I can’t believe the number of people commenting here saying …

Comment on Mall skater’s $576 fine: is it fair? by Ray.

I can’t believe the number of people commenting here saying he was fined for skating in the Mall. He was not fined for skating, he was fined for failing to produce ID when told to. Hal, that is worth 4 penalty units.
Let’s turn the offender into a victim once again!
Look up the bylaws. Section 74 states that you must produce ID when asked.
So to set the scene, two uniformed, adult rangers approach this kid to inform him he can’t skate in the Mall. They ask for his ID, as they are entitled to do. Instead of respecting authority and doing what he was told, he begins to argue, and refuses.
Therefore he commits an offence and is fined for it. The ranger simply has to display his badge, which the article says was displayed on his belt. Where does it say the ranger has to produce it for inspection? So to say Marco had to “drop to his knees” to inspect the badge sounds like a bit of “mischief making” from the AS News.
I would imagine if young Marco would have shown a bit of respect to the Rangers, and complied with their direction to produce ID, the rangers would have probably explained to him that skating was illegal in the Mall. As it was they used their discretion and did not even charge him for that offence.
576 reasons to obey a lawful direction without arguing.

Ray Also Commented

Mall skater’s $576 fine: is it fair?
Alice, it is an offence to skate in the mall. Check facts first please.


Mall skater’s $576 fine: is it fair?
Peter, you said I made a lot of assumptions, but only point out one. I make no assumptions about his behaviour, it is in the report “he asked the rangers to show him their id first”. Yes, the by-law is very clear where it states they have the power to request ID be shown.
Maybe this is a common law right, but the bylaw is very clear that the rangers have the right and authority to ask for ID.
The article states that “this went on, backwards and forwards, for some time”. So without making assumptions, and based on the article, the rangers identified themselves, and even after doing so, Marco continued to argue “for some time”, refusing to show ID.
His refusal now has the Police involved. What a waste of resources!
Who said anything about corruption, or absolute power? The rangers are doing their job, within the extent of their powers.
Well done to the Rangers for having the guts to actually do their job, and well said Steve Brown!


Recent Comments by Ray

Alice councillors join new political party
Ha ha, love the moniker Local 3, maybe I started something, but have not seen any posts from local 2 yet. Maybe over time we will grow, and can have a locals get together. Position vacant: Local 4.


Make September 8 Australia Day, anthem in Pitjantjatjara
Shannon Spaulding: It is quite ironic that you chastise Mr Egan over his choice of words.
He has done far more for the Indigenous people in the NT (both fair skinned and full blood) than you could ever dream of, yet you chastise him on the words he uses.
It is ironic that you attribute the white Australia policy to relating to Aboriginal people whereas it actually was an immigration policy.
You quote things about the so called stolen generation that really prove you have no real understanding about that subject either, apart from the populist ideas of that myth.
I might identify as a Syrian Attack Helicopter, but does that mean I am one? How is it fair that an urban couple living in a million dollar house, a white male living with a mostly white woman whose great grandmother was Aboriginal, gets the same benefit, drawing from the same funding as a child living at Mutitjulu? Of corse not.
Be proud of your cultural identity, but acknowlege all sides. Whilst I do not agree with Ted’s proposal, I would never contemplate trying to educate him on Aboriginal affairs.
That would be like arguing with Stephen Hawking about what sort of cheese the moon is made from.


The stolen child who went to university
True Peter, sadly what happened when many of these children were taken away was traumatic, however the biggest mistake was the acceptance of the misnomer, stolen.
True, the term stolen usually means taken without permission, but unfortunately this term fails to address the reason they were taken.
In almost all cases it was due to either neglect or an inability to provide a safe environment, and in context, based on what European standards at the time deemed a safe environment.
There have been many prominent Aboriginal people who have gone on record claiming they were stolen, but this often led to heartbreak when the real circumstances are discovered, that their parents were unable to provide for them, for various reasons.
It’s easier to say the government stole you rather than say your parents were unable to provide for you. There has only ever been one truly stolen person in any court case in Australia.
Bruce Trevorow, who was adopter out when his parents left him in hospital and were uncountable for over 12 months.
The term stolen generation is now morphing into the more emotive term genocide.
In the meantime the children continue to suffer.


Australia Day: Alice’s role in it
@ Evelyn. The Australia Day celebrations that we celebrate today first began in 1818, when it was called Fist Landing Day, or Foundation day. The recommendation from Matthew Flinders that the country be called Australia was only accepted a year before that.
During the Centenary in 1888, leaders from around Australia and new Zeland gathered in Sydney to celebrate what was then changed to Anniversary Day. The Federal Australia Day Council began in 1946 until replaced by the National Australia Day Council in 1984.
So while July 9, 1900 is an important milestone in our history, it does not reflect the day of our beginnings, or in effect our birthday. Whilst Aboriginal history goes back thousands of years before European settlement, Australia’s history really began when first claimed by Philip on the shores of Port Jackson, on January 26, 1788.
The many events that occurred subsequently, whilst important, do not tell the story from the beginning.


Fiscal emergency: Get rid of Ministers, says Opposition
@ Pseudo Guru. Politicians are not public servants. Public servants are defined as “employed under the Public sector Employment and Management Act”.
Politicians are not employed under this Act, as they are elected.
They have similar guiding principles, however it is important to understand that they are NOT public servants.
In many Acts, the buck stops with the CEO of the agency, a “Minister of the Crown” cannot be prosecuted or charged for a failure or breach of an agency under their portfolio.
They are not elected to “serve the people”, rather to represent the people. Small words, but big difference.


Be Sociable, Share!