Does Closing Beaches Make Any Sense?

[mannej]

Am I the only one who thinks the argument of equity in policing by staying in the same spot all day is a straw man argument? It’s not as if all cars who pass through a booze bus gets tested, it’s about realistic use of police resources isn’t it?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

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.

My bolding... that's the very same argument Renato has been using this whole thread! He's arguing that activity that is inherently 'self isolating' should be allowed. But that's not what the law says. It says you must be out for 'necessary' activity, the test of whether that activity is inherently self-isolating or not is not part of the test - at least in Victoria.

 

[muppet]

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.

It comes under:

(viii) a retail facility that is not prohibited from operating by the Restricted Activity Directions (No. 2).

And a car wash is not listed as a restricted retail facility in the Restricted Activity Directions (which of course are a separate set of orders in the gazette, which doesn't list things by their contents). The restricted activities are in the helpfully titled Special Gazette No.169 http://www.gazette.vic.gov.au/gazette/Gazettes2020/GG2020S169.pdf

I think it's also a problem how difficult it is to find the real laws but that's a side argument.

 

[Austman]

But that's not what the law says. It says you must be out for 'necessary' activity, the test of whether that activity is inherently self-isolating or not is not part of the test - at least in Victoria.

Here's the actual latest (7th April, 2020) legal directions for Victoria. From the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 VIC. It seems that if a retail facility is not prohibited to operate, it's likely to be deemed as providing "necessary" goods or services.

 

[dajop]

My bolding... that's the very same argument Renato has been using this whole thread! He's arguing that activity that is inherently 'self isolating' should be allowed.

Yes, but car wash is a permitted activity. I think it hasn't been prohibited as it is inherently isolating. One car per bay at a time, structures in between bays. It is not reliant on people "doing the right thing".

Personally, I think they should be taking a closer look at things like running around the Tan, which (on media clips) don't seem to be particularly low risk, although permitted.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Here's the actual latest (7th April, 2020) legal directions for Victoria. From the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 VIC. It seems that if a retail facility is not prohibited to operate, it's likely to be deemed as providing "necessary" goods or services.

That's probably the right interpretation - but personally I don't agree, nor see a car wash as 'necessary'. Or a trip to Bunnings, unless you're a tradie needing supplies, or perhaps an individual who needs something like a smoke detector or something to fix a tap or broken/dangerous item in the home. But as I said - those are my views only.

 

[Julesmac]

Yeah I don't get the Bunnings being open. How many things that are being purchased are 'necessary'? I have a fmaily member working there which is very handy as I give her my list - just garden stuff which is very handy whilst we are staying home. I nipped into the local shopping mall, on Saturday for some food shopping, despite being eligible for the special oldies shopping times.. First went into BigW - people just looked to be shopping as on any normal Saturday (don't get me started on social distancing, hardly anyone complying which was unnerving then Woolies, same deal. So I quickly left, Noticed that the little $2 shop was still trading - what being sold in there could be considered necessary? I guess we are all feeling our way and the govt too, so no doubt there will be exceptions to every rule

 

[drron]

If you want people to leave an adequate space around you wear a mask.When I did in the supermarket it was obvious people were avoiding me.One aisle I turned into there was a woman pushing her trolley towards me.As soon as she saw the mask she turned and literally ran away.

 

[dajop]

If you want people to leave an adequate space around you wear a mask.When I did in the supermarket it was obvious people were avoiding me.

Ah, the irony.

 

[JohnK]

The rule is non discriminatory. Everyone is banned from doing the same thing.

One the one hand proponents are complaining you can't lump everyone together and punish everyone for the actions of a few (thousand, as in the case of Bondi beach), but then advocate that every backpacker is deported, regardless of whether or not they ever visited Bondi?

If folk are happy to lump classes of people together (for example ALL backpackers), is it not fair to lump all beach goers together?

I know it's a bit late now but quite a few backpackers and tourists have been very reckless during this crisis. How many of our current coronavirus cases have been as a direct result of their actions?

And if I'm not mistaken the PM has called on on all visitors to return home recently?

 

[JohnK]

Gosh I wish that law makers were perfect and knew exactly how to manage this once in a century pandemic. You'd think they would have learnt from last time, wouldn't you.

I think/believe there have been quite a few warnings in recent times on how to prepare for this type of pandemic? Biological warfare was a common theme during the Cold War and with Saddam Hussein. This may not be biological warfare but it's very similar.

All governments should have been prepared a long time ago yet each one reacted differently to the situation as it unfolded. Singapore had it in control early on and now looks like a second wave has hit. Quite a few European countries are talking about relaxing their strict measures which sounds like another foolish move.

 

[juddles]

I just find it wonderful that we are debating tickets and not deaths. I can just imagine the incredulous looks we would get if someone in Italy or New York read this thread....

 

[dajop]

Singapore had it in control early on and now looks like a second wave has hit.

Singapore stuffed up big time by ignoring the consequences of having a million or so foreign labourers living in close quarters, where social isolation is impossible. I haven’t delved into the stats in the gulf states, but I am sure this is also happening in Qatar, UAE and Saudi Arabia with similar conditions housing foreign labourers.

 

[juddles]

Singapore stuffed up big time by ignoring the consequences of having a million or so foreign labourers living in close quarters, where social isolation is impossible. I haven’t delved into the stats in the gulf states, but I am sure this is also happening in Qatar, UAE and Saudi Arabia with similar conditions housing foreign labourers.

Damn, I thought that this was a thread about aussie beaches... Do I really have to read every post?

 

[dajop]

Damn, I thought that this was a thread about aussie beaches... Do I really have to read every post?

Perhaps you need to move across to Flyertalk. Those in charge there are much more zealous in policing off topic posts. Really not dissimilar to those handing out fines to L-platers , midnight car washers, and dog walkers.

But to keep it half on topic, Singapore have also banned using beaches. Not that I’ve ever really seen too many people swimming in them.

 

[JohnK]

Good heavens!! How much liberty we sacrifice? We're talking about a few weeks! We're not embarking on some journey into a dystopian society.

It won't be a few weeks. They've been saying at least 90 days, possibly 180 days, possibly more.

Not everyone copes with isolation well. I'm not. My family is not coping well either especially the 3 year old. I'm not sure when I'll be able to visit mum and dad again and it looks like my wife won't see her family in Thailand for quite some time either.

I understand this is necessary but it's also very depressive but we're not as bad as others so I just keep trying to reassure family that we'll get through it as we're doing the right thing.

But the number of morons you encounter on the street is amazing. We went for our walk again last night. We're walking on the footpath with stroller and daughter when this guy walking opposite us on the other side of the road decides he'll cross the road to walk in front us. I lost the plot and started mumbling and walked on the road to avoid him. He could have waited until we went past. It's an empty road with very little traffic at that time of night.

You can't fight this with these types of attitudes around us.

 

[Renato1]

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.

Being a bit selective aren't we?
Has the man-walking-a-dog fine been reversed?

You are ignoring my point - two examples where there was no ambiguity and people got fined.
Who's game to shoot on their property when there is ambiguity?

Interesting how you want to close the discussion - when you don't want to address my point.
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.

Again - where is the law that says that it is an offence punishable by a fine for the high crime of floundering when trying to make up an excuse for being outside walking his dog lawfully?

May I suggest that as you cannot answer that, it is you who are floundering (or craving for such a Police State law to be in existence).
Regards,
Renato

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.

You do not believe that walking is a form of exercise. I am amazed.

You believe that people should drive in filthy cars where they cannot see out of the windscreens properly, and as such, be compelled to drive in an unsafe manner. Apparently that is not essential. I am amazed.
Regards,
Renato

 

[dajop]

Being a bit selective aren't we?
Has the man-walking-a-dog fine been reversed?

You are ignoring my point - two examples where there was no ambiguity and people got fined.
Who's game to shoot on their property when there is ambiguity?

What can I say or do? If you don't want to believe something that is written into law, then how can we argue with you?

I have linked the exact wording of the health order that prohibits various activities. Here it is again:

https://www.dhhs.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/202003/Stay%20at%20Home%20Directions%20.pdf

With premises defined in the Public Health and Wellbeing Act (see quote below) including land, there is no restrictions on what you can do on your own premises, other than host people who do not ordinarily reside there. If you have 100 Ha there is nothing stopping you going hunting and shooting a rabbit or three on your 100 Ha - as long as you don't invite someone along who does not ordinarily live there. The wording is all there in black and white as to what is and isn't permitted. Maybe you could take the time to read it.

premisesincludes—
(a)land (whether or not vacant);
(b)the whole or any part of a building, tent, stall or other structure (whether of a permanent or temporary nature);
(c)a pontoon;
(d)a vehicle;
(e)a caravan or camper-trailer

 

[Renato1]

Am I the only one who thinks the argument of equity in policing by staying in the same spot all day is a straw man argument? It’s not as if all cars who pass through a booze bus gets tested, it’s about realistic use of police resources isn’t it?

Not all cars that drive by a booze bus get pulled over. But they are chosen randomly in the order they come along, depending on the spaces that are filled at the side of the road. That is entirely equitable as everyone has the same random chance of being pulled over.

It would be inequitable if Police violated the random chance e,g, letting Merc and Jaguars through and only pulling over people in old Holdens. Or letting women go past and pulling over only males.
Regards.
Renato

 

[NoName]

Again - where is the law that says that it is an offence punishable by a fine for the high crime of floundering when trying to make up an excuse for being outside walking his dog lawfully?

May I suggest that as you cannot answer that, it is you who are floundering (or craving for such a Police State law to be in existence).
Regards,
Renato

You appear to have significant trouble understanding simple English. This is possibly an explanation for your consistent feeble attempts at twisting what people have posted to suit your lack of an argument. When you can not come up with a cogent argument, best to twist and deflect.

Once again, no one said there was any law against floundering for an explanation. But there is a law outlining the reasons one is allowed leave their house. When someone can not provide an intelligible explanation for what they are doing, police rightly interpret that suspicious and on the balance of probability that the person has no valid excuse. Perhaps you can assist in contesting this one in court seeing as you seem so adamant that the individual has done nothing wrong.