^^^ unfortunately I haven't been lately P.R but never had agro there previously.

Most of me seeing red and spouting off above was due to the first 8 or so posts here being p!sstakes and oneliners - so I hoped to spark some interest

At least my history lesson may make a few people angry enough to go to the council and complain, instead of dribbling **** about wanking, planking, gays, and what a 35 y/o board may look like.

WAKSA said...
The frustration is there has been little or no collaboration with WAKSA

Why would there be?. There is already a ban for kiting in that area, this is an extension of that ban that now covers surfboards. Cott has banned surfing near the gryone over the summer months for years and its the same at City beach.

The surfers want to surf CBG early morning or late afternoon when there are limited swimmers in the water. Not often I ever seen a surfer give up a wave because a swimer is in the water...

I dont agree with the ban. All water users need to consider other users, wether it be kiters, surfers, ski paddlers or swimmers.

Not many things can justify the salary and the very existence of a council officer so well, as a well organized ban...
As for City Beach, kiters have been very respectful to the request of the ranger to keep away from that area for a temporary 8 month period last year. It was about "risk assessment". So I don't think kiters caused any problems this time.
To my limited knowledge of law it is un-constitutional for the council to exercise arbitrary power and ban activities without consulting the representatives of all parties. It's a shame that lawyers have no time to kite. Otherwise we may have a legal representative.
As of the fear of litigation: after the insurance crisis around 10 years ago it became much more difficult to sue the council for negligence. I am not sure if their fear is still justified.
It's obvious that we should improve our reputation and be super respectful to other beach goers (and perhaps to each other as well), but we do not need to blame ourselves automatically for everything.

^^^ blind, deaf and mute... how did he get to the swimming pool... you must be joking... right?

...any reference?... article, caselaw...

Thanks Moon Waxing... I hope they appeal to the High Court... the madness has to stop somewhere where people start taking responsibility for their action.... or else!!...
...well.. or else we get to a communistic state where only few things will be free to do, and those things will be compulsory...
... on the other hand, this case just shows a council blinded by fear yet not taking care of the obvious... and now fear can justify other council's unreasonable bans... not great....

its a **** break anyways

Stuthepirate said...
How can a council be responsible for a deaf, blind and mute person diving into the shallow end. Where was his minder/carer. Would the council be responsible for injuries or death sustained at traffic light because the council failed to remove the intersection in case a disabled person walked through it?
Sure the council paid lifeguards should have pulled him up but as in any public pool, it is the responsibility of the parent or adult for that child's safety not the lifeguards. They're not a daycare.

I found, that law doesn't always follow reason, and doesn't necessarily provide justice. The case was probably between the disabled and the council, although the responsible person was likely the carer. But if noone sues the carer, they will get away with it and probably with the money the judge rewarded to the disabled.... hmmm I know this is getting a little too far from kitesurfing... ready for a bottom turn

These are bad news. I am new to Perth and I kite north of city beach (after asking the life guard to make sure I could as there were no other kiters). So it means that we can no longer launch and kite here starting on the 1st of November, correct?

The owners of the beach are now the people who leave close to the beach (as far as I understood, the council is a local authority) - and it seems that these people are not the most liberal ones. Same thing applies in France with all small towns near the sea installing vertical bars to forbid the entrance of camper vans, although it is illegal according to French national law. Local justice is bad - it decreases freedom and tend to exclude people more than promoting fairness.

Note that Beauduc, one of the last "free place" on the seaside in North of France has been saved from a ban thanks to a group of people, including fellow lawers, which was really active against the local authority.

I think the argument people-being-bad-and-hence-the-ban is misleading, something deeper is going on (see massassuchets seaside for instance).

SL

Everyone has equal right to a public place (beach). Locals or the council do not own it. I found WAKSA to be way too soft in respecting and following the request of one single ranger to keep away from City Beach last year without any official ban by the council.
But now, seeing that we simply walk away from City Beach without any attempt of contest is kind of saddening. City Beach is not my personal playground any more, but I know that a lot of kiters use it as a starting point for their down-winders, and there are some rideable breaks there. Are you guys really that easy about just walk away without a fight? Where is the good old fighting spirit from WAKSA, that we saw at Mullaloo.....?