Does Closing Beaches Make Any Sense?

[oz_mark]

On the other side of the country, 39 degrees and not surprisingly a few beachgoers..

 

[juddles]

At the end of the day the government is somewhat accountable for their actions - unlike the armchair warriors.

The clear message from government, which makes extreme sense, is that we should all curb our desires to be out and about. Personal freedoms and desires need to take a back foot these days.

Endless idiot "young" people think it is a laugh to go to the beach, or a party, or whatever. Apparently thinking they are impervious to COVID. But then they drop into the local supermarket where they cough and breathe on the elderly who are just buying food.

Any hope we have here is through government and rules - as the general populace seems to be obsessed with their "rights" to do whatever.....

 

[juddles]

Edit: actually, in my experience, at least 90% of the population are acting impeccably in this regard. But there is a small minority who.....

 

[pauly7]

I’m glad they finally closed the walk between Bondi and Bronte, but far too late. Syndey seems to be really struggling to comprehend this and the eastern suburbs are a hot spot.

People were calling it the Corona Superhighway

 

[Renato1]

Yes, but 99% of Victorians wouldn’t be able to hunt at home anyway so it’s important to call out hunting that’s an activity that’s not permitted. There is nothing at all in the actual notice that prohibits you doing anything “at home” on your own premises, other than gatherings of people who do not ordinarily reside at those premises.

The press release also says no camping. Again directed at people who go somewhere to go camping. I know a few people who’s kids have been camping - in the backyard. The police wouldn’t have a leg to stand on if they started fining people for camping on their own land. If the government had required people to stay inside at all times (except for pre defined reasons) the Lawyers would have come up with appropriate wording in the notice for this to be enforced.

Well, you say that.
But -
Government also said people can exercise and walk a dog - and a guy got fined for that.
Government also allows car washing stations to remain open - a guy goes and uses it, and is fined for that.
Ambiguity.
Regards,
Renato

Wrong! I accept the premise that some fool who sets out across the country side and is too stupid to work out his story before hand is almost certainly doing so with no valid reason.

So - a person goes for a lawful walk with his dog - and you believe that to do so he must have a valid reason to give to the Police if asked, or that person is a fool.

Not sure what you claim to be "Wrong!" when I wrote,
"You accept the premise that Police are entitled to demand of citizens why they are engaging in lawful activities. "

You seem to have admitted that you have no problem with Police state tactics applied arbitrarily to your fellow citizens
Regards,
Renato

Post automatically merged: Apr 13, 2020

And yourself?

I went to St Kilda Beach once some 30 years ago. I think I saw Bondi Beach once when driving to the School of Artillery about 29 years ago..
Regards,
Renato

Yes, the irony was not lost on me that the OP was pointing at others for flouting the laws when its obvious he also was. Frankly, in my view, its people like him that are the reason for the tough laws, Time for a no cough rule.

Well that's a big claim.
Shame you can't prove it - good luck trying to find anywhere I said I flouted the law.
Regards,
Renato

Well, so far into this discussion, I am still struck by the fact that people are comfortable with Police exceeding their lawful authority, and with no one in charge reprimanding and disciplining them for their transgressions.

Surely that is the role of the Government - since they know what powers they have given to the Police and when they are being abused. Why is it left to affected individuals to have to go to court?

What to do if you are fined for breaking coronavirus rules over Easter

Annabel Wurth has set up COVID Rights to help citizens understand the limits of police powers during the lockdown and what actually constitutes an offence.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Regards,
Renato

 

[NoName]

So - a person goes for a lawful walk with his dog - and you believe that to do so he must have a valid reason to give to the Police if asked, or that person is a fool.

Not sure what you claim to be "Wrong!" when I wrote,
"You accept the premise that Police are entitled to demand of citizens why they are engaging in lawful activities. "

You seem to have admitted that you have no problem with Police state tactics applied arbitrarily to your fellow citizens
Regards,
Renato

Wrong again!
With these posts you appear to have admitted that you struggle with basic comprehension, which explains a lot. Try reading what is actually written and respond accordingly instead of your usual transparent attempts to twist posts to suit your narrative.

The individual involved was not going for a “lawful” walk at all. They were not involved in “lawful” activity at all. That’s why they got the fine. The stumbling and bumbling to make up a story was rightly determined by the police as suspicious, just like it would be in any investigation. If they were actually going for a walk then they have the opportunity to dispute the fine in court. That won’t happen of course because it’s obvious the story was garbage.

 

[kyle]

If they were actually going for a walk then they have the opportunity to dispute the fine in court.

That's the problem. It's not cheap going to court and if self represented, there's a good chance of losing.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

So - a person goes for a lawful walk with his dog - and you believe that to do so he must have a valid reason to give to the Police if asked, or that person is a fool.

Not sure what you claim to be "Wrong!" when I wrote,
"You accept the premise that Police are entitled to demand of citizens why they are engaging in lawful activities. "

You seem to have admitted that you have no problem with Police state tactics applied arbitrarily to your fellow citizens

Ok, so how do you propose the law is enforced if the police can't ask 'why' someone is out?

The police need to determine the person is out for one of four reasons. Unless you are in a supermarket, chemist, doctor's rooms, or at work, they must be able to question your intentions.

Walking the dog may not be lawful. That has to be determined.

If it's a 'police state' at the moment, it is so because the majority of people are supporting the state of emergency.

 

[dajop]

Well, you say that.
But -
Government also said people can exercise and walk a dog - and a guy got fined for that.
Government also allows car washing stations to remain open - a guy goes and uses it, and is fined for that.
Ambiguity.
Regards,
Renato

Firstly what does this have to do with the post of mine you quoted, which talked about fishing and camping? Secondly the car-wash guy had his fine rescinded. The government has since clarified that if a business remains open, then people can legitimately use those businesses (within the boundaries of social distancing and restrictions placed on the businesses). No doubt over-zealous policing, but I think it's coming clearer over time.

My favourite so far was the fines doled at the HQ of one of the bikie gangs in Melbourne - for gatherings of people who don't live at the same address. I bet the police loved that one

 

[Pushka]

My favourite so far was the fines doled at the HQ of one of the bikie gangs in Melbourne - for gatherings of people who don't live at the same address. I bet the police loved that one

I'm betting the Police were lining up for that one as soon as the restrictions were put into place. Probably held a lottery as to who gets first dibs.

 

[VPS]

I really think this thread has reached the end of it's useful life and should die a peaceful death (ie closed)

 

[Pushka]

I'm betting the Police were lining up for that one as soon as the restrictions were put into place. Probably held a lottery as to who gets first dibs.

Oh. We had a small piece of joy just now.

A beautiful day in Adelaide. And beaches are busy. Every so often we get inundated by bikers. Noisy loud Harleys. Big groups.

10 minutes ago they just rocked up. And parked their damn bikes on the bike and pedestrian walkway. Please please please where are the Police?

Right on cue. Some saw the approach of the police car and took off like scared rabbits. Some got caught. We tried not to laugh out loud as a couple of bikes were waiting just in front of us. I took a photo of the police car rounding 'em up but am not brave enough to post.

Post automatically merged: Apr 13, 2020

I really think this thread has reached the end of it's useful life and should die a peaceful death (ie closed)

Nooooo. I'm having fun today.

 

[Renato1]

Wrong again!
With these posts you appear to have admitted that you struggle with basic comprehension, which explains a lot. Try reading what is actually written and respond accordingly instead of your usual transparent attempts to twist posts to suit your narrative.

The individual involved was not going for a “lawful” walk at all. They were not involved in “lawful” activity at all. That’s why they got the fine. The stumbling and bumbling to make up a story was rightly determined by the police as suspicious, just like it would be in any investigation. If they were actually going for a walk then they have the opportunity to dispute the fine in court. That won’t happen of course because it’s obvious the story was garbage.

Well, I'm happy for you to correct me.
So please do so - and unsupported assertion and speculation on your part does not count.

Please show me a link to a law or regulation in NSW saying either,
a. It is unlawful to exercise and walk one's dog, or
b. It is unlawful to exercise and walk one's dog without a valid reason to exercise and walk one's dog.

Lots of luck.
Regards,
Renato

Ok, so how do you propose the law is enforced if the police can't ask 'why' someone is out?

The police need to determine the person is out for one of four reasons. Unless you are in a supermarket, chemist, doctor's rooms, or at work, they must be able to question your intentions.

Walking the dog may not be lawful. That has to be determined.

If it's a 'police state' at the moment, it is so because the majority of people are supporting the state of emergency.

Feel free to find anything anywhere saying that it is unlawful to exercise and walk one's dog.
In the ACT it is unlawful to NOT walk your dog ($4000 fine).

Police do not need to question anyone carrying out a lawful activity.
Walking is lawful exercise.

Our Prime Minister and Premier of Victoria says so. I haven't seen anywhere via Google search that NSW has made walking dogs unlawful.
Regards,
Renato
.

Firstly what does this have to do with the post of mine you quoted, which talked about fishing and camping? Secondly the car-wash guy had his fine rescinded. The government has since clarified that if a business remains open, then people can legitimately use those businesses (within the boundaries of social distancing and restrictions placed on the businesses). No doubt over-zealous policing, but I think it's coming clearer over time.

My favourite so far was the fines doled at the HQ of one of the bikie gangs in Melbourne - for gatherings of people who don't live at the same address. I bet the police loved that one

It has everything to do with your post. I said there was ambiguity, you said there wasn't really.
I cited two examples where there was no ambiguity and yet people got fined.

The car-wash guy incident was outrageous abuses of power.
In the first instance it violated the principle of Equity - Victoria Police did not stand there all day issuing fines to everyone using the car-wash, instead they singled out an individual.
In the second instance, Victoria Police did not fine the person offering the service, rather the user of the service (sort of like fining everyone who uses a brothel, but letting the brothel operate)
Thirdly, it wound up being the use of a power for a purpose other than that for which it was intended.

This is basic stuff - a Policeman shouldn't walk out on the street without knowing it.
Regards,
Renato

Post automatically merged: Apr 13, 2020

A beautiful day in Adelaide. And beaches are busy. Every so often we get inundated by bikers. Noisy loud Harleys. Big groups.

I am so so envious!
Regards,
Renato

 

[dajop]

It has everything to do with your post. I said there was ambiguity, you said there wasn't really.
I cited two examples where there was no ambiguity and yet people got fined.

The car-wash guy incident was outrageous abuses of power.
In the first instance it violated the principle of Equity - Victoria Police did not stand there all day issuing fines to everyone using the car-wash, instead they singled out an individual.

And that fine was reversed, and the error acknowledged. For goodness sake police are human and dealing with poorly written directions no doubt. We are all learning in this.

Police backdown after essential worker fined for washing his car

A Melbourne man was filmed explaining to police why he was washing his car, but was still handed a $1,652 fine.

au.news.yahoo.com

This thread has run its course. Time to close it now before people starting getting political, offensive or both.

 

[NoName]

Well, I'm happy for you to correct me.
So please do so - and unsupported assertion and speculation on your part does not count.

Please show me a link to a law or regulation in NSW saying either,
a. It is unlawful to exercise and walk one's dog, or
b. It is unlawful to exercise and walk one's dog without a valid reason to exercise and walk one's dog.

Lots of luck.
Regards,
Renato

And once again you have epically failed the comprehension test. Sad.

No one said anything about walking a dog not being allowed. The article you posted which you apparently have not even read properly despite the very light detail, indicates the person in question was fined after desperately floundering when trying to make up an excuse for being outside. That’s suspicion 101. Any police officer will tell you that. He deserved what he got for the stupidity alone. Next time get your story straight before leaving home. And for you - next time try reading properly.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

It has everything to do with your post. I said there was ambiguity, you said there wasn't really.
I cited two examples where there was no ambiguity and yet people got fined.

Walking a dog is against the law unless you are out exercising.

That means, for example, you can't just go about your daily business as long as you have a dog with you.

As for the fine for washing the car, i personally disagree that the fine should have been withdrawn. Cleaning the car is not an essential activity. Dunno why the petrol station is allowed to still offer that service through.

 

[dajop]

As for the fine for washing the car, i personally disagree that the fine should have been withdrawn. Cleaning the car is not an essential activity. Dunno why the petrol station is allowed to still offer that service through.

Perhaps then they could make it clear by closing down all car washes. I suspect they haven't as it is unnecessary to do so - given the inherent social isolation in these car washes. I also suspect there was a bit of profiling going on, given the fine was given in the wee hours of the morning, why weren't they doling out the fines during the middle of the day at the same car wash? . This is where it's difficult - these rules are probably being used as an excuse to weed out various potentially nefarious activities, excuse the pun.

 

[muppet]

....

As for the fine for washing the car, i personally disagree that the fine should have been withdrawn. Cleaning the car is not an essential activity. Dunno why the petrol station is allowed to still offer that service through.

While politicians and police say you can only leave for an "essential activity", that is not in fact the law. The law (public health orders) says it is permissible to leave your ordinary residence for necessary goods and services. In fact the word essential is not used at all in the gazetted orders.

I washed my car today, it was covered on one side with bird excrement and hence necessary.

http://www.gazette.vic.gov.au/gazette/Gazettes2020/GG2020S177.pdf

 

[drron]

Though the fellow fined at the car wash was an essential worker.Drives a truck delivering fresh produce to supermarkets.Probably worked quite late into the night the way things have been going.So this was probably the best time for him to get the car washed.He told the police he was working 12-14 hours a day.
All in the link provided by dajop in post 442.
So I disagree with anyone who says he should have been fined.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

While politicians and police say you can only leave for an "essential activity", that is not in fact the law. The law (public health orders) says it is permissible to leave your ordinary residence for necessary goods and services. In fact the word essential is not used at all in the gazetted orders.

I washed my car today, it was covered on one side with bird excrement and hence necessary.

http://www.gazette.vic.gov.au/gazette/Gazettes2020/GG2020S177.pdf

So it potentially comes under 6(1)(c)(vi) - services provided by 'a petrol station'. I consider 'necessary' things like mechanical issues, or petrol, or a food store if attached. I'm not convinced about a car wash - but that's just me.