Yeah, I get all the worry, and the media are weaving this into a deprivation of liberty thing, which gives everyone a messed up idea of what's really going on. I believe I read a snippet from the Courier Mail confirming that the introduction of this legislation is an acceptance at the end of a 6 month trial period which went largely unnoticed it would seem by the majority of the public.Furburt said:That's all well and good, efficiency is always desirable, but what I'm annoyed about is that swearing, which is a fairly broad term, is included on the list in the first place as a public nuisance.Lucas_90 said:snip
It just doesn't make sense to me, I mean, if some kid's shouting curse words at police officers, then by all means, fine the fuck out of him, but if someone is just casually swearing, for example, like I just did there, are they culpable as well? I haven't read the official word, but that article didn't make it clear what and in what context is something considered "swearing".
Yes, I suppose they COULD be culpable, but Australia is very strict with how the police operate. Ever since the Fitzgerald Inquiry, people have been watching the QLD police like a hawk. They have to be accountable for every action they take, and if they do hand out stupid fines for casual swearing, then yes, the fine will be appealed and most likely successfully.
Anyone in Australia who has had contact with the police over matters of a non-serious nature, and has treated them with common courtesy, will find they respond in kind, and will often simply ask that you cease, or give you a warning. Fines and penalties are for the jerks.
(Is actually suprised by how little backlash he's had for these comments, and is very grateful for the common sense that people show)