Heading out tomorrow night - watch your mouth*

David says:

06:56am | 30/12/09

You are right Phil, you should have said you were too f***** busy and they should get some other stupid f*** to do it.

Bill says:

06:58am | 30/12/09

So I have wasted three minutes reading about your tattle tale on a Police Officer.  Big Deal!  What’s next?  How society has become a bunch of dobbers?

Paul Hyland says:

07:09am | 30/12/09

I don’t know why everyone has the need to swear.  Myself, I substitute other words, and then it doesn’t break any laws.  Only the other day, a car ran over my foot.  I shouted “What the Funk are you doing, Cakesucker!”.  “Why don’t you shove your car up your Insole”.  Easy, really.

Watch your mouth says:

07:14am | 30/12/09

You’re right. it’s offensive. Bus, train, shop, bar: can it. It’s offensive.

T.Chong says:

07:17am | 30/12/09

Just serenade any “officer” with a good old fashioned rendition of “Am I Ever” by Doc and the boys. Live version of course.

Jones says:

07:50am | 30/12/09

During the course of my work as a court reporter for a regional newspaper I come across spurious charges of offensive language all the time. I could understand it if someone was standing in the middle of the main street at midday telling old ladies to f*** off, but most of the time the only people who even hear the allegedly offensive language are the police. It’s such a waste of time dragging people before the courts for saying something which wouldn’t make most people blink.

Diamantina Dick says:

08:20am | 30/12/09

As someone who likes living in a civil society I find your appologist article offensive to polite society and I think you and those who subscribe to this standard of behavior are in need of having a good look at themselves. Shame on you.

Paul says:

08:23am | 30/12/09

Here is a parents worst nightmare - Police locking up a kid for calling them “dude”.
http://www.echo.net.au/archives/24_29-18.html
http://www.echo.net.au/archives/24_29-19.html
A progressive society relies on the the mutual respect of the community and the police.  If police want to be laws unto themselves and not respect community values, then we are heading for a police state. Especially when a small number of police seem trigger happy with their taser-toys and develop the Judge Dread street justice complex.  I understand that police have a difficult job to do but given the little trust we have for particularly the NSW government, and it’s total lack of accountability, we are all going to have to work a bit harder and transparently.

H of SA says:

08:34am | 30/12/09

As the Tasmanian judge said, the F word is in itself meaningless. Its a waste of breath to utter it - makes your sentences longer and makes you appear far less articulate (and therefore intelligent) than had you remained silent.

Anyone annoyed at being hassled for swearing could you know….consider doing something worthwhile with their ability to speak

David says:

08:38am | 30/12/09

I am assuming that this article is f****** satirical.
Although, just in f****** case ...
Since when has disrespecting authority become so f****** popular and so f****** acceptable?
P*** off is a sackable offence in some places. Where’s the f****** consistency?
Anyway .....
The article got me going on a slow news day.
Well done!

Davy says:

08:47am | 30/12/09

When somebody is behaving poorly it can be very difficult for police to be able to control this. Having something like “offensive language” enables them to pin a crime on somebody before it gets out of control and much worse occurres.

For example: Drinking leading to loss of inhibitions leading to poor language leading to thrown bottles leading to out of control tempers leading to glassing leading to death.
I think its better to stop it at poor language.

redring says:

09:00am | 30/12/09

People should remember when dealing with wallopers that they’re generally dealing with semi educated young things who after 6 months training get to wear handcuffs, capsicum spray, tasers and a Glock and are then thrust on the streets and told to “go get ‘em”. When some poor bludger drops the magic word in front of them and displays some mild aggro they’re guarnteed 90% of the time to be hit with the trifecta. In court of course you’re right behind the 8 ball because the beak, the prosecutor and the complaing copper are often mates who after you’re found guilty all head off to their watering hole to have a good laugh at the expense of the defendant who if he’s lucky might escape with a suspended sentence. Happens all the time. Lesson - assess the situation and make sure you can outrun the walloper!

A different David says:

09:16am | 30/12/09

Just because it’s considered the “norm” doesn’t mean it’s right.  And if it’s accepted as the norm (and someone should’ve told that female cop that she represents a certain standard) then I guess we should get used to hearing six-year olds and the like greeting each other with “how the f**k are ya?”

Is it not the words but the attitude, anger & scorn (read, lack of respect) in the delivery that makes the difference?

Conduct which offends against the standard of good taste says it all.  Guess nowadays there are just more bad taste people in the world.

ChrisG says:

09:21am | 30/12/09

Why do we not approve swearing in front of a child? I think it is because we know that to do so commends to the developing young character a lack of regard for others and a coarseness that is prone to provoke conflict.

Why do we insist on penalties for swearing at the Police? I think it is because we do not wish to condone disrespect for fundamental institutions that preserve public space, order and rights.

When we accept on a playing field that a referre may have the discretion to ignore swearing that is not in ear shot of the crowd or directed against the referee, or is not racially offensive or intended to provoke a fight, we are not guilty of hypocrsiy: we are simply being realistic about how we manage adult behavior to sustain the positive social interaction that a game is meant to model.

Likewise, when we set social and legal parameters around foul and abusive - ie, offensive - language, we are simply expressing the centuries old practice of trying to humanise, dare I say, civilise, social relations, and that endeavor allows for a realistic discretion that accepts in some places or occasions - althoght too many nowadays - swearing might be understandable.

We might simply try this thought experiment - ask yourself whether you would want your children to grow up in a school setting, or to frequent public spaces, characterised by a ‘Gibsonesque’ public morality, as expressed in the opinion piece above? Would you think that kind of society would be more or less enjoyable and positive than the one that expected of its adults in the way they talked, self control, regard for others, and respect for public officers?

DG says:

09:22am | 30/12/09

Ahh yes, the presumed right not to be offended by any one or anything.

This is quite possibly the worst thing about living in Australia in the modern era. There is no good reason that a person should not be able to express themselves using whatever words they think appropriate in the circumstances. Now this is not an excuse for threatening language or for language that is likely to incite violence against any person or group of persons, but is instead a realisation that a person should be free to use whatever language they like.

Maybe this should be used as an opportunity to lobby for the removal of profanity from the definition of offensive language or even better, get rid of the offense of using offensive language.

Now, as an Aboriginal male there are plenty of words that I hear about my people that I find to be offensive - 90% of the time I just let it slide the other 10% I tell them that I am Aboriginal and I would rather they didn’t use that language. Now my position is this - I have no right to demand that another person change their language to protect my sensitive ears, Just as they use those words I should be permitted to use whatever words I like.

Where I draw the line is words that are likely to incite hatred or violence, and I’m not completely sure about hatred.

Mark says:

09:38am | 30/12/09

When are we going to see articles examining poor journalism rather than just police officers swearing?  We could fill an entire website on poor journalism, incorrect facts and outright lies.  It’s peculiar how we never see this though.

Classic says:

09:55am | 30/12/09

“Paul” has posted the links below which are a ‘must read’ for those who think police should “expect respect”.  They should earn it.  As a father of teenagers, it is increasingly difficult to tell them they should respect police when our kids and teir friends frequently tell us of how they and their mates have been harrassed by police in a pure abuse of authority.  Police havve a difficult job; there is enoug real crime about for them to focus on witout inciting youngsters.  I have copied Paul’s link below - the article is compelling and typical of the storeis my kids and their friends tell.
http://www.echo.net.au/archives/24_29-18.html
http://www.echo.net.au/archives/24_29-19.html

Old Clive says:

09:59am | 30/12/09

We have standards for construction and furniture, water taps,vehicles, the list goes on and on, the Standards Association has numerous volumes that you can buy and if you are in business you have to abide them. While some standards of behaviour have always been accepted by society, others have not, I don’t know when society started to accept substandard behaviour , but if it continues to slip nobody can possibly guess the depths tp which we as a society may fall, maybe we have the gladiators replacing our sports hero’s in our stadiums, it has happened before, why not now. Our politicians are assinating one anothers characters under parliamentary privelege in the press and question time every day, along with the cartoons in the media, we are doing it in our blogs, all in the name of freedom of speech, why can’t we do other things in the name of freedom. Go to some countries and try the same thing and you might get a real surprise.

Steve says:

10:18am | 30/12/09

“A Judge in Tasmania said that using the ‘F’ word can become such a habit with some people they are not even aware they are using it…. the word loses all meaning.”

To illustrate the judge’s contention, I recall a brief post-match interview with a rugby league player in which he used the F-word unintentionally. He realised what he had done and apologised immediately, but used the same word again in the next sentence. He apologised again, but then said it again. He seemed unable to complete a sentence without using the word. He excused himself from the interview saying, “F***, this is hard!”

However, the fact that the word has lost all meaning for the speaker does not mean that it has lost all meaning for the community. It is not appropriate on TV, and is similarly offensive when addressed to a police officer, whether or not the speaker intended to give offense.

new age says:

10:28am | 30/12/09

@Classic, so your kids frequently tell you they have been harrassed, and it’s all an abuse of authority.  Naturally you believe your perfect children, that you and the education system have brought up to “know their roights”.

Rights are important.  So are responsibilities - do your kids have any understanding of that when they are out on the town?

Luke says:

10:31am | 30/12/09

So so true. My entire workplace would be arrestted if they had a michrophone in our office

Classic says:

10:41am | 30/12/09

“New Age”,  I didn’t say anything that would lead you to believing my kids are perfect - why do you irrationally leap to that conclusion?  My kids are good kids; they are not perfect.  But they are mature enough to know when police, not much older than them, are behaving badly, abusing their power and deliberately inciting the “trifecta”.  Two of my brothers are long serving police officers and they acknowledge that police do behave badly.  They also come down hard on police under their command who expect rather than earn respect.  I suggest you read the article at the links provided (please don’t assume the articles are fabrications, just because they oppose your views).

steve says:

10:57am | 30/12/09

Swearing seems all well and good while it is directed at someone else, If some yobbo told your wife or teenage daughter to F*** Off SL** then I think you would be offended? perhaps resort to a little violence?

What have we come to in society when the people that are charged with the responsibility of protecting us from the yobbos are themselves the recipient not just the foul mouth but being smacked around by these same drunken yobbos that are ‘only helpin me mate’
Where do we draw the line?
Many a good cop has had his career ended by trying to subdue these insulting yobbos, saw an article recently about one put in a wheelchair after being crash tackled in a brawl, the Cop got a cracked skull, brain damage and a wheel chair for life and the tackler got a good beviour bond from one of your judges.
From what I have seen of Judges your statement that they are Capital C Conservative is fairy land stuff… Pat O’Shea case in point
The Inmates are running the asylum

Chase Stevens says:

10:57am | 30/12/09

I don’t understand why people are offended by the ‘swear’ words. What do they even mean? I can understand people being offended at say being called a moron, because someone is saying you’re dumb or stupid, but being called a f*****? I don’t get it.

BTS says:

11:02am | 30/12/09

redring:
‘People should remember when dealing with wallopers that they’re generally dealing with semi educated young things who after 6 months training get to wear handcuffs, capsicum spray, tasers and a Glock and are then thrust on the streets and told to “go get ‘em”.’

Most new recruits have University Degrees (three years of study), all are partnered with senior officers who won’t let them do anything on their own and with the pitiful amounts of recruitment by any government in Australia, you will be lucky to get a new recruit arrive at your scene.  None are told to ‘go get ‘em’ anymore, they are told to generate meaningless figures, bow down to the minority groups, complete inane amounts of meanlingless paperwork so that it can be sold off to the insurance companies - so there is no time to arrest anyone.

‘In court of course you’re right behind the 8 ball because the beak, the prosecutor and the complaing copper are often mates who after you’re found guilty all head off to their watering hole to have a good laugh at the expense of the defendant who if he’s lucky might escape with a suspended sentence.’

Judges never attend the ‘local’ watering hole, DPP don’t prosecute minor offences (it’s the Police) and certainly neither associate with mainstream Police, that’s how they maintain their independence.  Suspended sentence for offensive language, resist arrest and assault Police?  Meaning normally they would be sent to jail?  For swearing?  Where has this happened in Australia?  Laugh? Last thing you want to talk about at the watering hole is the scum of the society who occupy more of your life than you want them too.

‘Happens all the time. Lesson - assess the situation and make sure you can outrun the walloper! ’  All the time?

Advocating criminal and anti-social behaviour demonstrates the level of intelligence we are dealing with here.  Sounds like someone has great imagination, greater exaggeration and been arrested too many times himself.  Happens all the time.

Bill says:

11:09am | 30/12/09

Classic, Classic!

Your kids say they have seen it so therefore it must be rife?

How about providing us articles where the Police acted appropriately.  Bet you can’t.

Classic says:

11:12am | 30/12/09

Steve (11:57am | 30/12/09), if you think the kids in the attached article are “insulting yobbos”, then I would rather the inmates running the asylum than the police in the article.  Why do people assume police are always right?  They are not perfect, just like our kids.

Criminologist says:

11:15am | 30/12/09

“* Warning - this post contains offensive language (actually, it depends a bit on your definition of “offensive”).”

No it’s not about YOUR definition of offensive, nor the author of the article.  It’s the definition of offensive as determined by society.  The Judges as representatives of our society, determine if an instance is offensive and contravenes our accepted society’s standards.  If you don’t believe that you have been offensive, take it to the judge to let them make a determination.  That’s what our society has deemed appropriate to the standards of the majority.  If you don’t agree with those principles then you are out of touch with mainstream society and what society believes is appropriate behaviour.

Davy says:

11:45am | 30/12/09

Classic whilst I would in no way endorse the behaviour of the cops in your article, it is also important to note that up to 250 kids were roaming the street.
Now many of these probably had been drinking and this would have put the police in a very difficult place.
Perhaps the better solution would have been if the girl in question had not in fact been attending a party in a house that should not even have been having a party. I would also wonder at the potential damage to the unrented house in question. There are possibly much bigger issues involved here ,particularly involved with the mothering of this child. The mothers response at the police station does not appear to be headed in the direction of ameliorating any dispute but rather to inflame the situation. Is the daughter the same.

ChrisG says:

11:59am | 30/12/09

It’s hard to believe those who claim not to know what swearing is, or what is offensive – perhaps they are just too de-sensitized to be aware or to care?

Swear words tend to have 2 features – they are slang for some bodily function or intimacy, and they are used to create an affect – surprise, anger, embarrassment. Humans have developed sophisticated language and social practices to transcend or humanize or protect bodily functions and intimacies, so language that is debasing has an emotional affect

When used consciously, they are intended to draw attention, or to intimidate, or to dominate, or to warn of a state of anger or frustration. In that sense, they are quintessentially egotistical. When used unconsciously, they reflect a weak character or a weak vocabulary, or both.

Those who claim that swearing is not important pretend to a form of social maturity but in fact betray simple arrogance

steve says:

12:03pm | 30/12/09

Hey Classic
Agree Nobody is perfect.
There are bad cops who should not be cops just as bad judges who should not be judges, Problem is, Is society a better place because some of us say it is acceptable to swear at cops or anyone else for that matter?
I do not think we are better off ignoring the problem
A policeman should receive the same common courtesy as you or I would expect and be as safe as possible in trying to do his job
A rather distasteful job at best I would not swap with them and put up with the Crap they get every day?
The swearing is just words that account for nothing but it is an indication of the distain that some in society hold the police. That distain sometimes goes further and people get hurt just doing thier job,
We would be a lot worse off if all the cops said f*** it, and left. then see where this line of thinking would end

Ben says:

12:04pm | 30/12/09

Classic, it’s a shame that the journalist of your article has no idea about the law and its requirements.  There are obvious anomalies in the article as well.  Why is it that you believe that (a) the journalist is telling the truth and (b) that the juvenile is telling the truth?

IT'S JUST A SLIP OF THE TONGUE. says:

12:07pm | 30/12/09

Swearing becomes habitual.  And this is true.  Before you know it the F…., C…, D…Head and of all the like type of terminologies become your life long partner .  It will stick-up for you, comfort you, burp noisily released air in the form and style of a vulgar tongue through the mouth and belch out with all it’s might!! 

Now the flip side of this whole fiasco is that you can’t see the bugger and you’re left to explain the noise coming from your mouth.  Oh well doez-de-brakes.. Yuk, yuk, yuk.

buonasera says:

01:07pm | 30/12/09

Phillip Gibson seems to have similar views to some other legal mouthpieces who appear to think that it might be easier to have their clients found not guilty if they engage in a little public softening-up of the reputation of the police.

It might be quite interesting to see the reaction of some of these say-what-you-like advocates if someone were to point out a few home truths about some people in the legal industry.

H of SA says:

01:08pm | 30/12/09

What Chris G said.

AT says:

01:19pm | 30/12/09

Steve says:  11:18am | 30/12/09

  “However, the fact that the word has lost all meaning for the speaker does not mean that it has lost all meaning for the community. It is not appropriate on TV, and is similarly offensive when addressed to a police officer, whether or not the speaker intended to give offense.”

Offence is not given, Steve. It is taken.

If “the word has lost all meaning for the speaker” it DOES mean that it has lost meaning for the community, for the speaker is the community. The community sat idly by and allowed “the word” to lose meaning for the speaker. The community did not feel so aggrieved as to sanction, exile or punish the speaker. Therefore, the community accepts or, at the very least, tolerates the speaker’s language.

You may not like swearing on TV, but you have no right to deem it inappropriate for the entire medium. Maybe it occurs past your bedtime, but swearing is rife on free-to-air TV. Has been for very many years. I think you should concede defeat on this one — the overwhelming consensus appears to be one of acceptance.

Finally, perhaps you didn’t intend to give offence when you used the American spelling for the word “offence” as quoted above, but I TOOK offence. The scourge of cultural imperialism is destroying the very fabric of our society. Therefore, you should withdraw your comments, apologise and humbly submit to whatever punishment “the community” deems appropriate.

I’m sure you’ll agree this course of action is in accord with your values and to dissent at this juncture would paint you as person as hypocritical as the copper in the cafe. People might even be driven to suggest you betake yourself and perform an anatomical impossibility upon your own person.

T.Chong says:

01:30pm | 30/12/09

To all Big C conservatives: you reckon we’re headed for hell in a handbasket because Mr and Ms Plod get sworn at ?( not assaulted in any other way),  seriously suggesting our society is on the verge of collapse?

Very Orwelliann to deny and persecute any one who speaks up and out against the state, and its enforcers.

nullanulla says:

01:45pm | 30/12/09

ROFL @T.Chong, the great advocate of centrally planned economies, saying that it is persecution to point out that RS ideas about abusing coppers are RS ideas.

Perhaps it’s only nice Left/Fabian approved state dictatorships that need to be protected from any criticism?

Tator says:

02:03pm | 30/12/09

Redring,
As a 20 year veteran with SAPOL, I can assure you that there are no “young things” joining SAPOL.  In fact, it is rare to see recruits under the age of 30 as our Commissioner Mal Hyde, has made it a policy that all new recruits must have substantial life experience prior to joining SAPOL.
Yes, here in SA, there is only a six month Academy component to training.  But what this recognises is that apart from the academic law component and basic procedural training, is that the vast majority of policing skills are learnt on the job and this is done via a competency based training period of 18 months before a trainee officer is permanently appointed.  Reinforcing what BTS has stated, probationary constables are very rarely left to their own devices and are generally partnered up with more senior ranked patrol officers to learn the ropes.

T.Chong,
it is not the swearing that is the issue, it is the lack of respect for societal norms and authorities.  We do not have issues with people disputing our decisions and putting their point of view across, as long as it is done in a civil manner.  You will find most of us “Mr Plods” use an attitude test, pass it and more than likely you will be let off lightly, fail it by abusing us and acting like a moron with a bad attitude and expect the book to be thrown at you.

T.Chong says:

02:27pm | 30/12/09

Nullanulla 2:45 Free speech is that. If you (and me both) decry censorship or oppression in socialist states, then how and why do you support censorship in a capitalist society? Two wrongs making a right perhaps?
Since 5 of 6 states are Labor = socialist, then whos being protected from criticism? If you mean Rudd and the Federal setting, than look no further than Punch for some assessments of Rudd and how hes doing.
This very site is proof that criticism without persecution does exist under Rudd and Fed Labor,as it should be.
The far right , like the far left aint too shy when it comes to book burning.

T.Chong says:

03:21pm | 30/12/09

Tator: thats the problem Disgression. No doubt you and your fellow officers are cool, calm,professionals. The trouble is not all cops are like that (see Byron Bay story) or the cops removing their ID numbers before confronting protesters during the G 20 sydney conference, or the baton weiding cops in melborne (against teachers protest, i think)
These offences can be used to raiload anyone the particular officer is annoyed with.They can be used to intimidate and silence and coverups by threatening to escalate the charges if the alledged offender protests about the police actions.  Disgression just lets some play god.

Katie says:

03:42pm | 30/12/09

There is a double standard here.  I’m okay with most profanity except for the C U Next Tuesday one but confess am only offended when it comes from a man.  But this is not uncommon.  A Greek commentator once wrote that he’s allowed to call himself a wog but others aren’t.  Same thing with African American people and the N word.  I guess this just a case of if you’ve walked a mile in my shoes, your a mile away and you’ve got my shoes or something ...

Anyway, if there is a point to any of this, I think all this phucking swearing has to do with people being sick and tired of political correctness going too far.  I mean they took Fat Cat off TV because he was seen as a bad role model for children (as if somehow he was encouraging obesity or something) and in the meantime anorexic looking women are depicted on ads for pizza aren’t (promoting the bold and the bulemic)!  Anyhoo, phuck the censors.  So long as the setting is appropriate (eg no old ladies and ankle biters around), why not let off a little verbal steam - particularly when you consider the physical alternative for some people.

PS I phucking love cops.  They do an incredible job.  And they should bring back “kiss a cop” on NYE.  I mean what was banning that about?

formersnag says:

03:43pm | 30/12/09

Try using another F word? Try feminazi instead of feminist or femanist or feman-nazi? See if some of the female journalists publish your comment.

Of course whenever a woman uses the F word around me with any positive connotation attached to it, i usually run screaming from the room, at that point. Maybe that’s why some women are finding it difficult to find a boyfriend or husband these days?

BTS says:

03:53pm | 30/12/09

So T.Chong, you would prefer Police don’t use discretion?  So the guy swearing and kicking the hell out of a two foot concrete pillar at 3am in the morning should automatically be arrested and not asked why he is behaving in such a manner?  No damage was done and I thought it was a reasonable reaction to hearing that his father had died while he is half a world away and affected by too much alcohol.  Drag them off to court rather than have his mates take him home with a stern warning.  This is the way discretion is normally used.  People need to understand that discretion works in your favour almost exclusively.  People who don’t get discretion are the ones who have given Police a gob full and simply don’t deserve it.

AT says:

04:07pm | 30/12/09

Tator,

SA police recruitment and training etc sounds quite commendable, especially compared to NSW, but your reply to T.Chong I find a little disturbing.

When you speak of “the lack of respect for societal norms and authorities”, can you detail exactly what these “societal norms” are? Are they written down somewhere? Can you accept that your definition of a societal norm may differ, but be of no greater validity than someone else’s? These authorities that are being disrespected, are they limited to police, firies and ambos or does it include the local councillor who doesn’t like youth congregating anywhere, any time, for any purpose? Are these “authorities” always infallible in their judgement?

Even more troubling is your “attitude test”. Essentially you’re saying be polite and you’ll “get off lightly”, show some attitude, on the the hand, and you can “expect the book to be thrown at you”. This is for the same offence, right? I thought justice was blind. Unless you can prove that behaving in a “civil manner” is judicially virtuous and “acting like a moron with a bad attitude” is a bookable offence, I’m afraid I cannot respect your authority.

Your job is to enforce the law equally and fairly, not make value judgements about someone’s personality.

Katie says:

04:31pm | 30/12/09

Hey, Formersnag, I recognise that bitterness.  The taste of rejection where you’ve just had your heart ripped out through your colon.  It gets better.  One bottle of Jack Daniels a day and hey, I can barely remember what he looks like or even his name.  And when I do, it’s usually when I have my head over a toilet bowl - searching for his face in the vomit.  Oh, who am I kidding?  It never gets any better.

Jeremy says:

04:52pm | 30/12/09

The biggest laugh I get is it’s a lawyer banging on about ethical behaviour!  I laughed and laughed and laughed.

BTS says:

05:00pm | 30/12/09

AT,

Societal norms are determined by the people.  You vote representatives in of the people and those people then make laws which you abide by - societal norms.  Sadly, unlike most of you think, Police don’t like arresting people, they would rather not given the choice.  The initial novelty wears off pretty quickly when you get covered in their blood, vomit and faeces on a regular basis.  Yes this really does happen, on a regular basis.  So if a Police Officer can find a reason not to proceed they will, it’s called discretion and you will find in written down firmly in policy as a directive Police should utilise.  It may not be fair in your world, but societal norms find it acceptable, that’s why they have implemented it.

Jamers Hunter says:

05:19pm | 30/12/09

I do not know from experience about outside pubs or in taske away shops…BUT listening to the language used bu 10 to 17 year olds on school busses for instance and as the bus driver there is nothing i can do. so Coppers stop cracking down on adults being adults. go look to reality and have a crack at taming the kids. Ha de ha.like your chances.

Jamers Hunter says:

05:47pm | 30/12/09

at   the speaker is not the comminity. they address the community and may wish to be a part of it but go study some philosopy befor getting too carried away.

redring says:

06:20pm | 30/12/09

BTS and Tator, Perhaps I was over the top in some of my remarks. It’s true that wallopers have a reasonably difficult job but on the other hand many of my law abiding friends and family have negative experiences which suggest to me abuse of power. In the last few months I’ve had a mate pulled over and breathalysed. He came in well under but because he suggested to the walloper that yes he had consumed 3 beers (light) in an afternoon the walloper did his best to humiliate him in front of his passengersby suggesting he certainly wouldn’t get in a car with him and told the passengers they should get a bus home. Another mate got pulled over recently and was told that he had a radar detecting device in his car and where was it? His truthful reply that he hadn’t resulted in a vehicle pulled apart, his work tools spread on the side of the road and when they still couldn’t locate the non existent device he was told he’d better keep off the road because if it happened again his car would be impounded and pulled to bits. My brother (no form) was walking in down town Brisbane and coppers pulled him over pushed him to the ground, frisked him, abused him and finally sent him on his way when they realised they had the wrong bloke. Apologise? No way.  Now whether you like it or not this sort of petty harrassment and intimidation happens on a regular basis.  Coppers unfortunately should realise they’re well paid public servants and the minority that act inappropriately should be dragged into line.

BMJ says:

07:20pm | 30/12/09

Thank you for at least shedding some light on the other side of this story. I’ve been to the city a fair few times for New Years Eve and I’ve seen clumsy drunks that are not being aggressive to anyone get tackled by a herd of police officers for absolutely nothing at all. Sometimes I wonder if the Police are just so pissed off they cannot have a great time on NYE that they take it out on anyone that will give them half the chance.

Only a small fraction of the Police force have something that is not taught in Goulburn. Common sense.

AT says:

07:40pm | 30/12/09

BTS @ 06:00pm | 30/12/09

You’re equating laws with “societal norms”. Tator was talking about applying an “attitude test” to determine how severely to treat an offender — an offender who had already broken the law or, as you would have it; a societal norm.

I’m pleased to hear discretion is written down as policy directive, but I get the impression from Tator’s post that he’s playing some sort of parlour game; assessing an offender’s “attitude” before deciding if discretion will be applied — if you’re nice and civil, he’ll most likely let you off, if you’re a smartarse, he’ll “throw the book at you”. That is not fair in anyone’s world except Tator’s. And I guess if you’re an incorrigible smartarse but can put on a good enough “civil” act to fool Tator, you’ll be excused. That’s one societal norm I think we can all agree on; devious smartarses can get away with just about anything.

In any event, this article was about cops deploying “the trifecta”. Interesting that coppers haven’t flooded this blog with denials or defences of it. I hope it’s because they’re too busy breath testing Jamers Hunter.

iansand says:

08:33pm | 30/12/09

The Wood Royal Commission exposed the injustices of the abuse of the “trifecta” - offensive language, resist arrest and assault police.  Unfortunately the revelation was not accompanied by shots of a policeman’s groin, so that part of the report was ignored by the media and the police have carried on this career destroying charade.  They lie about it.  All the time.  They use it to control situations for which their inadequate training has left them ill equipped.

Lauren says:

08:51pm | 30/12/09

Some comments here just make me laugh. The ‘eff’ word offensive? Really?!
No one is saying that the Eff word is no longer offensive, especially in public and in front of strangers.
But when you’re drunk, you’re confident, you’re with your mates and you’re having a top night, you let your guard down and it comes out. It’s not encouraged, and we know getting drunk is an evil sin, but it happens, deal with it. A fine, a night in the cells if need be should be all that is necessary in most drunken cases.

Classic says:

08:53pm | 30/12/09

Bill (12:09pm | 30/12/09), do I assume from your comments that my kids, and their friends, and the family in the article (link below), are all lying just because they are kids?  Is this what the police in question do - “they are kids, they’re on the street, they must be yobboes, so its OK to we spin the trifecta on them?”

I have had a career working with police, and they do a good job, but they are human and they get it wrong.  Simon Overland says there is no room for tolerence by police officers in his VIctoria Police.  He says “it [zero toelrance]means every single indiscretion is treated with the strongest hand of the
law”.  No wonder we have 15 year olds being locked up by precious police officers because they don’t like being called “dude”.  There also needs to be zero tolereance of police abuse of power and use of the “trifecta” when dealing with kids Australian kids in particualr will kick back when they are abused because we teach them to stand up for their rights and exercise their responsibilities - so imagine how confused they become when a police officer abuses his/her position when dealing with those kids.  Every time a copper acts unfairly, his/her behaviour will alienate not only the kid they are dealing with, but their friends, their family and ultimately a whole community, making it ever harder for the police.  There should be zero tolerance for police abuse of power, in any form, and zero toelrance of abuse of police, but only real abuse, not petty preciousness when a young girl call calls a copper “dude”.
http://www.echo.net.au/archives/24_29-18.html
http://www.echo.net.au/archives/24_29-19.html

Bill says:

06:56am | 31/12/09

Classic,

I based my assessment on the obvious lies in the story.  Again you just believe what you want to believe.  Have you got the version of what happened from the Police?  Yet you protest the need for fairness without obtaining their side of the story.  Is that fair?  If you didn’t swear at the officer, didn’t resist his then lawful arrest and then didn’t assault him, you wouldn’t ‘get the trifecta’.  If you behave yourself to begin with you don’t get arrested.  It’s an interesting society we have now where people completely ignore the original behaviour and bleat on about the consequences of their actions.  The Police weren’t called originally for no reason and if the 15 year old girl had decent and responsible parents who know how to raise a child…she wouldn’t have been their in the first place.

BTS says:

07:04am | 31/12/09

AT,

I was referring to Tator’s reference to societal norms and authorities when he said ‘it is not the swearing that is the issue, it is the lack of respect for societal norms and authorities.’ 

The ‘attitude’ test he refers to is as follows.  Technically, you can be arrested if you swear at the officer at the very first time you do so.  Policy dictates the preference for them to be warned to stop using that language, but policy is not law.  So you can be arrested after the very first instance.  The attitude test to which he refers is the follow up behaviour by the offender.  If they are warned and stop or apologise for their behaviour, then discretion is exercised and they are let go with that warning.  If they continue to use offensive language or exhibit other unacceptable behaviour then they have ‘failed the attitude test’ and are arrested.  Again, entirely justifiable and lawful.  It’s simple though, behave yourself, like most of society does and there will be no repercussions.

phil says:

08:50am | 31/12/09

Anybody who is offended by swearing needs to know that it is them that has a mental problem. Being offended means that, it is you that has the dirty/filthy mind.  That interpreting the words as such is your problem. So the next time you hear a swear word, carry-on about it and be disgusted, know it is you that is showing to the world your nasty little thinking processes. So be careful in your over reaction because it will be you that is proving you’re a sick f***k and needs to mature.  In addition, if you think that somehow it show you’re superior in anyway if you don’t swear, in fact proves the opposite. Think about that, for a change.
As far as the law is concerned, the law is an arse and some hard working police need to make up the numbers in their rap-sheets some how.

kristinm2 says:

09:10am | 31/12/09

Regarding the rather silly argument going on about cops swearing at teenagers, as the mother of a 15yo I can relate that my son and all his friends report that the police who pull them over and search their bags on a regular basis when they are walking in a group or skating or in a park with their friends swear directly at them. ‘You little f**’ ‘F***ing empty your bag’ etc. I have also witnessed this myself on several occasions, as have other local residents and parents.

I have made complaints to the Area Command, as have several other people - not all parents, some locals who were horrified to hear the language. The officers seem unconcerned that people are listening and to be unaware that they are behaving in an offensive manner themselves, although they are very good at dishing out orders to the teens to ‘look them in the eye’ ‘stand up straight’ and ‘shut the f*** up’.

It certainly does parents no favours when we are trying to negotiate the teenage years of ‘hanging out with your mates’, that there are no clear behavioural boundaries demonstrated by the police.

Recently a friend of my son was pulled in along with other kids who were in the vicinity of a fight. Watching the CCTV footage later in the station with the senior officer (footage which showed my son’s friend was not involved in the fight), the parents of my son’s friend were horrified to hear the arresting officers swearing and shouting at the kids. The mother told me the senior officer’s face was scarlet and all he could do as he ushered them out was apologise profusely for their language.

Paul says:

09:32am | 31/12/09

Further to my post yesterday re the Byron Bay incident, I can also report that some interesting discussions are happening regarding a “PoliceWatch” to catalogue these types of incidents. In a way this could be the best outcome, given the success of “community policing” in certain areas of regional Australia. (Plus, its harder to de-personalise or slag police or teens when you live in smaller towns when you bump into them at gigs, in the supermarket, play sport with them etc.. please note @Bill)

When political leadership fails and city-centric senior bureaucrats fail to listen or respond to reasonable community concerns, then as usually happens in history, the community will take the leadership on the issue. And we can get as emotional as we want but only a minimal amount of pressure is required to rectify this situation and remind certain senior staff that they are public servants. Trust is an easy thing to rebuild. And always justice needs to be seen to be done or it will only spiral and fester if no-one takes leadership and creates equal dialogue on the issue from all sides.

The business community also needs some accountability with their messages of “drinking responsibility” while some teens wheel entire shopping trolleys of grog out the bottlo. While the locals and the police have to babysit and clean up after other suburbs smashed babies, during schoolies. Police need some respect from the people that make bucketloads of cash out of fueling bad behaviour and delusional “responsibility” messages.

AT says:

01:29pm | 31/12/09

BTS @ 08:04am | 31/12/09

Sounds like we’re talking about the same thing. Tator says the swearing itself (the actual offence) is not the issue, but rather the offender’s “lack of respect for societal norms and authorities”. And it’s an assessment of the offender’s “attitude” that determines if any further action will be taken.

Okay, you (I’m assuming you’re a copper) and Tator seem like mature, experienced professionals. I’m sure you both know the law, understand your role and its limits and exercise your discretion wisely and equitably. Perhaps you’ve never been guilty of the more egregious behaviour of some of your colleagues. Super duper! Nevertheless, I’m afraid I cannot express my respect for your authority because I don’t know if I can agree with the personal values resident under your officer’s cap — I don’t know what they are — your sense of decency, your definition of civility, interpretation of proper behaviour etc. All those things are subjective values WITHIN THE LAW and in our shared society range from one extreme to the other, yet you have the right to exercise your authority (use your discretion) over me based on your personal and subjective values.

Again, I’m sure you and the majority of your colleagues don’t abuse this power, but neither should you be the arbiters of good taste, proper (legal) behaviour etc.

At the risk of making a massive overstatement, I think it’s a few small degrees removed from a totalitarian state. The state’s police used to modify behaviour, suppress dissent, regulate passions. Like the final sentence in your post: “...behave yourself, like most of society does and there will be no repercussions.”

‘Behave myself’ according to what standard? My behaviour, whatever it may entail, if it’s within the law, is surely none of your business. When a miscreant has the temerity to commit the unconscionable offence of swearing at a copper, their treatment, according to you and Tator, will depend on their performance in the “attitude test” you will subject them to. What if the offender comes from an “uncultured” background and can only express themselves in a manner that comes across to “most of society” as disrespectful? Presumably, they will have the “book thrown at them”. Whereas a miscreant of equal depravity, but who has enjoyed the benefit of being raised in say, a legal family and learned the dark art of duplicitous manoeuvring, will effortlessly perform an obsequious pantomime and “be let go with a warning”.

In other words, the offence itself (swearing) is recognised as being so trivial as to not warrant immediate arrest, but is utilised to “test” the individual’s character. To what end? I don’t see what the benefits to society are, how justice is served by this practice that excuses offenders whose demeanour meets with an individual copper’s approval while another offender will have to defend themselves against the EXACT SAME offence at the whim of an individual cop. I wonder, do you note that a person was arrested because they failed the “attitude test”? That another offender was “let off” because they passed the test? After all, that is why they were arrested, not for the banal swearing, but because of their attitude. That is their offence. Their personality, their character, their temperament.

That is thoroughly obscene. It borders on entrapment. And even with the very best of intentions, not even the most experienced, ethical copper should be burdened or entrusted with such authority or expected to make these sort of value judgements. Ultimately, people are being arrested because they don’t conform to “societal norms” that no one here has explicitly detailed and would vary from copper to copper and from day to day, depending on a cop’s mood. That’s right, isn’t it?

No free willed individual can respect that authority, never mind the disgraceful abuse of power typified by the trifecta or the instances of unacceptable police behaviour cited on this blog.

When you can look me in the eye and honestly say there is no more of this unacceptable behaviour within your ranks, you can expect my respect. You’ll still have to earn it though.

H of SA says:

02:23pm | 31/12/09

Ahhh the nefarious trifecta. Assuming there are is no underlying disability or illness lets look at the trifecta.

1) Who is responsible for the fact you are swearing? You
2) Who is responsible for walking away from an officer who has stated he/she is arresting you? You
3) Who is responsible for you shoving/wrestling/pushing the officer? You

We can’t talk about the trifecta as if its something people just stumble into. Its 3 - repeat 3 - concious decisions to behave against your self interest. Umm sounds like a pretty obvious case of being personally responsible for the trouble your now in. Behave in a way that is likely to cause yourself trouble…..you do the math, heck you don’t even have to be capable of simple math to work that equation out.

But hey actually admitting fault and being personally responsible ain’t in vogue these days is it?  Most people in society think they have a right to be knob - pardon me for disagreeing. Where the heck in Aussie law does it say we have a right to act this way? How was this “right ” won or earned?How is your character built by refusing to take responsibility for being hit with the trifecta.

Oh let me add one more dumb decision that’s part of the trifecta…..being out and acting like enough of a dunce to come to the police’s attention in the first place. Assuming this isn’t the first time you’ve had a few drinks, you ought to know if you can drink with out playing the dunce and where your limits are. But again it’s just so much easier to cite your right to be a drunk buffoon than it is to take responsibility.

Mahatma Kote says:

02:44pm | 31/12/09

Phillip’s right - it does indeed all depend what you mean or understand by the word offensive.  I find offensive things that too many Australians don’t, and suffer as a consequence, with no right of redress.  For one thing I find it offensive that uniformed individuals with a lousy (even university) education can be empowered to arrest somebody for uttering what they deem to be offensive sounding noises.  I find it offensive that the procedure goes unchallenged by those who benefit financially once the ‘offender’ is hauled into court.  But my civic impotence goes much deeper than this sort of thing. 

I find it offensive that my taxes subsidize an education system that breeds in its victims the sort of ignorance and frustration that makes citizens prone to offensive conduct of any sort - verbal or other.  Our offensive use of alcohol is an obvious example of a suppressed scream of impotence.  But most crime has its roots in this state-contrived ignorance/frustration.  What do I mean?  The education I got half a century ago was predicated on keeping me unwise, superstitious, placid, frustrated and ignorant.  I was crammed with useless knowledge, not wisdom educed to honour the sacred contract between teacher-pupil.  I was belted for original thought, and belted again for rejecting mechanical thinking habits and servility. 
If that’s not offensive conduct by the people in charge of the police, I don’t know what is. 

Not a real lot has changed in the meantime: clods still get elected to rule us (yes, rule, not serve the will of the people!); servile clods still run the institutions; and the blind still lead the half-blind in our schools.  Offensive, o********e, o********e! 

I find it o*******e that the high earners in our legal and judicial industries focus so jealously and obsessively on the petty ideas box and rarely glance at the elephant in the room.  I find it offensive that I belong to a citizenry Sartre said he hated most - people who praise their executioners.  Melodramatic?  I think not.  We have a 230 year old history of it, and it explains our love for the grog, the collarless jumbuck and things from the back of a truck.

I think we’ve heard too much over the decades and centuries about what one cop or another thinks.  Frankly, I couldn’t gave a rat’s a**e what they think about art, poetry or literature - or even yelled abuse.  It’s what they do I find offensive, but not as offensive as what their bosses do in bureaucracy, or their dim-witted ‘masters’ in the body politic.

The frustrated bleatings from the citizenry discussed here as probably offensive and deserving of warning are the natural product of a stifled, dysfunctional society in full stagnation mode.  When we leave it to lawyers and judges to lead us to the New Jerusalem, this is the natural default destination. 

We’ve killed off all our intelligent social critics, or made it an offense to speak the way they do - which amounts to the same thing.  I don’t think we should be on guard against saying fuck in the wrong context.  I think we should be on guard against continuing the farce I find offensive to me as no foul language could ever be.  Phil is definitely right: it does depend on your definition.  And the general run of definitions here in Australia needs to be expanded substantially, for God’s f*****g sake!!

Freida Stare says:

02:54pm | 31/12/09

I don’t mind bad language so much.  It’s a natural part of a society finding still finding its feet after being closeted for so long.  I heard an offensive story the other day, from an 85-year-old lady pensioner.  She told me how her parents hounded her about courting and made life miserable for her, including making her marry a man she despised until he finally karked it.  She said it doesn’t happen any more.  People have the courage to tell their parents to go jump in the lake.  She’s right.  We’ve come a long way, and the path ahead will see the bad language disappear, slowly.

That’s the human rights side of the equation.  On the responsibility side, after the Howard years and the myriad examples set, the cause has been set back another century.  Maybe two. I’m sorry all the news couldn’t be good.

Silver Bodgie says:

03:00pm | 31/12/09

I think Paul Hyland (up near the top of the above comments) has found the magic solution.  Not only was I not offended by his inburst, but I was outformed, bmused and exittained - and I STILL GET EVERY WORD HE INTENDED ME TO HEAR.  Bravo.  What’s all the rest of the kerfuffle about, eh?  Hmmmmmm.

iansand says:

04:57pm | 31/12/09

HofSA@3:23 Or one decision of the cops to set someone up…

BTS says:

05:33pm | 31/12/09

AT,

You just don’t get it.

Also what makes you think your respect is something I require?  You’re not important.

AT says:

12:06pm | 01/01/10

BTS,

If you are indeed a copper, my respect for your authority, not you, is absolutely essential — for you.

I imagine arresting a person for swearing is one of the most trivial, banal and inconsequential arrests a copper can make. For the person being arrested, on the other hand, it could be a devastating, life changing event. You’re telling me the cop has the discretion to arrest or excuse that person based on their personal assessment of the offender’s “attitude”. What I “don’t get”, BTS, is how you can say; “It’s simple though, behave yourself, like most of society does and there will be no repercussions” without detailing what ‘behaving yourself’ means. Without detailing what “like most of society does” means. There’s nothing “simple” about it. Where you might arrest me, another cop, in identical circumstances might let me off. Your personal prejudice ( as we all have personal prejudices) or your mood or irritability level on a particular day may result in different treatment of an offender for EXACTLY THE SAME offence.

If you ruin somebody’s life in what is, for you, a minor matter, you’d wanna be damn sure you acted responsibly and impartially, wouldn’t you? And as a member of society I’d wanna be damn certain that you acted responsibly and impartially, because you are my servant, you perform your duty in my name, you protect and serve my society, hell, I even pay your wages. When you apply your discretion do you keep me in mind? You should. I’m your boss. I set the “societal norms” and values you are charged to uphold.

“Most of society” cannot respect your authority when the obviously unethical, if not corrupt, trifecta is used by your colleagues. When the excesses and abuses of your colleagues as related here and elsewhere are witnessed by ordinary law abiding folk. You may not “want” that respect, but you most certainly “require” it. Next time somebody shits and spews all over you, for instance.

One more thing, regardless of the language used, I’m quite certain the most insulting, offensive thing one person can say to another is: “I don’t care about you”, “you don’t matter”, “you’re not important”. In a parallel universe I would have the authority to arrest you for your offensive language. But don’t worry, I’ll use my discretion, I’ll assess your “attitude”, your “behaviour” to see if it conforms to “societal norms” before dragging you off. Let’s see; your tone’s a little belligerent. You speak with an authoritarian, rather authoritative voice. You haven’t directly addressed the topic of this blog; the trifecta. Your spelling, however, is exemplary, but I’ve still got too much of a headache from last night to notice, so that doesn’t count in your favour. Sorry mate, you’re under arrest. That’s a fair cop, isn’t it?

Jason says:

01:49pm | 01/01/10

All the problems in the World and you Aussies are argueing about this? You really are the dumbest race on the planet? Osama Bin Laden should have come to SkippyLand instead…...

 

Offended? According to more than half your responses you shouldnt be in fact if you try and pull me up on it you are a wowser. If I say that to you in front of a pub I m just drunkenly letting off steam and should be allowed to walk on my way because once you have been drinking all is fair game. Apparently if I am out front of a pub and yelling that in front of the pub and a police officer tells me to stop I have every right to say “Fu$% Off C&^*” and walk away. Its a sad state of affairs to be sure. You wonder why kids have no respect for anyone these days Grafeeti and old women getting robbed and the like. They can always say No one ever pulled me up on it before it has become normal for me and since no one ever complained before I dont think I am acting against community values its the law thats Fuc

Davy says:

11:07pm | 01/01/10

AT you said in one of your blogs that when all coppers are above reproach that then you would show them respect (or words to that effect). Then added, but only if they then earned it.
If you turn this around then is it ok for them to treat you as the worst criminal until all in society are shown to be “pure”. Of course in your case only if after all that, you then showed yourself worthy of respect.
This is not a recipe for a successfull society at all.
You expect respect from them, why do you consider it unfair for them to expect it from you.

To use offensivel language in public is deemed by our society to be against the law. Hence in your case I do hope that the law is followed to the letter.
Alternatively, perhaps it is acceptible under certain conditions, for some perhaps minor laws, to be overlooked, depending on the situation.
I would suggest that you appear to have problems with the concept of authority and this must be very difficult for you.
eg when you just want that last chocolate..your id and ego must have a very fun time. You’re not the boss of me..hang on, maybe you are…no you’re not…no I dont know…no maybe….......( 3 hours later the chocolate lies uneaten. Your hand still hovering over it and one part of you is “very offended” ).

AT says:

03:06pm | 02/01/10

Davy,

I didn’t say I “would” show respect, I said they can “expect” my respect, but they would still have to earn it. A little like; you can “expect” a chrissy present, but only if you’ve been nice.

Your second paragraph spiel about duelling-respect-levels might have some validity in an equal relationship, but not here, not where one party has the discretion to wield their authority over you — police can impair your livelihood by issuing a fine, they can detain you, confine you, regulate your movements, inflict physical injury upon you and even kill you. The other party is most definitely not authorised to do any of those things.

With that sort of power they damn well MUST be “above reproach”. This is far more serious an issue than some academic debate about the etiquette of “respect”, Davy.

I’ve taken issue with BTS (I’m still assuming he’s a cop) who in one post complains about having to “bow down to the minority groups”. In another post, BTS tells us it’s the elected politicians who set the laws he enforces, but then tells me if I “behave” myself it’s his personal judgement that determines if I will get to enjoy the benefits of his discretion.

Imagine you’re a member of one BTS’s “minority groups”. Imagine your elected lawmaker is the charming and pious NSW govt;

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/whatever-happened-to-secular-democracy/story-e6frg6zo-1225813998714

Imagine you encounter BTS on a night when he’s even more frustrated and agitated than his posts here suggest he is. Imagine you use a word that is commonplace in your society. A word routinely spoken by your family and friends, freely uttered at the workplace, sensationally delivered by politicians on prime time television. A word that appears uncensored in the required reading of schoolchildren. Imagine that you could be arrested for using that word in front of an embittered BTS on the pretext it doesn’t conform to “societal norms”.

Tell me, Davy, do ‘YOU have any problems with THAT concept of authority’?

Classic says:

11:55am | 03/01/10

Jason, we argue about things like this because it keeps our society civil, unlike the place that Osama visited. It’s the sort of debate that ensures we don’t have a society in which our people believe they ave a right to carry an use guns, and in which the police aren’t cowboys/girls. 

Sounds like you’re doing your best fix “all the problems in the world”, so we’ll quite happily leave you to sort out your own mess and please leave us to sort our ours. And please don’t be so rude.

new age says:

02:19pm | 03/01/10

@Classic, it seems that you still just don’t get it.

Reading your posts leaves the impression that you believe all the rights belong to you and your family, while everybody else has the responsibility to tiptoe around your actions.

Police generally only focus on people who look as if they are likely to engage in illegal activity.  Police action in these cases is as much for the protection of the potential offenders as it is for the protection of other members of the public who may unwittingly and unwillingly become victims of antisocial criminal behaviour.

Criminologist says:

05:59pm | 03/01/10

It’s amazing how the rights of the everyday, law abiding citizen and their right to go about their day are being eroded and unbelievably, criminal rights and behaviour are being protected and promoted.  In the end this will have a cost, let’s hope its not to your family.

Classic says:

08:40pm | 03/01/10

Criminologist, it clearly has already had a cost to my family and yours -  a breakdown of trust in the police.  As a kid, I recall police were widely and generally respected.  They are not now and the trifecta is only one of the reasons.  The trifecta, as Gibson points out in his article, is unjust, irrational and unfortunately applied by a small minority of police, but it does enormous damage to the reputation of police among responsible people.

I am frustrated with the comments in this thread that seem to imply that police are perfect; you can pick up a paper almost any week to read about yet another corrupt copper being caught.  Police sould be able to exercixe better judgment and discretion in problem solving, but this is a problem realted to quality of police education standards rather than police training.

I’ll say it yet again - a 15 year old, sober girl waitng for her mum after being told to move on is not a criminal because she calls a police officer “dude”.  And that’s all it takes to invoke the trifecta.

Davy says:

09:33pm | 03/01/10

AT. I realise that you said you would not simply show respect. My point is that you still expect to simply be shown respect. Something you are not prepared to do for them. This is not some debate about etiquette. The entire blog is about showing respect for others. Thats why the offensive language laws are there in the first place.

Yes the police do have authority. The authority to make (if need be) members of our society, realise that respect for each other is essential to the smooth running of any society. This respect can come under many banners. If you respect someone you dont steal off them off them for example. Our society gives police this authority because some people fail to recognise the importance of another. Yes they are frail and fragile like the rest of us. No they are not an automaton.

I think these are good things. I dont like the idea of an impersonal machine making decisions about my future based solely on laws issued by somebody who is not there at the time. I believe it is far better having somebody there who has a better chance of responding to all the subtle nuances of any one situation.
Of course they may call it differently to how I might see it some times. This could actually be me at fault and as an intelligent individual I would have to assess my responses in this light.
Yes they may make an error. They are human. If they do make an error then we the public do have a right of appeal. Yes this could be a lengthy and expensive process but it does exist.

What system do you have in mind that is so much better.

new age says:

07:48am | 04/01/10

Not sure when you were a kid, Classic, but with teenage children it would have been a while ago.  I have no connection with police, but a couple of things are clear:

You talk about corrupt coppers being caught.  Every police force has a few bad eggs, but here we have less than most, and less than we used to have in the bad old days.  Nearly all front line coppers are decent people who every week have to deal with drunken, drug-addled sociopaths in the face of constant and often unfair criticism from various quarters, and the stress of this leads to the large numbers who resign each year.

Support for police is certainly less than it used to be, but this may have more to do with a general rejection of authority in homes and schools.  It seems to be part of the attitude that says police should protect us from other people behaving badly but must never address any activity by our own family or group.

As with other things, we get the police force we deserve, and the frustration of constantly having to deal with spoilt brats, denying parents and oh-so-clever lawyers may sometimes lead to a certain reaction.  It’s easy for us to jump on the bandwagon when this occurs, but it might be more productive if we asked ourselves whether we are supporting the police enough in doing their job of allowing the vast majority of people to peacefully enjoy life free from criminal intrusions.

Criminologist says:

07:54am | 04/01/10

Classic,

We haven’t heard from the Police involved and I would prefer to reserve my judgement until I have heard both sides of the story.  I accept that you are swayed by emotive reasoning, but my experience is that criminals rarely admit they are guilty.

Classic says:

08:53am | 04/01/10

New Age and Criminologist, you really miss the point.  My use of “my family” is representative.  “My family” is anyone’s family.  Please stop playing the man and play the ball. 

I would be really sad if you think police use of the trifecta is a good thing.  It is not; it very quickly destroys the good work and reputation of a lot of good cops and exacerbates the stress New Age mentions. 

All I am saying is that one incident of poor judgement by one police officer in using the trifecta will do damage that is serioulsy disproportionate to the outcome the police officer believes he/she they will achieve.

And Criminologist, what a pathetic defence; of course we’re not going to hear from the police.  “I accept that you are swayed by emotive reasoning”. And what is your reasoning, rational?  Give me a break.  You too should play the ball not the man.

I’ll say it again because you conveniently ignore it - a 15 year old girl calling a police office “dude” is not a criminal.  If you think she is, if you think everyone who relates a bad experience with a police officer is a liar, then I hope your police state is good for you, because even good, law abiding people like you will one day have an experience with the police that will illustrate my point and cause you great disilliusionment

AT says:

02:55pm | 04/01/10

Davy says: 10:33pm | 03/01/10
“...I dont like the idea of an impersonal machine making decisions about my future ... far better having somebody there who has a better chance of responding to all the subtle nuances of any one situation…”

I agree, Davy, but they had better be mature, intelligent, professional and unfailingly equitable in performing their duty. Perhaps you’re relatively young or lead a cloistered life, but you don’t sound as though you speak from a lot of personal experience.

In your earlier posts you ignore the appallingly offensive and disgraceful behaviour of “Officer Dude” and promote the idea of police ‘pinning the crime’ of offensive language on someone as a pre-emptive action to prevent their boisterousness escalating to death, which you describe as happening in a few short steps.

I promise you, Davy, if your critical faculties are that warped, you are not qualified to legitimise police abuses such as the trifecta. If you were consistent you’d be insisting any copper guilty of unethically enacting the trifecta be immediately suspended and sent to a re-education camp.

You and most every other poster here excusing (or, more accurately, ignoring) these offensive police actions and dictating support/respect for cops seem to be driven by some undeclared conservatism that demands any behaviour which isn’t submissive and servile be punished. The same big C conservatism Phillip Gibson writes about, I suspect. A conservatism shared by senior NSW coppers. It’s really very obvious that you’re crusading against the ferals, the libertarians, the effnicks, the Muslims, the gays, the drinkers, anyone who doesn’t share your rigid regulated regimen.

Witness NSW commissioner, Scipione, telling his citizens prior to NYE to make the ‘night one you’ll remember for the right reasons’. Whatever could he mean? To my mind, the only thing his authority entitles him to say is to advise revellers that increased numbers of police will be on duty and they will arrest any lawbreakers. Bewdy, g’donya mate. That’s what the citizenry expect of THEIR police, but please spare us the Sunday School/Hillsong/dog whistle/PR briefing devised catchphrases and the inherent stern, lecturing and malevolent undertone.

Witness his dopier deputy a couple of days later telling us that the better-behaved-than-usual crowd made the night ‘one to remember for the right reasons… for police’! This was delivered in a triumphant tone as if the coppers had scored a win, as if the million plus mob had yielded to Scipione’s directive and reverently “behaved themselves” for no other reason than to please the police.

The ‘system I have in mind that is so much better’ is one were you and the police are not the guardians of public morals. One where police serve the community according to the community’s standards and not according to their own personal prejudice or whatever the prevailing morality of their superiors and political masters happens to be at any given time. If that means arresting every “offensive language” offender in every instance because they’ve committed an offence, so be it. If it’s considered a bullshit charge that doesn’t warrant immediate arrest, but, as clearly seems to be the case, is retained so it can be used to assert individual or corporate moral, as opposed to legal, values, get rid of it.

I respectfully submit that until you can prove to the world that the trifecta and other unethical police behaviour is not a commonplace, daily occurrence, you have no right to demand a generic ‘respect’ on behalf of police. Furthermore, the obscenity of the ideas in your earlier posts, where you advocate and excuse unethical arrests on the pretext of the civilisation destroying offence of swearing, disqualifies you from making any credible contribution to public debate.

Criminologist says:

05:55pm | 04/01/10

It seems this The Punch is a forum for frustrated individuals who can only assert their own authority by bullying others on the internet.  Bit of pot calling the kettle black on this particular issue.  Not okay for the Police, but okay for me to browbeat those that don’t see my narrow world view.

Classic, unfortunately I require more evidence than some emotive internet rant by those closely tied to the 15 year old.  Screaming for the ‘right and fairness and justice’, but then don’t demosntrate those principles yourself.  Surely, based on your own position you would insist on all available evidence being tabled (not just that of a 15 yr old and their close family associates)? I require both sides of a story to make a balanced assessment of the facts.  The law requires both sides to provide account of what happened before a ‘fair’ assessment can be determined.  Radical (and apparently pathetic) concept as that may seem.

Classic says:

11:29pm | 04/01/10

Criminologist:  Why do you keep attacking me personally?  I haven’t bullied you or anyone else.  You’re not a criminologist are you? Your arguments are not reasoned well enough to indicate a tertiary education.

And, finally, you don’t need any side of the story to answer this question -

Do you believe a girl who calls a police officer “dude” should be dealt with as a criminal?  No, let’s make it easier for you; how about an “f***ing dude”?

new age says:

07:21am | 05/01/10

You seem to protest far too much, Classic.  It’s not attacking you personally to point out that a public attitude of f—- the f———cops is not in the best interests of society generally, and in fact is more likely to produce the alleged effects that you are going on and on about.

As for the dude incident, Criminologist has a good point.  Since neither you nor I were present when it happened, it might be a bit disingenuous to rely on a tabloid style report based on the I-know-my-rights ‘tude of the accused person.

Classic says:

08:39am | 05/01/10

New Age and Criminologist,  neither you nor I (nor anyone for that matter) should open their mouths without complete, undisputed “facts” at their disposal - the coward’s refuge when their opinion is indefensible.  Noone should read a newspaper or any other literature to form an opinion without having every possible fact at their disposal.  Anyone who has any experience with the police trifeca is lying about it because Criminologist and New Age weren’t there to witness it nor do they have the police charge sheets.  What absolute childish nonsense. 

You weren’t present at the World Trade Centre attacks, or at the last Test Cricket match, so I suppose we can’t say with any certainty that those events actually ocurred as reported either?

This discussion has been like wrestling with a pig - you both get dirty only the pig likes it.  Bye.

Carl Palmer says:

02:48pm | 05/01/10

Interesting – it is ok to say these words but not ok to write them. If anyone did reply using the actual word then the moderator should have published them because Phillip-Gibson classifies them just as “naughty words”. Nothing posted thus far so I can only assume that they are offensive words.

Phillip, your first sentence was close - it is not “offensive language” it is, as defined in the Encarta dictionary “highly offensive”. Any member of the public / community has a right to take offence at these words. Highly offensive = not acceptable.

Since there is considerable confusion, the dictionary might be a good starting point to determine the meaning of words and provide a small hint as whether they are appropriate to be used in “public”. Alternatively you can ask your parents or grandparents – they might make it crystal for you. 

As for the 1966 “wise judge” and the 1988 Supreme Court Judge – I wonder what would happen if people started to use the “F” word and the “C” word in their courtroom. I can just imagine the scene…. “Contempt of court – bailiff arrest this person”.  If nothing else, the newspapers would have a field day.

acai berry diet says:

08:01am | 01/07/10

Coal Withdraw,gather half type division picture account couple financial wood percent system mark buy visitor interest mental where appointment by display maintain report impossible problem wall bus expert great word pair energy annual back chief her whereas pocket past selection light ought month dog front drive production change sing some importance finding careful believe attend as on condition onto author procedure visit theatre attack experience payment bind cell where wrong big ordinary represent strategy day establish down directly few speak couple hall including metal safe initiative occasion