i was on the train
ALX
So i sit here with an $810 dollar expiation fee for attempting to have
a nice free overland experience with star views along with my mate a
few weeks ago.
I thought I would add to this conversation because obviously Im
curious about the implications of the act that my friend and I were
charged under, because at the time it seemed very much like the police
had no idea what law we had actually broken. They sat huddled around
computer screens for a few hours while they read different statutes
aloud and laughed in good humour about how they actually couldnt find
what we had done wrong.
No matter the social standing my friend and I grew up with or maintain
i have found most of the criticism steeped in class predjuice and
assumptions about who we are and how we live - it is actually quite an
interesting reflection on Australian society and how people think
about people that are different or choose to live differently. And the
idea that we are just unthinking "idiots" that hence deserve to die
for stupid mistakes.
I have ridden freight trains all over the world and as I am also a
rail enthusiast i in fact love doing it. I have never been injured, it
is safe if you choose to be safe within it. The fact is that these
days we are just wrapped in cotton wool and our whole society seems to
chorus along with the idea that putting yourself in "danger" is a
crime against the society we live in.
Besides all of this I will obviously pay the fine. I do not want
further charges nor do I have such a lack of responsibility for my
actions.
My question is though especially to the law talkers: do you think that
there is a chance this could be challenged as an unlawful fine? I dont
have the time to attempt such a thing but in reading the law it isn't
exactly specific and there of course is NO signage anywhere on the
flatbeds, containers or the yard where we got on. What do you think?
With respect to all,
a train rider.
Sylvia Else
If it really does claim to relate to occupying prohibited areas of
rolling stock, contrary to regulation 32 of the Rail Safety (General)
Regulations, then I would say that there is a chance.
You could write to the police asking that it be withdrawn on the grounds
that a required element of the offence was absent, being that the place
where you were riding was not "a stairway, step, entrance platform or
any other part of rolling stock designated by the rolling stock operator
as a prohibited area."
It would be helpful to know what exactly is written on the notice.
Sylvia.
Diesel
news:a92e0bc9-39d2-4091...@t19g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
What state we you in when charged and what was the charge?
As for there being no signage on the wagons or containers. That shouldn't
matter. Common sense should tell people that it's not their property. So
therefore, they have no right to climb or ride on it.
Chris
Sylvia Else
Not having a right to ride on it is one thing. Committing an offence by
riding on it is another. It's only an offence if there's legislation
making it one. At the moment, there seems some doubt as to whether there is.
Sylvia.
Inspector Blake aka Blakey
"ALX" <abolition_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a92e0bc9-39d2-4091...@t19g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
I have seen what happens to people that fall off freight trains, it isn't
pretty and picking up the pieces of idiot is rather distressing for those
involved. As for you thinking it is safe and you've never been injured, I
saw a base jumper in an interview say the same thing. They also had to
scrape him off the footpath when his chute didn't open. Simple fact is IT IS
dangerous and you are an idiot.
Sylvia Else
I think the OP is indicating that he is sensible enough to avoid falling
off the train, and manages his boarding and alighting so as to more or
less exclude the risks. This of course precludes any use of alcohol in a
significant period prior to, or during, the ride.
Of concern though would be his situation in a derailment or minor
collision. Such things seem to happen all to often on Australian
railways, and while a passenger in a carriage may suffer either no
injury, or just bruising, someone riding a freight car might find
themselves thrown off it, with all the implications that follow from that.
Sylvia.
Inspector Blake aka Blakey
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote in message
news:8taoja...@mid.individual.net...
also if the train runs over something that flicks up and of course any track
defect that causes the train to lurch etc that could cause someone to lose
grip or an unexpected storm that makes any hand and foot holds slippery.
Sylvia Else
> I thought I would add to this conversation because obviously Im
> curious about the implications of the act that my friend and I were
> charged under, because at the time it seemed very much like the police
> had no idea what law we had actually broken. They sat huddled around
> computer screens for a few hours while they read different statutes
> aloud and laughed in good humour about how they actually couldnt find
> what we had done wrong.
Your friend has reportedly been charged with giving a false name and
address.
If riding on the end of a container car is not an offence, then the
power to require the giving of name and address may have been improperly
exercised. If so, then giving a false name and address is also not an
offence.
Sylvia.
Inspector Blake aka Blakey
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote in message
I think you will find that it is an offence to supply false details to
police or authorised person no matter what the circumstances as it is part
of an investigation and is done before any charges are laid.
Sylvia Else
There is no general power to require the provision of details. The power
exists in certain circumstances, but if the required circumstances don't
exist, then the power doesn't either, and giving false details won't be
an offence.
In the particular situation, the power appears to arise from
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/rsa2007127/s97.html
Now (1)(a) won't apply if no offence was actually being committed.
(1)(c) is clearly not applicable. That leaves (1)(b).
The expression "reasonably suspect" in this context is problematic. The
question will be whether the officer could reasonably suspect the
commission of an offence in circumstances where there had apparently
been a significant time between the report from the member of the public
and the time when the train was stopped and the accused directed to
provide their name and address. If the officer's ignorance of the law
was a result of a failure to take a reasonably available opportunity to
determine what the law actually was, then the suspicion may not have
been reasonable.
Sylvia.
a_a_a
> The expression "reasonably suspect" in this context is problematic. The
> question will be whether the officer could reasonably suspect the
> commission of an offence in circumstances where there had apparently
> been a significant time between the report from the member of the public
> and the time when the train was stopped and the accused directed to
> provide their name and address. If the officer's ignorance of the law
> was a result of a failure to take a reasonably available opportunity to
> determine what the law actually was, then the suspicion may not have
> been reasonable.
It can surely not be reasonable suspicion if the suspected offence does
not exist, irrespective of whether the officer believes it to exist. If
ignorance of the law is not an excuse for a person committing an
offence, surely it cannot be an excuse for a person claiming to suspect
an offence? Or have we degenerated that far into the police state that
police can just invent offences to 'suspect'?
Sylvia Else
You might think so, although in this case the offence does exist - it
just requires facts that appear to have been absent.
But courts have found that reasonable suspicion can exist even where
it's based on a flawed understanding of the law. This doesn't mean that
police officers can always avoid liability just by being ignorant of the
law, but each case will have to be examined on its merits, to make a
call on what was reasonable.
The point is that police officers often have to react to situations that
crop up at a moment's notice, and they do not have time to examine law
books, and consider fine nuances of the law; they have to act.
If the police officer had just happened to see people travelling on the
end of a container car in a train which then more or less immediately
came to halt, then I think the officer could reasonably suspect the
commission of an offence, and act on that suspicion.
What differentiates the actual case is the period of time during which
the ignorance of the law could have been addressed. I deliberately used
the weasel word "may", because I'm far from sure how the courts would
view it.
Sylvia.
Inspector Blake aka Blakey
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote in message
(1) An authorised officer may direct a person to state the
person's name and residential or business address if the authorised officer-
(a) finds the person committing an offence against a
rail safety law; or
(b) finds the person in circumstances that lead, or has
information that leads, the authorised officer reasonably to suspect the
person has committed an offence against a rail safety law; or
(c) finds the person at railway premises and-
(i) reasonably believes the person is carrying out
railway operations for a rail transport operator; and
(ii) reasonably considers that it is necessary for
the purposes of this Act or the regulations to know the person's name and
residential or business address.
(2) The authorised officer may also direct the person to
give evidence of the correctness of the stated name or required address if
the authorised officer reasonably suspects the stated name or address is
false.
When they asked for his name they would have suspected an offence had
happened therefore would be correct to ask the persons details. Weather
there was actually an offence or not is up to the judge.
Sylvia Else
It is not clear yet that the the issue of whether there was an offence
of riding on a prohibited area will be decided by a court. If it is,
then the judge will decide whether there was an offence based on whether
there is evidence before the court that the end of the container car was
designated as a prohibited area. If not, then an acquittal must follow.
The judge has no discretion.
On the question of whether the power to ask for name and address was
properly exercised, the issue is whether the suspicion was reasonably
held. Given the alleged absence of signage, any suspicion must have been
held based on an incorrect understanding of the law. It appears that
some time elapsed between the receipt of the report that the men were on
the train, and the train being stopped and the men intercepted. During
this time, the police had the opportunity to research the relevant law.
It seems that they failed to do so. In that circumstance, a court could
find that the suspicion was not reasonable because it was based in a
misapprehension of the law that the police had reasonable opportunity to
address before the exercise of the power.
Sylvia.
Epsilon
Or whether the whole of the container car was designated as a prohibited
area, which seems the more likely situation.
> If not, then an
> acquittal must follow. The judge has no discretion.
At that level, if there is no relevant designation, the case would probably
not proceed because the prosecution would be withdrawn. In an ideal world,
that is.
Sylvia Else
Or intentionally none of it. It occurred to me that the operator may be
aware of the possibility that people will ride its trains, but prefer
not to have its trains stopped and delayed by police. Notwihstanding the
instant case, the obvious way to achieve that is not to make the riding
unlawful.
>
>> If not, then an
>> acquittal must follow. The judge has no discretion.
>
> At that level, if there is no relevant designation, the case would
> probably not proceed because the prosecution would be withdrawn. In an
> ideal world, that is.
As you say, in an ideal world. Findings of "no case to answer" may not
be common, but they occur often enough to indicate that prosecutors
don't always do their homework before the trial.
Sylvia.
Epsilon
In minor cases, it would be rare for a junior prosecutor to do much
homework. But nothing prevents the accused writing to the prosecutor and
asking for the formal details of proof of the charge. There is nothing
factually controversial about asking for the technical, legal stuff about
notices and designations, etc.
Most prosecutors will cheerfully deal with such enquiries, as time permits.
And most will be happy enough to back away if it turns out that the formal
requirements of the offence are not met.
Inspector Blake aka Blakey
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote in message
Weather an offence was comitted or not it is up to the court. I find it
totally resaonable that the police had a suspicion that an offence was
committed. As for your comment
"It appears that some time elapsed between the receipt of the report that
the men were on
the train, and the train being stopped and the men intercepted. During
this time, the police had the opportunity to research the relevant law."
>
Are you for real? the time would have been taken up with finding where the
train was and then how to get to it. The question weather an offence was
committed will be for a later time as the first priority would be remove the
idiots on safety grounds.
Sylvia Else
In the absence of an offence I doubt the police have any authority to do
that unless the operator asks them to.
It was about 40 track km from the alleged sighting to where the train
was stopped. There would have been ample time for someone to be looking
up the law. In any case, I can't see a justification for the police
assuming that anything that seems inadvisable is against the law. Given
the lack of any real urgency, they should have checked first, even if it
meant stopping the train further on.
Sylvia.
Inspector Blake aka Blakey
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote in message
Did you read the part were I said they would have to remove them on safety
grounds irrespective of weather an offence was committed or not. They have a
duty of care to respond once they were informed of it. That duty of care
meant they had to remove the idiots as soon as it was possible. A frieght
train travelling 40kms doesn't take all that long, imagine the uproar if the
idiots did fall off and the police said 'We were busy looking up weather an
offence was committed before we responded to the report'
Sylvia Else
I'd be surprised if the train could make the journey in less than 45
minutes.
I don't see that police have a duty of care to prevent people from doing
things that the police consider to be unsafe.
Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that it's highly undesirable to have a
situation where any time a police officer sees a person doing something
that the officer considers to be unsafe (but which the person doing it
may consider safe), the officer can detain the person to prevent a
continuance of the action. Since when are individual police officers the
arbiters of safety?
As for an uproar, I don't believe there would be one, but even if there
were, so what? Since when are policing decisions made on the basis of
whether there will be an uproar.
(Note spelling of "whether". "Weather" is a climatic phenomenon).
Sylvia.
a_a_a
> Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that it's highly undesirable to have a
> situation where any time a police officer sees a person doing something
> that the officer considers to be unsafe (but which the person doing it
> may consider safe), the officer can detain the person to prevent a
> continuance of the action. Since when are individual police officers the
> arbiters of safety?
Largely, since the nanny state came into effect, and since the role of
police changed from catching thieves etc into interfering with people's
personal choices. After all, if interfering with people on the grounds
of safety can be maximised, that successfully minimises the time
available actually to catch any criminals.
Inspector Blake aka Blakey
>
> I'd be surprised if the train could make the journey in less than 45
> minutes.
>
It would have been doing track speed which could be 100km/h so you are just
guessing
> I don't see that police have a duty of care to prevent people from doing
> things that the police consider to be unsafe.
>
Yes they do have a duty of care.
> Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that it's highly undesirable to have a
> situation where any time a police officer sees a person doing something
> that the officer considers to be unsafe (but which the person doing it may
> consider safe), the officer can detain the person to prevent a continuance
> of the action. Since when are individual police officers the arbiters of
> safety?
They do not detain them just stop them from doing it, under your logic a
drunk person could be riding on the roof of a car on the freeway and that
person considers it safe therefore you expect the cops to leave them alone.
>
> As for an uproar, I don't believe there would be one, but even if there
> were, so what? Since when are policing decisions made on the basis of
> whether there will be an uproar.
>
trust me the media would put the grieving families on the tv crying etc 'my
little Billy could hav been saved but the police took 2 hours to respond
because they were checking if it was an offence or not'
> (Note spelling of "whether". "Weather" is a climatic phenomenon).
>
I had a typo, big fucking deal I'm human I'm not perfect.
> Sylvia.
Sylvia Else
>>>
>>
>> I'd be surprised if the train could make the journey in less than 45
>> minutes.
>>
>
> It would have been doing track speed which could be 100km/h so you are just
> guessing
I was looking at the winding nature of the track.
>
>
>> I don't see that police have a duty of care to prevent people from doing
>> things that the police consider to be unsafe.
>>
>
> Yes they do have a duty of care.
Where is it founded? Duties of care don't just appear out of thin air.
>
>
>> Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that it's highly undesirable to have a
>> situation where any time a police officer sees a person doing something
>> that the officer considers to be unsafe (but which the person doing it may
>> consider safe), the officer can detain the person to prevent a continuance
>> of the action. Since when are individual police officers the arbiters of
>> safety?
>
> They do not detain them just stop them from doing it, under your logic a
> drunk person could be riding on the roof of a car on the freeway and that
> person considers it safe therefore you expect the cops to leave them alone.
I don't know why people keep coming up with these "by your logic" style
of arguments, because they never actually work.
The reason a drunk person cannot ride on the roof of a car, and will be
prevented from doing so if witnessed by police, is that there is a
specific regulation against doing so:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/rr2008104/s268.html
That's NSW, but since it's in the Road Rules there will be an identical,
or almost identical, regulation in other states.
>>
>> As for an uproar, I don't believe there would be one, but even if there
>> were, so what? Since when are policing decisions made on the basis of
>> whether there will be an uproar.
>>
>
> trust me the media would put the grieving families on the tv crying etc 'my
> little Billy could hav been saved but the police took 2 hours to respond
> because they were checking if it was an offence or not'
The police would reasonably reply "Look, we can't just go around
imposing our own views about safety on the population at large. Our job
is to enforce the law."
It's not a very likely outcome anyway. One may consider riding between
containers not as safe as riding in carriages, but it's probably safer
than making the same journey on a motorcycle. It's probably more
comfortable as well.
>
>
>> (Note spelling of "whether". "Weather" is a climatic phenomenon).
>>
> I had a typo, big fucking deal I'm human I'm not perfect.
No, it wasn't a typo. You were consistently misspelling it.
Unfortunately, you've chosen to make a big deal out of my neutral
comment, rather than just taking the information onboard.
Sylvia.
Inspector Blake aka Blakey
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote in message
> On 8/03/2011 12:33 AM, Inspector Blake aka Blakey wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'd be surprised if the train could make the journey in less than 45
>>> minutes.
>>>
>>
>> It would have been doing track speed which could be 100km/h so you are
>> just
>> guessing
>
> I was looking at the winding nature of the track.
But you are still guessing, get your facts straight first
>>
>>
>>> I don't see that police have a duty of care to prevent people from doing
>>> things that the police consider to be unsafe.
>>>
>>
>> Yes they do have a duty of care.
>
> Where is it founded? Duties of care don't just appear out of thin air.
>
Do you know anything about duty of care?
>>
>>
>>> Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that it's highly undesirable to have a
>>> situation where any time a police officer sees a person doing something
>>> that the officer considers to be unsafe (but which the person doing it
>>> may
>>> consider safe), the officer can detain the person to prevent a
>>> continuance
>>> of the action. Since when are individual police officers the arbiters of
>>> safety?
>>
>> They do not detain them just stop them from doing it, under your logic a
>> drunk person could be riding on the roof of a car on the freeway and that
>> person considers it safe therefore you expect the cops to leave them
>> alone.
>
> I don't know why people keep coming up with these "by your logic" style of
> arguments, because they never actually work.
>
> The reason a drunk person cannot ride on the roof of a car, and will be
> prevented from doing so if witnessed by police, is that there is a
> specific regulation against doing so:
>
> http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/rr2008104/s268.html
>
> That's NSW, but since it's in the Road Rules there will be an identical,
> or almost identical, regulation in other states.
maybe a bad example on my part, my point is when the police see someone
doing something unsafe they stop the person doing that. They use their
training to recongnise a situation where someone is doing something stupid
and/or dangerous
>
>>>
>>> As for an uproar, I don't believe there would be one, but even if there
>>> were, so what? Since when are policing decisions made on the basis of
>>> whether there will be an uproar.
>>>
>>
>> trust me the media would put the grieving families on the tv crying etc
>> 'my
>> little Billy could hav been saved but the police took 2 hours to respond
>> because they were checking if it was an offence or not'
>
> The police would reasonably reply "Look, we can't just go around imposing
> our own views about safety on the population at large. Our job is to
> enforce the law."
>
Back to the point of the original possible offence, they police had
suspicion an offence had been committed weather (I'm going to kee doing it
to piss you off) there was is up to a court. Once informed they have to act
and not waste time reading and debating the law.
> It's not a very likely outcome anyway. One may consider riding between
> containers not as safe as riding in carriages, but it's probably safer
> than making the same journey on a motorcycle. It's probably more
> comfortable as well.
>
you know very little about frieght trains
>>
>>
>>> (Note spelling of "whether". "Weather" is a climatic phenomenon).
>>>
>> I had a typo, big fucking deal I'm human I'm not perfect.
>
> No, it wasn't a typo. You were consistently misspelling it. Unfortunately,
> you've chosen to make a big deal out of my neutral comment, rather than
> just taking the information onboard.
>
whatever, you are obviously perfect in everyway
> Sylvia.
>
a_a_a
> maybe a bad example on my part, my point is when the police see someone
> doing something unsafe they stop the person doing that. They use their
> training to recongnise a situation where someone is doing something stupid
> and/or dangerous
there is no general offence of doing something which the police consider
dangerous, so what authority do they claim to have to 'stop' the person
doing it?
Sylvia Else
> "Sylvia Else"<syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote in message
> news:8tk63v...@mid.individual.net...
>> On 8/03/2011 12:33 AM, Inspector Blake aka Blakey wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'd be surprised if the train could make the journey in less than 45
>>>> minutes.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It would have been doing track speed which could be 100km/h so you are
>>> just
>>> guessing
>>
>> I was looking at the winding nature of the track.
>
> But you are still guessing, get your facts straight first
Do you know otherwise? For example, do you have the speed limits for
that section of track?
What do you propose is the actual transit time?
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I don't see that police have a duty of care to prevent people from doing
>>>> things that the police consider to be unsafe.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes they do have a duty of care.
>>
>> Where is it founded? Duties of care don't just appear out of thin air.
>>
>
>
> Do you know anything about duty of care?
Yes. It's not something owed by everyone to everyone else. There is no
single basis for its existence in every situation.
>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that it's highly undesirable to have a
>>>> situation where any time a police officer sees a person doing something
>>>> that the officer considers to be unsafe (but which the person doing it
>>>> may
>>>> consider safe), the officer can detain the person to prevent a
>>>> continuance
>>>> of the action. Since when are individual police officers the arbiters of
>>>> safety?
>>>
>>> They do not detain them just stop them from doing it, under your logic a
>>> drunk person could be riding on the roof of a car on the freeway and that
>>> person considers it safe therefore you expect the cops to leave them
>>> alone.
>>
>> I don't know why people keep coming up with these "by your logic" style of
>> arguments, because they never actually work.
>>
>> The reason a drunk person cannot ride on the roof of a car, and will be
>> prevented from doing so if witnessed by police, is that there is a
>> specific regulation against doing so:
>>
>> http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/rr2008104/s268.html
>>
>> That's NSW, but since it's in the Road Rules there will be an identical,
>> or almost identical, regulation in other states.
>
>
> maybe a bad example on my part, my point is when the police see someone
> doing something unsafe they stop the person doing that. They use their
> training to recongnise a situation where someone is doing something stupid
> and/or dangerous
Well, now that's just an assertion. On what basis do you believe that
police actually act to prevent what they perceive as dangerous but
lawful acts?
As for their training? A few hours of class in police school trumps what
may be a life-time of experience on the part of the person performing
the allegedly dangerous act? Do even the police believe that?
The police should not interfere except when there's an offence. It's not
their job impose nanny state rules that even the parliament hasn't seen
fit to legislate on.
>>
>>>>
>>>> As for an uproar, I don't believe there would be one, but even if there
>>>> were, so what? Since when are policing decisions made on the basis of
>>>> whether there will be an uproar.
>>>>
>>>
>>> trust me the media would put the grieving families on the tv crying etc
>>> 'my
>>> little Billy could hav been saved but the police took 2 hours to respond
>>> because they were checking if it was an offence or not'
>>
>> The police would reasonably reply "Look, we can't just go around imposing
>> our own views about safety on the population at large. Our job is to
>> enforce the law."
>>
>
>
> Back to the point of the original possible offence, they police had
> suspicion an offence had been committed weather (I'm going to kee doing it
> to piss you off)
It won't. I pointed out your error so that you could improve your
spelling, if you so wished. It's no skin off my nose if you choose not to.
there was is up to a court. Once informed they have to act
> and not waste time reading and debating the law.
They could have asked someone else to research the issue while they were
on their way to the place where the train was to be stopped. By the time
they arrived, they could have been armed with enough knowledge either to
realise that they had no power to intervene, or to make sure they
collected the evidence required for a prosecution.
As things stand, if the area occupied by the accused was in fact
designated as a prohibited area, but the police took no note of that,
then an otherwise valid prosecution would fail.
>
>
>> It's not a very likely outcome anyway. One may consider riding between
>> containers not as safe as riding in carriages, but it's probably safer
>> than making the same journey on a motorcycle. It's probably more
>> comfortable as well.
>>
>
> you know very little about frieght trains
Come on. They can't be that bumpy or they'd come off the track. They'd
also be so uncomfortable that no one would want to ride them, law or no law.
Sylvia.
Inspector Blake aka Blakey
"a_a_a" <a...@a.a.net> wrote in message
news:4d755fee$0$30002$c3e8da3$5496...@news.astraweb.com...
Duty of care, read up on it.
Inspector Blake aka Blakey
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote in message
> On 8/03/2011 7:11 AM, Inspector Blake aka Blakey wrote:
>> "Sylvia Else"<syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:8tk63v...@mid.individual.net...
>>> On 8/03/2011 12:33 AM, Inspector Blake aka Blakey wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd be surprised if the train could make the journey in less than 45
>>>>> minutes.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It would have been doing track speed which could be 100km/h so you are
>>>> just
>>>> guessing
>>>
>>> I was looking at the winding nature of the track.
>>
>> But you are still guessing, get your facts straight first
>
> Do you know otherwise? For example, do you have the speed limits for that
> section of track?
>
> What do you propose is the actual transit time?
>
take time to find out where the train is and how to get to it
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I don't see that police have a duty of care to prevent people from
>>>>> doing
>>>>> things that the police consider to be unsafe.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes they do have a duty of care.
>>>
>>> Where is it founded? Duties of care don't just appear out of thin air.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Do you know anything about duty of care?
>
> Yes. It's not something owed by everyone to everyone else. There is no
> single basis for its existence in every situation.
>
>>
I suggest you do some reaseach about duty of care and also talk to some
police
Tell that to the base jumpers and the life time of training they do when
something goes wrong and they go splat
>
> The police should not interfere except when there's an offence. It's not
> their job impose nanny state rules that even the parliament hasn't seen
> fit to legislate on.
>
Again research duty of care
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As for an uproar, I don't believe there would be one, but even if
>>>>> there
>>>>> were, so what? Since when are policing decisions made on the basis of
>>>>> whether there will be an uproar.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> trust me the media would put the grieving families on the tv crying etc
>>>> 'my
>>>> little Billy could hav been saved but the police took 2 hours to
>>>> respond
>>>> because they were checking if it was an offence or not'
>>>
>>> The police would reasonably reply "Look, we can't just go around
>>> imposing
>>> our own views about safety on the population at large. Our job is to
>>> enforce the law."
>>>
>>
>>
>> Back to the point of the original possible offence, they police had
>> suspicion an offence had been committed weather (I'm going to kee doing
>> it
>> to piss you off)
>
> It won't. I pointed out your error so that you could improve your
> spelling, if you so wished. It's no skin off my nose if you choose not to.
>
You are just trying to protray yourself as better than I am because your
spelling and grammer is better than mine. Kinda childish if you ask me
> there was is up to a court. Once informed they have to act
>> and not waste time reading and debating the law.
>
> They could have asked someone else to research the issue while they were
> on their way to the place where the train was to be stopped. By the time
> they arrived, they could have been armed with enough knowledge either to
> realise that they had no power to intervene, or to make sure they
> collected the evidence required for a prosecution.
>
Now you are clutching at straws, they had a suspicion of an offence was
being carried out but to reasearch like you suggest is pointless because
they do not have all the facts. Once the arrive on the scene they can get
all the facts before seeing if an offence was committed.
> As things stand, if the area occupied by the accused was in fact
> designated as a prohibited area, but the police took no note of that, then
> an otherwise valid prosecution would fail.
tell it to the judge
>
>>
>>
>>> It's not a very likely outcome anyway. One may consider riding between
>>> containers not as safe as riding in carriages, but it's probably safer
>>> than making the same journey on a motorcycle. It's probably more
>>> comfortable as well.
>>>
>>
>> you know very little about frieght trains
>
> Come on. They can't be that bumpy or they'd come off the track. They'd
> also be so uncomfortable that no one would want to ride them, law or no
> law.
>
You just proved my point, you know very little about freight trains and your
statement is laughable.
> Sylvia.
a_a_a
>> there is no general offence of doing something which the police consider
>> dangerous, so what authority do they claim to have to 'stop' the person
>> doing it?
>>
>
> Duty of care, read up on it.
you read up on it. Duty of care gives no power to anyone to do what they
have no other authority to do.
Sylvia Else
"Personal autonomy is a value that informs much of the common law. It is
a value that is reflected in the law of negligence. The co-existence of
a knowledge of a risk of harm and power to avert or minimise that harm
does not, without more, give rise to a duty of care at common law"
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/2009/15.html
Paragraph 88.
The issue of autonomy arises repeatedly in the judgement. The police are
not under a duty of care to prevent harm to a person where the risk of
harm arises from that person's own actions.
In the case of the train riders, in the absence of a reasonable
suspicion of an offence or a request from the operator, the police
didn't even have a power to remove the train riders, let alone a duty to
do so.
Sylvia.
Sylvia Else
> "Sylvia Else"<syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote in message
> news:8tlcp0...@mid.individual.net...
>> On 8/03/2011 7:11 AM, Inspector Blake aka Blakey wrote:
>>> "Sylvia Else"<syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:8tk63v...@mid.individual.net...
>>>> On 8/03/2011 12:33 AM, Inspector Blake aka Blakey wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd be surprised if the train could make the journey in less than 45
>>>>>> minutes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It would have been doing track speed which could be 100km/h so you are
>>>>> just
>>>>> guessing
>>>>
>>>> I was looking at the winding nature of the track.
>>>
>>> But you are still guessing, get your facts straight first
>>
>> Do you know otherwise? For example, do you have the speed limits for that
>> section of track?
>>
>> What do you propose is the actual transit time?
>>
> You are the one putting times on things etc I'm just pointing out it does
> take time to find out where the train is and how to get to it
And while that's being done, someone can be researching the law.
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't see that police have a duty of care to prevent people from
>>>>>> doing
>>>>>> things that the police consider to be unsafe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes they do have a duty of care.
>>>>
>>>> Where is it founded? Duties of care don't just appear out of thin air.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you know anything about duty of care?
>>
>> Yes. It's not something owed by everyone to everyone else. There is no
>> single basis for its existence in every situation.
>>
>>>
>
>
> I suggest you do some reaseach about duty of care and also talk to some
> police
Hah. The police know very little about the law.
It is in the nature of life that there are risks. Scarely any activity
has none. You can choke to death while eating.
Different people make different choices when accepting risk, as is their
right.
Some kinds of base jumping (e.g. off buildings, sometimes) are an
offence, and the police can intervene. Others are not, and the police
have no power to impose their own notions about what is an acceptable risk.
>
>
>>
>> The police should not interfere except when there's an offence. It's not
>> their job impose nanny state rules that even the parliament hasn't seen
>> fit to legislate on.
>>
>
> Again research duty of care
See my other posting.
>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for an uproar, I don't believe there would be one, but even if
>>>>>> there
>>>>>> were, so what? Since when are policing decisions made on the basis of
>>>>>> whether there will be an uproar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> trust me the media would put the grieving families on the tv crying etc
>>>>> 'my
>>>>> little Billy could hav been saved but the police took 2 hours to
>>>>> respond
>>>>> because they were checking if it was an offence or not'
>>>>
>>>> The police would reasonably reply "Look, we can't just go around
>>>> imposing
>>>> our own views about safety on the population at large. Our job is to
>>>> enforce the law."
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Back to the point of the original possible offence, they police had
>>> suspicion an offence had been committed weather (I'm going to kee doing
>>> it
>>> to piss you off)
>>
>> It won't. I pointed out your error so that you could improve your
>> spelling, if you so wished. It's no skin off my nose if you choose not to.
>>
>
> You are just trying to protray yourself as better than I am because your
> spelling and grammer is better than mine. Kinda childish if you ask me
I carefully couched the information about spelling in very neutral
terms, with no suggestion that it had any wider ramifications. You're
the one making a big deal out of it. Anyway, I'll not discuss it further.
>
>
>> there was is up to a court. Once informed they have to act
>>> and not waste time reading and debating the law.
>>
>> They could have asked someone else to research the issue while they were
>> on their way to the place where the train was to be stopped. By the time
>> they arrived, they could have been armed with enough knowledge either to
>> realise that they had no power to intervene, or to make sure they
>> collected the evidence required for a prosecution.
>>
>
> Now you are clutching at straws, they had a suspicion of an offence was
> being carried out but to reasearch like you suggest is pointless because
> they do not have all the facts. Once the arrive on the scene they can get
> all the facts before seeing if an offence was committed.
Without researching the law, they won't know what the relevant facts are.
>
>
>> As things stand, if the area occupied by the accused was in fact
>> designated as a prohibited area, but the police took no note of that, then
>> an otherwise valid prosecution would fail.
>
>
> tell it to the judge
You seem to think it's in doubt. It's clear criminal law. *All* the
elements of an offence have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, not
just some of them, or there will be an acquittal. If it's an element of
the offence that the area be designated as a prohibited area, and no
evidence is lead that it was so designated, then there is no case to
answer, and the case is dismissed. Indeed, in such a case, the accused
may be awarded costs.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> It's not a very likely outcome anyway. One may consider riding between
>>>> containers not as safe as riding in carriages, but it's probably safer
>>>> than making the same journey on a motorcycle. It's probably more
>>>> comfortable as well.
>>>>
>>>
>>> you know very little about frieght trains
>>
>> Come on. They can't be that bumpy or they'd come off the track. They'd
>> also be so uncomfortable that no one would want to ride them, law or no
>> law.
>>
>
> You just proved my point, you know very little about freight trains and your
> statement is laughable.
So, make some relevant statements about freight trains then.
Sylvia.
Inspector Blake aka Blakey
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote in message
That case is to do with the Mental Health act and the duty of care of the
police when someone threatens self harm. It is totally different too the
police recieving a call that 2 idiots are doing something that most people
would consider dangerous and there is a suspicion that an offence was being
committed. When they get there they get the facts and decide if an offence
has or hasn't been committed and lay any charges they see fit. They have a
duty of care to investagate the complaint because there was a suspicion of
an offence.
Inspector Blake aka Blakey
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote in message
> On 8/03/2011 1:05 PM, Inspector Blake aka Blakey wrote:
>> "Sylvia Else"<syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:8tlcp0...@mid.individual.net...
>>> On 8/03/2011 7:11 AM, Inspector Blake aka Blakey wrote:
>>>> "Sylvia Else"<syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:8tk63v...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> On 8/03/2011 12:33 AM, Inspector Blake aka Blakey wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd be surprised if the train could make the journey in less than 45
>>>>>>> minutes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It would have been doing track speed which could be 100km/h so you
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> just
>>>>>> guessing
>>>>>
>>>>> I was looking at the winding nature of the track.
>>>>
>>>> But you are still guessing, get your facts straight first
>>>
>>> Do you know otherwise? For example, do you have the speed limits for
>>> that
>>> section of track?
>>>
>>> What do you propose is the actual transit time?
>>>
>> You are the one putting times on things etc I'm just pointing out it does
>> take time to find out where the train is and how to get to it
>
> And while that's being done, someone can be researching the law.
>
Someone, chances are it was a country area with a very small police station
and as already stated they need to get ALL the facts before deciding if an
offence has been committed.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't see that police have a duty of care to prevent people from
>>>>>>> doing
>>>>>>> things that the police consider to be unsafe.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes they do have a duty of care.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where is it founded? Duties of care don't just appear out of thin air.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you know anything about duty of care?
>>>
>>> Yes. It's not something owed by everyone to everyone else. There is no
>>> single basis for its existence in every situation.
>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>> I suggest you do some reaseach about duty of care and also talk to some
>> police
>
> Hah. The police know very little about the law.
really, talk to the police. What are you basing this generalisation on?
See my other posting too, you are compaing apples to oranges
you brought it up and by doing so it was an attempt to belittle me and
Istand by my claim it is a childish thing to do.
>
>>
>>
>>> there was is up to a court. Once informed they have to act
>>>> and not waste time reading and debating the law.
>>>
>>> They could have asked someone else to research the issue while they were
>>> on their way to the place where the train was to be stopped. By the time
>>> they arrived, they could have been armed with enough knowledge either to
>>> realise that they had no power to intervene, or to make sure they
>>> collected the evidence required for a prosecution.
>>>
>>
>> Now you are clutching at straws, they had a suspicion of an offence was
>> being carried out but to reasearch like you suggest is pointless because
>> they do not have all the facts. Once the arrive on the scene they can get
>> all the facts before seeing if an offence was committed.
>
> Without researching the law, they won't know what the relevant facts are.
WHAT? they need the facts FIRST then they can research the law. Without the
facts any researching of the law is a waste.
>
>>
>>
>>> As things stand, if the area occupied by the accused was in fact
>>> designated as a prohibited area, but the police took no note of that,
>>> then
>>> an otherwise valid prosecution would fail.
>>
>>
>> tell it to the judge
>
> You seem to think it's in doubt. It's clear criminal law. *All* the
> elements of an offence have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, not just
> some of them, or there will be an acquittal. If it's an element of the
> offence that the area be designated as a prohibited area, and no evidence
> is lead that it was so designated, then there is no case to answer, and
> the case is dismissed. Indeed, in such a case, the accused may be awarded
> costs.
>
Hence my comment 'tell it to the judge' he or she will decide if an offence
was committed.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
Sylvia Else
No one had threatened self harm in that case. If you accept that the
Mental Health act was relevant for the purpose of potentially creating a
duty of care, then where is the legislation that creates the duty of
care that you allege to exist in this case?
You're now conflating law enforcement with duty of care, which isn't
helping your position anyway. Had the officers had a correct
understanding of the law, they would have approached the container car,
noted that there was no designation of a prohibited area (assuming there
wasn't), and formed the view that accordingly they had no power to
remove the men, whom they'd have left where they were. The operator
might, or might not, then have asked the police to remove the men, but
that's a separate issue entirely.
You persist in ignoring my point that unless they research the law, they
don't know what facts they need to collect.
Sylvia.
Sylvia Else
What are "ALL" the facts? It's not even apparent that they got the
relevant facts.
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't see that police have a duty of care to prevent people from
>>>>>>>> doing
>>>>>>>> things that the police consider to be unsafe.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes they do have a duty of care.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where is it founded? Duties of care don't just appear out of thin air.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you know anything about duty of care?
>>>>
>>>> Yes. It's not something owed by everyone to everyone else. There is no
>>>> single basis for its existence in every situation.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I suggest you do some reaseach about duty of care and also talk to some
>>> police
>>
>> Hah. The police know very little about the law.
>
>
> really, talk to the police. What are you basing this generalisation on?
From talking to police.
There are endless facts that can be collected about a train. It's mass,
the power of its engine, the cargo it's carrying, the speed it was going
before the stopped it, the state of the track underneath it, it's
colour, .....
Most are irrelevant. Yet there was one very important fact - whether the
area was designated as a prohibited area, but the police didn't know
that at the time, because they hadn't researched the law.
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> As things stand, if the area occupied by the accused was in fact
>>>> designated as a prohibited area, but the police took no note of that,
>>>> then
>>>> an otherwise valid prosecution would fail.
>>>
>>>
>>> tell it to the judge
>>
>> You seem to think it's in doubt. It's clear criminal law. *All* the
>> elements of an offence have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, not just
>> some of them, or there will be an acquittal. If it's an element of the
>> offence that the area be designated as a prohibited area, and no evidence
>> is lead that it was so designated, then there is no case to answer, and
>> the case is dismissed. Indeed, in such a case, the accused may be awarded
>> costs.
>>
>
> Hence my comment 'tell it to the judge' he or she will decide if an offence
> was committed.
It would be an abuse of process indeed, if the police were to start
arresting people on the basis that a court could, in due course, make a
pronouncement on their guilt.
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not a very likely outcome anyway. One may consider riding between
>>>>>> containers not as safe as riding in carriages, but it's probably safer
>>>>>> than making the same journey on a motorcycle. It's probably more
>>>>>> comfortable as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> you know very little about frieght trains
>>>>
>>>> Come on. They can't be that bumpy or they'd come off the track. They'd
>>>> also be so uncomfortable that no one would want to ride them, law or no
>>>> law.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You just proved my point, you know very little about freight trains and
>>> your
>>> statement is laughable.
>>
>> So, make some relevant statements about freight trains then.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
>
Sylvia.
Inspector Blake aka Blakey
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote in message
There was a complaint and a suspicion of an offence and they have a duty of
care to investagate.
> You're now conflating law enforcement with duty of care, which isn't
> helping your position anyway. Had the officers had a correct understanding
> of the law, they would have approached the container car, noted that there
> was no designation of a prohibited area (assuming there wasn't), and
> formed the view that accordingly they had no power to remove the men, whom
> they'd have left where they were. The operator might, or might not, then
> have asked the police to remove the men, but that's a separate issue
> entirely.
>
> You persist in ignoring my point that unless they research the law, they
> don't know what facts they need to collect.
WHAT? They collect ALL THE FACTS because if you dont know ALL THE FACTS how
do you know firstly if there is a likelyhood of an offence. Under your logic
I can call the police and tell them someone is breaking in the house next
door. The cops think 'we can charge them with break and enter' they go out
there find the facts that prove a break and enter and charge the person with
break and enter. Now if they have ALL the facts they will know the poor guy
was locked out of his own house and was getting back inside.
>
> Sylvia.
>
>
Inspector Blake aka Blakey
>> Someone, chances are it was a country area with a very small police
>> station
>> and as already stated they need to get ALL the facts before deciding if
>> an
>> offence has been committed.
>>
>
> What are "ALL" the facts? It's not even apparent that they got the
> relevant facts.
>
>>
Now you are playing with words, they get all the facts they need when they
get there by doing their job as police
>>> Hah. The police know very little about the law.
>>
>>
>> really, talk to the police. What are you basing this generalisation on?
>
> From talking to police.
Well I would trust a seasoned police officer over you anyday
>> WHAT? they need the facts FIRST then they can research the law. Without
>> the
>> facts any researching of the law is a waste.
>
> There are endless facts that can be collected about a train. It's mass,
> the power of its engine, the cargo it's carrying, the speed it was going
> before the stopped it, the state of the track underneath it, it's colour,
> .....
>
> Most are irrelevant. Yet there was one very important fact - whether the
> area was designated as a prohibited area, but the police didn't know that
> at the time, because they hadn't researched the law.
>
Expain how they are supposed to reasearch the law before knowing exactly
what has happened? What if they got there and the two guys were rail workers
checking on something and had all the proper safety gear etc What if it was
a false alarm? You can not work out what to charge them with before you find
out exactly what happened.
> >> Hence my comment 'tell it to the judge' he or she will decide if an
> >> offence
>> was committed.
>
> It would be an abuse of process indeed, if the police were to start
> arresting people on the basis that a court could, in due course, make a
> pronouncement on their guilt.
>
>
The police will decide if in their opinion an offence has occurred and also
if they can prove it and get a conviction. If they don't then it will not
get to court and in this case by charging them they feel they canprove an
offence and if the judge says that an offence didn't occur then so be it.
That is what the courts are for.
a_a_a
>> It would be an abuse of process indeed, if the police were to start
>> arresting people on the basis that a court could, in due course, make a
>> pronouncement on their guilt.
>>
>>
> The police will decide if in their opinion an offence has occurred and also
> if they can prove it and get a conviction. If they don't then it will not
> get to court and in this case by charging them they feel they canprove an
> offence and if the judge says that an offence didn't occur then so be it.
> That is what the courts are for.
Yes, and there are many cases when police simply harass people by
charging them with unprovable offences or non-existent offences either
through ignorance or from a desire to be unpleasant. Do you believe that
is justifiable? Should citizens not have a right to be free from
pernicious police interference unsupported by any proper legal basis?
Inspector Blake aka Blakey
Of course not and they have a right to go to court and if they can prove the
charges were simply to harass then they can take civil action or take it up
with the various state bodies that oversee the police. Do you know of any
cases like that or are you genralising too? You re guilty of thinking the
police are the judge and jury too
a_a_a
>> Yes, and there are many cases when police simply harass people by charging
>> them with unprovable offences or non-existent offences either through
>> ignorance or from a desire to be unpleasant. Do you believe that is
>> justifiable? Should citizens not have a right to be free from pernicious
>> police interference unsupported by any proper legal basis?
> Of course not and they have a right to go to court and if they can prove the
> charges were simply to harass then they can take civil action or take it up
> with the various state bodies that oversee the police.
why should they have to do that when the case should never have arisen
in the first instance? You are relying on the ultimate backups as though
they are the primary defence. Such cases should never have existed
initially.
> Do you know of any
> cases like that or are you genralising too? You re guilty of thinking the
> police are the judge and jury too
If you don't know of many cases, you must be either an alien or totally
unobservant. And I am not guilty of thinking the police are judge and
jury; the complaint is that many police act as though they are judge and
jury even though they either know or should know that the real judge and
jury should see it differently.
And it isn't only police. Transit officers are another type of key
offenders.
Spartan613
You're forgetting about vicarious liability. Cop does nothing, dickhead
hurts himself (or bystander) and cop gets asked to "please explain".
--
"God is not on the side of the big battalions, but of those who shoot the
best". Voltaire..
Sylvia Else
Various liability relates to the fact that the police officers' employer
can be held liable for things the officers do, or don't do. But for it
to become relevant, the police officers themselves have to have breached
a duty of care.
Sylvia.
Epsilon
When did Torts for Morons 101 become part of the bogan syllabus?
Sylvia Else
I think he was referring to bush vicarious liability, which is a totally
different concept from the one I, and probably you, were thinking of.
Sylvia.
Epsilon
The concept he was referring to is one typically found in cattle yards.
Inspector Blake aka Blakey
> On 8/03/2011 15:04, Inspector Blake aka Blakey wrote:
>
>>> Yes, and there are many cases when police simply harass people by
>>> charging
>>> them with unprovable offences or non-existent offences either through
>>> ignorance or from a desire to be unpleasant. Do you believe that is
>>> justifiable? Should citizens not have a right to be free from pernicious
>>> police interference unsupported by any proper legal basis?
>
>> Of course not and they have a right to go to court and if they can prove
>> the
>> charges were simply to harass then they can take civil action or take it
>> up
>> with the various state bodies that oversee the police.
>
> why should they have to do that when the case should never have arisen in
> the first instance? You are relying on the ultimate backups as though they
> are the primary defence. Such cases should never have existed initially.
Everyone is entitled to defend themselves in court, can't see the problem.
We have a justice system for a reason, you make it sound like we are in the
Soviet Union in the 40's and 50's
>
>> Do you know of any
>> cases like that or are you genralising too? You re guilty of thinking the
>> police are the judge and jury too
>
> If you don't know of many cases, you must be either an alien or totally
> unobservant. And I am not guilty of thinking the police are judge and
> jury; the complaint is that many police act as though they are judge and
> jury even though they either know or should know that the real judge and
> jury should see it differently.
examples then please?
>
> And it isn't only police. Transit officers are another type of key
> offenders.
some of them are arseholes I will grant you that but it is only a small
percentage
>
Sylvia Else
> "a_a_a"<a...@a.a.net> wrote in message
> news:4d75b23c$0$29982$c3e8da3$5496...@news.astraweb.com...
>> On 8/03/2011 15:04, Inspector Blake aka Blakey wrote:
>>
>>>> Yes, and there are many cases when police simply harass people by
>>>> charging
>>>> them with unprovable offences or non-existent offences either through
>>>> ignorance or from a desire to be unpleasant. Do you believe that is
>>>> justifiable? Should citizens not have a right to be free from pernicious
>>>> police interference unsupported by any proper legal basis?
>>
>>> Of course not and they have a right to go to court and if they can prove
>>> the
>>> charges were simply to harass then they can take civil action or take it
>>> up
>>> with the various state bodies that oversee the police.
>>
>> why should they have to do that when the case should never have arisen in
>> the first instance? You are relying on the ultimate backups as though they
>> are the primary defence. Such cases should never have existed initially.
>
> Everyone is entitled to defend themselves in court, can't see the problem.
> We have a justice system for a reason, you make it sound like we are in the
> Soviet Union in the 40's and 50's
Appearing in court and tribunals is always stressful (yes, I've done it
a number of times, though mostly civil actions - and a parking offence).
The more serious the alleged offence, the more stressful it presumably
is. And we've seen people charged with absurd offences, such as posting
(not making) the baby swinging video (charge dropped after the video was
classified MA15+). And of course, Dr Haneef suffered at the hands of the
police persuing the non-sensical notion that giving someone a partially
used SIM card constituted aiding terrorism (though his subsequent payout
no doubt mitigated the pain).
Nor can the court at first instance be trusted to get it right. The man
charged with manslaughter over the Excalibur sinking had his conviction
overturned on appeal, and then in a subsequent hearing, the court found
that the charge should never have been laid in the first place, and he
was entitled to costs as a result, but not damages for the stress he
suffered.
Too often the police seem to see their role as being to lay any
conceivable charge regardless of the facts and the likelihood of a
successful prosecution, and too many people plead guilty out of a false
impression that they can't win if they defend the case, or even just to
get the whole stressful ordeal overwith.
Sylvia.
Inspector Blake aka Blakey
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote in message
The system isn't perfect and neither are the police but in a very very high
percentage of cases the system does work. You seem to think the police are
running around laying charges left roight and centre well I can assure you
that if someone in the police force is laying charges that don't end up with
a conviction then their bosses will be having a talk with them. Each example
you cited did end up with the corrrect result. Back to the original topic it
seems you have areadly found them not guilty after reading about it on the
net. As for their guilt myself, I don't know the facts so am happy for the
courts to decide if the people charged wish to take it to court which is
theirs and everyones right.
Epsilon
> "a_a_a" <a...@a.a.net> wrote in message
> news:4d75b23c$0$29982$c3e8da3$5496...@news.astraweb.com...
>> On 8/03/2011 15:04, Inspector Blake aka Blakey wrote:
>>
>>>> Yes, and there are many cases when police simply harass people by
>>>> charging
>>>> them with unprovable offences or non-existent offences either
>>>> through ignorance or from a desire to be unpleasant. Do you
>>>> believe that is justifiable? Should citizens not have a right to
>>>> be free from pernicious police interference unsupported by any
>>>> proper legal basis?
>>
>>> Of course not and they have a right to go to court and if they can
>>> prove the
>>> charges were simply to harass then they can take civil action or
>>> take it up
>>> with the various state bodies that oversee the police.
>>
>> why should they have to do that when the case should never have
>> arisen in the first instance? You are relying on the ultimate
>> backups as though they are the primary defence. Such cases should
>> never have existed initially.
>
> Everyone is entitled to defend themselves in court, can't see the
> problem. We have a justice system for a reason, you make it sound
> like we are in the Soviet Union in the 40's and 50's
You have some familiarity with the Soviet Union in the 40's and 50's?
I doubt it.
Inspector Blake aka Blakey
"Epsilon" <n...@this.address.com> wrote in message
news:il689t$mog$1...@news.albasani.net...
I know alot about the period and was making the point how in those times the
kgb were the judge and jury and made up the facts to fit the result they
wanted.
Epsilon
Since when did SFA amount to "a lot"?
> and was making the point
No, you weren't. You have NFI what you were doing.
> how in those
> times the kgb
Now you claim to know something about the KGB. The reality is that you know
nothing about the KGB. Admit it!
> were the judge and jury and made up the facts to fit
> the result they wanted.
And now you claim to know something about the criminal system in the Soviet
Union!
What do you do in your spare time between being a rocket scientist and a
brain surgeon?
Inspector Blake aka Blakey
Well no point debating the knowledge of the time, I know what I know. You
know those things made up of paper with words on them? they call them books.
I read them, I think you are getting a little confused as the period I was
referring to was Stalin.
>
>> and was making the point
>
> No, you weren't. You have NFI what you were doing.
>
Sorry you are not able to see my point, want me to dumb it down a touch?
>> how in those
>> times the kgb
>
> Now you claim to know something about the KGB. The reality is that you
> know nothing about the KGB. Admit it!
>
>> were the judge and jury and made up the facts to fit
>> the result they wanted.
>
> And now you claim to know something about the criminal system in the
> Soviet Union!
>
Criminal system? I was talking kgb and they had a result and tortured the
person and made up the facts to get that result then took it to court.
> What do you do in your spare time between being a rocket scientist and a
> brain surgeon?
sell poison milk to children
Epsilon
>
>
> touch?
The evidence is clear - that would be impossible. But, please. Don't let
me hold you up.
a_a_a
Well said, epsilon. However perhaps we should ask Inspector Blake just
one more question - how would HE feel if he was charged on some
trumped-up charge on non-existent evidence? Would HE take his own advice
and say 'that's fine, I can rely on the court system to get me off, and
it's all in a good cause'?
Sylvia Else
No it didn't. The correct result was that they'd never have been
charged. The baby-swinging video guy had a possible prison sentence
hanging over him for about a year. Dr Haneef was actually imprisoned for
weeks (at least). The executive even contrived to render ineffective the
decision of the court that Haneef be released on bail (the executive's
decision was itself overturned later by a court). The person initially
convicted in respect of the Excalibur deaths had to deal with a period
during which he had a serious criminal record, even though a court has
found that he should never have been subjected to any of it.
Jihad Jack was charged with a serious terrorism offence on the strength
of an improperly obtained confession, yet he was ultimately convicted
only of a minor passport impropriety (and even that conviction is
questionable).
There is no possible way in which the system can be considered to have
worked. At best the system didn't fail as badly as it might have
(innocent people convicted and locked up for years).
> Back to the original topic it
> seems you have areadly found them not guilty after reading about it on the
> net. As for their guilt myself, I don't know the facts so am happy for the
> courts to decide if the people charged wish to take it to court which is
> theirs and everyones right.
If the OP really is the person who was on the train, and is correctly
stating the relevant facts, then the police arrested the accused and
issued the expiation notice without having the facts to support either
action. Given the cases discussed above, such an approach is not
particularly surprising.
Sylvia.
Inspector Blake aka Blakey
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote in message
You are expecting the police to be judge and jury aswell? The police
investagate, press charges then the person charged goes to court where the
charges must be proven. The system isn't perfect and no system is but
overall I have faith in it.
>
>> Back to the original topic it
>> seems you have areadly found them not guilty after reading about it on
>> the
>> net. As for their guilt myself, I don't know the facts so am happy for
>> the
>> courts to decide if the people charged wish to take it to court which is
>> theirs and everyones right.
>
> If the OP really is the person who was on the train, and is correctly
> stating the relevant facts, then the police arrested the accused and
> issued the expiation notice without having the facts to support either
> action. Given the cases discussed above, such an approach is not
> particularly surprising.
>
If that is the case which could well be because I wasn't there then the
person has the right to contest it in court. I can't see what the problem is
and I can't see how you can pass judgement after reading a few web pages.
> Sylvia.
Inspector Blake aka Blakey
Yes I would fight it through the courts and if the evidence was non existent
etc I would then start civil action against those who charged me and the
retire with my millions.
Inspector Blake aka Blakey
Ok I will not dumb it down for you, give me a call when you pass the third
grade then I will explain it to you again.
Epsilon
> "Epsilon" <n...@this.address.com> wrote in message
> news:il6f3f$2d4$1...@news.albasani.net...
>> Inspector Blake aka Blakey wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry you are not able to see my point, want me to dumb it down a
>>> touch?
>>
>> The evidence is clear - that would be impossible. But, please. Don't let
>> me hold you up.
>
> Ok I will not dumb it down for you,
You see? You can't. It was impossible.
> give me a call when you pass the
> third grade then I will explain it to you again.
Now, that's a very sneaky way for you to imply that you have reached those
dizzying acadenic heights. All the evidence is to the contrary.
a_a_a
>> Well said, epsilon. However perhaps we should ask Inspector Blake just one
>> more question - how would HE feel if he was charged on some trumped-up
>> charge on non-existent evidence? Would HE take his own advice and say
>> 'that's fine, I can rely on the court system to get me off, and it's all
>> in a good cause'?
> Yes I would fight it through the courts and if the evidence was non existent
> etc I would then start civil action against those who charged me and the
> retire with my millions.
You are either a supreme idiot or an utter troll - or both.
Inspector Blake aka Blakey
I have never claimed to have reached any academic heights. Well I will dumb
it down for you. At the height of Stalins show trials whenever there was
someone he didn't like or thought was a threat the secret police arrested
tht person on false charges and then through various means got a confession
to those false charges before going to court.
The claim was that the police "there are many cases when police simply
harass people by charging them with unprovable offences or non-existent
offences either through ignorance or from a desire to be unpleasant" is
similar but not as extreme as what happened in Stalins time.
a_a_a
> I have never claimed to have reached any academic heights. Well I will dumb
> it down for you. At the height of Stalins show trials whenever there was
> someone he didn't like or thought was a threat the secret police arrested
> tht person on false charges and then through various means got a confession
> to those false charges before going to court.
> The claim was that the police "there are many cases when police simply
> harass people by charging them with unprovable offences or non-existent
> offences either through ignorance or from a desire to be unpleasant" is
> similar but not as extreme as what happened in Stalins time.
Yes, now you are dead right. That is exactly what is happening. Ask Dr
Haneef. Ask the guy who circulated the baby video. Stalin would have
felt at home.
Sylvia Else
I expect the police to exercise a bit of commonsense. They're supposed
to bring to court only those cases where they believe there's a
reasonable prospect of a conviction. Yet at times, the seem to behave as
if they have to bring to court every case in which there is the remotest
theoretical possibility of a conviction.
>
>
>>
>>> Back to the original topic it
>>> seems you have areadly found them not guilty after reading about it on
>>> the
>>> net. As for their guilt myself, I don't know the facts so am happy for
>>> the
>>> courts to decide if the people charged wish to take it to court which is
>>> theirs and everyones right.
>>
>> If the OP really is the person who was on the train, and is correctly
>> stating the relevant facts, then the police arrested the accused and
>> issued the expiation notice without having the facts to support either
>> action. Given the cases discussed above, such an approach is not
>> particularly surprising.
>>
>
>
>
> If that is the case which could well be because I wasn't there then the
> person has the right to contest it in court. I can't see what the problem is
> and I can't see how you can pass judgement after reading a few web pages.
The accused shouldn't have to contest a matter in court, nor even
express their desire to, where the prosecution cannot possibly succeed
because the facts alleged by the prosecution do not amount to an offence.
Sylvia.
Inspector Blake aka Blakey
> On 9/03/2011 14:10, Inspector Blake aka Blakey wrote:
>
>> I have never claimed to have reached any academic heights. Well I will
>> dumb
>> it down for you. At the height of Stalins show trials whenever there was
>> someone he didn't like or thought was a threat the secret police arrested
>> tht person on false charges and then through various means got a
>> confession
>> to those false charges before going to court.
>> The claim was that the police "there are many cases when police simply
>> harass people by charging them with unprovable offences or non-existent
>> offences either through ignorance or from a desire to be unpleasant" is
>> similar but not as extreme as what happened in Stalins time.
>
> Haneef. Ask the guy who circulated the baby video. Stalin would have felt
> at home.
>
difference is that in the examples you mentioned the police were under the
impression an offence had been committed. Do you excpect the police to be
100% correct everytime? They will make mistakes and that is why we have
courts.
Inspector Blake aka Blakey
You are putting words into my mouth, at no stage have I said that those
wrongly charged should just sit back and say that's fine etc etc I'm making
the point we have courts for a reason and sometimes mistakes will be made.
No system is 100% perfect but I believe it is a good system.
Inspector Blake aka Blakey
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote in message
Police are not perfect and if one member does this on a constant basis then
they will get their arse kicked.
>>
>>>
>>>> Back to the original topic it
>>>> seems you have areadly found them not guilty after reading about it on
>>>> the
>>>> net. As for their guilt myself, I don't know the facts so am happy for
>>>> the
>>>> courts to decide if the people charged wish to take it to court which
>>>> is
>>>> theirs and everyones right.
>>>
>>> If the OP really is the person who was on the train, and is correctly
>>> stating the relevant facts, then the police arrested the accused and
>>> issued the expiation notice without having the facts to support either
>>> action. Given the cases discussed above, such an approach is not
>>> particularly surprising.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> If that is the case which could well be because I wasn't there then the
>> person has the right to contest it in court. I can't see what the problem
>> is
>> and I can't see how you can pass judgement after reading a few web pages.
>
> The accused shouldn't have to contest a matter in court, nor even express
> their desire to, where the prosecution cannot possibly succeed because the
> facts alleged by the prosecution do not amount to an offence.
>
> Sylvia.
again you have found them not guilty after reading a few web pages, if you
feel so strongly then represent the person in court.
Epsilon
> "Epsilon" <n...@this.address.com> wrote in message
> news:il6qht$b4c$1...@news.albasani.net...
>> Inspector Blake aka Blakey wrote:
>>> "Epsilon" <n...@this.address.com> wrote in message
>>> news:il6f3f$2d4$1...@news.albasani.net...
>>>> Inspector Blake aka Blakey wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry you are not able to see my point, want me to dumb it down a
>>>>> touch?
>>>>
>>>> The evidence is clear - that would be impossible. But, please.
>>>> Don't let me hold you up.
>>>
>>> Ok I will not dumb it down for you,
>>
>> You see? You can't. It was impossible.
>>
>>> give me a call when you pass the
>>> third grade then I will explain it to you again.
>>
>> Now, that's a very sneaky way for you to imply that you have reached
>> those dizzying acadenic heights. All the evidence is to the
>> contrary.
>
> I have never claimed to have reached any academic heights.
Thereby limiting prevarication.
> Well I
> will dumb it down for you.
Who helped you?
> At the height of Stalins show trials
When was that?
> whenever there was someone he didn't like or thought was a threat the
> secret police arrested tht person on false charges and then through
> various means got a confession to those false charges before going to
> court.
Went to court did they? After being charged, eh?
> The claim was that the police "there are many cases when police simply
> harass people by charging them with unprovable offences or
> non-existent offences either through ignorance or from a desire to be
> unpleasant" is similar but not as extreme as what happened in Stalins
> time.
Who is the current-day Stalin who you see around?
Inspector Blake aka Blakey
yes read up on the show trials he held.
>
>> The claim was that the police "there are many cases when police simply
>> harass people by charging them with unprovable offences or
>> non-existent offences either through ignorance or from a desire to be
>> unpleasant" is similar but not as extreme as what happened in Stalins
>> time.
>
> Who is the current-day Stalin who you see around?
I never made that claim, I'm not the one who said police frame people etc
etc
Sylvia Else
I seriously doubt it. After all, such a kicking would be useful evidence
in the subsquent civil action on the part of the accused.
>
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Back to the original topic it
>>>>> seems you have areadly found them not guilty after reading about it on
>>>>> the
>>>>> net. As for their guilt myself, I don't know the facts so am happy for
>>>>> the
>>>>> courts to decide if the people charged wish to take it to court which
>>>>> is
>>>>> theirs and everyones right.
>>>>
>>>> If the OP really is the person who was on the train, and is correctly
>>>> stating the relevant facts, then the police arrested the accused and
>>>> issued the expiation notice without having the facts to support either
>>>> action. Given the cases discussed above, such an approach is not
>>>> particularly surprising.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If that is the case which could well be because I wasn't there then the
>>> person has the right to contest it in court. I can't see what the problem
>>> is
>>> and I can't see how you can pass judgement after reading a few web pages.
>>
>> The accused shouldn't have to contest a matter in court, nor even express
>> their desire to, where the prosecution cannot possibly succeed because the
>> facts alleged by the prosecution do not amount to an offence.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> again you have found them not guilty after reading a few web pages, if you
> feel so strongly then represent the person in court.
I can't. Firstly, there's no indication that the accused intends to
defend the matter. Secondly, I'n not qualified to practice law in SA (or
anywhere else, but specifically not in SA).
Sylvia.
Epsilon
Where? It's your claim. You cite the supporting material.
>>> The claim was that the police "there are many cases when police
>>> simply harass people by charging them with unprovable offences or
>>> non-existent offences either through ignorance or from a desire to
>>> be unpleasant" is similar but not as extreme as what happened in
>>> Stalins time.
>>
>> Who is the current-day Stalin who you see around?
>
> I never made that claim, I'm not the one who said police frame people
> etc etc
So throwing Stalin's name in was just a bit of old-fashioned propaganda, you
mean?
Epsilon
Of you act pro bono, you can probably act for an accused in any
jurisdiction. The usual key limiter is acting for reward. (Nothing so
ridiculous as protecting the public, of course. Just protecting the earning
capacity of those in the trade union.)
a_a_a
> I never made that claim, I'm not the one who said police frame people etc
> etc
do you seriously deny that police frame people?
Sylvia Else
As far as I can see, there's no right for a person even to have a
McKenzie friend, much less to have some non-qualified person act as
their advocate, particular in a situation where there is no other real
link between the two.
Sylvia.
Epsilon
>> jurisdiction. The usual key limiter is acting for reward. (Nothing so
>> ridiculous as protecting the public, of course. Just protecting the
>> earning capacity of those in the trade union.)
>
> As far as I can see, there's no right for a person even to have a
> McKenzie friend, much less to have some non-qualified person act as
> their advocate, particular in a situation where there is no other real
> link between the two.
It's not spelt out anywhere. But an accused is legally free to have almost
anyone represent them in a legal matter that they choose. But that
representative must not, if acting in a legal capacity, be rewarded for
their efforts. Unless they are duly registered/licensed.
Diesel
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote in message
> On 3/03/2011 9:08 PM, Diesel wrote:
>> "ALX"<abolition_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:a92e0bc9-39d2-4091...@t19g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>>> Hi there,
>>> So i sit here with an $810 dollar expiation fee for attempting to have
>>> a nice free overland experience with star views along with my mate a
>>> few weeks ago.
>>>
>>> I thought I would add to this conversation because obviously Im
>>> curious about the implications of the act that my friend and I were
>>> charged under, because at the time it seemed very much like the police
>>> had no idea what law we had actually broken. They sat huddled around
>>> computer screens for a few hours while they read different statutes
>>> aloud and laughed in good humour about how they actually couldnt find
>>> what we had done wrong.
>>>
>>> No matter the social standing my friend and I grew up with or maintain
>>> i have found most of the criticism steeped in class predjuice and
>>> assumptions about who we are and how we live - it is actually quite an
>>> interesting reflection on Australian society and how people think
>>> about people that are different or choose to live differently. And the
>>> idea that we are just unthinking "idiots" that hence deserve to die
>>> for stupid mistakes.
>>>
>>> I have ridden freight trains all over the world and as I am also a
>>> rail enthusiast i in fact love doing it. I have never been injured, it
>>> is safe if you choose to be safe within it. The fact is that these
>>> days we are just wrapped in cotton wool and our whole society seems to
>>> chorus along with the idea that putting yourself in "danger" is a
>>> crime against the society we live in.
>>>
>>> Besides all of this I will obviously pay the fine. I do not want
>>> further charges nor do I have such a lack of responsibility for my
>>> actions.
>>>
>>> My question is though especially to the law talkers: do you think that
>>> there is a chance this could be challenged as an unlawful fine? I dont
>>> have the time to attempt such a thing but in reading the law it isn't
>>> exactly specific and there of course is NO signage anywhere on the
>>> flatbeds, containers or the yard where we got on. What do you think?
>>>
>>> With respect to all,
>>> a train rider.
>>
>> What state we you in when charged and what was the charge?
>>
>> As for there being no signage on the wagons or containers. That shouldn't
>> matter. Common sense should tell people that it's not their property. So
>> therefore, they have no right to climb or ride on it.
>
> Not having a right to ride on it is one thing. Committing an offence by
> riding on it is another. It's only an offence if there's legislation
> making it one. At the moment, there seems some doubt as to whether there
> is.
>
> Sylvia.
Rail Safety (Offences) Regulation 2008
Current version for 31 July 2009
Part 3 , Division 1, Clause 29 and Clause 41
29 Travel not allowed on certain parts of train
(1) A person must not, without reasonable excuse, travel on any part of a
train not intended for the conveyance of passengers.
41 No trespassing
(1) A person must not, without reasonable excuse, go onto or into,
or remain on or in:
(a) the restricted area of a station, or
(b) any running lines or associated part of any rail infrastructure, or
(c) any workshops forming part of rail infrastructure, or
(d) any offices or administrative areas of a railway, or
(e) any other railway premises or any part of monorail works.
a_a_a
Terrific. But this incident was not in NSW.
Diesel
> On 9/03/2011 22:14, Diesel wrote:
>
>>
>> http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/viewtop/inforce/subordleg+611+2008+cd+0+N/?dq=Regulations%20under%20Rail%20Safety%20Act%202008%20No%2097
>
> Terrific. But this incident was not in NSW.
Unfortunately, the OP never answered my question regarding the location of
this incident.
Sylvia Else
We know however, that it was in South Australia.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/15/3139008.htm
Sylvia.
Inspector Blake aka Blakey
> On 9/03/2011 15:09, Inspector Blake aka Blakey wrote:
>
>> I never made that claim, I'm not the one who said police frame people etc
>> etc
>
>
>
>
our system and the percentage of people framed by the police will be very
very small.
Inspector Blake aka Blakey
type it into google, it's not hard
>
>>>> The claim was that the police "there are many cases when police
>>>> simply harass people by charging them with unprovable offences or
>>>> non-existent offences either through ignorance or from a desire to
>>>> be unpleasant" is similar but not as extreme as what happened in
>>>> Stalins time.
>>>
>>> Who is the current-day Stalin who you see around?
>>
>> I never made that claim, I'm not the one who said police frame people
>> etc etc
>
> So throwing Stalin's name in was just a bit of old-fashioned propaganda,
> you mean?
I think you need a dictionary for the meaning of propaganda
a_a_a
>> do you seriously deny that police frame people?
> It happened in the past with cops who were on the take but I have faith in
> our system and the percentage of people framed by the police will be very
> very small.
Did you arrive on earth in the last raindrop?
Inspector Blake aka Blakey
Still yet to see proof of your wild conspiracy theory of widespread police
frame ups. As stated previously sometimes the police are not able to prove
the charges they lay and the person is found innocent whih is why we have
courts, you probably believe the moon landing and 9/11 were fakes too.
a_a_a
> Still yet to see proof of your wild conspiracy theory of widespread police
> frame ups.
then study the media, and if that doesn't convince you, go to almost any
magistrate's court and watch the proceedings where people are charged
with offences which (even if they are not themselves totally fake) are
only the result of the person responding to police harassment. Ever
heard of the trifecta?
e.g.
4.5 Indigenous people are twice as likely as non-Indigenous people to be
arrested in circumstances where assault occasioning no harm is the most
serious offence. They are three times more likely to be imprisoned for
such an offence. This indicates that provocative policing is continuing
through the use of the trifecta (offensive language, resist arrest and
assault occasioning no harm).
FROM -
http://www.hreoc.gov.au/social_justice/publications/deaths_custody/report_summary.html
note - that is a government website.
? As stated previously sometimes the police are not able to prove
> the charges they lay and the person is found innocent
only if the person bravely defends the charges, is very efficient at
communication or can afford a lawyer, and gets a magistrate who does not
automatically support the police.
> you probably believe the moon landing and 9/11 were fakes too.
certainly there remain questions about 9/11. But you probably believe
the earth is flat.
Inspector Blake aka Blakey
> On 10/03/2011 13:23, Inspector Blake aka Blakey wrote:
>
>> Still yet to see proof of your wild conspiracy theory of widespread
>> police
>> frame ups.
>
> then study the media, and if that doesn't convince you, go to almost any
> magistrate's court and watch the proceedings where people are charged with
> offences which (even if they are not themselves totally fake) are only the
> result of the person responding to police harassment. Ever heard of the
> trifecta?
>
Yes I've heard of the trifecta, so you have studied the details of these
cases? You are making judgements without knowing what happened.
> e.g.
> 4.5 Indigenous people are twice as likely as non-Indigenous people to be
> arrested in circumstances where assault occasioning no harm is the most
> serious offence. They are three times more likely to be imprisoned for
> such an offence. This indicates that provocative policing is continuing
> through the use of the trifecta (offensive language, resist arrest and
> assault occasioning no harm).
>
There are many issues facing the Indigenous community and maybe you should
look deeper into it.
> FROM -
> http://www.hreoc.gov.au/social_justice/publications/deaths_custody/report_summary.html
> note - that is a government website.
>
> ? As stated previously sometimes the police are not able to prove
>> the charges they lay and the person is found innocent
>
> only if the person bravely defends the charges, is very efficient at
> communication or can afford a lawyer, and gets a magistrate who does not
> automatically support the police.
>
Any legal aid lawyer could win a case when the evidence is manufactered by
the police
>> you probably believe the moon landing and 9/11 were fakes too.
>
> certainly there remain questions about 9/11.
really? do share
But you probably believe
> the earth is flat.
>
no I know it is round but nice try.
>
>
>
>
Sylvia Else
If the fabrication is done incompetently that might be true. But
evidence can be fabricated such that it is consistent and not credibly
contradicted. In that situation, there's no reason to think that any
lawyer, legal aid or otherwise, can win.
A quick scan of the first volume of the report into the Wood Royal
Commission yields one example where someone was convicted in such a way,
as well as other cases where police lied under oath and fabricated evidence.
One would like to think that in the post Wood era, this has been stamped
out, not just in NSW, but in other states, but actually thinking that
would be naive. At best, the frequency has been reduced.
Sylvia
Inspector Blake aka Blakey
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote in message
I have never claimed it doesn't happen and I'm sure it does but not very
often. a_a_a makes out like it is an everyday occurence. By holding the Wood
Royal Commission also proves my point that those in the police force also
have oversight and bodies that will investagate alegations against them.
a_a_a
> I have never claimed it doesn't happen and I'm sure it does but not very
> often. a_a_a makes out like it is an everyday occurence.
Exactly.
And if you refuse to recognise that simple reality and choose to keep
your head firmly in the clouds, we have totally exhausted any useful
discussion. Good night.
Inspector Blake aka Blakey
I have never said it doesn't has hasn't happened. You are the one making
claims of widespread police framing people.
Inspector Blake aka Blakey
Still waiting for you to expand on your claims that there still are some
questions about 9/11?????
Peter
>> the earth is flat.
>>
> no I know it is round but nice try.
>
Wrong.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=earth-is-not-round
--
:-P
a_a_a
> Still waiting for you to expand on your claims that there still are some
> questions about 9/11?????
Well, keep waiting. That has no relevance to either of the newsgroups
that this thread belongs to. You raised the topic of 9/11, not me. Use
google if you are so interested.
Inspector Blake aka Blakey
you can't back any of you claims up and anything you say can't be taken
seriously.
Inspector Blake aka Blakey
"Peter" <som...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:87908506321661415.9911...@us.Usenet-News.net...
well yes but it is much closer to round than flat.
Sylvia Else
I'd say it is round. It's just not spherical.
Sylvia.
Peter
A tyre is still round when flat!
--
:-P
Sylvia Else
Not at the bottom it isn't.
Sylvia.