Pelican & Gibo,

"Oliver don't aske the 'good' police officers to resign, we need them to stay more than ever and in large numbers to offset the more corrupt elements in the force." - P.

Agree. But in NSW problems go back to the Rum Corpes. The Royal Commission gave bad cops an opt-out, but that didn't work. Bringing people-in, who are outside the "brotherhood", a possibility?

Steel, is this the most glaring demonstration that we live in a Police State that you can think of? The simple fact is that Police generate scare campaigns which, with the support of the media, bring them greater powers from ever-willing Governments, who know the value of a law and order ticket.

What I find disturbing is the fact that it is being reported that simply wearing a t-shirt with a slogan on it is capable of attracting a $5,500 fine. Surely, depending upon the slogan of course, such an act would be 'political communication' and thus protected? Of course, those who make some attempt to assert their rights will be arrested by Police, who honestly believed these laws to be valid, and such people will be without legal recourse. THIS is the stifling of the free speech which is implied in our system of Government and it is likely to be completely succesful. What a con-job, the NSW Police Service employs lawyers, who would be well aware that such powers are not able to be used, yet they will play dumb, gee what a suprise.

PS for those who lament the erosion of police powers, please tell me when in history police have had more powers than they do today? I would love to see the specific powers that police are supposed to have enjoyed which they do not enjoy now (well, apart from free bl%wjobs, etc from pros).

So StG, I take it that you think that it is perfectly ok to have extremely vaguely defined legal parameters, with the problems associated with them that I outlined in my last post?

Don’t you think that the important aspects of ‘annoyance’ could be pretty easily defined….and damn well should be?

Regardless of the intentions and motivations behind the event, my complaint is the way these laws were unilaterally introduced - without debate, clarification or appeal.

It's as if the Government doesn't trust it's own citizens to behave properly. Will they have water cannons on standby too?

While there may have been some who felt the need to make some sort of protest originally - for whatever reason - now a whole extra group may have been provoked into action.

Every militant libertarian now has a reason to go out and make a public spectacle to be broadcast on the world stage because the issue has now moved from being about an inconvenient sectarian sideshow to a "struggle for the right to free speech in a democratic society".

While not on the same scale as the Danish Muslim cartoon fiasco, it's still a debate about similar issues.

Col

"I personally have no desire to challenge the RC right to hold a rally and for people to freely enjoy the community of spirit with their fellow Rc’s"

You have no desire to challenge the fact that this event is costing taxpayers $86 000 000?

And you don't mind that if tax payers object and decide to go along and protest at this blatant misuse of public money, they're likely to find themselves on the wrong side of the police action they themselves are funding?

Well, I'm certainly a little less comfortable than you are to hear I'm helping fund a mass promotion for the Catholic church.

It is amazing how many posters have ignored the fact these extra laws did not exist for the Olympics or the recent heads of state meetings.
Why?
Can it be the Catholic church is above criticism?
What has the NSW government done?
Under this law it would be illegal to hold up a sign reminding the church of child sexual abuse in its ranks.