Coun­cil’s attitude is not ac­cept­able

Townsville Bulletin - - Voice Of The North -

T H E C o u n c i l o f C i v i l Lib­er­ties have yet again dis­played how far out of touch they are with right think­ing mem­bers of the pub­lic with their okay to use abu­sive lan­guage attitude.

I won­der if Mr Cope has ever walked a beat, turned a key or at­tended an emer­gency sit­u­a­tion where quick think­ing and de­ci­sive ac­tion was re­quired to save a life or pre­vent fur­ther in­jury – I think not.

Over the years the Coun­cil of Civil Lib­er­ties have been al­lowed to throw around their views and opin­ions on var­i­ous is­sues, is­sues that are mostly in de­fence of crim­i­nal ac­tiv­ity that they per­ceive to be too harshly dealt with. I have to ask, why is it that a war widow or child can be raped and mur­dered and there not be a sin­gle word ut­tered from the CCL. How­ever if the con­victed of­fender of ei­ther i nci­dent i s so much as served soggy Weet­bix in his prison cell the next day the CCL with be out t here cham­pi­oning his rights. Some­thing is not right here.

I have a sug­ges­tion for Mr Cope and the CCL, take a va­ca­tion, a very long va­ca­tion, prefer­ably out­side of Queens­land, God knows we need the break, but be­fore you step across the bor­der, s t o p , p i c k u p p o l i t i c a l cor­rect­ness, shove it in your suit­case and keep go­ing.

Oh, and don’t bother send­ing a post­card.

RAY GRIGG, Mount Louisa.

Toughen up

WHAT a bunch of spine­less sooks the QPS are. These grubs are real tough when they are beat­ing up drunks, taser­ing or stran­gling peo­ple with men­tal ill­nesses or run­ning over itin­er­ants in parks yet when some­body re­minds them of what sort of peo­ple they re­ally are t hey get of f ended. Well har­den up you nancy boys, if you can’t han­dle a few ver­bal barbs you are in the wrong line of work and you should con­sider find­ing a job which is more com­men­su­rate with your skills. The po­lice are too stupid to re­alise that the law is above t hem y e t r e c e nt i s s ues would prob­a­bly con­vince them that they are a law unto them­selves. In a demo­cratic so­ci­ety we are sup­posed to have free­dom of ex­pres­sion. The of­fender h a s made a n i n f o r med judge­ment of the of­fi­cers and has ex­pressed as such. This should not be an of­fence. And for any­body who wants to jump to their de­fence just re­mem­ber that no­body forces peo­ple to be­come po­lice of­fi­cers. That is their ca­reer choice and the sooner t hey all stopped bitch­ing about it the bet­ter. If they don’t like it or can’t

han­dle it they can leave. CHRIS McCOOMB,

North Ward.

A big­ger trav­esty

SO Civil lib­er­tar­i­ans slam swear rul­ing ( TB March 17). I am old fash­ioned enough to agree with Mag­is­trate Rod Mad­sen that it is un­ac­cept­able to swear at po­lice no mat­ter how com­monly cer­tain groups use those words.

How­ever, if your re­port­ing is cor­rect, the greater trav­esty left un­pun­ished was the ref­er­ence to the po­lice skin colour pre­ced­ing the swear word.

If the boot had been on the other foot and po­lice made sim­i­lar com­ments to Mr Robert­son, in­clud­ing ref­er­ence to his skin colour, then all hell would break loose. HENRY VAN BE­UNIN­GEN,


Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia

© PressReader. All rights reserved.