Posted: 31 January 05 8:36 pm
Great idea.
<P> For the activity we could place him in a cache and conveniently lose the co-ordinates....
<P> For the activity we could place him in a cache and conveniently lose the co-ordinates....
Free and Open Geocaching
https://forum.geocaching.com.au/
ROFL, I so wanted to say that(exact quote) before but I thought I better keep it to myselfManta wrote:And this coming from the state who's police force brought us the "shoot first ask questions later" principle?
<p>zactyl wrote: . . . young punks from vandalising the place... you fit the profile Lt Sniper.
Have a quick look at the "Enclosed Lands Protection Act" in NSW, Act and Qld. I have worked in these states. If the security provider is directly contracted by the land owner or their agent then they therefore have the landowners powers to ask and have answered their identity. The trespasser does not have to provide this information immeadiately if a rego plate* is available but can request the police to be present when they do or the police can forward that information post instance. *Saves conflict on the bahalf of the landholdertolmh wrote:They cannot require you to answer questions, to provide information about yourself...
http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/194 ... 1943-5.pdf6 Requirement to give name etc
(1) If the owner, occupier or person in charge of enclosed lands believes on reasonable grounds that another person is committing an offence against this Act, he or she may require that other person to give his or her full name and residential address.
(2) A person shall not fail to comply with a requirement under subsection (1).
Maximum penalty: 5 penalty units.
<p>Citria wrote:Hey Lt Sniper, you punk you, ... what does ROFL mean??
Well said, Bronze. It was unfortunate that Sniper happened across the domain of a particularly evil troll who needs to be, shall we say, "re-educated". I used do security work myself, spanning armoured car escort to VIP protection, and I tell no lie when I say I was often more scared of my colleagues than I was of the people we were trying to guard against. There are some complete UNITS working in the industry and often they only have jobs because the proprietors of certain firms are only marginally more sociable and intelligent beasts than their troglodite staff and they like to employ similar species.<P>Bronze wrote:One last point:
I would not want to see cachers in this forum see security providers as the enemy in any way. This is one bad apple, and yes there are more but the good ones you just don't see. Because they observe and report. They are protecting you cars in shopping centres, keeping your proces down in GoLo and Partoling your house when you on holidays. It a necessary evil and if wasn't a need for it insurance agencies wouldn't stipulate it.
Only if the land owner believes on reasonable grounds that the person is committing an offence against the Act. The Act contains just three offences - entering enclosed (or inclosed, depending on the State) lands without lawful excuse, leaving a gate or slip panel down, and leaving a gate or slip panel on a road down.Bronze wrote:Have a quick look at the "Enclosed Lands Protection Act" in NSW, Act and Qld. I have worked in these states. If the security provider is directly contracted by the land owner or their agent then they therefore have the landowners powers to ask and have answered their identity.
At last some informed discussion .... Thanks to Bronze, Team Piggy and tolmh for adding some knowledge and reason to the discussion.tolmh wrote:
Only if the land owner believes on reasonable grounds that the person is committing an offence against the Act. The Act contains just three offences - entering enclosed (or inclosed, depending on the State) lands without lawful excuse, leaving a gate or slip panel down, and leaving a gate or slip panel on a road down.
Whilst the rest of us may not have the resources or the inclination to quote case law, sections of legislation or by-laws into this thread, we still have a right to express our views, without being accused of being uninformed or unreasonable.<P>Aushiker wrote:At last some informed discussion .... Thanks to Bronze, Team Piggy and tolmh for adding some knowledge and reason to the discussion.
Andrew
I am sure it could be and so be it. I didn't go through the whole thread to select various postings but I did find the aforementioned posters to have added some informed value to the discussion from my perspective and I thought they where considered responses, thus I mentioned them in particular. I am sure there where others, but they didn't jump out at me at the time of writing.Manta wrote: I'm not quite sure what you meant by the above comment, Andrew, but it certainly could be misconstrued.
Not necessarily. For example, Pryce v Martin was a matter in the NT, but the court made reference to Hancock v Birsa, which was a West Australian matter. There are even references to Hancock v Birsa in Papua New Guinea case law (see here for an example.)Aushiker wrote: Just one comment/question. As these where I assume Supreme Court decisons, their applicablity in the first instance would be limited to the relevant jurisdiction. Is that correct?