Does Closing Beaches Make Any Sense?

[Renato1]

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 at Home Directions .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.

Yes, that is what is written into law.
And it says absolutely nothing about hunting or fishing.

But in the press release, it says,
“Unfortunately, this means no fishing, no hunting, no boating, no camping, and no golf. Hang up your rods, leave the tinnie in the driveway, and clean your clubs at home,” Professor Sutton said.

Department of Health and Human Services Victoria | Coronavirus update from CHO for Victoria - 2 April 2020

There are only four reasons for Victorians to leave their home: food and supplies, medical care and care giving, exercise, and work or education.

www.dhhs.vic.gov.au

So, one Police officer can fine you for doing it on your property, one may not. Will the Assistant Commissioner reviewing all fines agree or disagree with his Officers? If he agrees and you challenge a fine in Court, one Magistrate may agree and one may disagree - and you are paying the costs regardless.

I don't believe this is as unproblematic as you think.

Also, do the other States have this new Victorian review system in place after the spate of silly fines given out?

The silliest fine I've seen so far, apart from the man walking the dog, was this one about posting holiday pictures on the internet. Yes, it was rescinded by the local Police Sergeant, but he then went on to instruct the couple not to post pictures on the internet - yet another use of a power which he doesn't have.

Police fine couple for 'non-essential' travel over Facebook post

A Victoria couple who posted photographs on Facebook of their getaway to Lakes Entrance where hit with a 'non-essential travel' fine. But the holiday snaps were actually from 2019.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Regards,
Renato

 

[dajop]

I GIVE UP!!!!

 

[Renato1]

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.

I won't let you wheedle out of this.

Your premise is that you believe it is reasonable and lawful for Police to demand of a person to explain why he is undertaking an unambiguously lawful activity, and that if fails the test, he should be fined - even though no law has been broken.

Please explain the basis of your premise.
Regards,
Renato

 

[NoName]

I won't let you wheedle out of this.

Your premise is that you believe it is reasonable and lawful for Police to demand of a person to explain why he is undertaking an unambiguously lawful activity, and that if fails the test, he should be fined - even though no law has been broken.

Please explain the basis of your premise.
Regards,
Renato

Another failure in reading comprehension!

You have continually displayed an embarrassing level of selective reading. The answer to your latest deviation from reality above has been well explained previously. Either ask someone else to read it to you or punch out a few more No Doz and see if that helps.

Post automatically merged: Apr 15, 2020

I GIVE UP!!!!

The dude can’t or won’t read.

 

[straitman]

Yes, that is what is written into law.
And it says absolutely nothing about hunting or fishing.

But in the press release, it says,
“Unfortunately, this means no fishing, no hunting, no boating, no camping, and no golf. Hang up your rods, leave the tinnie in the driveway, and clean your clubs at home,” Professor Sutton said.

Department of Health and Human Services Victoria | Coronavirus update from CHO for Victoria - 2 April 2020

There are only four reasons for Victorians to leave their home: food and supplies, medical care and care giving, exercise, and work or education.

www.dhhs.vic.gov.au

So, one Police officer can fine you for doing it on your property, one may not. Will the Assistant Commissioner reviewing all fines agree or disagree with his Officers? If he agrees and you challenge a fine in Court, one Magistrate may agree and one may disagree - and you are paying the costs regardless.

I don't believe this is as unproblematic as you think.

Also, do the other States have this new Victorian review system in place after the spate of silly fines given out?

The silliest fine I've seen so far, apart from the man walking the dog, was this one about posting holiday pictures on the internet. Yes, it was rescinded by the local Police Sergeant, but he then went on to instruct the couple not to post pictures on the internet - yet another use of a power which he doesn't have.

Police fine couple for 'non-essential' travel over Facebook post

A Victoria couple who posted photographs on Facebook of their getaway to Lakes Entrance where hit with a 'non-essential travel' fine. But the holiday snaps were actually from 2019.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Regards,
Renato

One last comment from me also.
To be as emphatic as you are you need to be quoting the legislation rather than the media releases.
Do you have a copy of the legislation?

I do.

 

[Julesmac]

I GIVE UP!!!!

Trolling. As always the case with this one.....

 

[MEL_Traveller]

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

The issue is not walking per se, it is the intent.

Walking is fine if it is exercise.

Walking to meet my friend in a park to have a couple of beers is not allowed, because the intent of my trip is not essential.

And if I'm going to meet my mate and drag my dog along at the same time, that is also not ok.

 

[nutwood]

The issue is not walking per se, it is the intent.

Walking is fine if it is exercise.

Walking to meet my friend in a park to have a couple of beers is not allowed, because the intent of my trip is not essential.

And if I'm going to meet my mate and drag my dog along at the same time, that is also not ok.

Surely this is getting ridiculous? You can't base laws on intent and subjective opinion. Either walking a dog is illegal or it is not. If you are walking the dog to a party, it's the party that's illegal, not the act of walking the dog.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Victoria's CHO: Can I visit a mechanic? Why can't we play golf? Victoria's Chief Health Officer answers your questions

Can I take my car to a mechanic or panel beater?​

"The businesses that can legally operate are businesses that you can legally go to," Professor Sutton said.​

​

"If you have to, if it's an essential service, then you can.​

​

"But we don't want people going unless they have to. So it's not a case of nice to do, it's a case of need to do."​

While this is the CHO's interpretation, it seems to suggest that just if a car wash is open, it doesn't mean you can take your car there unless it is necessary. Same for the paint shop, or Bunnings.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Surely this is getting ridiculous? You can't base laws on intent and subjective opinion. Either walking a dog is illegal or it is not. If you are walking the dog to a party, it's the party that's illegal, not the act of walking the dog.

Laws can be based on intent, and indeed be subjective... for example the intention to permanently deprive or the intention to cause harm.

The law - at least in Victoria - is that you can't be out unless doing one of four things. If you are walking your dog and the police ask why you are out... if you say 'I'm exercising walking the dog' that's ok. If you say 'I'm on my way to my mate's place' then that's not ok. A lot of that can depend on how quick you are when asked the question. The poor guy mentioned up thread obviously wasn't quick enough!

 

[dajop]

Ok, on topic, I left my premises today to exercise. I went for a walk to the beach. At the beach I exercised walking and then went for a quick swim (last swim of the season no doubt). The beach had about 10 people on it (mostly walking) , over 300m length. So easily met the physical distance requirements of the stay at home directions.

As an aside, no notice was posted on the beach indicating it was closed, although it is the beach people usually go to to sit, swim and enjoy some sun. However the adjacent "back" beach had a beach closed notice, that indicated that swimming, surfing and walking was allowed but people couldn't sit and remain on the sand. Now in three years, I've never seen anyone either swim or sit on the "back beach" - water is far too rough, although yesterday plenty of surfers as a really good consistent swell. I am not sure why they bothered with such a notice. Maybe they put the notice there in lieu of policing.

 

[nutwood]

Laws can be based on intent, and indeed be subjective... for example the intention to permanently deprive or the intention to cause harm.

The law - at least in Victoria - is that you can't be out unless doing one of four things. If you are walking your dog and the police ask why you are out... if you say 'I'm exercising walking the dog' that's ok. If you say 'I'm on my way to my mate's place' then that's not ok. A lot of that can depend on how quick you are when asked the question. The poor guy mentioned up thread obviously wasn't quick enough!

I can't agree with this. The intent to cause harm is not an on the spot fine. It has to be tried in court and rightly so. If the police wish to charge someone with an "intent" offence, they have to justify this in front of a magistrate.
What you are supporting is more along the lines of coming out of a restaurant to find a ticket on your car even though the meter hasn't expired. The parking inspector has noticed you ordering a meal and knows that the service is very slow so has decided that you intend to over stay. You then have to go to court to over turn the ticket.
Your comment about it "depends how quick you are" has no place in a discussion about fair and reasonable law. I fully appreciate the intent of what is being done but people should not have to justify legal activity and have their justifications interpreted according to the subjective opinion of the police. "Needed some exercise", "felt like a walk", and "what harm am I doing?" are all perfectly reasonable responses to being asked why you are walking down the footpath.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

"Needed some exercise", "felt like a walk", and "what harm am I doing?" are all perfectly reasonable responses to being asked why you are walking down the footpath.

i reckon it's yes, yes and no in that order. The 'what harm am I doing?' by itself is potentially a breach of the rules that says you can only be out for necessary activity.

 

[nutwood]

i reckon it's yes, yes and no in that order. The 'what harm am I doing?' by itself is potentially a breach of the rules that says you can only be out for necessary activity.

The activity and intent (walk around the block) is the same in every case. How do you justify treating three people differently, simply because of how they answer a question?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

The activity and intent (walk around the block) is the same in every case. How do you justify treating three people differently, simply because of how they answer a question?

I think it's a difference in focus. Instead of looking at the activity, look at the reason. If you aren't out of the house for one of four things, then it's not allowed.

Hence three people doing exactly the same activity could all be treated differently.

While walking as exercise is allowed, walking all day being out and about just because you don't want to be inside is not. Walking to go watching the ocean roll in is not allowed.

 

[nutwood]

I think it's a difference in focus. Instead of looking at the activity, look at the reason. If you aren't out of the house for one of four things, then it's not allowed.

Hence three people doing exactly the same activity could all be treated differently.

While walking as exercise is allowed, walking all day being out and about just because you don't want to be inside is not. Walking to go watching the ocean roll in is not allowed.

Hmmm; and you don't see a problem with laws being based on this sort of thinking? Watching the waves roll in could do more for someones health than a brisk walk around the block. Who exactly is the arbiter of this?

 

[dajop]

Walking to go watching the ocean roll in is not allowed.

Unless you continue to walk (exercise) watching the ocean roll in. I can certainly do that, went for a vigorous 45 min walk yesterday along the beach and clifftops, where I did exactly that

I think the best thing to do when walking is have fitness tracker, of some shape or form, and start a "workout" as soon as you leave home.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Hmmm; and you don't see a problem with laws being based on this sort of thinking? Watching the waves roll in could do more for someones health than a brisk walk around the block. Who exactly is the arbiter of this?

The arbiter is the government under the declared state of emergency. This is limited in time.

It's actually a really simple way of defining what is and isn't allowed. You can only be out for one of four things. Walking per se isn't the 'legal' activity, it's exercise, or going to the supermarket or doctor. Exercise could also be by bike or running or whatever.

So the focus should be on the legal activity as defined in the health orders... the four reasons, not the physical action you're actually doing (walking, driving, biking, etc).

i personally don't have a problem with it. Parliament hasn't been suspended. Elections haven't been suspended. People have the right to complain - which they have been doing, and fines have been reviewed and withdrawn where those deciding feel it is appropriate. The press is free. In general the restrictions feel to be a reasonable response to a declared health emergency. We've seen what happens when these measures weren't put in place soon enough in other countries.

Post automatically merged: Apr 15, 2020

Unless you continue to walk (exercise) watching the ocean roll in.

i was gonna use 'star gazing' but decided against that

 

[dajop]

i was gonna use 'star gazing' but decided against that

Good call

 

[drron]

I think it's a difference in focus. Instead of looking at the activity, look at the reason. If you aren't out of the house for one of four things, then it's not allowed.

Hence three people doing exactly the same activity could all be treated differently.

While walking as exercise is allowed, walking all day being out and about just because you don't want to be inside is not. Walking to go watching the ocean roll in is not allowed.

What a load of absolute tosh.Walking is exercise.Sitting on your bum watching netflix at home is not exercise.The law is an cough.
But you are quoting the law as it pertains to the DPRV.Not the same in WA for example where people are allowed to walk on the beach for example.

There are also other medical experts than the States Chief Health officers who say stopping people going out walking or swimming as long as they practice social distancing is not supported by the science.

Now down here in Launceston I have always gone out and walked.sometimes all day.it is my form of exercise to make up for the mostly sedentary time at work.It also helps to keep my weight under control so a double health benefit.
For example I will go to Narawntapu National Park and walk about 75% across then turn back.It takes me 6-7 hours as I am not very fast anymore.I have done these 3 times over the last 3 years and have met 2 other people on the track.Social isolation at it's best.But now I am not allowed to do it.

You probably didn't see Bob Carr on TV tonight who told the story of a mate who is a Vet with PTSD.Has got off anti depressants by going down to Maroubra beach every day and have a swim.Now he cant.Detrimental to his mental health.

Then everyone going on about the fellow walking his dog and how he gave different answers.You must lead a pretty sheltered life if you have never met a person who gets flustered in the presence of police or other figures of authority.How could the police really know why he was out.And anyone else who was not there can not possibly be certain whether the fellow was right or wrong.