t&cs, then you're perfectly entitled to shop elsewhere.

Stark

Anan1 wrote: »

You have the choice with parking too. The OP could have chosen not to use that car park.

That's not my point. It's not like you're given any warning or given the option of leaving the car park if you feck up. People make mistakes. Not everyone is perfect like you. At least with a barrier system, you have a clear option to pay the difference if you underpay for your parking. And the fine if you lose your ticket whatever is far more reasonable, you get charged the overnight rate rather than screwed extortion rates.

colm_mcm

Stark wrote: »

It's not like you're given any warning

the sign beside the ticket machine should be enough warning IMO

Drummerboy08

RoverJames wrote: »

To Anan1's point many comments towards him have been disgraceful, a sort of bullying imo.

None of my comments have been, yet I've had a few sly digs aimed at me from him, two sides to that coin to RJ.

As for the legal aspect of it, two members of AGS came to the scene, and left once they were happy the clamp was undamaged, and returned to it's owner.

If something illegal had happened I'm sure these two officers would have had something to say or do about it.

Drummerboy08

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

None of my comments have been, yet I've had a few sly digs aimed at me from him, two sides to that coin to RJ.................

Bullying can actually occur without your involvement
None of his sly digs at you were disgraceful imo.

Drummerboy08

RoverJames wrote: »

Bullying can actually occur without your involvement
None of his sly digs at you were disgraceful imo.

None of the sly digs aimed at him were disgraceful either, and I'm sure he's well able to look after himself if he is being bullied, without you holding his hand.

Anyhow, we're going OT here.

Drummerboy08

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

None of the sly digs aimed at him were disgraceful either, and I'm sure he's well able to look after himself if he is being bullied, without you holding his hand.

Anyhow, we're going OT here.

I'm not holding his hand, I'm posting my views on a forum, if you don't like them either ignore them, report them or make cohesive points rather than come out with "holding his hand" comments.

No doubt some of your handholding buddies will be along shortly despite you being able to look after yourself too

dgt

Quite saddened at the way the thread has gone... It's like 2 parts to a song.

Parking on private property... About a year ago there was a twat parking at the front of our house, blocking access to our small gate for a few days. We got sick of this very quickly and one day he came back to find he was blocked with 2 cars. Abuse was then hurled but we wouldn't let him go. Eventually Mr Navara found out he wasn't so big, felt very small when we were finished with him, then drove off meekly. That taught him a lesson about parking on someone else's private property, especially here. Same principle with clamping, except its a much more grey area.

I agree and disagree with clamping. I agree as it's supposed to put off arseholes abusing a system which has been provided with a park, parking in disability spaces etc. The threat of loss of use of the car is there and a fine. Supposed to fund for upkeep of the park/rent/insurance etc. I disagree with it as it leave's the vehicle immobilised in the space; loss of use of space to everyone else, loss of parking fee to the owner etc. Some of the prices are extortionate (I once saw a €500 clamp release fee while driving through Cavan) Plus it means some monkey is at your vehicle putting on this clamp.

Imo up here around Navan there are plenty of grey areas to park in if you don't want to pay for parking. Just a matter if you want to walk or not. Dublin is the same, there are a few grey areas where there are no machines, no lines etc. Just a matter of finding them

Don't get me wrong people, I hate clampers, a disease among humanity :pac:

BUBBLE WRAP

dgt wrote: »

Quite saddened at the way the thread has gone... It's like 2 parts to a song.

Parking on private property... About a year ago there was a twat parking at the front of our house, blocking access to our small gate for a few days. We got sick of this very quickly and one day he came back to find he was blocked with 2 cars. Abuse was then hurled but we wouldn't let him go. Eventually Mr Navara found out he wasn't so big, felt very small when we were finished with him, then drove off meekly. That taught him a lesson about parking on someone else's private property, especially here. Same principle with clamping, except its a much more grey area.

I agree and disagree with clamping. I agree as it's supposed to put off arseholes abusing a system which has been provided with a park, parking in disability spaces etc. The threat of loss of use of the car is there and a fine. Supposed to fund for upkeep of the park/rent/insurance etc. I disagree with it as it leave's the vehicle immobilised in the space; loss of use of space to everyone else, loss of parking fee to the owner etc. Some of the prices are extortionate (I once saw a €500 clamp release fee while driving through Cavan) Plus it means some monkey is at your vehicle putting on this clamp.

Imo up here around Navan there are plenty of grey areas to park in if you don't want to pay for parking. Just a matter if you want to walk or not. Dublin is the same, there are a few grey areas where there are no machines, no lines etc. Just a matter of finding them

Don't get me wrong people, I hate clampers, a disease among humanity :pac:

Great post mate, fair play.

jackofalltrades

Anan1 wrote: »

.By derailing the thread you really mean disagreeing with the herd. Every post I made was on-topic and reasoned, even in the face of sustained personal abuse. This thread is the most extreme example of mob mentality i've ever seen in Motors, and i've been around a while. The general attitude can be condensed into three words - burn the witch. It's only now, days later, that some of you are calming down to the point of being able to string together a coherent argument in favour of your point of view.

Completly agree with you. I could understand being asked by a Mod to stop posting against the rant in Ranting and Raving, but not in the Motors forum.

Anan1

Stark wrote: »

That's not my point. It's not like you're given any warning or given the option of leaving the car park if you feck up.

You're given the choice not to use the car park.

Stark wrote: »

People make mistakes. Not everyone is perfect like you.

We all make mistakes, but it would appear that only some of us take responsibility for them.

Stark wrote: »

At least with a barrier system, you have a clear option to pay the difference if you underpay for your parking. And the fine if you lose your ticket whatever is far more reasonable, you get charged the overnight rate rather than screwed extortion rates.

So only use car parks with that system - that's your prerogative.

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

None of the sly digs aimed at him were disgraceful either, and I'm sure he's well able to look after himself if he is being bullied, without you holding his hand.

Anyhow, we're going OT here.

Drummerboy, you wanted to see me banned for disagreeing with you. We're both long term posters here and in general terms I respect both you and your outlook, but you really should have a think about that one.

God Father

Anan1 wrote: »

the OP chose to park in a private car park without paying. You're conflating your own issues with clampers with the OP's case.

NO I DIDN'T. Stop posting crap about me. I came back with change and bought a ticket.

Anan1 wrote: »

.Every post I made was on-topic and reasoned

This is not true! You have attempted to paint my entire situation that day in the most negative, mischievous way possible. creating your own spin on things and having nothing positive to say at all.

This is not the thread you are looking for. Go create a new one if you want to discuss the merits of clamping.

Drummerboy08

RoverJames wrote: »

I'm not holding his hand, I'm posting my views on a forum, if you don't like them either ignore them, report them or make cohesive points rather than come out with "holding his hand" comments.

No doubt some of your handholding buddies will be along shortly despite you being able to look after yourself too

Not sure what your last point there is, but fair enough.

Anan1

God Father wrote: »

NO I DIDN'T. Stop posting crap about me. I came back with change and bought a ticket..

20 minutes later. Like I said, you chose to leave your car in a private car park for 20 minutes without paying. That's why you were clamped.

God Father wrote: »

This is not true! You have attempted to paint my entire situation that day in the most negative, mischievous way possible. creating your own spin on things and having nothing positive to say at all.

Your situation was a direct result of your own actions. You're right, I have nothing positive to say about them. I think you were wrong.

God Father wrote: »

This is not the thread you are looking for. Go create a new one if you want to discuss the merits of clamping.

This is the thread for discussing your case, and that's what i'm doing.

MugMugs

Hi Anan1. You haven't answered my question. If you don't want to that's cool...?

Anan1

MugMugs wrote: »

Hi Anan1. You haven't answered my question. If you don't want to that's cool...?

Sorry, what question?

hondasam

God Father wrote: »

NO I DIDN'T. Stop posting crap about me. I came back with change and bought a ticket.

Did you still buy the ticket even when you seen you were clamped?
How much is the car park?

God Father

Anan1 wrote: »

you chose to leave your car in a private car park for 20 minutes without paying.

This is the thread for discussing your case, and that's what i'm doing.

No I did not. I chose to get change to pay.
I did not make a conscious decision to go for 20mins to get change.
I went to get change as quick as I could.

Also you have taken this thread way beyond and more general than just my case.

MugMugs

Anan1 wrote: »

MugMugs wrote: »

Hi Anan1. You haven't answered my question. If you don't want to that's cool...?

Sorry, what question?

Are you a clamper?

God Father

MugMugs wrote: »

Are you a clamper?

More likely a private land owner or car park owner.

Anan1

MugMugs wrote: »

Are you a clamper?

I did answer that one yesterday, and I made it comprehensive just for you guys. Here's a link: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79370942&postcount=714

Anan1

God Father wrote: »

More likely a private land owner or car park owner.

At least that makes a little more sense. But sorry, no again. I just respect the right of a man to make the rules on his own land is all.

MugMugs

Anan1 wrote: »

MugMugs wrote: »

Are you a clamper?

I did answer that one yesterday, and I made it comprehensive just for you guys. Here's a link: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79370942&postcount=714

Wasn't a direct response to.my.query so.didn't hit.my search. Thanks

Anan1

MugMugs wrote: »

Wasn't a direct response to.my.query so.didn't hit.my search. Thanks

No probs, I had to search under a phrase I knew i'd used myself!

MugMugs

Anan1 wrote: »

God Father wrote: »

More likely a private land owner or car park owner.

At least that makes a little more sense. But sorry, no again. I just respect the right of a man to make the rules on his own land is all.

By the way. Private land? Car parks are public areas. Irrespective of their ownership, they are considered a public place. You make it sound like he parked in somebody's back garden.

MugMugs

MugMugs wrote: »

........... You make it sound like he parked in somebody's back garden.

Depends on what meaning you take from "his own land"
To me, that encompasses more than gardens.

Anan1

God Father wrote: »

No I did not. I chose to get change to pay.
I did not make a conscious decision to go for 20mins to get change.
I went to get change as quick as I could.

You left the car for 20 minutes without a ticket, that's why you got clamped. Why it took you 20 minutes is your own affair.

God Father wrote: »

Also you have taken this thread way beyond and more general than just my case.

No, i'm still focused on your case.

MugMugs

RoverJames wrote: »

MugMugs wrote: »

........... You make it sound like he parked in somebody's back garden.

Depends on what meaning you take from "his own land"
To me, that encompasses more than gardens.

True... Boundaries etc. I gated and fenced all areas of my land I didn't want people on without invitation. In the eyes of the law, that land is private.

Anan1

MugMugs wrote: »

By the way. Private land? Car parks are public areas. Irrespective of their ownership, they are considered a public place. You make it sound like he parked in somebody's back garden.

They're still privately owned, which, in my book at least, means that you either abide by the owners rules or stay away. If everyone respected this then there'd be no need for clampers. I'm not talking about the law here, i'm talking about common decency and respect for property.

MugMugs

Anan1 wrote: »

MugMugs wrote: »

By the way. Private land? Car parks are public areas. Irrespective of their ownership, they are considered a public place. You make it sound like he parked in somebody's back garden.

They're still privately owned, which, in my book at least, means that you either abide by the owners rules or stay away. If everyone respected this then there'd be no need for clampers.

But... It's defined as a public place... For the public to use. Without a bye laws in place by the landowner the public are only really obliged to abide by the laws of the land.

Anan1

MugMugs wrote: »

But... It's defined as a public place... For the public to use. Without a bye laws in place by the landowner the public are only really obliged to abide by the laws of the land.

Legally you're correct. It was legal to remove the OP's clamp. But I wouldn't put my feet on someone's couch even if I knew that the law would protect me. And I suspect you wouldn't either.