Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Lifestyle

Part of the Canberra community
for over 30 years

Defaced placards

By Jazz - 15 October 2012 77

Political posters

If you’ve had half an eye open whilst driving around you will have noticed that at least a few political placards lining our major arterial roads have been run over, slashed in half or defaced with creative application of beards, moustaches or devils horns.

This one of Jacob Vadakkadethu on william hovel drive got some extra treatment making something of a statement about the ancestry of most of those who would run for office.

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
77 Responses to
Defaced placards
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
tuco 5:37 pm 17 Oct 12

So who is enforcing this?

City Rangers

If there’s somethin’ strange in your neighborhood
Who ya gonna call?
(City Rangers!)

If it’s somethin’ weird an’ it don’t look good
Who ya gonna call?
(City Rangers!)

watto23 5:06 pm 17 Oct 12

HenryBG said :

poetix said :

HenryBG said :

watto23 said :

We don’t have that many people running for election that are from non european ethnic groups.

We don’t have that many people living in Canberra that are from non european ethnic groups.

On my walk to Tilley’s today I have seen people from many different ethnic backgrounds. I am so used to this I probably wouldn’t have noticed if I hadn’t read your comment first.

Pacific Islanders, Chinese, Indian and yes, even the (very) odd Anglo, are the different ethnicities I have seen so far.

Where do you live Henry BG? I think it’s called 1890, but an 1890 without the Chinese or, of course, Aborigines.

Good grief.

What is the *proportion* of the community that is non-european?
(Hint: this fact is not established from taking a walk to Tilleys and drawing post-modern conclusions therefrom)

If we have, say, 20 MLAs, then each 5% of any ethnicity in the community could be said to be proportionately represented by 1 MLA. OK?
(Yes, it’s maths, but even an Arts graduate should be able to keep up with me so far)

So our 3,800 aboriginals here in the ACT, representing 1.2% of the community could get 1/4 of a “black” MLA.
Or, you never know, just maybe, a white person could be capable of representing them or even – shocking thought – we could choose our politicians on the merits of their policies without considering the colour of their skin…..

So if we end up with a Sri Lankan MLA, then that particular ethnicity would be vastly over-represented. Which, in my experience of Sri Lankans, would be a good thing.

I must say, if I see Jacob’s name on my ballot paper on Saturday, I suspect I’ll give him my vote, because he looks like a good guy and he’s bound to be less shifty than virtually all the other choices. I seem to remember voting for that Val guy from Tharwa last time.

You don’t need need a person or a particular ethnicity to represent you, but say 10% of the population is from non european background, its would be good to see 10% of the candidates reflect that. Just like it would be good to see a 50-50 male to female ratio. As I said, despite the stupidity of the defacer, they do make a valid point.

Note I’m not implying any party is good at getting a representation right either. Personally, I’m sick of candidates telling me about coming from supporting the working family. What about the single people, youth, students, elderly who don’t necessarily fit the whole working family “vote”. Of course working families do usually have 2 votes as well 🙂 I’m going to vote for some of them to hopefully provide some balance to the debate or whatever they do in ACT gov.

Spitfire3 2:31 pm 17 Oct 12

NoImRight said :

In Russia rubbish picks you up!

Sure, in SOVIET Russia. But in regular, modern-day Russia Vladimir Putin has abolished rubbish and eradicated sneezing.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd 2:06 pm 17 Oct 12

smeeagain said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

chewy14 said :

smeeagain said :

Electoral Act

299 Graffiti
(1) A person shall not, without reasonable excuse, mark any electoral
matter directly on any defined place or object without the consent
of—
(a) for a place—the lessee or lawful occupier of the place; or
(b) for an object—the owner or lawful possessor of the object.
Maximum penalty: 10 penalty units.
(2) The Territory or a Territory authority shall not give consent for
subsection (1).
(3) In a prosecution for an offence against subsection (1) in relation to a
defined place or object leased, occupied, owned or possessed by the
Territory or a Territory authority, it is to be conclusively presumed
that the Territory or the Territory authority, as the case requires, did
not consent to any marking of electoral matter on the place or
object.
(4) In this section:
defined place or object means a building, footpath, hoarding,
roadway, vehicle, vessel or any public or private place (whether on
land or water or in the air).
lessee—see the Planning and Development Act 2007, section 234.
mark means write, draw or depict.

There is also a code of practice that relates to the placement of signs. What, where, how many etc, and there is a specific section relevant to Electoral signs. If they don’t comply with that code of practice, they can be removed by the Government if they are on their land. Code is here – http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/di/2005-207/current/pdf/2005-207.pdf

Thanks.

So who is enforcing this?

City Rangers

http://www.tams.act.gov.au/live/city_rangers

The Electoral Act also includes what information must be provided on any Electoral advertising, so if the signs don’t comply with that, they will also be removed.

Yeah I know but what exactly is a ranger going to do if the see someone taking or vandalising signs? Not like they can detain them.

NoImRight 2:00 pm 17 Oct 12

HenryBG said :

chewy14 said :

Really? You can automatically tell property that is owned by someone and something that is dumped. Please let us all know how you achieve this?
If you see a table and chairs on the side of a main road, is it owned or dumped? What about a tv in a box?

Two things:

1/ In Saudi Arabia, if you find somebody’s lost property and pick it up, that is a chopping-off-of-the-hand offense.

2/ The election material is clearly not rubbish any more than the car you park on public land on your nature strip is, HOWEVER, interestingly, it probably *DOES* automatically become rubbish at 6:01pm on Saturday.

In Russia rubbish picks you up!

smeeagain 1:57 pm 17 Oct 12

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

chewy14 said :

smeeagain said :

Electoral Act

299 Graffiti
(1) A person shall not, without reasonable excuse, mark any electoral
matter directly on any defined place or object without the consent
of—
(a) for a place—the lessee or lawful occupier of the place; or
(b) for an object—the owner or lawful possessor of the object.
Maximum penalty: 10 penalty units.
(2) The Territory or a Territory authority shall not give consent for
subsection (1).
(3) In a prosecution for an offence against subsection (1) in relation to a
defined place or object leased, occupied, owned or possessed by the
Territory or a Territory authority, it is to be conclusively presumed
that the Territory or the Territory authority, as the case requires, did
not consent to any marking of electoral matter on the place or
object.
(4) In this section:
defined place or object means a building, footpath, hoarding,
roadway, vehicle, vessel or any public or private place (whether on
land or water or in the air).
lessee—see the Planning and Development Act 2007, section 234.
mark means write, draw or depict.

There is also a code of practice that relates to the placement of signs. What, where, how many etc, and there is a specific section relevant to Electoral signs. If they don’t comply with that code of practice, they can be removed by the Government if they are on their land. Code is here – http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/di/2005-207/current/pdf/2005-207.pdf

Thanks.

So who is enforcing this?

City Rangers http://www.tams.act.gov.au/live/city_rangers

The Electoral Act also includes what information must be provided on any Electoral advertising, so if the signs don’t comply with that, they will also be removed.

chewy14 1:44 pm 17 Oct 12

poetix said :

HenryBG said :

watto23 said :

We don’t have that many people running for election that are from non european ethnic groups.

We don’t have that many people living in Canberra that are from non european ethnic groups.

On my walk to Tilley’s today I have seen people from many different ethnic backgrounds. I am so used to this I probably wouldn’t have noticed if I hadn’t read your comment first.

Pacific Islanders, Chinese, Indian and yes, even the (very) odd Anglo, are the different ethnicities I have seen so far.

Where do you live Henry BG? I think it’s called 1890, but an 1890 without the Chinese or, of course, Aborigines.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/2071.0main+features902012-2013

Have a look at the ABS for the ethnic background of Australians. Of course we have people from many different backgrounds but Henry BG is correct for overall percentages.

Jim Jones 1:31 pm 17 Oct 12

HenryBG said :

1/ In Saudi Arabia, if you find somebody’s lost property and pick it up, that is a chopping-off-of-the-hand offense.
.

This message brought to you by Concerned HenryBG of Canberra, who’s obviously watched one too many versions of Ali Baba.

HenryBG 1:06 pm 17 Oct 12

chewy14 said :

Really? You can automatically tell property that is owned by someone and something that is dumped. Please let us all know how you achieve this?
If you see a table and chairs on the side of a main road, is it owned or dumped? What about a tv in a box?

Two things:

1/ In Saudi Arabia, if you find somebody’s lost property and pick it up, that is a chopping-off-of-the-hand offense.

2/ The election material is clearly not rubbish any more than the car you park on public land on your nature strip is, HOWEVER, interestingly, it probably *DOES* automatically become rubbish at 6:01pm on Saturday.

HenryBG 1:00 pm 17 Oct 12

poetix said :

HenryBG said :

watto23 said :

We don’t have that many people running for election that are from non european ethnic groups.

We don’t have that many people living in Canberra that are from non european ethnic groups.

On my walk to Tilley’s today I have seen people from many different ethnic backgrounds. I am so used to this I probably wouldn’t have noticed if I hadn’t read your comment first.

Pacific Islanders, Chinese, Indian and yes, even the (very) odd Anglo, are the different ethnicities I have seen so far.

Where do you live Henry BG? I think it’s called 1890, but an 1890 without the Chinese or, of course, Aborigines.

Good grief.

What is the *proportion* of the community that is non-european?
(Hint: this fact is not established from taking a walk to Tilleys and drawing post-modern conclusions therefrom)

If we have, say, 20 MLAs, then each 5% of any ethnicity in the community could be said to be proportionately represented by 1 MLA. OK?
(Yes, it’s maths, but even an Arts graduate should be able to keep up with me so far)

So our 3,800 aboriginals here in the ACT, representing 1.2% of the community could get 1/4 of a “black” MLA.
Or, you never know, just maybe, a white person could be capable of representing them or even – shocking thought – we could choose our politicians on the merits of their policies without considering the colour of their skin…..

So if we end up with a Sri Lankan MLA, then that particular ethnicity would be vastly over-represented. Which, in my experience of Sri Lankans, would be a good thing.

I must say, if I see Jacob’s name on my ballot paper on Saturday, I suspect I’ll give him my vote, because he looks like a good guy and he’s bound to be less shifty than virtually all the other choices. I seem to remember voting for that Val guy from Tharwa last time.

bigfeet 1:00 pm 17 Oct 12

chewy14 said :

bigfeet said :


If you see a table and chairs on the side of a main road, is it owned or dumped? What about a tv in a box?
…..

Your Weekend Australian should be on your own property and not on public land, so should for sale signs.

Look, I’m not saying I think defacing or stealing these signs is a good idea, I just want to know the exact legalities around them.

If my newspaper is on the footpath, my yard, or even your yard it doesn’t make it any less mine. If you take it you are stealing it.

If you are not empowered by legislation to take and lawfully dispose of apparently discarded items then technically you are stealing them.

Just a suspicion that the rightful owner has relinquished their ownership is not enough. You must make a reasonable effort to contact the owner and get their consent.

‘Finders/keepers’ has no basis in law. As these signs have the apparent owners name plastered all over them it’s pretty obvious who has ownership.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd 12:51 pm 17 Oct 12

chewy14 said :

smeeagain said :

Electoral Act

299 Graffiti
(1) A person shall not, without reasonable excuse, mark any electoral
matter directly on any defined place or object without the consent
of—
(a) for a place—the lessee or lawful occupier of the place; or
(b) for an object—the owner or lawful possessor of the object.
Maximum penalty: 10 penalty units.
(2) The Territory or a Territory authority shall not give consent for
subsection (1).
(3) In a prosecution for an offence against subsection (1) in relation to a
defined place or object leased, occupied, owned or possessed by the
Territory or a Territory authority, it is to be conclusively presumed
that the Territory or the Territory authority, as the case requires, did
not consent to any marking of electoral matter on the place or
object.
(4) In this section:
defined place or object means a building, footpath, hoarding,
roadway, vehicle, vessel or any public or private place (whether on
land or water or in the air).
lessee—see the Planning and Development Act 2007, section 234.
mark means write, draw or depict.

There is also a code of practice that relates to the placement of signs. What, where, how many etc, and there is a specific section relevant to Electoral signs. If they don’t comply with that code of practice, they can be removed by the Government if they are on their land. Code is here – http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/di/2005-207/current/pdf/2005-207.pdf

Thanks.

So who is enforcing this?

NoImRight 11:58 am 17 Oct 12

Matt_Watts said :

betterdeadthanzed said :

In previous Federal elections, ‘Get Up’ and ‘Labor’ signs in my area were frequently taken. Rather than Get Up or Labor workers going for the sympathy vote, I suspect Liberal numbskulls (apologies for the tautology).

Thumper said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

Matt_Watts said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

It is not unheard of for candidates to deface their own posters to get publicity and sympathy. Not saying this is what happened here – just an observation.

Really?

yes, really, it has happenned here in the ACT during Assembly elections before.

One should maintain a healthy level of scepticism at this time of the electoral cycle – another good one is to have one’s office trashed, window smashed, grafitti sprayed etc.

Yep, even this election some ALP people were sprung flogging other ALP signs.

Now that’s factionalism for you.

So you’re suggesting it is the Liberal candidates defacing their own posters? You may be right.

Rubbish

Youve become quite the wordsmith.

chewy14 11:45 am 17 Oct 12

smeeagain said :

Electoral Act

299 Graffiti
(1) A person shall not, without reasonable excuse, mark any electoral
matter directly on any defined place or object without the consent
of—
(a) for a place—the lessee or lawful occupier of the place; or
(b) for an object—the owner or lawful possessor of the object.
Maximum penalty: 10 penalty units.
(2) The Territory or a Territory authority shall not give consent for
subsection (1).
(3) In a prosecution for an offence against subsection (1) in relation to a
defined place or object leased, occupied, owned or possessed by the
Territory or a Territory authority, it is to be conclusively presumed
that the Territory or the Territory authority, as the case requires, did
not consent to any marking of electoral matter on the place or
object.
(4) In this section:
defined place or object means a building, footpath, hoarding,
roadway, vehicle, vessel or any public or private place (whether on
land or water or in the air).
lessee—see the Planning and Development Act 2007, section 234.
mark means write, draw or depict.

There is also a code of practice that relates to the placement of signs. What, where, how many etc, and there is a specific section relevant to Electoral signs. If they don’t comply with that code of practice, they can be removed by the Government if they are on their land. Code is here – http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/di/2005-207/current/pdf/2005-207.pdf

Thanks.

poetix 11:36 am 17 Oct 12

HenryBG said :

watto23 said :

We don’t have that many people running for election that are from non european ethnic groups.

We don’t have that many people living in Canberra that are from non european ethnic groups.

On my walk to Tilley’s today I have seen people from many different ethnic backgrounds. I am so used to this I probably wouldn’t have noticed if I hadn’t read your comment first. Pacific Islanders, Chinese, Indian and yes, even the (very) odd Anglo, are the different ethnicities I have seen so far.

Where do you live Henry BG? I think it’s called 1890, but an 1890 without the Chinese or, of course, Aborigines.

chewy14 11:28 am 17 Oct 12

bigfeet said :

chewy14 said :

So if I pick up a piece of rubbish on the side of the road and put it in the bin then I’m breaking the law? Interesting.

If you seriously can’t tell the difference between property that is obviously owned by someone and rubbish then perhaps it’s time to voluntarily admit yourself to the Hume Hilton.

Do you think it’s OK to take or deface roadworks signs? Or what about my Weekend Australian that is lying on my footpath at 9.00am on a Saturday morning? Or someone’s recycle bin when they put it out for emptying? Or an LJ Hooker for sale sign?

Why are these signs different? They are quite clearly the property of someone.

Really? You can automatically tell property that is owned by someone and something that is dumped. Please let us all know how you achieve this?
If you see a table and chairs on the side of a main road, is it owned or dumped? What about a tv in a box?

Roadwork signs are part of the road rules and are defined by standards. If I saw a sign saying “slow down bro, roadworks ahead” on a piece of cardboard it might be a different story.

Your Weekend Australian should be on your own property and not on public land, so should for sale signs.

Look, I’m not saying I think defacing or stealing these signs is a good idea, I just want to know the exact legalities around them.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site