Originally posted by JackofBlades
reply to post by bigdohbeatdown
Yeah I'm in the UK. I can understand the presence of private security in a privately owned establishment, though. They are required to ensure that
everyone can have a good time and maintain a safe environment. They also uphold the terms of the 'unspoken agreement' between you and the premises
upon your entry.
There is no excuse for what happened to that guy in the Ivy, and I've heard some pretty bad stories myself from a club that is about to get a whole
new bunch of staff after quite a few complaints, and I'm relieved that some of these places are more than happy to jump at any sign of misbehaviour on
the parts of their staff and get rid.
Yeah.. the victim in the Ivy case was dragged of a public road into private premises. Even if he was in their establishment, I would argue that
security should act within the law (I'm sure you agree, the court did too)..
Its true what you say about security 'upholding terms of the unspoken agreement'..and they only have the right to remove people from the premises
using reasonable force.. not lock them in the basement and beat them.
One issue as well, is that increasingly many 'public' areas are becoming privately owned, even parks, motor ways and markets...
In Kings Cross, Sydney... police have an agreement with local night club owners to essentially let their security handle law and order in the area;
further security have been given extra powers to operate there.
The irony is, that imost of the night clubs and security companies involved are owned by known criminals - drug dealers, bikies etc.
I do follow what you say though.. .
I guess an additional concern is that traditionally public places, civic spaces, are becoming privatized and thus people on the land subject to
conditions and whim of the property owner. In the Occupy movement a while ago, many protesters were removed because where they were protesting was
considered private land (even though it was ostensibly a public park) - they were trespassers.
I think we need law reform, something along the lines of
Privately owned Public Spaces Act 2013 (Cth)
s 3 Definitions
(1) Person refers to a Natural Born person and to a Corporation and agents there of.
(2) Public Space includes:
(a)(i) A Park; or
(ii) A market space; or
(iii) A road way; or
(iv) A civic space; that
(b) Is ordinarily open to members of the public to enter and pass through.
(3) A Public space does not refer
(i) to an area which requires a verbal licence to enter; or
(ii) that is not ordinarily frequented by members of the public
(iii)That requires payment as a condition of entry.
(4) Land that is part of the public domain refers to land that is:
(a) owned by a Local, State or Federal government department or agency; and
(b) That members of the public have a right to pass and repass upon.
(1) A person that has an interest in an estate that is a public space may not deny entry to nor eject any person who would not be denied entry or
ejected from the land if it were part of the public domain.
(2) A person in contravention of subsection 1 is liable to pay a fine of no more than $10 000 per offence.
(3) A person in contravention of subsection 1 may not rely rely on the right to exclude others in the defense of an action for trespass, assault,
battery or false-imprisonment.
A person that has an interest in an estate that is a public space may deny entry or eject a person:
(1)who is likely to commit or has committed a crime of violence or dishonesty on that property;
(2) A person 'is likely to commit crime of violence or dishonesty' if:
(i) A reasonable person in the position of the denier or ejector would believe that it is more likely than not that the person intends to commit crime
of violence or dishonesty.
(ii) a person is not 'likely to commit crime of violence or dishonesty' merely because they act or appear strange.
(2) For the purposes of subsection 1, 'Crime' does not include trespass to that land
(1) Nothing in this act effects the powers of Police or land owners to deal with a breach of the peace.
What do you think? We need like 'wiki legislation' .
edit on 21-2-2013 by bigdohbeatdown because: changed 'and' to 'that'
edit on 21-2-2013 by bigdohbeatdown because: (no reason