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

‘Disgust’ at site choices for youth detention facilities
100% James, although I doubt the guards from the adult jail would want to assist following the disgusting way they were treated by the Royal Commission.


Soy sauce now only from a bottlo
I am glad this has all been resolved. It seems the new commissioner was just a bit over zealous.
My initial thoughts were first the BDR, then this, talk about Kikkoman when he’s down!


Cops at bottle shops: expensive bluff?
Good to see some stats from Vicki, the correlation cannot be just coincidence.
As far as profiling goes, excellent.
There already is profiling for jobs in the form of special measure, and as police have said to me personally, if I know the bloke trying to purchase a bottle of Jacks is going to and his wife to hospital, he will do it.
Nice to see coppers who are not afraid to apply common sense.
I bought a carton the other night and was asked for ID, so to say it does not happen is erroneous. Once again, the PALI scheme is working according to the stats.


Anti-fracking Greens: Are jobs for the dole schemes legal?
John Argent: Your arguments have more holes that the rabbit proof fence itself.
If you are quoting that movie as a source of facts you may want to pick a better example.
If you google “holes in the rabbit proof fence” you will find plenty of info on it.
Even the person it is supposed to be about has said: “That’s not my story.”
It’s a bit like saying Jack and Rose were real people and using the movie Titanic to base your story.
As far as the White Australia policy goes, you use that as justification for the Aborigines finding the others in the bush.
You fail to understand the white Australia Policy had absolutely nothing to do with Aboriginal people. It was to do with immigration, pure and simple.
And as far as calling somebody a coconut, it is a racial slur, no matter who uses it.
If you you use it yourself then congratulations, you Sir are a racist, as racism goes both ways and being Aboriginal, African, Asian or any other colour does not give you an exemption.


Anti-fracking Greens: Are jobs for the dole schemes legal?
Unfortunately, Darwin Observer, you are correct in the way it is supposed to work, and in this case would be the Crown (Commonwealth or State) and regulated by either Comcare or Worksafe that is the regulator and responsible for enforcing the NUL WHS Act.
Unfortunately an Aboriginal worker on CDEP had a serious accident with an angle grinder, which he should have had training and instruction in using, yet he was unable to claim compensation as he was not a worker as defined by the Return to Work Act, and neither worksafe nor Comcare have said they are able to prosecute (or don’t want to) due to the way it is structured.
This should be one of the first things they should nut out as part of any planned changes to CDP or CDEP.


Be Sociable, Share!

A new way to support our journalism

We do not have a paywall. If you support our independent journalism you can make a financial contribution by clicking the red button below. This will help us cover expenses and sustain the news service we’ve been providing since 1994, in a locally owned and operated medium.

Erwin Chlanda, Editor