Bloody Victorians, on the spot fines for bloody swearing.

“Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer.” –  Mark Twain.

Well, there is the old adage, “Nothing any good comes out of Victoria.” Now it seems that police there are being given the power, (which they love,) of fining people on the spot for swearing. There is at the moment no news regarding poor grammar and split infinitives. Legislators claim it will allow police to deal with it on the spot rather than clog up the court system.

This probably has more to do with revenue raising than keeping a bit of couth and decorum in the state, even though those Victorian bastards like to consider their bloody state to be the home of culture. Lets face it, the cost of taking it to court to fight it is probably more than the fine of up to $240, even in the situation of a minimum wage earner who might barely take home that much in a week.

This is a bad move for the justice system for these offences to be taken out of the court system. Courts provide a vital moderating influence because there is an independent arbiter to consider the facts of what in most cases happens in the heat of the moment. After proper consideration, a judge might in fact decide that the cop was in fact a cockhead or a f**kwit.

This places the average citizen at the mercy of whatever cop they get on the wrong side of. It is particularly bad news if he has had a bad day and feels like making a prick of himself, or missed out last night and is determined to make some poor bastard pay.

12 thoughts on “Bloody Victorians, on the spot fines for bloody swearing.

  1. Do you have to be swearing at the police to cop the fine or can they get you for say rude shit to your best mate?

  2. Victorians always get these things wrong! It should be an immediate death penalty, carried out on the spot! (Can you say ‘Judge Dredd’, or ‘Dirty Harry’?)
    You could always claim it was a misunderstanding. You thought you saw a Shi’ite, officer, honestly!

  3. It appears to be anything deemed to be offensive in the way of language. Even comedians are concerned about the the impact, which would be ludicrous if it is justified. People after all pay to hear Kevin Bloody Wilson.

    Police already have the power to arrest on the basis of bad language.This is currently exercised with discretion because of the court process. This removes that process.

  4. Police already have the power to arrest on the basis of bad language.

    In Victoria can I do a citizens arrest on the same basis?

  5. In some ways it’s an improvement on the current situation. If you get pinged for calling a copper a dead cunt and the only option is court, it costs even to go to court and plead guilty. At least there’ll be an on-the-spot fine option.

    But if you think it’s worth pleading not guilty, perhaps by arguing that the copper is in truth a dead cunt, you still have that option. A defence costs money either way.

    I strongly recommend nobody EVER plead guilty. Force the fuckers to prove it and jam up the court system.

  6. I’ve seen people plead guilty in local courts on summary matters and they just cop it.

    Fight them all the way. You might get lucky like me and the prosecution might not turn up on the day (mine was an absurd and unfair technicality of ‘negligent’ driving).

    All you have to do is prove they don’t have submarine sonar operator style hearing and you should get off. I can’t imagine they’d bring witnesses.

  7. I’m the kind of guy who thinks that aggravated murder and armed robbery in company should be treated rather mercilessly (as there appears to be recently on the GC), but we should be able to say cunt, fuck, shit, cock, dick, bastard, bitch, shit etc until the cows come home.

    Who’s with me?

  8. Citizens arrests are only legal if safety is in jepodary or very significant property damage.

  9. What a great Idea! Mummy Liberal Victorian Government will now go into Ethihad stadium to fine people during an AFL game. That’s Bloody genius, mate! God I hate the Liberal Party. I could understand if it was a Labor Government introducing such a Policy, but not a Party that starts with the L Word (Liberal. Let’s see what the Courts will say about this being consistent with the The Victorian Charter of Rights

Comments are closed.