The Victorian definition seems to be the most fair.
The Law Man eating lunch near children = Pedo?
- Thread starter morell
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Makes sense to me
Do yourself a favour. If you are found driving or in control of a motor vehicle and the copper asked you to produce your licence, dont refuse, even if you are sitting in the drivers seat of your car having lunch and the copper asks you to get out.
- Banned
- #253
Won't happen. Don't drive. And at least a small part of the reason is because I don't like the police being able to harass me at a whim.
Exactly, if you drive the cops have a right to ask you for identification without cause, but if you're walking down the street, they don't have the same right, a good reason to stop driving, plus it's cheaper.
- Banned
- #255
And it enables me to moralise other people about reducing their carbon footprint
footyfreak
Brownlow Medallist
Yes
BUT
Simply cooperating!!!!,
eg Explaining that you seek "solitude" at lunch time and by form of habit tend to unthinkingly go to the same place..and that it really had nothing to do with children but rather the "trees"or the "ambience" the "vibe".. then willingly handing over ID, and investigation vai questions about why they were concerned!
Would likely have removed suspicion, and negated the cops need to "pin you" as a potential weirdo via charge so that you can be later more clearly identified.
You had better hope your bald tyres don't become a ticket to gaol...if something unfortunate happens to a kid at that school at lunchtime!
THE BEUMONT children!...... ought not the cops.. have noticed a stranger lurking.????
COPS DID THIER JOB ..Good on them
Better safe than sorry!
Brush upon your communication skills and realise their job is to help!.. not deal with idealogical nerds!
Holy s**t!!!! Pot Kettle Black!
Your post are practically unreadable. WTF is wrong with you?
This is a very interesting thread. It's good to see a majority of people realise how important it is our rights are maintained and understand the ramifications of the "just give them your ID if you have nothing to hide" brigade.
I generally enjoy your posts, but I must be stupid because after following this thread throughout, I still don't get it. What ramifications?
footyfreak
Brownlow Medallist
It is the beginning of a slippery slope. It's a social mentality. If people do not stick up for their rights, if people have the attitude "just do what they say, it's easier not to cause trouble" ever so slowly our rights are whittled away.
I know this seems like a very minor issue and people would ask how this could ever lead to more of a "big brother" society but i truly believe that this is the exact place where these things start.
We are already seeing it in society so anything, no matter how minor, to stop this slide in my opinion is a good thing and an important thing.
footyfreak
Brownlow Medallist
Have you?
he made it very clear that he was a good distance from the school, that he couldn't even see the school children from there and that if he did want to "view" them then there was far better places 80 meters up the road.
Morell must share that mindset. Probably justified to an extent among migrants from countries where police corruption is rampant. I haven't personally experienced that to be the case in Australia, and would trust a member of the police force far more readily than a citizen selected at random.
Holy s**t!!!! Pot Kettle Black!
Your post are practically unreadable. WTF is wrong with you?
This is a very interesting thread. It's good to see a majority of people realise how important it is our rights are maintained and understand the ramifications of the "just give them your ID if you have nothing to hide" brigade.
I will reply, as this is about the third time this thread some "smart" arse has made snide comment.
Look up the term..... "parody".....in a dictionary.
I dooz itz oftens on da BF interwebbys coz thats how mosterest posts isser like!
Yes it was emotional ranting. Similiar to the, quote, "exact transcript" of the inflamatory behaviour at the incident , that the OP posted!
I am done with my comments here.
But F_F , just wait until someone close to you needs strong police protection, or to make enquiry involving identifying a culprit, and then tell me you will want them to accept the...... "none of your business copper!" line!
- Banned
- #263
Has anyone actually figured out what the above poster has been trying to say in this thread?
footyfreak
Brownlow Medallist
So would I if i had to trust someone with no other knowledge of them and no opportunity to speak with them. But that is only by default that if needed you'd hope they would do the right thing. Give me 20 mins with each person and i think in some cases you'd trust the "civilian" over the police.
It is a bit like priests. Apart from all the kiddy fiddling stuff in the last 10 years, Priests are held in very high regard and by default people think they can trust them and that they are on a higher peg if you like than the average Joe.
Why? All they do is go to school (priesthood), study something and then enter that profession. Just because it is all about religion and god to me doesn't really make that much difference. Sure the chances of them being a bad person are lower but I wouldn't be much more likely to trust them than anyone else I didn't know.
Police are even worse as they are given far less training and have a perception that they are it and a bit. Young cops are almost always tossers, old cops are usually grumpy old pricks, the ones between 30-45 seem the best to me. They've gotten over their ego trip but haven't been around so long that they are sick of it all (i realise this is a very broad generalisation)
I had a mate who became a cop. This guy was a nutter. He applied to the army, made it through everything but the psych which no doubt told them he was a trigger happy nutter who wanted to blow s**t up and shoot guns. Police force accepted him straight in. Dodgy didn't even begin to describe his actions in the police force. His personality and arrogance mixed with the police academies training created a cop you did not want to cause trouble with and would not have trusted.
Glad to know I am not the only one struggling with his incoherent ramblings.
And he has the hide to advise another poster to pick up a dictionary ??
Your guess is as good as mine. I suspect Corpuscles thinks that incoherent stream-of-consciousness bullshit is less likely to be challenged than normal old bullshit.
- Banned
- #267
So what exactly is so bad about sleeping with children, anyway? :/
The Royal Commission into Police Corruption in the 90's highlighted the consequences of giving police the powers they are afforded with no obligation for transparency, and a culture which saw mates covering for mates. Much like the 'counselling' sessions which skipper kelly eluded to which i'm sure are commonplace
I don't even think the random police > random citizen trustworthy test holds for a lot of the community. 99% of the community aren't crooked, and its probably a bit less than that for people in positions of authority and power.
Your average citizen does not have the right to stop somebody going about their business and aprehend them. They do not have the right to bear arms, tasers, arrest people etc.....
Because of this, police who do have that right need to use it cautiously and with a degree of tact. They have rights and with any right comes responsibilities. Any number of Royal commissions in Australia have shown that the police are capable of abusing their power. It is the right of every citizen to exercise their rights and not be bullied by incompetent policemen.
The argument that goes "who are you going to call when you are in trouble?" is complete bollocks. Obviously we need to call the police and they should come and assist when necessary. That does not mean that the rest of our lives, that we tug our forelocks and get down on bended knee when they are acting innappropriately.
The police have a very tough job to do and many do it well. But defending the few that don't is not helping anybody.
Because of this, police who do have that right need to use it cautiously and with a degree of tact. They have rights and with any right comes responsibilities. Any number of Royal commissions in Australia have shown that the police are capable of abusing their power. It is the right of every citizen to exercise their rights and not be bullied by incompetent policemen.
The argument that goes "who are you going to call when you are in trouble?" is complete bollocks. Obviously we need to call the police and they should come and assist when necessary. That does not mean that the rest of our lives, that we tug our forelocks and get down on bended knee when they are acting innappropriately.
The police have a very tough job to do and many do it well. But defending the few that don't is not helping anybody.
Agreed.
I'll tolerate rudeness by police if it's an emergency situation and there's no time for niceties, but not if I'm sitting in my car quietly enjoying my lunch.
They can politely ask what I'm doing, by all means. But randomly asking me for ID, assuming I'm guilty, acting arrogant etc will get them the same response I give to telemarketers.
With the evidence before us in this 'case' what do you think should be said in this counselling session?
How about, "Treat people with respect because there's every chance they're not actually doing anthing wrong. And if you do need to ask someone for their identification, explain to them straight away why."
Thats it????
- Banned
- #275
^^ Well it's not hard. "Sir, we have (inset here) suspicion about your activity, would you mind showing us some identification and explain your suspicious behaviour?"
It's not hard to act like a polite reasonable human being and not some thug-for-hire with a badge. I'm sure most normal people would be horrified to know that the police thought they were stalking children and comply without hesitation. Better than needlessly antagonising somebody like they obviously did.
It's not hard to act like a polite reasonable human being and not some thug-for-hire with a badge. I'm sure most normal people would be horrified to know that the police thought they were stalking children and comply without hesitation. Better than needlessly antagonising somebody like they obviously did.
