The above, a New Zealand Herald website heading which the subsequent story made nonsense of. Why on earth did the Herald run this silliness?
A bloke who’d over-imbibed, slept in his van and copped a $200 fine, not as the story says for not drink-driving, but specifically for freedom camping in a public carpark, which the Queenstown Council is understandably trying to stamp out and had signage specifically prohibiting.
His ludicrous argument which the Herald insulted readers by publishing, is the equivalent of saying he copped the fine for not murdering nuns or any number of possibilities open to him other than sleeping.
11 Comments
His argument is less ludicrous than the fine… and is a form of logic, in my view. ( down the rabbit hole logic )
Sleeping off a hangover in ones car is freedom camping…. yeah right.
Mr Tao Scott, the complainant, is a member of the NZ Motor Caravan Assn, & was sleeping in his self-contained van.
If the van had any NZMCA signage, a warden could be excused if he/she thought that the comatose occupant, was freedom camping.
Yes he was displaying his NZMCA wings as you can clearly see from the photo. He said that other vans were also parked there but did not receive a ticket, presumably because nobody was sleeping in them. This entitled arrogant imbecile gives NZMCA members and responsible freedom campers a bad name – the fine he got was deserved and caused by his failure to control his drinking and nothing else.
The NZMCA is currently in legal action to force QLDC to reconsider allowing freedom campers in the area, and idiots like this do nothing to help.
Did he cause any harm?
I would consider that the over-abundance of freedom camping is most certainly causing harm. It is creating filth due to the bullshit blue sticker and a bucket definition of self contained lavatory sham. It is causing social disorder due to large congregations of losers which also prevents others from accessing areas that have become unpleasant.
All the above are harm in my view.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/358805/freedom-campers-are-causing-problems-akaroa-locals
He’s lucky that he wasn’t also charged with being drunk in charge.
If the Council accepted his excuse, any person could say they drank too much, when in reality they were merely freedom camping.
So the Council is allowed to say he was freedom camping when in reality he had just drunk too much?
So he’s allowed to say he drank too much when in reality he was freedom camping?
… “he had just drunk too much” and chose to freedom camp rather than get a taxi home
No he didn’t, he chose to sleep in his van. The council should either ban sleeping in the car park or a maximum stay or both. Freedom camping is too ill-defined.