The practice of clamping cars parked on private land should be made illegal in England and Wales, according to the AA.
The motoring group claims one in 10 drivers has been clamped or fined by private enforcers, with no independent arbitration process.
It argued government proposals for greater self-regulation would not work.
Seriously who have they paid to come up with this nonsense.
There's a very good reason why property owners should be allowed to clamp those who trespass. It's because it's THEIR PROPERTY.
And if we allow this sort of rubbish to pass we will further weaken our property rights -- which will be bad for all of us.
Let me throw an example out there. Imagine we were to allow trade union members to protest wherever they wanted regardless of property rights. They could organise sit-ins in the CEO's office -- what fun.
How happy do you think the managers at the AA would be about that? Especially given their 'wonderful' trade union relations over recent years. It's just a guess, but not very happy I imagine.
Therefore I simply ask private companies who own some private property to consider the consequences of diminishing property rights before they demand their abolition.
Because you never know at some point in the future it might have an impact on YOUR business.
8 comments:
But there's no real reason to believe that banning private clamping will lead to trade unions being able to protest wherever they want.
This is just a slippery slope argument ...
More importantly if you lived near an AA office or depot, or near the home of one of their employees/directors, you could then park on their property if it suited you, and they couldn't do anything about it.
I wonder if the AA use a clamping service anywhere on their property? It would be interesting to find out.
The AA are very silly.
If I was an AA member, I'd be taking my custom elsewhere.
However I'm already with Green Flag.
;-)
Hang on, I've been clamped (it was a rental car on a public road) and the main reason it annoyed me was exactly because the car concerned was not theirs to interfere with.
On this occasion the council contract denied me use of property that was mine to enjoy at the time. So what about my property right to a car in my possession? What in a Libertarian Britain to stops the clamper from keeping the car!
@peter you are quite right the two do not follow from each other. I was simply trying to make the point -- maybe in a haphazard way -- that companies shouldn't go demanding the abolition of property rights when they are so important to their very existence.
@sjgibbs you are talking of the council that is a completely different matter. This story was about trespass on private property not 'public'. If it involves the council it should be a matter for you to discuss with your local councillor.
@RobW I was just disclosing some personal experiences that lead me to the opinion I expressed. I don't think the fact that my own experience was with a council makes much difference.
Unfortunately, the BBC does not include a single example of what constitutes unfairness by private firms on private land - perhaps they feel the word "private" is enough background - but I also had in mind another example. This was from a channel five TV program, wherein the driver parked near an entrance to private property and it was unclear the road was privately owned.
In both examples there are two property owners in the picture. The OP justified the defence of clamping using property rights, but did not consider the owner of the car.
I'm interested in what you think about that second set of rights?
Rob,
You are right as long as:
1. It is clearly marked as private property
2. It is clearly signed that parking isn't permitted and that clamping is in process
3. The area is fenced off so that anyone using it is making an act of commission and not omission
Do what I do
Set fire to trespassers
Post a Comment