Category: HTH - Legislations Breached - Crimes Commited by Council

 To Be Updat­ed as new infor­ma­tion is assessed.

Vic­tims : Nina McDon­ald and Alexan­der Hen­der­son of Biggen­den

Breach­es of Dis­abil­i­ty Ser­vice Act 2006
24 (1) (2),  25 (b) ©, 26 (a,b,c)  28 29 (a) (b) 30
By Sims employed by North Bur­nett Region­al Coun­cil

North Bur­nett Region­al Coun­cil Pro­vides ser­vices to all res­i­dents in their local area. Rate Pay­ers and renters. In that capac­i­ty NBRC pro­vides ser­vices to the sec­tor of the com­mu­ni­ty who are dis­abled.

North Bur­nett Region­al Coun­cil are there­fore required to fol­low all Queens­land and Com­mon­wealth laws and acts includ­ing the fol­low­ing. The full acts are down­load­able below or by google search with an added PDF to your search string.

Dis­abil­i­ty Ser­vices Act 2006 
Dis­abil­i­ty Act Queens­land
Anti Dis­crim­i­na­tion Act Queens­land
Human Rights Act Queens­land 2019
Queens­land Dis­abil­i­ty plan 2022 ‑2027

Every per­son has the right to be treat­ed as indi­vid­u­als with indi­vid­ual needs. They have the right to be pro­vid­ed with infor­ma­tion and ser­vices in a way they can under­stand and is eas­i­ly acces­si­ble. They also have the right to assis­tance pro­vid­ed to them and offered in a way they can under­stand.

When deal­ing with a per­son on the autism spec­trum and one with ADHD PTSD and dyslex­ia Coun­cil has a few legal oblig­a­tions and guide­lines, laws that they must adhere to.  The first is full con­sid­er­a­tion of their abil­i­ties to respond, and deal with all the infor­ma­tion to a sat­is­fac­to­ry out come of the for the res­i­dent, before coun­cil as the res­i­dent always comes first, you are serv­ing them, the pub­lic.
The answer to the obvi­ous ques­tion is “you did­n’t ask” when you ask “how did we know?”
When ascer­tain­ing dis­abil­i­ty ASK comes first. Non judge­men­tal eye from a base of accep­tance is sec­ond.
Queens­land Anti Dis­crim­i­na­tion Laws.

Direct and indirect discrimination
Direct disability discrimination happens when a person with a disability is treated less favourably than a person
without that disability in the same or similar circumstances.
Indirect discrimination can be less obvious. It can happen when employers or service providers put in place
conditions, requirements or practices that appear to treat everyone the same but which actually disadvantage
some people because of their disability. It will be discriminatory if a requirement or condition:
• applies to everyone, but because of their disability the person is not able to comply or, although able to
comply, would suffer serious disadvantage by doing so, and
• the requirement or condition disadvantages a person because of their disability, and
• it is unreasonable in all of the circumstance

Here is a few of them which I will both expand and nar­row down with pre­ci­sion to add to the list of seri­ous breach­es and crimes per­pe­trat­ed By NBRC

 

24Ser­vices to be tai­lored to meet indi­vid­ual needs and goals

(1)Ser­vices should be tai­lored to meet the indi­vid­ual needs and goals of peo­ple with dis­abil­i­ty.

(2)To be respon­sive to the needs and goals of peo­ple with dis­abil­i­ty, inno­va­tion and flex­i­bil­i­ty are encour­aged when design­ing ser­vices.

25Peo­ple with dis­abil­i­ty expe­ri­enc­ing addi­tion­al bar­ri­ers

Ser­vices should be designed and imple­ment­ed to meet the needs of peo­ple with dis­abil­i­ty who may expe­ri­ence addi­tion­al bar­ri­ers—

(b)because of their age, gen­der or cul­tur­al­ly or lin­guis­ti­cal­ly diverse back­grounds; or

©because of their rur­al or remote loca­tion.

26Pro­mo­tion of com­pe­ten­cy, pos­i­tive image and self-esteem

Ser­vices should be designed and imple­ment­ed to—

(a)pro­mote recog­ni­tion of the com­pe­tence of peo­ple with dis­abil­i­ty; and

(b)pro­mote a pos­i­tive image of peo­ple with dis­abil­i­ty; and

©enhance the self-esteem of peo­ple with dis­abil­i­ty

 

28No sin­gle ser­vice provider to exer­cise con­trol over life of per­son with dis­abil­i­ty

Ser­vices should be designed and imple­ment­ed to ensure that no sin­gle ser­vice provider exer­cis­es con­trol over all or most aspects of the life of a per­son with dis­abil­i­ty.

29Con­sid­er­a­tion for oth­ers involved with peo­ple with dis­abil­i­ty

Ser­vices should be designed and imple­ment­ed to—

(a)have suf­fi­cient regard to the needs of fam­i­lies, car­ers and advo­cates of peo­ple with dis­abil­i­ty; and

(b)recog­nise the demands on the fam­i­lies of peo­ple with dis­abil­i­ty; and

©take into account the impli­ca­tions for, and demands on, the fam­i­lies of peo­ple with dis­abil­i­ty.

30Ser­vice providers to make infor­ma­tion avail­able

(1)Ser­vice providers should make avail­able infor­ma­tion that allows the qual­i­ty of their ser­vices to be judged.

(2)The infor­ma­tion should be avail­able to the peo­ple using the ser­vices, their fam­i­lies, car­ers and advo­cates, peo­ple giv­ing finan­cial assis­tance for the ser­vices and the com­mu­ni­ty gen­er­al­ly.

 

 

copy of the destruc­tion order here  dat­ed 19th of DECMEBER 2024
slideshow will be added for eas­i­er access to visu­al expe­ri­ence of an illu­sion wrapped up as “gov­ern­ment Local gov­er­nance”
destruc­tion-order .docx for­mat  

A copy of the reg­u­lat­ed dog notice served with the destruc­tion notice. Please note ALL of 127

act-2008–074 
there is more snip­pets on oth­er pages and they will all link up I am only 24 hours into the new mythos fea­tur­ing the great roast­ing and feast­ing of the ole sim­ple simon, because sion does not say.

I am link­ing this and I would real­ly like to show you the way your local coun­cil works, by stu­pe­fy­ing  and bam­boozel­ing peo­ple that they do not think can stand up for them­selves.

Inno­cent ani­mals fol­low­ing nature their nose and a feed.

I ask who is the evil ones?
Pi Solved Lama - the feed­back loop that is today designed to keep you going in cir­cles

sec­tion 127 link onsite here Sec­tion 127 with rel­e­vant info high­light­ed

94 Mak­ing reg­u­lat­ed dog dec­la­ra­tion
(1) The local gov­ern­ment must con­sid­er any writ­ten
rep­re­sen­ta­tions and evi­dence accom­pa­ny­ing them with­in the
peri­od stat­ed in the pro­posed dec­la­ra­tion notice.
(2) If, after com­ply­ing with sub­sec­tion (1), the local gov­ern­ment
is sat­is­fied that the rel­e­vant ground under sec­tion 89 still
exists, it must make the reg­u­lat­ed dog dec­la­ra­tion for the dog.
95 Giv­ing infor­ma­tion notice about deci­sion to make
reg­u­lat­ed dog dec­la­ra­tion
(1) As soon as prac­ti­ca­ble after decid­ing to make a reg­u­lat­ed dog
dec­la­ra­tion, the local gov­ern­ment must give any own­er of the
dog the sub­ject of the dec­la­ra­tion an infor­ma­tion notice about
the deci­sion.
(2) How­ev­er, the local gov­ern­ment must not give an infor­ma­tion
notice under sub­sec­tion (1) if an autho­rised per­son has made a
destruc­tion order under sec­tion 127A in rela­tion to the dog.
Note— we have a pot named jack,

it is sim­ple; Simon the over eager beaver was in such a ruch he breached law by send­ing both the reg­u­lat­ed dog notice and the destruc­tion notice in the same email. Yes my spelling is shit but their spelling is worse when you see it in the mir­ror from the side. Crazy eh 🙂

See sec­tion 127A in rela­tion to the require­ment to give a sin­gle
infor­ma­tion notice about the deci­sions to make the reg­u­lat­ed dog
dec­la­ra­tion and the destruc­tion order.
(3) The deci­sion takes effect on the lat­er of the fol­low­ing days—
(a) the day any own­er of the dog is giv­en the infor­ma­tion
notice;
(b) a lat­er day of effect stat­ed in the infor­ma­tion notice.
(4) The infor­ma­tion notice must state—
(a) that the dog is the sub­ject of—
(i) if the dog is a dan­ger­ous dog—a dan­ger­ous dog
dec­la­ra­tion; or
(ii) if the dog is a men­ac­ing dog—a men­ac­ing dog
dec­la­ra­tion; and
(b) the rea­sons for the dec­la­ra­tion; and
© the local gov­ern­ment that made the dec­la­ra­tion; and
[s 96]
Ani­mal Man­age­ment (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008
Chap­ter 4 Reg­u­lat­ed dogs
Cur­rent as at 28 August 2024 Page 69
Autho­rised by the Par­lia­men­tary Coun­sel
(d) the day the deci­sion takes effect; and
(e) that the dog must be kept only at the place stat­ed in the
reg­is­tra­tion notice as the address for the dog; and
(f) if the dog is impounded—a unique num­ber giv­en to the
dog by the local gov­ern­ment for the pur­pos­es of
impound­ing; and
(g) any oth­er infor­ma­tion pre­scribed under a reg­u­la­tion

126A What is a destruc­tion order
A destruc­tion order, in rela­tion to a dog, is an order made by
an autho­rised per­son stat­ing that the autho­rised per­son
pro­pos­es to destroy the dog not ear­li­er than 14 days after the
notice is served under this part.
127 Destruc­tion of reg­u­lat­ed dog or pro­hib­it­ed dog in
par­tic­u­lar cir­cum­stances
(1) This sec­tion applies if the dog is a reg­u­lat­ed dog or a
pro­hib­it­ed dog.
(2) The autho­rised per­son may, with­out notice giv­en to an own­er
of or respon­si­ble per­son for the dog, imme­di­ate­ly destroy the
dog if—
(a) the autho­rised per­son rea­son­ably believes the dog is
dan­ger­ous and the autho­rised per­son can not con­trol the
dog; or
(b) an own­er of the dog has asked the autho­rised per­son to
destroy the dog.
(3) Also, the autho­rised per­son may destroy the dog not ear­li­er
than 3 days after seiz­ing the dog if—
[s 127AA]
Ani­mal Man­age­ment (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008
Chap­ter 5 Inves­ti­ga­tion, mon­i­tor­ing and enforce­ment
Page 90 Cur­rent as at 28 August 2024
Autho­rised by the Par­lia­men­tary Coun­sel
(a) the dog—
(i) has no reg­is­tered own­er, or appar­ent­ly has no
reg­is­tered own­er; and
(ii) is not the sub­ject of a reg­u­lat­ed dog dec­la­ra­tion
made by the rel­e­vant local gov­ern­ment; and
(b) nei­ther the autho­rised per­son nor the rel­e­vant local
gov­ern­ment knows who is an own­er of, or a respon­si­ble
per­son for, the dog.

127AA Destruc­tion of reg­u­lat­ed dog or pro­hib­it­ed dog under
destruc­tion order
(1) This sec­tion applies if—
(a) the dog is a reg­u­lat­ed dog or a pro­hib­it­ed dog; and
(b) sec­tion 127 does not autho­rise the destruc­tion of the
dog.
(2) If the dog has seri­ous­ly attacked a per­son or an ani­mal, the
autho­rised per­son must make a destruc­tion order in rela­tion to
the dog.
(3) If the dog has not seri­ous­ly attacked a per­son or an ani­mal, the
autho­rised per­son may make a destruc­tion order in rela­tion to
the dog.
(4) The destruc­tion order must—
(a) be served on—
(i) the reg­is­tered own­er of the dog; or
(ii) if there is no reg­is­tered own­er of the dog—any
per­son who is an own­er of, or a respon­si­ble per­son
for, the dog; and
(b) include or be accom­pa­nied by an infor­ma­tion notice
about the deci­sion to make the destruc­tion order.
(5) If a destruc­tion order is made in rela­tion to the dog, the
autho­rised per­son may destroy the dog, not ear­li­er than 14
days after the order is served under sub­sec­tion (4) if an
appli­ca­tion has not been made under chap­ter 8, part 1 for an
[s 127AA]
Ani­mal Man­age­ment (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008
Chap­ter 5 Inves­ti­ga­tion, mon­i­tor­ing and enforce­ment
Cur­rent as at 28 August 2024 Page 91
Autho­rised by the Par­lia­men­tary Coun­sel
inter­nal review of the deci­sion to make the destruc­tion order
(the destruc­tion order deci­sion).
(6) If an appli­ca­tion for inter­nal review has been made under
chap­ter 8, part 1 for an inter­nal review of the destruc­tion order
deci­sion, the autho­rised per­son may destroy the dog if—
(a) the appli­ca­tion has been decid­ed and both of the
fol­low­ing apply—
(i) the deci­sion on the appli­ca­tion con­firms the
destruc­tion order deci­sion;
(ii) an appli­ca­tion for an exter­nal review of the
destruc­tion order deci­sion has not been made
with­in the peri­od allowed under the QCAT Act; or
(b) the appli­ca­tion has been with­drawn or has oth­er­wise
end­ed.
(7) If an appli­ca­tion has been made for an exter­nal review of the
destruc­tion order deci­sion, the autho­rised per­son may destroy
the dog if—
(a) the appli­ca­tion has been decid­ed and both of the
fol­low­ing apply—
(i) the deci­sion on the appli­ca­tion (the exter­nal review
deci­sion) con­firms the destruc­tion order deci­sion;
(ii) an appeal against the exter­nal review deci­sion has
not been start­ed with­in the peri­od allowed under
the QCAT Act; or
(b) the appli­ca­tion has been with­drawn or has oth­er­wise
end­ed.
(8) If an appeal against the exter­nal review deci­sion has been
start­ed, the autho­rised per­son may destroy the dog if—
(a) the appeal has been decid­ed and the effect of the
deci­sion is to con­firm the exter­nal review deci­sion; or
(b) the appeal has been with­drawn or has oth­er­wise end­ed.
(9) In this sec­tion—
ani­mal has the mean­ing giv­en by sec­tion 191.
[s 127A]
Ani­mal Man­age­ment (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008
Chap­ter 5 Inves­ti­ga­tion, mon­i­tor­ing and enforce­ment
Page 92 Cur­rent as at 28 August 2024
Autho­rised by the Par­lia­men­tary Coun­sel
seri­ous­ly attack means—
(a) in rela­tion to a person—attack the per­son in a way that
caus­es the death of, or griev­ous bod­i­ly harm or bod­i­ly
harm to, the per­son; or
(b) in rela­tion to an animal—attack the ani­mal in a way that
caus­es the death of the ani­mal, or maims or wounds the
ani­mal.
127A Con­cur­rent reg­u­lat­ed dog dec­la­ra­tion and destruc­tion
order
(1) This sec­tion applies if a local gov­ern­ment—
(a) has made a reg­u­lat­ed dog dec­la­ra­tion under sec­tion 94
for the dog; but
(b) has not giv­en the own­er of the dog an infor­ma­tion notice
under sec­tion 95 about the deci­sion to make the
dec­la­ra­tion.
(2) Even though the reg­u­lat­ed dog dec­la­ra­tion has not tak­en effect
under sec­tion 95(3), an autho­rised offi­cer may make a
destruc­tion order for the dog.
(3) As soon as prac­ti­ca­ble after decid­ing to make the destruc­tion
order for the dog, the autho­rised per­son must serve the
destruc­tion order on—
(a) the reg­is­tered own­er of the dog; or
(b) if there is no reg­is­tered own­er of the dog—a per­son who
is an own­er of, or a respon­si­ble per­son for, the dog.
(4) The destruc­tion order must include or be accom­pa­nied by a
sin­gle infor­ma­tion notice about—
(a) the deci­sion to make the reg­u­lat­ed dog dec­la­ra­tion under
sec­tion 94(2); and
(b) the deci­sion to make the destruc­tion order.
(5) Sec­tion 127AA(5) to (8) applies to the destruc­tion order.

 

I stepped into this stu­pid bat­tle, to place my sword of truth between a beau­ti­ful heart in a fam­i­ly of heart defend. My fan­tas­tic good friend and grand­moth­er who is being bom­bard­ed by a nuclear xray machine,  not by fool­ish choic­es and yet the fool made the choice. Im not here for fame nor for­tune, I am Hunta’s voice and some­one should ask theS­im  Sime­on tem­plar if you are noth­ing with noth­ing, how do oyu take noth­ing away from noth­ing?

Sim­ply put in the “catch­net” I jumped out of I will not per­mit the vodou sac­ri­fi­cial mur­der of Hunta to sat­is­fy and appease male egos.

end slaugh­ter ends/endit|

I know Hunta. She is so beau­ti­ful so gen­tle and so lov­ing. who HAS the GOD giv­en right to Mur­der Gods Inno­cent Earth CHil­dren  — San­i­mal The Sen­ti­nent Ani­mal.

 
Mona Lisa
they had you all along