Fastlane wrote:Ahh got it now.. be nice if they stick with the same terminology from act-to-act This doesn't apply to firefighters in general though (as you said up above), 'nor rangers UNLESS they are appointed as a Bush Fire Control Officer. Your Brigade Captain for example couldn't exercise this power, unless he was also appointed as an FCO.
Somewhere in the BFA 1954 is a section that allows, in the absence of a FCO, the next most senior brigade member to perform the FCO's functions/
Dont ask for the section. It's a nightshift, and I'm on dial up circumventing the companies internet restriction policy.
I would find it very unusual if a local government did not appoint its Ranges as an FCO, as that is where the legal powers to control fires are. In addition to a FCO, I was appointed as a prosecutor and authorized to issue infringement notices (down the back of the Act), which are the extra functions given to a Ranger (or in a very small Council, perhaps the CBFCO).
Fastlane wrote:Ahh got it now.. be nice if they stick with the same terminology from act-to-act This doesn't apply to firefighters in general though (as you said up above), 'nor rangers UNLESS they are appointed as a Bush Fire Control Officer. Your Brigade Captain for example couldn't exercise this power, unless he was also appointed as an FCO.
Somewhere in the BFA 1954 is a section that allows, in the absence of a FCO, the next most senior brigade member to perform the FCO's functions/
S44(1) - only applies to the control and extinguishment of a fire though when "deemed necessary or expedient to do so". I doubt you could say it is necessary or expedient in the control of a fire to demand an alleged offenders name from them or to enter and inspect someones firebreaks Much more important things to be worrying about at that time..
'A Ranger only has the normal powers of citizen arrest (except under the Bush Fires Act - when an authorized person (ie ranger, FCO, most senior FF) may arrest an offender obstructing fire brigade activities).
You are obliged to give a Ranger your name and abode only for most offences and most local government legislation does not require you to show any ID to the Ranger.'
That part is not entirely correct- There is a section in the Local Government Act 1995 that provides if a person refuses to state name and address (that is for any offence) an authorised officer may arrest that person. There is no requirement to provide a Ranger with ID (yet) but if you don't the Ranger is more likely to believe that you are providing false details and involve the police.
From a Ranger/Security point of view, I am a Ranger and I have more than enough work to do without worrying about security patrols. Dual services may work better in smaller local governments.
Also I think if anyone checks, the City of Canning only has security partol officers who carry out Ranger duties...
You just have to be at Subiaco when the footy is one to witness the rangers on the beat writing infringements for illegal parked cars....
One thing I hate is when people abuse the parking policy and even more those cars that park on the friggin foot path.....
I always approach one of these people if know of a car parked on the footpath. $90dollar dicket is expensive!
I remember last week coming home from the game [woohoo got VIP tickets] a guy was fully abusing a foot patrol ranger and he was standing his ground very very well considering the circumstances...