This Gold Coast couple are going to fight the fine on indecency grounds.
As a matter of fact, I think having your feet on the dashboard should be fined as it is dangerous if you crash.
What are your views on this situation?
Couple demand apology after traffic camera takes photo up wife’s skirt
Bet some quack will issue her a statement that her right arm was unable to operate the visor?
brainworms for breakfast
"This part of the safety harness is designed to sit above your shoulder so it will restrain the top part of the torso in an accident"
'yeah well not going to make a difference wearing it three inches lower, under the arm it goes, take THAT nanny state'
You've convinced me. Do us all a favour and start fighting for your rights that way, yeah?
@EightImmortals: Why would I waste my energy on a sovcit-wannabe who views every government department as part of a giant conspiracy theory and all payments to it are either outright theft or base deception? You either can't understand simple civil concepts or don't want to.
The fact you're willing to misrepresent an obvious safety factor (hurr durr, three inches) shows you're either arguing in bad faith or stupid; I don't care which, just 'prove your point' and start wearing your seatbelt under your arm when your carer drives you around.
"Well with the energy you wasted on that reply (and it's associated assumptions) you could have answered my question."
No, because dunking on you gives me (and perhaps others) enjoyment. I don't mind doing that with my energy.
Attempting to educate a "all tax is theft, I don't know who pays for roads and hospitals and fire engines but that has nothing to do with this discussion" crazy person is where my energy would be wasted. You've already made your mind up (and it's wrong).
Sovcits who use society's resources and go to "muh rights, all tax is theft" are among the lowest of parasites.
If you really think all these rules are baseless, go ahead and break them and have your day in court and speak truth to justice.
(Or is it easier to just imagine that you're superior to all the workings of 'the machine' and we're all just mindless tax-paying sheep?)
@EightImmortals: "I don't see the point to some rules, and I didn't have a direct say in where some taxes went, so those ones (rules, penalties) are now theft"
Brainworms.
If you like calling things you disagree with illegal, go nuts, chief. Being issued a seatbelt fine is "demanding with menaces" in your view, after all. I'm surprised you're letting the government off so easily, why not just call it murder and be done with it?
Probably imagining Zelenskyy on the mobile phone "Hey the war isn't going great, need some more money, can you trick some NSW motorists into parking on a single yellow line? Maybe toss in some seatbelt penalties too? Cheers".
I have never taken government handouts either to save you the effort of jumping to another conclusion
[X] Doubt.
so Zelensky can have 500 BILLION plus
…you don't actually know the difference between a million and a billion, do you?
I think I'll start calling you ZeroPointZeroZeroEightImmortals
No, because dunking on you gives me (and perhaps others) enjoyment.
Can confirm, enjoyed immensely
@EightImmortals: Was that you I saw on News.com or one of your Sovereign Citizen friends?
I want my cake, I just don't want to pay for it!
Taxation (of any sort) IS theft, there's no logical way you can get around that, the best you can do is try to justify it, in some cases you can but in many other cases you cant.
How is it theft? We live in a society, that society is bound by laws, and some of those laws cover methods for the caretakers of said society to fund operating and maintaining said society.
You're more than welcome to go make your own society, but be warned that societies are generally formed via bigger stick dipolomacy.
In your ideal world, how does society fund societal projects?
It is MY property taken without my consent under threat of violence. If that's not theft then I don't know what is.
(deliberately sidestepping the "threat of violence" bizarreness because, holy shit, of course things are escalating in his head)
You've already established you didn't know what theft was like, five posts back, my man. Basically every single time you've used it today, really.
If you want to destroy your brain with this sovcit anarcho "my feelings decide the laws" milkshake, go for it, but at least learn what the words mean before you start. Pretend it's 1984 and the goVeRnmEnT is trying to prevent you from learning the actual meaning of words, and it's an act of defiance to use a dictionary.
@EightImmortals: Ahhh I get it now, you live in a fantasy world. Have you ever met people? Because many people my friend are a$$holes which means that Utopia is only but a pipe dream. Many have wished for it, not aware of any succeeding - far from the opposite.
@Hardlyworkin: "energy australia is dear sir you missed payment of your quarter electricity bill would you like to set up a direct debit and i'm like NO THANKS STALIN i never said i authorised you to be paid with MY MONEY and SHOW ME WHERE I SIGNED CONSENT FOR ALL THOSE WIRES unless you have a photograph of me saluting the MARITIME FLAG without the BRITISH ENSIGN your electricity is NULL AND VOID and is an ILLEGAL OCCUPIER of my appliances and i'll be charging you RENT on that ILLEGAL ABDUCTION thank you very much checkmate better luck next time you guys are just as bad as THE FAMILY COURT which has RIDICULOUS OVERREACH and HAS FORCED MY ENTIRE LIFE TO BE LIVED IN A PERPETUAL FEIGNED STATE OF VICTIMHOOD"
It is MY property taken without my consent under threat of violence. If that's not theft then I don't know what is.
No violence, just predetermined consequences. Fines, jail, etc.
'Laws' that none of us except the political class have any say in whatsoever. That is not 'law' that is 'tyranny'. Unless there is a formal mechanism whereby 'we the people' can direct our 'representatives' which way to vote on any particular issue that nobody told me a bout?
You do direct your representatives - you choose them yourself! If there's a particular issue you'd like your representative to vote a particular way on, you're more than welcome to discuss it with them, or if you're unhappy with that representative find another. You're also more than welcome to become a representative yourself, if you so choose.
You mean the 'laws' that those "caretakers of said society" wrote to suit themselves?
So is it objectively theft, or just disagreeable to you? Those caretakers were chosen by society - if society wants to keep punching itself in the face, do you blame the fist, or society? Yes, many western countries seem to have an ingrained political "class", and there are elements to our politics that need (IMO) thinking about - party politics, popularity contest, deception, outright corruption, etc. but that's a discussion for another time.
And as I have noted on numerous occasions what happens when that stolen money is used for purposes that do not fund the "operating and maintaining said society"? I have mentioned a couple of examples above but have posted many more previously. It generally falls on deaf ears.
It likely generally falls on deafs ears as it comes across as rhetoric. In regards to your examples:
Zelensky can have 500 BILLION plus of it
Can you link your source to me - the best I could find from my quick search was Twiggy Forrest giving US$500m, the government's $91m+65m+…, or the $270b on military spending (not explicity/solely Ukraine).
or the failed European banks could get the 7.5 Billion dollar payout after the GST
Again, not to be a prick but source? Again, my search didn't turn up anything relevant (although I suspect this was at least partly due to the search terms being too broad)
So if I want freedom and democracy I should leave Australia? Is that the argument you are going with?
Well your wailing about having to pay taxes, which is required by law in Australia. So yes, if you don't want to pay taxes you should investigate living elsewhere. No taxes does not equate to freedom and democracy, however. Like I said before, taxes are used to operate and maintain societal functions, like the roads as you pointed out, but also other infrastructure and services.
With a small tax levy under the management of a very small and highly accountable 'government' that has no power to go past its mandate?
Well a small government of a small society would only need a small tax levy, that's just logical. Although I think you'll find that a smaller society would likely impose (proportionately) more tax, as you lose the efficiency of scale.
Not that I think it should happen, but the bigger a project/society is the more inefficiency, waste and corruption you get - although not so much as a proportion, but in absolute figures.
Out of curiosity, what power does our current government have to go past it's "mandate", and what is it's "mandate"?
Through money printing (yes I know that's a bad idea but they do it anyway so why not use it for good?)
Through schemes similar to how they funded the Nullabour crossing and the first stage of the Snowy project without extra taxes or debt. Creative people of integrity will always find a way to get things done.
But I'm curious to know how people get from 'society needs roads' to 'therefore we MUST have a gargantuan monstrosity that dictates every minutia of our lives and charges us to comply with their petulant rules all the way along'?
I'd love to not need laws such as said seatbelt laws, but can be seen in this story even with hefty fines people still don't wear their seatbelts at all/properly. Personally I'd like to say ditch all the nanny-laws and let Darwin have them, but that's not exactly the nicest thing to do, and many of them will manage to take out good people before they manage to get their award…
I'd love to hear an answer to that one, but as I'm still waiting for the other guy to explain how someone wearing a seatbelt a couple of inches in the wrong position justifies government stealing $1000 from them? I wont hold my breath.
Quite simply - the government has put into place laws governing the use of safety systems such as seatbelts, to protect occupants and third-parties from harm, and government services such as health from extra, unnecessary, preventable load, in the event of an accident. Those laws prescribe consequences for breaching them, which in this particular case corresponds to a fine of ~$1000, and (presumably) some demerit points as a way of removing continuing offenders from the road completely.
If they wanted to keep their $1000, they just needed to follow the law that they already knew about (although presumably didn't realise the financial consequences of failing to follow said law).
@Chandler: "No violence, just predetermined consequences. Fines, jail, etc."
So predetermined violence is OK then? And it's even more OK if it was written down by some people in suits who had a rubber stamp?
"You do direct your representatives - you choose them yourself!"
I didn't question how they were chosen, I asked what formal mechanism was in place whereby 'we the people' can direct those so-called representatives on any particular issue relevant at the time. Democracy is 'majority rules' not 'majority picks who gets to rule them unaccountably for the next three years.'
"If there's a particular issue you'd like your representative to vote a particular way on, you're more than welcome to discuss it with them"
As above. Going cap in hand to your 'betters' with a 'by-your-leave g'uvna' attitude is serfdom, not democracy. My point stands, we have NO SAY in any laws whatsoever including ones that steal $1000 from us just because our seatbelt is not right by a couple of inches.
"So is it objectively theft, or just disagreeable to you? "
It's both.
"Can you link your source to me - (Ukraine)
Here's from July last year where it was 385million
https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/media-releases/2022-07-0…
This one from October: https://www.rt.com/news/565321-australia-budget-ukraine-aid/…
"The Australian government has earmarked AU$213.3 million (US$136mn) in additional spending for aid to Ukraine over the next five years. The funding is part of the new federal budget revealed on Tuesday. Most of the money is to be spent on military assistance, including Bushmaster armored vehicles and other weapon systems that Canberra wants to provide to Kiev over two years."
They are also considering providing military training (with our tax dollars): https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/10/12/australian-pm-says…
And there's talk that they may send another 500 MILLION as well: https://www.australiannationalreview.com/state-of-affairs/al…
Don't get hung up on the exact amount, my POINT was that stealing my wages to pay for foreign wars that do not directly benefit Australia, along with all of the other ways the politicians contemptuously treat our hard work, is offensive in the extreme and probably way beyond the remit of what the government should be permitted to do with that money.
I'll have to get back to you on the bank bailout thing, my bookmarked links have been redacted but I'll see if I can find the info again.
"Well your wailing about having to pay taxes, which is required by law in Australia. "
I'm not actually.
I'm saying that taxation is theft.
I'm complaining that taxation is way too high.
I'm complaining about the many ways they waste it on BS that is not about 'roads and schools'.
And again with this 'law' thing, these are for the most part just nonsense written down to enforce our compliance and separate us from our money. IMO if there is no real victim involved then there can be no crime. Merely disobeying the diktats of the political class is not a 'crime' per se and against nobody has ever been able to explain why I have a moral duty to do so.
"I'd love to not need laws such as said seatbelt laws, but can be seen in this story even with hefty fines people still don't wear their seatbelts at all/properly. Personally I'd like to say ditch all the nanny-laws and let Darwin have them, but that's not exactly the nicest thing to do, and many of them will manage to take out good people before they manage to get their award…"
That's part of a larger/different discussion. The FACT is that wearing a seatbelt not in the government-proscribed 'correct' position harms absolutely nobody and even IF that person had an accident it would effect nobody but themselves (potentially). And for all the ranting in this thread not a single person has yet told me how merely wearing a seatbelt 'incorrectly' justifies government demanding $1000 from them? Unless you want to argue along the lines of forcing compliance to any and all petulant scribbles written down by an unaccountable gang which we are expected to obey as if they were written by the hand of God himself? If that is your argument then we have simply arrived back at Mao's famous quote "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun". And we all know how that went, pity hardly anyone remembers.
"If they wanted to keep their $1000, they just needed to follow the law that they already knew about (although presumably didn't realise the financial consequences of failing to follow said law)."
But that's the problem, I know I keep repeating it but in what way does the seatbelt position mean that I now owe government $1000. If we simply blindly obey everything they tell us to do without challenging them in way then we are no better than slaves, literally. Now if some choose to live as a slave then so be it, personally I'd rather be free and am old enough to remember when we still had a bit of freedom left. People really need to wake up to the myth of authority before it's too late. But then I guess if they were going to wake up they would have done it by now so it's probably too late already.
All the best, I think I've said all I want to on this topic for now. (Until the next act of tyranny pops up on Ozbargain…any minute now. :) )
@EightImmortals: Seems like your own mind controls you far more than any 'authority' does. Must be exhausting.
@downbythecreek: Ok ,so I'm in control of my mind rather than having government in control of my mind…..and you believe that's a bad thing?
@Crow K: It's sad to see people misuse the sovcit label so innapropriately because I like laughing at sovcits. The reality is that most dumb people confuse sovcit with someone who is just simply saying the govt shouldn't be involved in every inch of your life.
@EightImmortals: 'cos' the law is very clear and these fines have been very well documented.
Break law, get fine.
Boo hoo.
you never fail to impress us
Thankyouverymuch, I'll be here all week!
I wish Sydney Trains would fine every single person that places their feet on the seat. Never seen a single fine over the last 30 years but I see people doing this everyday.
I have often thought about slamming my foot down on the bridging knee of these people…. but cameras and the legal fees to hire a lawyer good enough to get me off make it not worthwhile.
You know what…I thought of doing exactly the same but totally not worth it. Learnt to look away and ignore it.
I know its so disgusting
jesus christ. the seats are already dirty, the fact you even think about doing that makes you a psychopath
We need a SCOA ( Seat Cam Owners Australia) for that kind of violation.
The risk is, you send the footage (lol) through, but you’ll be fined for illegal filming.
but you’ll be fined for illegal filming
especially if it captures their undies like ol mate in the article
Yeah, that seems more like indecent exposure in a publicly viewable place. They should get an additional fine.
I’ve seen them fine someone in Melbourne who had their leg in a cast, crutches and was only wearing a sock, and only their leg was actually on the seat, and their shoe-less foot overhanging the edge.
I’m definitely anti feet on seats, but I feel like this one could have been a warning.
stink?
Last time I took a Sydney train there was a homeless guy asleep on his back on one seat, head against the window side, his backside jammed against the armrest closest to the aisle, so he could put his lower legs out and across the aisle to rest his feet on the armrest of the seat across the aisle. Some guy in a business suit got on the train who'd obviously seen this before by the belligerent way he slapped the guy's legs so he'd lift them up and let him pass.
I've seen someone fined for this once. I agree - there should definitely be more fines for it.
Do they really mean you can break the law if you are in an indecent position??
Did you check the pics? Both the camera and their little photoshoot shows that she's not wearing her seatbelt properly. It's under her shoulder.
They're deflecting and making it seem like it's something else.
Case closed.
that is what I meant, turn your sarcasm detector on pls.
They broke the law and trying to dodge the actual issue by making another one
After recent dashcam posts it's hard to tell haha 😜
@Clear: Oh my god, speaking of which, that self-incriminatory video made it's way on to the latest Dash Cams Australia compilation.
It's a safety issue with the seat belt not worn properly due to the sitting position. If the vehicle had a head-on collision I don't like the chance of the passenger being restrained properly to escape injury/death.
Don't think they're using that as a reason for their appeal; they were probably going to fight it anyway.
Fingers crossed, they get another fine for public indecency, on top of the seatbelt fine
Imagine the precedent
I'd drive everywhere naked if I knew it could waive fines.
'Decency' and 'law' are two different things.
I suspect it'll be - the fine applies and we're sorry about the upskirt.
As example, speeding while nude and getting caught is still speeding.
One could safely assume images would become public domain when commencing action…case lacks any semblance of merit .
how the fck would you know lol
Talk about the Streisand effect! Oh no, there’s an indecent photo of my wife that maybe one person in the Department of Transport saw, I better post it to News.com
I doubt anyone would have seen it before they disputed it. It's all automated isn't it?
AI makes the initial detection for further assessment by a human who issues the fine (apparently after a quick visit to the bathroom).
Gary at the department definitely would have told Trevor about it and showed it to him and passed it around.
“Hey Trev, c’mere and get a gander of this shiela! Old mate getting in a good fingerbang!”
I imagine someone would pass their eye over it to check for false positives. Or do they wait until someone disputes a false positive and then they chuck it in the bin?
In NSW they advise there are 'several stages of human review and adjudication'. For QLD they advise that any AI detected positives are sent to QLD Revenue Office for review
Article can't even spell "Nguyen" correctly…are they going to sue the paper for spelling her name wrong also? 🤦♂️
What would you expect from a "sewage" tabloid??
NewsCorp knows sex sells despite their constant and hypocritical complaining about other channels on Sky.
IIRC, there's an interesting story on how they reported on crimes from the senate hearings - look for sexy criminals with hot pics on socials to report on.
Their publications really are bottom of the barrel trash.
It was probably her husband who gave the name lol.
No reasonable expectation of privacy, you are sitting in a car in public view, any person waling over a pedestrian overpass or looking from a high vantage point would have the same view. If I take a photo in public the same moment someone bends over and exposes their underwear that is also not an offence.
Where do you start with a couple like this? If a camera, from above, can upskirt you, then your feet are in the wrong place for being a passenger in a car. Who would make this public?
… then your feet are in the wrong place for being a passenger in a car.
I've never understood people who put their feet up on the dashboard. It's disgusting, dangerous and ruins the dashboard! I haven't had anyone try, but if anyone did, I'd boot them out (literally) immediately.
It's disgusting
Only for people who don’t like feet. People with a foot fetish probably get a kick out of it.
People with a foot fetish probably get a kick out of it.
I see what you did there.
Like Quentin Tarantino who is notorious for it. Maybe the lady was inspired by this scene (look at 3'20" in)
Good Pho public display.
‘She only had her arm outside the belt for a few seconds to adjust the visor’
No chance, that’s just a convenient excuse. No one would pull their arm out to adjust a visor then put it back. You’d pull the seatbelt forward in front of you.
Exactly…that seems like a more inconvenient way to move a sun visor, than …just lifting your arm normally.
The upskirt and the seatbelt fine are two different things, so they're not going to get off the seatbelt fine using the upskirt picture as an excuse.
If she writes in to appeal the seatbelt fine, they definitely won't let her off. However, courts seem to be quite lenient with these things and they may dismiss it because it was a momentary thing to move the sunvisor (and the picture actually shows that).
she's also an idiot to have her legs on the dash… I was getting an xray the other day, and they had a warning poster about putting your legs on the dash while in the car. The xray looked like a butterflyed chicken
After an accident, she wouldn't have to remove the two bottom ribs to achieve what Marilyn Manson is able to do.
I saw this on the news the other day. If you watch the video here it shows her adjusting the visor, and it makes absolutely no sense why she would move her arm above the seatbelt to do so and looks extremely awkward.
Pretty obvious to me they were doing sexual stuff in the car.
Pay the fine you stupid old flog.
Nobodies looking up her skirt, stop trying to deflect the fact she broke the law…
comply comply comply comply comply
Sounds like I can speed all I want if I whip it out first.
out the window?
I wish
Be careful what you wish for.
They aren't going to get very far without a MS Paint diagram depicting the seat belt offence and the up-skirt incident.
Perhaps OzBargain can help?
This is dumb for so many reasons. Firstly, I'm about the same height as that woman and I can tell you I don't need to slip my shoulder out of my seat belt to put my sun visor down. Secondly, if she put her feet down from the dashboard maybe it would make it easier for her to put her visor down, which would be much easier than twisting out of the seat belt. Thirdly, being so short there's no way I'd put my feet up on the dashboard knowing that in the case of an accident my knees probably wouldn't just end up in my skull but probably also on the headrest behind my head.
I reakon in pure stupidity, this couple are trying to detract from the real issue (not wearing a seatbelt properly) and just trying to deflect blame and responsibility onto someone else- in this case the government.
he can't be too upset with the upskirt photo if he has shared it with News.com to then be plastered all over the interwebs.
If he wanted privacy he wouldn't have shared the photo!
We have a winner! I didnt think of that LOL!
2 morons, one car.
Three words: Full bench High Court.
This case needs to fundamentally test our constitution. Shelve First Nations voice for now. Do this, then transgender students in school, then First Nationa voice.
Dennis Denuto on the case.
exposing her underwear
Might have had a better case if she wasn't wearing any!
Queue “crack in the camera lens” jokes.
Sweet so all I have to do to get out of traffic photo fines is drive pants off spread eagle. seems reasonable. And FYI, the photo did not expose your underwear, YOU did, perhaps an extra fine for the poor unfortunate person that was forced to review the photo of your indiscretion.
My wife is tiny and also Asian and she does what everyone else does which is lean forward a bit without locking the seat belt. no need to remove anything.. although ironically removed panties would have made this photo much more interesting. Bwhahaha .. GOAL!!!! Sexism 1 Woke 0
Lol, you are such a stereotype.
The camera should countersue for indecent exposure.
A $1078 fine is bonkers anyway, for a passenger momentarily wearing their seatbelt incorrectly while reaching to adjust something.
Could probably succeed in getting off this fine regardless of the nature of the photo.
Momentary or not, it is still illegal.
She could've just closed her eyes or put on some sunnies.
There is no justice in the unreasonable enforcement of minor and unintended legal violations, and it serves no practical purpose.
Seatbelt below shoulder, the end.