Does Closing Beaches Make Any Sense?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsored Post

Struggling to use your Frequent Flyer Points?

Frequent Flyer Concierge takes the hard work out of finding award availability and redeeming your frequent flyer or credit card points for flights.

Using their expert knowledge and specialised tools, the Frequent Flyer Concierge team at Frequent Flyer Concierge will help you book a great trip that maximises the value for your points.

What a load of absolute tosh.Walking is exercise.Sitting on your bum watching netflix at home is not exercise.The law is an cough.
But you are quoting the law as it pertains to the DPRV.Not the same in WA for example where people are allowed to walk on the beach for example.

There is absolutely nothing in the Victorian law stopping anyone walking on the beach, provided they maintain social distancing in line with the law. There's a good chance you are exercising if you are walking on the beach, which is a valid reason to be doing so.

I guess if you are walking along the beach to do a drug deal you might find yourself in hot water though. :p
 
I GIVE UP!!!! :eek: :p 😁 😮
But I still want to thank you profusely for linking to the Government rules.

On reading them I noticed that what Premier Andrews said about only being allowed to walk around the block for exercise is not in the rules at all. It says that one may leave one's house for exercise - it doesn't say anything about not driving somewhere for exercise.

Maybe a trip to Lakes Entrance for a brisk walk may be on the horizon.
Regards,
Renato

The issue is not walking per se, it is the intent.

Walking is fine if it is exercise.

Walking to meet my friend in a park to have a couple of beers is not allowed, because the intent of my trip is not essential.

And if I'm going to meet my mate and drag my dog along at the same time, that is also not ok.
So, we now have two interesting concepts.
1.….The notion that it cannot be entertained that a person can have more than one motivation for performing an action, and
2.....The notion of thought crime, for having the wrong intent in his or her motivation.

Clearly the proposed new spending bill in State Parliament should have provision for either hundreds of polygraphs or tens of thousands of doses of Sodium Pentothal - or both - to enable Police to make an accurate determination of what devious citizens undertaking lawful activities are really up to.

Although it would be less costly to just fine people for the actual crime of meeting at a park having beers, than to intercept hundreds of people walking towards or in the vicinity of a park, harangue and excoriate them about what their deep inner intent really is, and administer truth serum to be sure to get to the truth.
Regards,
Renato

Another failure in reading comprehension!

You have continually displayed an embarrassing level of selective reading. The answer to your latest deviation from reality above has been well explained previously. Either ask someone else to read it to you or punch out a few more No Doz and see if that helps. 😂
There was another case the other day where a man drove to Bunnings because his toilet had stuffed up, and the Police approached him in his car and demanded to know what he was doing in the Bunnings car park. The man felt totally intimidated.

In your world - not a problem.

In my world - arbitrary exercise of a power, and use of a power other than for which it was intended, which is an abuse of power. Same as the case with the guy walking the dog.

Well, you won't address the premise that you keep implicitly espousing, despite my repeatedly putting it to you.

Look - it is perfectly okay to be open and express the notion that you are happy to live with governments that tolerate their agents exercising some aspects of their power typical of that practiced in authoritarian regimes.
No reason to hide it or deny it.
Regards,
Renato

I guess if you are walking along the beach to do a drug deal you might find yourself in hot water though. :p
The fine for meeting on the beach will probably be greater than the fine for doing the drug deal.
As would be the fine for someone lying on a towel nearby.
Cheers,
Renato
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There was another case the other day where a man drove to Bunnings because his toilet had stuffed up, and the Police approached him in his car and demanded to know what he was doing in the Bunnings car park. The man felt totally intimidated.

In your world - not a problem.

In my world - arbitrary exercise of a power, and use of a power other than for which it was intended, which is an abuse of power. Same as the case with the guy walking the dog.

Well, you won't address the premise that you keep implicitly espousing, despite my repeatedly putting it to you.

Look - it is perfectly okay to be open and express the notion that you are happy to live with governments that tolerate their agents exercising some aspects of their power typical of that practiced in authoritarian regimes.
No reason to hide it or deny it.
Regards,
Renato


Your twisting and deflecting is not fooling anyone. You are not tricking anyone into thinking that you are making a cogent argument or that you are even capable of doing so. You are quite transparent.

Continually repeating that I won’t address the premise does not make it so. Everyone can see that I have addressed it quite clearly on multiple occasions. I’ve even suggested that your reading comprehension issues may be helped by asking someone more capable to explain it to you or failing that, to gorge on your favourite miracle drugs and see if that helps. 😂😂
 
Last edited:
But I still want to thank you profusely for linking to the Government rules.

On reading them I noticed that what Premier Andrews said about only being allowed to walk around the block for exercise is not in the rules at all. It says that one may leave one's house for exercise - it doesn't say anything about not driving somewhere for exercise.

Maybe a trip to Lakes Entrance for a brisk walk may be on the horizon.
Regards,
Renato

It's in there. You can only be out for one of four things. While exercise is on there, driving to exercise may not necessarily be. (There may be exceptions to that, it might be necessary to drive my 85 year old parents to the local park as the walk there crosses a busy highway.)

So, we now have two interesting concepts.
1.….The notion that it cannot be entertained that a person can have more than one motivation for performing an action, and
2.....The notion of thought crime, for having the wrong intent in his or her motivation.

Clearly the proposed new spending bill in State Parliament should have provision for either hundreds of polygraphs or tens of thousands of doses of Sodium Pentothal - or both - to enable Police to make an accurate determination of what devious citizens undertaking lawful activities are really up to.

Although it would be less costly to just fine people for the actual crime of meeting at a park having beers, than to intercept hundreds of people walking towards or in the vicinity of a park, harangue and excoriate them about what their deep inner intent really is, and administer truth serum to be sure to get to the truth.
Regards,
Renato

See the answer above.

And that's how the law works - often your intent is critical to determining whether you have committed an offence, or what enforcement action might be appropriate.

The law has been that way for hundreds of years, no need to buy polygraphs.


There was another case the other day where a man drove to Bunnings because his toilet had stuffed up, and the Police approached him in his car and demanded to know what he was doing in the Bunnings car park. The man felt totally intimidated.

In your world - not a problem.

In my world - arbitrary exercise of a power, and use of a power other than for which it was intended, which is an abuse of power. Same as the case with the guy walking the dog.

Well, you won't address the premise that you keep implicitly espousing, despite my repeatedly putting it to you.

Look - it is perfectly okay to be open and express the notion that you are happy to live with governments that tolerate their agents exercising some aspects of their power typical of that practiced in authoritarian regimes.
No reason to hide it or deny it.
Regards,
Renato

See answer to #1 and #2 above. You can only be out for necessary reasons. You could be in the Bunnings car park to buy a new toilet (necessary), or you could be there just because you felt like a change of scene (to get away from the family). The first is fine, the second is not.

It's been four weeks. And will probably last another eight weeks. Abuse of power? Dystopian 'Handmaids Tale-esque' state? Hardly. Parliament has not been suspended. The justice system is still open. The press is free - as we have seen with all sorts of 'experts' coming out to advocate fr whatever they want, however harmful that might be. Elections are happening.

If we hadn't gone into lockdown and thousands had died, like New York, Italy, UK... the same keyboard warriors would have been out for blood because if inaction. Just like they are on the Ruby Princess.
 
I suspect from previous posts, that Renato1 is smack dab in the risk/vulnerable category that Australia is trying to keep safe. Young people have lost their jobs. Or trying to work at home while trying to educate their kids. Which means that less vulnerable people are being forced to do the right thing to keep him safer. And in the main that's what they are doing.

So what is happening here? Someone is complaining about their personal liberty - of a beach for gods sake, while around him, others are wearing the most shocking of penalties. How about acknowledging that amazing and scary complete sacrifice of those younger people trying to keep you safe instead of whinging about not being able to be on the beach?

And we complain about self entitled young people but this takes the cake.

I have noticed that those who seem completely unable to accept what is good for society have been men who are smack bang in this group. They are the ones I've told to back off when they get too close to me. And they look like they have no fin idea of what I'm saying.

Sorry, I'm so angry for what my kids and grandkids and friends are going through now to put up with such rubbish anymore.
 
You have expressed unequivacol support for the notion that it is okay for Police Officers to approach a person doing a lawful activity, and to question him as to why he is doing that lawful activity, and then to fine him for not giving adequate reasons for doing that lawful activity..... because you suspect that they suspect he may have been up to no good.

That is correct is it not?
Where is my comprehension at fault?

Just admit you are happy with the practice of Police State tactics - it's nothing to be ashamed of. Plenty of people have an inner totalitarian nature within themselves.
Regards,
Renato

And yet again you have got it wrong. Do you ever get tired of it? And more twisting and deflecting because you are unable to express a coherent argument. My position is quite clear, I’m not sure why haven’t engaged the help of someone else to explain it to you yet.

It was determined that this person was not engaged in lawful behaviour. That’s why he got the fine. Just because he whinged to some media outlet and you gobbled up the only side of the story we heard does not mean he did nothing wrong. He is entitled to dispute the fine in court if he believes it was given incorrectly. That will not happen. I wonder why?

Police approach people all the time for all manner of things. That’s called normal police work. It happens every day. It is not “police state” behaviour no matter how many times you want to say it is.

I am quite happy for police to do their job in a normal way and to be suspicious of people when they display suspicious behaviour. You on the other hand appear to want anarchy. You appear to be happy for suspicious behaviour to be ignored regardless of what that might mean for society.

Just admit you would be happy for the virus to spread like wildfire with many more people being infected and dying. That no measures should be taken to manage the impacts to the health system. That everyone should have continued to go about their business as normal without concern for anyone other than themselves - it’s nothing to be ashamed of. Plenty of people are selfish pieces of garbage.

Look I can twist and deflect too. 😂😂😂
 
I love your strawman arguments.
" Plenty of people are selfish pieces of garbage."
He is a selfish piece of garbage for walking his dog, but the thousands of other people walking their dogs in the exact same manner are just fine and selfless.
Utter nonsense.
Regards,
Renato


Only really need to respond to this last part because it sums up in a nutshell exactly what your problem is - you simply lack the ability to read and comprehend properly.

I’ll leave it to someone else to explain to you why your last paragraph is so hilarious. 😂😂😂
 
If you're out and give 4 different reasons for walking your dog, you're probably on your way to your dealers house 😂 😂

Some may argue that that's essential however :p
 
While appreciative that the Governments are trying so hard to protect me, I never asked that hundreds of thousands of people be forced to suffer the trauma of being thrown on the dole cue, suffer from stress and mental health issues, have their businesses destroyed and lives stuffed up (if not ruined) - just to protect little old me who has already got enough provisions in the house for four months, an ample supply of N95 masks, and who loves shopping at IGA at 9.30pm or 10.30pm at night when there are about two other shoppers in the whole store.

And who is extremely concerned about government over reach, crystallised in their position on beaches, as one person in this article points out the silliness of.

Regards,
Renato
But that is exactly what had to happen in order to protect you. I guess their only other option was to lock you away for 6 months. Maybe not a bad idea.
 
And I asked the fundamental question of how come they even went and questioned him as to why he was undertaking a lawful activity.

You can be out of the house for the purpose of exercise. Walking is simply a form of exercise.

Just because you are walking does not mean you are out of the house for the purpose of exercise. Your purpose could be to do something else which is not allowed, for example going to the chemist to buy fragrance, or to an open field to star gaze.

So you are right, the police do need to stop you to ask your purpose.
 
Your twisting and deflecting is not fooling anyone. You are not tricking anyone into thinking that you are making a cogent argument or that you are even capable of doing so. You are quite transparent.

Continually repeating that I won’t address the premise does not make it so. Everyone can see that I have addressed it quite clearly on multiple occasions. I’ve even suggested that your reading comprehension issues may be helped by asking someone more capable to explain it to you or failing that, to gorge on your favourite miracle drugs and see if that helps. 😂😂
You have expressed unequivacol support for the notion that it is okay for Police Officers to approach a person doing a lawful activity, and to question him as to why he is doing that lawful activity, and then to fine him for not giving adequate reasons for doing that lawful activity..... because you suspect that they suspect he may have been up to no good.

That is correct is it not?
Where is my comprehension at fault?

Just admit you are happy with the practice of Police State tactics - it's nothing to be ashamed of. Plenty of people have an inner totalitarian nature within themselves.
Regards,
Renato

It's in there. You can only be out for one of four things. While exercise is on there, driving to exercise may not necessarily be. (There may be exceptions to that, it might be necessary to drive my 85 year old parents to the local park as the walk there crosses a busy highway.)



See the answer above.

And that's how the law works - often your intent is critical to determining whether you have committed an offence, or what enforcement action might be appropriate.

The law has been that way for hundreds of years, no need to buy polygraphs.




See answer to #1 and #2 above. You can only be out for necessary reasons. You could be in the Bunnings car park to buy a new toilet (necessary), or you could be there just because you felt like a change of scene (to get away from the family). The first is fine, the second is not.

It's been four weeks. And will probably last another eight weeks. Abuse of power? Dystopian 'Handmaids Tale-esque' state? Hardly. Parliament has not been suspended. The justice system is still open. The press is free - as we have seen with all sorts of 'experts' coming out to advocate fr whatever they want, however harmful that might be. Elections are happening.

If we hadn't gone into lockdown and thousands had died, like New York, Italy, UK... the same keyboard warriors would have been out for blood because if inaction. Just like they are on the Ruby Princess.
Your notions are
a. Dichotomous - black or white - a person apparently cannot be in a Bunnings car park both to buy goods and to enjoy being out of the house. A person apparently cannot be out both walking his dog to do exercise and to enjoy looking at pretty girls going down the street.
b. That there is nothing wrong with Police questioning the intent of people unambiguously undertaking a lawful activity.
c. And that Police can read a person's mind and judge the real intent after they heavy him or her.

This leads to.
Police - "Why are you in this pharmac_?"
Honest Person "To buy a fragrance and a spare packet of Panadol" .......$1600 fine.
Dishonest Person "To buy essential packet of Panadol, and picked a fragrance on way out".....Zero fine
Regards,
Renato

I suspect from previous posts, that Renato1 is smack dab in the risk/vulnerable category that Australia is trying to keep safe. Young people have lost their jobs. Or trying to work at home while trying to educate their kids. Which means that less vulnerable people are being forced to do the right thing to keep him safer. And in the main that's what they are doing.

So what is happening here? Someone is complaining about their personal liberty - of a beach for gods sake, while around him, others are wearing the most shocking of penalties. How about acknowledging that amazing and scary complete sacrifice of those younger people trying to keep you safe instead of whinging about not being able to be on the beach?

And we complain about self entitled young people but this takes the cake.

I have noticed that those who seem completely unable to accept what is good for society have been men who are smack bang in this group. They are the ones I've told to back off when they get too close to me. And they look like they have no fin idea of what I'm saying.

Sorry, I'm so angry for what my kids and grandkids and friends are going through now to put up with such rubbish anymore.
While appreciative that the Governments are trying so hard to protect me, I never asked that hundreds of thousands of people be forced to suffer the trauma of being thrown on the dole cue, suffer from stress and mental health issues, have their businesses destroyed and lives stuffed up (if not ruined) - just to protect little old me who has already got enough provisions in the house for four months, an ample supply of N95 masks, and who loves shopping at IGA at 9.30pm or 10.30pm at night when there are about two other shoppers in the whole store.

And who is extremely concerned about government over reach, crystallised in their position on beaches, as one person in this article points out the silliness of.

Regards,
Renato

And yet again you have got it wrong. Do you ever get tired of it? And more twisting and deflecting because you are unable to express a coherent argument. My position is quite clear, I’m not sure why haven’t engaged the help of someone else to explain it to you yet.

It was determined that this person was not engaged in lawful behaviour. That’s why he got the fine. Just because he whinged to some media outlet and you gobbled up the only side of the story we heard does not mean he did nothing wrong. He is entitled to dispute the fine in court if he believes it was given incorrectly. That will not happen. I wonder why?

Police approach people all the time for all manner of things. That’s called normal police work. It happens every day. It is not “police state” behaviour no matter how many times you want to say it is.

I am quite happy for police to do their job in a normal way and to be suspicious of people when they display suspicious behaviour. You on the other hand appear to want anarchy. You appear to be happy for suspicious behaviour to be ignored regardless of what that might mean for society.

Just admit you would be happy for the virus to spread like wildfire with many more people being infected and dying. That no measures should be taken to manage the impacts to the health system. That everyone should have continued to go about their business as normal without concern for anyone other than themselves - it’s nothing to be ashamed of. Plenty of people are selfish pieces of garbage.

Look I can twist and deflect too. 😂😂😂

What was the lawful behaviour that he was not engaged in?

The article gave both sides of the story.

The Police didn't say he was skipping instead of walking, or was casing a place for a robbery, or acting suspiciously - they just said he gave different reasons for why he was walking his dog.

And I asked the fundamental question of how come they even went and questioned him as to why he was undertaking a lawful activity.

He appears to have been fined for unlawful thinking.

I love your strawman arguments.
" Plenty of people are selfish pieces of garbage."
He is a selfish piece of garbage for walking his dog, but the thousands of other people walking their dogs in the exact same manner are just fine and selfless.
Utter nonsense.
Regards,
Renato

Only really need to respond to this last part because it sums up in a nutshell exactly what your problem is - you simply lack the ability to read and comprehend properly.

I’ll leave it to someone else to explain to you why your last paragraph is so hilarious. 😂😂😂
Well, someone else can try explain the unexplainable since you are clearly incapable of doing so, much less the answering the simple question of what was the unlawful activity the man with the dog was engaged in.

I notice that you didn't quote my question where you responded with the abbreviated quotation.
I'd be embarrassed to be be unable to answer that simple question too.
Regards,
Renato
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, someone else can try explain the unexplainable since you are clearly incapable of doing so, much less the answering the simple question of what was the unlawful activity the man with the dog was engaged in.

Answered! The 'unlawful' activity was that he wasn't out for a valid purpose. Walking in and of itself does not mean he was out for exercise.
 
I've been trying to remember what this situation reminded me of. Sadly, it took the death of Tim Brooke Taylor to shake the recollection loose. The Goodies episode: "Goodies Rule-OK?". It had the mirth inspectors who went around beating up anyone who was having fun.
I see distinct similarities. You can for a walk as long as you are serious and are exercising but woe betide you if you take the same walk with a spring in your step and smile on your face!
 
But that is exactly what had to happen in order to protect you. I guess their only other option was to lock you away for 6 months. Maybe not a bad idea.
They had plenty of options - <redacted>

They could have tried the Taiwan solution, the Singapore solution, the Netherlands solution or the Swedish solution (some worked better than others).
Regards,
Renato

You can be out of the house for the purpose of exercise. Walking is simply a form of exercise.

Just because you are walking does not mean you are out of the house for the purpose of exercise. Your purpose could be to do something else which is not allowed, for example going to the chemist to buy fragrance, or to an open field to star gaze.

So you are right, the police do need to stop you to ask your purpose.
Citizens can arrest someone committing a crime.
Police can arrest someone on suspicion of having committed a crime.

What crime did this person they singled out and fined commit - having the wrong intent while walking? Can't find that crime in Victoria, but in NSW who knows? I doubt it.

You advocate for Police to question everybody about their purpose.

So, Police cordon off all Coles, Woolworths, IGA, Foodworks stores and interrogate everyone coming out with trolleys loaded with food asking them why they are at that supermarket at that time. All those who answer because it was a nice time of the day to get out of the house - get a $1600 fine.

Fine with that? It is exactly what you are arguing for.
Regards,
Renato

Answered! The 'unlawful' activity was that he wasn't out for a valid purpose. Walking in and of itself does not mean he was out for exercise.
You didn't answer at all what I raised that was inexplicable by the respondent..
"I love your strawman arguments.
" Plenty of people are selfish pieces of garbage."
He is a selfish piece of garbage for walking his dog, but the thousands of other people walking their dogs in the exact same manner are just fine and selfless.
Utter nonsense.
"
Regards,
Renato
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What crime did this person they singled out and fined - having the wrong intent while walking? Can't find that crime in Victoria, but in NSW who knows? I doubt it.

Yes, you can.

It's in the state of emergency directions - see section 9:


A person can leave their premises to exercise. (Not simply to 'go for a wander as they feel like it'.)

Now, you may not *agree* with the law. But that's an entirely separate issue.
 
The Frequent Flyer Concierge team takes the hard work out of finding reward seat availability. Using their expert knowledge and specialised tools, they'll help you book a great trip that maximises the value for your points.

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

LOL at the Fisherman's latest post.

The Swedish Solution. Currently a death rate higher than even the USA. The Netherlands Solution even higher.

And as for Taiwan. Obviously excellent how they have managed Covide 19, but they have punishments for spreading disinformation about the virus. So someone in this thread would not have got on at all well in Taiwan!
 
Last edited:
They had plenty of options - <redacted >

They could have tried the Taiwan solution, the Singapore solution, the Netherlands solution or the Swedish solution.
Regards,
Renato
you/your posts are offensive to me, however I respect your right to have/post them. Seems this is your intention though. Im not sure why you choose to reside in Australia, assuming you are of an age to make that decision for yourself.
Does closing beaches make sense? (Yes the few that have been closed does make sense to me) irrelevant, it’s the law.
Should I have to drive at 80 km/h on back roads - irrelevant, its law, should I have to have a game license to hunt my own game on my own property, irrelevant- it’s the law.
should I waste time reading your posts, no, but I just cannot help myself :rolleyes: :p
 
Well, someone else can try explain the unexplainable since you are clearly incapable of doing so, much less the answering the simple question of what was the unlawful activity the man with the dog was engaged in.

I notice that you didn't quote my question where you responded with the abbreviated quotation.
I'd be embarrassed to be be unable to answer that simple question too.
Regards,
Renato

Another total failure in reading comprehension! And what a total mishmash of thoughts splattered all over your attempted post. Boy oh boy! Speaking of embarrassing...... 😂

Why would you think it was necessary to quote the part of your post which has already been answered so many times already by several people? I’d be embarrassed to have failed to read something so simple so many times too. 😂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top