Something about this just doesn't ring true to me. I can just about believe that in this day and age you could find a jobsworth plod (no offence intended towards all the genuinely decent police officers out there - and in here - who still possess common sense and have the strength of character to use it despite whatever crazy edicts they're working under this week), and I can fairly easily believe that someone working for a clamping firm could be a bit of an arsehole, but it all still seems TOO over the top to be for real.
Firstly, would any police officer, even the most anal rulebook-quoting one on the planet, really arrest someone
just for snipping a few cable ties holding up a private company sign? I could understand if the cable ties were holding up an official local authority road sign, or were a temporary restraint for, say, a loose piece of scaffolding which was in danger of falling onto a busy pavement or road, but given the context as presented in this article?
Secondly, would even the most braindead of clamping cowboys really say anything that a paper could somehow twist, without fabricating their words completely, into "once I have evidence that the land isn't his I want him rearrested"? I know clampers have a deserved bad reputation, but...
Still, if this article is presenting all the facts and only the facts, then the one positive aspect is that the CPS chucked the case out instead of pursuing it with a similar level of pettiness.
