Thanks Steel. Appreciated.

^^^^

“I'd love for some of our more vocal armchair critics to come and show us how to do it correctly ! Instead of 'sniping' at us from the sideline”

O sung wu, am I correct in interpreting this statement as coming from a police officer? The word ”us” seems conclusive in this regard.

I agree that the police have a hard job in finding the right balance. But if they and their political masters would just concentrate on making the respective laws, the responses and the penalties as clear-cut as possible, instead of apparently deliberately leaving them as vague entities, then it would help no-end.

As I said in an earlier post on this thread, the core issue here surely is the vagueness of the law (in this case, just what is meant by ‘annoyance’), and thus what is actually unlawful and actionable by the police and what is understood to be so by the general public.

Surely the essential elements are 1. tightly defined parameters that are clearly understood by the public and the police, and 2. a police presence that is up to the task of acting on unlawful activity evenly and fairly, and of being a real deterrent to it happening in the first place.

O sung wu I usually agree with your view, however, not this time...

“You see, if the coppers adopt a more relaxed and conciliatory posture towards the public,”

“a more relaxed and conciliatory posture” – toward the people they are there to serve, sounds at best “patronising” at worst, I dread to think.

“My own humble experience in these matters” . . . “'blundering' around” . . . “utter confusion”

Happy to defer to your better experience– however, you do not portray an organisation suited to or competent of deciding what will and what will not be “CENSORED”.

“As I said, it's not that easy. I'd love for some of our more vocal armchair critics to come and show us how to do it correctly ! Instead of 'sniping' at us from the sideline”

This armchair critical is happy to suggest

An organisation which you have described as being, basically, incompetent to administer public order should not appoint itself to decide on which matters may or maynot incite and invoke "papal annoyance".

I am reminded of the term “If you cannot pee, just get off the pot and make room for those who can”

Or possibly – to the police authority - do not deny others the right to do something simply because you cannot handle it yourself.

To the nature of “annoyance” I agree with everyone who has suggested bad laws are the product of ambiguous laws.

Any half decent defence solicitor or barrister could ride a carriage and four through the gaps in a definition of “annoyance”.

Finally, the police exist to serve the public, not to censor them and

"Separation of Powers" is one of the cornerstones of any democracy.

Paul, while I noted your response to Steel was in relation to whether a subarbanite (which I strongly suspect steel is) has ANY idea of police state tactics in this country or has even encountered actual abuse of power, I have lived in and around numerous Aboriginal communities and know for a fact that in those situations such tactics ARE used.

For instance, a police officer in the NT fired wildly into a crowd of people (including women and children). One person was killed, several injured - one seriously. This Officer was acquitted because the initial investigation took more than two months and thus under NT law, no criminal prosecution could be presented.

What about the watchhouse in the Pitjanjarra lands which is off-limits to all bar inmates because of the loose asbestos fibres which come through the rusted holes in the corrugated iron sheet walls (which incidentally cause temperatures to climb to over 50C inside during summer)?

What about the daily baiting of Aboriginal people in Northern Australia? They are harrassed until they swear or make what is viewed by police as an intimidatory or threatening response then they are arrested (normally with force) and fined or jailed. Even deaths in custody are rising again.

No. We do live in a Police State (Police are not subject to ordinary legal restrictions and are above the law), that is a fact. Unfortunately it is a fact which 90% of Australians are blisfully unaware of, but it is a fact nonetheless.

PS Under International Law it is quite possible (especially given the demise of Terra Nulius)that such communities are occupied territories which have not been ceded by a peace treaty between the occupier and the original inhabitants/owners. This is where the danger lies, because no first world, democratically elected government/system of government can survive the sort of conflict that this engenders (say for instance they take a leaf out of Hamas' book?)

Good evening to you LUDWIG...

You're quite correct, I did a bit over twenty eight years in the job before I was medically retired.

Your point/s are well made apropos the clear delineation of the law. In order that both police and the public know exactly what the legal boundries are...particularly in matters of Public Order.

Most gatherings of people, who are generally assembled for a common purpose, eg a demonstration, rally or some outdoor event et al, can sometimes prove to be a fairly difficult occurrence for police to manage.

Introduce some other elements to the equation, such as alcohol, drugs or even a very hot humid day, and this can rapidly change the whole dynamic of a crowd.

Quite often, you only need a boisterous, alcohol fueled, belligerent young man to turn a rowdy but peaceful gathering into a violent confrontation with police. The reason for this rapid regression of behaviour, can be as simple as nothing ! Just the presence of police can often precipitate a violent reaction from a crowd. In earlier days I can remember, just the 'majesty' of the uniform, could often quieten some people down. No longer the case I'm afraid !

Anyway, time I took these ol' bones to bed. Hope to talk with you again soon.

o sung wu: << As I said, it's not that easy. I'd love for some of our more vocal armchair critics to come and show us how to do it correctly ! Instead of 'sniping' at us from the sideline >>

I'm sure it's not easy. In fact, police should not be put in this invidious position, where they apparently will be the arbiters of what is "annoying" to Catholics while the rest of us are subjected to this taxpayer-funded religious circus.

This "armchair critic" has the perfect solution: have "World Youth Day" at Vatican City, and let them deal with it.

Problem solved. No need to change Australian laws to erode further our civil liberties. No need to disrupt our largest city for a religious festival. No need to extract millions of taxpayer dollars to cover the logistics for this Christian version of the Haj.

When were the taxpaying electorate consulted over this overtly religious extravaganza? At least with the Olympics the whole nation was in on it and we were constantly informed about the preparations.

And as Belly said, we didn't need these draconian laws even for that far more major occasion. What's going on here?

Our lost and unhappy leader Mr Iemma is Catholic, much to my amusement so too are a lot from my party the ALP.
However my concerns are not about the police doing their duty.
Not even about the church being given unfair access to Rand wick race course.
To think however new restrictive laws have been manufactured for this event is troubling.
While I wait for the implosion that will remove Mr Iemma from Parliament[ if I was Christian I would pray for it] I will continue to ask why my government needed to change laws that stop me saying what I think.