“You just cant legislate for every eventuality”

Of course we can’t, US. I’m not suggesting we can. But we certainly can do a whole lot better in terms of tightening the law and its enforcement.

As for giveway signs, they should universally replace stop signs. You don’t need different versions in different situations. The one standard sign serves the universal purpose. Really it does! The purpose of a stop sign is to alert a driver to the need to give way. There should be no requirement to stop!

You seem to think that I’m advocating a much more complicated system of law enforcement. Well, quite to the contrary. If we all understood the law and had confidence that it applied at face value, and if the policing regime was up to the task of engendering that confidence, the whole business would be a lot simpler to live with.

The second half of your post is repeated from another. So I’ll answer it there http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7544#118559

Yep Banjo, the solution to Queensland's nude beach legal hypocrisy really is simple.

“It is hypocritical for Government to ignor breaches of the present laws and it leaves the system open for abuse if only some people are charged and others not.”

Absolutely!

Ludwig, Banjo,

You've convinced me. I suppose I am just arguing for Banjo's option 2. Then Police use existing obscenity laws for any bad behaviour.

'but not to have laws they are not prepared to uphold.'
Yep. Like watering your back garden with water restrictions in place. It relies on a neighbour dobbing you in, and you allowing the police (Who assumedly have nothing better to do) into your house without a warrant. Not very likely.

But I suppose, like my example about the marijuana, it creates a community taboo, and DOES modify behaviour. With marijuana, the illegality aids resistance of peer pressure, even though it's not really that harmful or serious. With water restriction, it's about social condemnation.

Ludwig,

'If a particular illegal activity can be undertaken with no victim or adverse consequences, then it shouldn’t be illegal under those circumstances'

This is what I'm talking about in the other thread. No activity can have NO possible victim or NO possible consequence, but all our laws have this zero attitude to risk. The 80yo grandmother in the mosh pit. The Outlawing of Christmas pagent at schools for the one jewish child like in South Park:-)

See I bet if they wanted to legalise a nude beach, there would be 1 person who would say their rights had been violated even if 99% of people either couldn't care or wanted to go nude. That's the reason for your loose laws.

But notice, the community has taken the law into their own hands, and democratically the majority of nudists have made a beach their own, ignoring the protestations of the troublemaking wowser. Most wowsers have found another beach, and most nudists have left other beaches. The community has sorted itself out.

So do you give the few remaining wowsers a stage to waste time and money and generate conflict, or use the law to spoil this equalibrium?. Or do you get the police to use their common sense and pretend to do something every now and then, arrest the odd person shagging in the bushes, to keep the odd wowser happy?

Perhaps US, if the police could be relied on to always use their discretionary powers wisely, and for the community to be confident that they did this, then ‘loose’ laws might be much more acceptable to me.

But blatantly hypocritical laws such as nude beaches existing all over the place and being condoned by the police and everyone else, while being totally illegal, will never find acceptance in my headspace.

Notice in my following post that even a magistrate has a solid dig at the poor use of police discretion.

You little beauty. At last some common sense in this debate is prevailing amongst our illustrious leaders!

http://www.news.com.au/travel/story/0,26058,23658617-5014090,00.html

Sunshine Coast Mayor Bob Abbot said he would not oppose a clothing-optional beach north of Brisbane, which would be the state’s first legal nudist beach.

Both Premier Anna Bligh and Police Minister Judy Spence said that they would not stand in the way.

The amendment of State legislation would be needed. But that now appears not to be a problem.

The police got a bucketing for exercising victimisation and double standards from a magistrate Barry Barrett, when they charged a nudist. The man although guilty of the offence, had the charges dismissed, presumably as a result of the grossly unfair policing regime.

So it looks like the current hopeless state of accepted but illegal nude beaches and an absurd policing regime associated with it is finally set to improve in Queensland. And about time!

Ludwig,
This'll be good for tourism too. Nudists do more than just skinny dip. Eventually even nudists need to put on clothes. They will stay at local hotels or caravan parks. They will eat food in restaurants and cafes. They will spend money in shops and put petrol in their cars. They will visit other local tourist attractions. Some of them (Gibo take note) will even attend local churches on Sunday, (And contribute to the collection).