It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

The worst police state thats totally in the shadows (long read)

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 11:21 AM
The Victoria Police has allocated 12.6 million dollars to police public affairs and media, that is 25 times more than what they allocate towards specialist crime units. I personally have always been a fan on law enforcement, but this agency is out of control and unaccountable.

Ever since that 1 active shooting taking place in Tasmania, Australia basically banned and heavily regulated all firearms, Victoria took it a step further, by banning every single self defence tool you can find, from pepper spray to those little keyring kubatons. For many years now there has been a total zero tolerance policy, The former OPI, now IBAC (independent police watchdog) has said that doing so actually doesn't reduce any crime, there are still sexual assaults, stabbings, arson attacks, shootings, everything. After reviewing the police website and contacting them, they said that 'self defence isn't justifiable' and that you could either carry a whistle or a mobile phone.

I have witnessed many violent altercations in this region before, I called the police after I saw a man smashing a window and breaking into a store, the police response time was roughly 30 minutes, after talking to the officers they admitted they were only 1km away, but were on a break. Another time I witnessed a large brawl, someone had just been stabbed, the police came at the same time frame and had no light or sirens going. The methodology/tactics and lack of training is just unbelievable, I've never seen anything like it before in my life. So a mobile phone does little if your life is in danger and the average response time is 30 minutes.

I conducted a social experiment, went in an alleyway and used a whistle (it was a public area at night around 8, there are pubs, shops, a large gathering of people), nobody decided to check, they decided to tell me to 'shut up', which I did, fact is, they didn't see my face, it sounded exactly like a clear emergency, and the whistle did nothing.

So how can people defend themselves? Even anything designed or adapted to protect someones chest from a stab wound is prohibited, I almost forgot to mention, handheld alarm systems that let off a loud siren sound, are also prohibited.

The IBAC has labeled the Victoria Police as dysfunctional. When Victoria Police conducts the new 'zero tolerance' searches, the IBAC said that it lacks accountability, it's a rarity for police to hand over any logs of the search to the individual, and even if they do they lack legal suspicion. The search regulations are:

The police officer does not need a warrant to search you in a public place if they
reasonably suspect you:
have illegal drugs
have things that can explode or ignite
have guns or weapons like knives, imitation guns, knuckle-dusters or nunchakus
are in an area where a lot of violent crime happens (they can use this fact to show they have reasonable grounds to search you)
have something that could be used to make graffiti, for example, spray paint, gouging tool or even a texta.
To search you for a graffiti offence, the police officer must reasonably believe you are 14 years or older. You must also be on or near public transport property or trespassing on someone else’s property.
A public place includes:
a shop
the train station
public transport (buses, trams or trains)
a hospital or welfare centre like the Salvation Army.
The police officer can search anything you are carrying and the car you are in. They can search your car even if you are not in it.
Searches in public 'designated areas'
The police can search people for weapons in public areas which have become designated areas. They have a lot of search powers within these areas. The police:
do not need a warrant
do not need to have any reasonable grounds to suspect you are carrying a weapon
can search you, your bags and your car for weapons
can do searches in a designated area for up to 12 hours.
A senior police officer can make a public area into a designated area if it:
has had two or more events of violence or disorder in the last 12 months
is a regular trouble spot, such as King Street, Melbourne
has had events or demonstrations that have been violent.
The police should tell people that the public area has become a designated area. They should publish this in a local newspaper. They do not have to do this if they have made a public area into a designated area at short notice.
Before searching anyone in a designated area, the police officer must give the person a search notice. This will say:
that the area has become a designated area
you or your motor vehicle are in that designated area
the police have the power to search you
it is an offence to stop the police searching you.
According to the IBAC, it's extremely rare for a police officer to give the person a search notice, many telling the subject that they 'ran out'. The police don't publish information on designated areas, just like they don't say where they will put the new advanced road detection cameras, that lets the police look inside peoples cars from long distances...
Searches on private property
A police officer usually needs a warrant to enter and search private property, such as your home. The officer may do a search without a warrant when:
you let them in
the police officer has a reasonable belief that someone will or has committed a serious offence and they need to go into the property to arrest that person
the police officer needs to stop a ‘breach of the peace’, for example, a fight
someone inside the property has breached an intervention order or breached a family violence safety notice
someone has not followed a direction given by the police for family violence matters
the police officer has a reasonable belief that someone has assaulted or threatened to assault a family member
the police officer is chasing someone who has escaped from prison or custody
the police officer has a warrant to arrest someone on the property.

The Victoria Police recently spent a few million dollars, with their blank check on new 'darker uniforms', a police spokesperson said that the new uniforms aren't based on the NYPD uniforms, but they do have characteristics that make police seem more professional, it hides blood and sweat, it also induces fear and authority. This is only the first step in the psychological warfare department.

The government has had a history of actually covering up corruption. All this money going towards media... Something is wrong... I never believed in conspiracy theories, but all of this misconduct and abused allocations of funds, it just seems plain dumb. Victoria Police - Harm the innocent, hide behind friends with guns.

More info to be added, sorry the word limit is a pain.
edit on 24-4-2014 by concernedviccitizen because: added rel

posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 11:22 AM
Next week, Victoria’s government is expected to attempt to pass a piece of deeply anti-democratic legislation which would massively increase the ability of police forces to "move on" workers and activists engaged in peaceful protests, pickets and demonstrations. If passed, it would be a substantial blow to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.
The proposed bill creates a new scheme of “exclusion orders” which could potentially be used to ban individuals or groups from public spaces for up to 12 months. Contravention would carry a penalty of two years imprisonment. Under the new proposals, an oral direction to "move on" would apply to an entire group of people, even if not given to each member of the group in person. The legislation would also require that people must give police their name and address when faced with a "move on" direction. The bill suggests failure to comply with a police request would result in a penalty of $600.
The appallingly broad range of discretionary powers the proposed legislation hands to police has shocked unions, activists and lawyers alike, and has inspired a momentous gathering at Melbourne’s Trades Hall last week. A broad range of people and organisations all deeply concerned about the implications of the bill attended. Representatives from community legal centers, as well as Victoria trades hall council representatives, union representatives, activists and independent media outlets packed the meeting room to explore what the legislation's ramifications for protest rights.
Victoria already has laws which police can use to move people on if it is suspected that people are breaching or likely to breach the peace, if people are endangering or likely to endanger the safety or any other person, or if behaviour of people is likely to cause injury to other people or damage to property. Contravening these laws already potentially results in a $600 fine.

However, the new legislation appears to have the unions and protest groups firmly in its sight, and the bill could be a serious threat to Victorian workers’ right to organise to improve working conditions. Brian Boyd, secretary of the Victorian Trades Hall Council, noted that "there’s a lot of concern about what the changes could mean to our day to day functions for unions.”
In the second reading of the proposed legislation before the Victorian Legislative Assembly in december, Victorian attorney general Robert Clark said:
It makes clear that if protesters go beyond legitimate expression of views and instead resort to threats of violence or seek to impede the rights of others to lawfully enter or leave premises, police will have the power to order those protesters to move on. To this end, the bill provides that move-on powers may be used in respect of people engaged in picket lines, protests and other demonstrations.
The changes effectively mean that purely symbolic protests will still be protected from police "move on" powers, but protest action which attempts to achieve objectives through picketing or blockading could be criminalised. It is utterly disgraceful and entirely unacceptable that the government would place the power to decide what is “legitimate protest” in the hands of police.
Simon Frew, president of the Pirate party, was present at the Trades Hall meeting. He told me:
It is vital that people with grievances, whether the government believes they are legitimate or not, have the right to demonstrate their opposition in public. Passing laws aimed to give police the power to break up protests seriously limits this right and weakens the ability of society to carry on a free and open debate about important issues of the day.
Elizabeth O’Shea, a lawyer with Maurice Blackburn who has represented a number of refugees with adverse security assessments from ASIO, as well as the Tecoma 8 anti-MacDonald’s activists, was also present. She said:
This is a direct attack on democratic freedoms that people have historically fought hard to protect. It effectively criminalises a range of behaviors that are fundamental to freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. The right to protest has resulted in hard won freedoms we all enjoy and curbed excesses of corporate and political power. Why is the Victorian government so frightened of people congregating to express their views?
Why indeed? Is the Victorian government so terrified of the voices of opposition? The violent crackdown on Occupy Melbourne would suggest so. As it is, the bill would do nothing less than legalising clamp-downs on free speech and congregation. One would suggest bringing the issue to the notice of current Australian human rights commissioner Tim Wilson, if it wasn’t for his prior Twitter post “Walked past Occupy Melbourne protest, all people who think freedom of speech = freedom 2 b heard, time waster...send in the water cannons”

While the proposed legislation has raised the ire of activists, there is the frightening potential it may also be used to further criminalise the homeless and individuals suffering from mental health issues, since exclusion orders would be based on entirely subjective, predictions of the future. This was a point underlined by Fitzroy Legal Service's Meghan Fitzgerald, who pointed out that these provisions "are framed to facilitate social exclusion in the absence of criminal offending. For example, the provision relating to a reasonable suspicion that persons are present to buy or sell drugs.”

It is as yet unknown how authorities plan to monitor individuals under the exclusion orders, and what the implications on privacy for the broader community will be. What we do know, however, is that cracking down on freedom of movement and congregation will require greater policing and surveillance.

Protesters shouldn’t face the threat years in jail just for making their point heard. Victorians don’t want a police state, and we simply don’t need these laws. They won’t make us a safer society and they will only serve to undermine basic human rights.

This was taken from a conspiracy website: “Let us record the most perfect description of a Police State unanimously adopted by the Victorian State Government. 
On 28th October 1993, the Victorian Government unanimously passed a new Fluoridation Act, which changed the Victorian Constitution which now reads: 
“The Supreme Court of Victoria is prohibited from entertaining case against fluoridation.” (Hansard)  
The Minister of Health stated that day: 
“Health Fluoridation Act should not be prevented from doing so by actions before a court.” (Hansard) 
Passed without debate. 
At that moment on that day, on 28th October, 1993, we became a Police State. 
Democracy and honesty were destroyed, fluoridation must be protected from Courts and any such suggested actions by “The People” is prohibited by the Constitution! 
The State of Victoria by the Supreme Law of the Victorian State Constitution now over-rides everything in medical democracy associated with our involvement as part of the 1949 Nuremberg Court Ruling relative to compulsory medication. 
The Australian Constitution, Section 50(xxiiiA) under, “Legislative Powers of Parliament” states: 
The Australian Constitution over-rides all State Laws that are contrary to the Australian Constitution, but correspondence

posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 11:22 AM
The Australian Constitution, Section 50(xxiiiA) under, “Legislative Powers of Parliament” states: 
The Australian Constitution over-rides all State Laws that are contrary to the Australian Constitution, but correspondence to State and Federal Ministers from our Association are ignored on this matter of Law and Order in a Democratic Country.”

Sweeping legal changes which came into effect on September 30 allow courts to suspend or cancel the licence of any person convicted or found guilty of any offence – regardless of whether that offence has anything to do with driving.
Victoria Police has exclusively revealed to the Herald Sun that it will seek to use the new powers in up to 50,000 court cases each year.
It has already briefed its prosecutors on the law.
“If you’re convicted or found guilty of any offence, a court may suspend or cancel and disqualify your licence,” said Acting Senior Sergeant Richard Bowers, of the Victoria Police Prosecution Division.
“The legislation does not govern or put a limiting factor on which cases it applies to. It’s any offence, and it’s completely open to the magistrate as to whether or not they impose it.
“Unless a superior court gets hold of one of these cases and says ‘Well, this is an inappropriate exercise of discretion,’ it will remain open for use for a magistrate to use in any way they see fit.”
But the move has angered civil libertarians.
“We are very disturbed at the lack of consultation, given this is such a sweeping and draconian measure,” Jane Dixon, SC, the president of Liberty Victoria, said last night.

posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 11:22 AM
“To deprive someone of their driving licence can often also deprive them of their livelihood.
“We believe, for well-being, there should be a strong foundation between driving and the offending.”

I'm all for tasers, just not ones given to a police force that used 13 tasers against a kid!

“Most frontline police in regional Victoria will carry stun guns under a $13.5 million government plan to roll out nearly 600 weapons to 24-hour police stations.
Minister for Police and Emergency Services Kim Wells said 580 Tasers, that fire a 50,000-volt barb, would be provided to all 24-hour police stations across regional Victoria.”

Who is this Minister for Emergency Services? You would think his background would be related to his position. No... He was a used refrigerator salesman.

So, Victoria has banned anything people can use to stand up against government tyranny, I don't see total government tyranny... Yet... It's clearly on it's way. Everything stated above does make Victoria fit the characteristics of a police state and a nanny state. I personally want to leave, but the economy is bad over here. I should be able to apply for asylum, this is really just a horrible place to live. The police were allocated 13 million dollars towards public affairs, you can see so many shock ad's played on TV here:
or how about this gore ridden work safe ad:

It's funny, exposing children to such horrible stuff actually has links to psychopathy.

You decide for yourself. Since the police were given a basically unlimited budget, and not one controversy section appears on the Wikipedia page, i'll bet ill have some cop on here trying to discredit everything on here. Oh and I highly suggest you take a look at the police Twitter now... lol it's like they want you to know they are a police state.

Wanna help? Spread the word.

posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 11:31 AM
Canada too has such draconian laws which virtually allow the RCMP to stop and search anybody anytime anyplace they want to......
The law permits all kinds of infringement on Citizens liberty and security of person or property....
If somebody calls them and says they think you may harm yourself they can cart you off like so much trash to a nut house where co operative psyche docs admit you to the psyche ward on a cursory interviews of less than 10 minutes.....
The truth is simply all the Commonwealth countries are not at all ruled by just laws....they simply pass ones that curtail personal liberty in insidious manner.......The illusion of freedom and dignity is not the real thing....
If we continue to submit to this we will have only ourselves to blame....The control of the citizenry is the goal of the elite......before we can rise up and eliminate them....

posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 11:36 AM
a reply to: stirling

Canada too? I thought Canada wouldn't be like that at all. Oh well, I gotta get out of this commonwealth country anyway. I don't view them as elite, I personally know many influential and powerful people in the private sector, I believe it just comes down to government loons over here, who have total control.

posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 11:58 AM
Just goes to prove the old adage that disarming the populace invites such anti democratic moves by the government.
Australia is well on the way to nazification.....

posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 12:52 PM
Some of the guys I play Golf with overseas say basically the same things about their home countries.... U.K. and Australia in particular.

If they disarm the populace the best defense against crime is a good hardwood walking stick or cane. Anyone with fist, or the threat of stabbing someone will usually pass anyone with a cane.. if not then they will wish they did if the cane bearer knows very rudimentary things to do with his walking stick.

You can even board aircraft and carry the walking cane every place you go... Even young people can usually avoid hassles by the local yokels if the walking stick is used as intended; as a walking stick or even a crutch that is used to help one get up from sitting.

Anything in defense that gives you reach advantage is always a plus..

posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 09:06 PM
a reply to: stirling

I think it's already here

posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 09:07 PM
a reply to: 727Sky

I know what you mean, knives are a larger issue, but I have seen a few people carry walking stick swords...

posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 12:42 PM
Welcome to Australia.

A place of indefinite detention.
Home to the Abbott Defence Force.
A land where people can't legally defend themselves.
Where the citizens aren't allowed to know about the human rights abuses being sanctioned by their government.
And our politicians sign us up for a trans pacific partnership deal we aren't allowed to know the details of.
The highest paid politicians in the world, who rort the system whilst rubbing it in our faces.
Where we pay more and more tax every year, but standards of living hardly improve.
A country where born and bred Australians are entitled to less benefits than people who emigrate.
Where even the traditional landowners do not have any rights to their land they were living on before white settlers came.
And all of this, and more, is presided over by a prime minister who refuses to provide proof against claims that he is a dual citizen and is therefore occupying office illegally.

Unless people start giving a **** things will keep getting worse.
edit on 1915 by symphonyofblase because: (no reason given)

top topics


log in