Paul2412 Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 Of course clamping it removes the obstacle to your customers doesn't it... It will in future, unless the driver of the car is that dense that they'd park there again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 It will in future, unless the driver of the car is that dense that they'd park there again. So,if you owed me money and I came into your shop and took the most expensive thing you had for sale and said you can have it back when you pay me that'd be OK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 It's appropriate to deter people from doing it, surely it isn't that hard to see? No it's not, however, I asked why should anyone be compensated far far in excess of any inconvenience or loss they've suffered? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul2412 Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 So,if you owed me money and I came into your shop and took the most expensive thing you had for sale and said you can have it back when you pay me that'd be OK? How is that in any way comparable? Although in effect, what you're describing are bailiffs. Do you think that parking on private land to do your shopping in town to avoid paying is acceptable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lizmachin Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 But don't you see why they do it? Think about it. You pay a large amount of money each year to allow your customers to use your services. Why should you tolerate people using the parking for other things? You should be wanting to use those shops because there are obviously people watching the car park, making it more secure. The sort of people who I've seen working for clamping companies have usually been little more than thugs who lurk around corners waiting for someone to infringe their rules so that they can pounce, and will then hang around to intimidate the poor unfortunate or tow away their vehicle in order to extort more cash. I would think this sort of person would be more interested in looking into my vehicle in order to steal the sta-nav rather than look after it. My UK car resides in a car park protected by CCTV cameras and a parking pole, and so far the car has been untroubled despite being left for period of up to 6 months when I am not in the UK. There is a very good use for clamps. That is for private individuals to clamp their own car as an anti theft deterent. However my own feeling is it just draws attention to the fact that the car will be parked for a long period and act as a thief magnet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul2412 Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 No it's not, however, I asked why should anyone be compensated far far in excess of any inconvenience or loss they've suffered? Again, its a deterrent. Walking over the railway carries a £1000 fine. That doesn't necessarily cause the railway companies inconvenience or loss but its there as a deterrent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul2412 Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 The sort of people who I've seen working for clamping companies have usually been little more than thugs who lurk around corners waiting for someone to infringe their rules so that they can pounce, and will then hang around to intimidate the poor unfortunate or tow away their vehicle in order to extort more cash. I would think this sort of person would be more interested in looking into my vehicle in order to steal the sta-nav rather than look after it. My UK car resides in a car park protected by CCTV cameras and a parking pole, and so far the car has been untroubled despite being left for period of up to 6 months when I am not in the UK. There is a very good use for clamps. That is for private individuals to clamp their own car as an anti theft deterent. However my own feeling is it just draws attention to the fact that the car will be parked for a long period and act as a thief magnet. Rather than poor unfortunate, I would say the dumb person who wanted to avoid parking in a public car park. Would you go to Cooplands, buy some lunch and then walk into a restaurant, sit down at a table and eat it? Hopefully not, so why is it acceptable to use a car park if you aren't providing the company with business? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 Again, its a deterrent. An entirely disproportionate one, which has proven to be their downfall. Walking over the railway carries a £1000 fine. That doesn't necessarily cause the railway companies inconvenience or loss but its there as a deterrent. It's a criminal offence, hence the fine, you're comparing apples to oranges and coming up with lemons! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul2412 Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 An entirely disproportionate one, which has proven to be their downfall. It's a criminal offence, hence the fine, you're comparing apples to oranges and coming up with lemons! Isn't trespassing on private land a criminal offence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 Rather than poor unfortunate, I would say the dumb person who wanted to avoid parking in a public car park. Would you go to Cooplands, buy some lunch and then walk into a restaurant, sit down at a table and eat it? I wouldn't no, but I have no doubt many people would, at which point the proprietor can ask them to leave. Hopefully not, so why is it acceptable to use a car park if you aren't providing the company with business? Has anyone suggested it is acceptable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.