Robert Hart
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2012
- Messages
- 1,258
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 38
I understand there may be a peaceful protest gathering or march to occur on the 18th February to co-incide with the opening of the next session of the W. A. Parliament. It could get interesting.
Apparently at Margaret River, a boat was impounded whilst it was still on its trailer. The trailer was apparently unlicenced. A move-on notice was issued to an intending activist or protester associated with the boat. If a move-on notice can be interpreted as applicable to a whole town or city for that matter, things could get interesting in a 1982 Nookanbah Section 54B sort of a way.
A test interpretation of just what constitutes a riot could also be educational. A provocateur or two or more being inserted into the mix to set up a condition in which that interpretation might be constructed may be even more educational. The stakes are higher, like 10 years in the clink higher.
This link leads to discussion on proposed legislation here which mirrors that of other states. Where it could become even more educational is if over-reach in the interpretation of powers occurs ---------
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/broad-backlash-over-anti-association-laws/story-e6frg6nf-1226342141741
------------------ The case for the laws is declared to be to enable effective management of a criminal bikie gang problem.
This extract from the W.A. Criminal Code might be interpretable as to scoop up any person who just happens to be there, then does not immediately depart the scene. This makes me a bit leery of turning up with a camera, as it might be interpreted as implied consent to the riot to be filming it.
One might need to aquire some sort of media accreditation as at least a partial hedge as to purpose of being there. (The current sections 66 and 67 Criminal Code are consolidated into a single new section 67: Rioters causing damage. The new provision renders any person who is riotously assembled liable for unlawful damage or destruction to property caused by the riotous assembly. The maximum penalty for the offence is 10 years. imprisonment, except where property is destroyed or damaged by fire, in which case the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 14 years.)
Here's another interesting piece relating to parties which get out of control. ------------
http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2012/09/26/3598310.htm
----------. It would be educational to see just how far an overeaching interpretation might be taken, as in organisers hosting what might be interpreted as a "street party".
After all those alarming and possibly unrealistic scenarios being aired, does there remain, anyone who swings an Epic or Scarlet, who might be amenable to documenting the event on 4K for historical archive?
Apparently at Margaret River, a boat was impounded whilst it was still on its trailer. The trailer was apparently unlicenced. A move-on notice was issued to an intending activist or protester associated with the boat. If a move-on notice can be interpreted as applicable to a whole town or city for that matter, things could get interesting in a 1982 Nookanbah Section 54B sort of a way.
A test interpretation of just what constitutes a riot could also be educational. A provocateur or two or more being inserted into the mix to set up a condition in which that interpretation might be constructed may be even more educational. The stakes are higher, like 10 years in the clink higher.
This link leads to discussion on proposed legislation here which mirrors that of other states. Where it could become even more educational is if over-reach in the interpretation of powers occurs ---------
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/broad-backlash-over-anti-association-laws/story-e6frg6nf-1226342141741
------------------ The case for the laws is declared to be to enable effective management of a criminal bikie gang problem.
This extract from the W.A. Criminal Code might be interpretable as to scoop up any person who just happens to be there, then does not immediately depart the scene. This makes me a bit leery of turning up with a camera, as it might be interpreted as implied consent to the riot to be filming it.
One might need to aquire some sort of media accreditation as at least a partial hedge as to purpose of being there. (The current sections 66 and 67 Criminal Code are consolidated into a single new section 67: Rioters causing damage. The new provision renders any person who is riotously assembled liable for unlawful damage or destruction to property caused by the riotous assembly. The maximum penalty for the offence is 10 years. imprisonment, except where property is destroyed or damaged by fire, in which case the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 14 years.)
Here's another interesting piece relating to parties which get out of control. ------------
http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2012/09/26/3598310.htm
----------. It would be educational to see just how far an overeaching interpretation might be taken, as in organisers hosting what might be interpreted as a "street party".
After all those alarming and possibly unrealistic scenarios being aired, does there remain, anyone who swings an Epic or Scarlet, who might be amenable to documenting the event on 4K for historical archive?
Last edited: