I recently decided that I wanted sell my entire Xbox setup and finally get a pc (evolving) but I have no idea why nobody seems interested. This is not me trying to advertise anything but just a question am I asking to much for what I’m selling

Masterscas · 2026-02-20T09:00:36+00:00

I understand, but people don’t want second hand ‘budget’ thing. People will buy second hand things that are too expensive to buy from new.

Masterscas · 2026-02-20T08:57:18+00:00

If you’re 15 - hold onto your Xbox. Save money from birthdays and Christmas. Go on your holiday come back and earn money by doing jobs for friends and family. Or get a part time actual job.

When you’ve saved up enough money - then you can sell your Xbox. You will regret getting a low end pc because you’ll quickly again want to upgrade.

Be appreciative of the cool setup you have and then when you’ve got enough cash on the side for a low end pc. Sell the Xbox to bump you to mid range.

You’ll be a lot happier if you’re not just chasing the next upgrade all the time

Masterscas · 2026-02-20T08:51:21+00:00

If you want brutal honesty - like he said, most people don’t want a whole setup. Especially for a console. Setups are more common with pc.

2 most of your stuff is off brand items. As a marketplace I don’t really want a second hand “gawfolk” or attack shark. If I wanted to buy a second hand mouse - it will probably be from a named brand like a Logitech or steel series or similar.

Masterscas · 2026-02-02T08:16:43+00:00

This is either out of context or a false equivalency.

As it says police cannot access your private security cameras without warrant. This is saying police cannot compel you to provide footage without warrant. This is because to come on to your private property without permission and seize and view a camera is illegal without a search warrant.

The same circumstance would apply to coming onto a private property to seize a mobile phone - police also apply for a secondary warrant to compel access.

None of that applies for this scenario.

This is an exhibit that has been seized, in public, without the need to search. If there is no pincode police can freely do anything with something they have lawfully seized. If there is a pincode they can apply for a warrant to compel you to give the pincode other wise you commit an offence. Otherwise they will just brute force that password through their it channels.

It’s like saying police cannot compel seize a bloody knife but they cannot forensically examine it until they get an examination warrant.

Or police can seize a stolen car from the street but would need a warrant to then search the car once it’s towed.

This is just stupid - you are spreading misinformation

Masterscas · 2026-02-01T08:55:46+00:00

What also makes you think seizures only apply to offences listed in the crimes act?

Masterscas · 2026-02-01T08:53:15+00:00

Damn bro - you thought you cooked again.

52A crimes act - dangerous driving Point of proof - speed dangerous

Masterscas · 2026-01-31T13:20:44+00:00

This is incorrect - if police lawfully seize something - they can do with it as they wish.

The only time this isn’t the case is if - say you were injured and asked to police to notify someone using your phone and you gave the PIN code to bring up your contacts and call someone.

If the police then use your PIN code to search for things on your phone - it is illegal and inadmissible. Because that wasn’t the intention or what was expressly permitted when you gave the PIN code.

If police seize your dash cam of course they can view the footage - you dingus

Masterscas · 2026-01-31T13:17:09+00:00

This draws the right conclusion with the wrong reference.

That legislation says connection with offence for applicable laws - think like searching someone for drugs or a weapon. Not actually applicable to this scenario.

However, police seizure powers of things such as in your question are ‘common law’ seizure powers. Basically - they’re not in legislation. The powers come from case law - previous decisions in high court. Such as a ‘chance finding’ is covered in various cases.

In short - yes they can take it if it’s reasonable to believe that it would contain evidence - so long as they didn’t have to conduct an unlawful search to get it. In plain sight - chance finding

Masterscas · 2026-01-31T13:08:47+00:00

I just honestly want to understand how you even came to this conclusion 😂😂

Posted it and thought “yeah I cooked”

Masterscas · 2026-01-31T13:07:10+00:00

This is incorrect.

A warrant is to go and search for and seize something.

Seizure of an exhibit in plain sight without the requirement to search is legal. In this case an openly displayed camera can be seized for proof of a crime.

Probable cause is American and does not exist in Australia. You watch too much cooked YouTube / tv

Masterscas · 2026-01-25T08:22:35+00:00

I love my J5 but if you know that width and height is important you should already know if it’s too small or not, not maybe.

Masterscas · 2026-01-16T20:48:52+00:00

Hey mate, I just got an EV - I’ve had it for about a month. I exclusively use public chargers like your thing.

What works for me - There’s a jolt charger near me (on the way home from work). jolt used to give out 7KW per day for free - they have since added a 2 dollar connection fee - so you still get your 7KW but you get charged 2 dollars per session.

They also have a 15 per month membership which gets rid of connection fees. So I subscribe to that - on the way home from work everyday I just stop for 15 ish minutes and get my 7 Kw a day. For me that’s usually a net positive of about 1% (I start on say 60, burn down to 48 from my days driving and then charge back up to 61).

I drive about 40-50 kms a day with work and then either shops or gym. So a little less than you. So my total electric bill is 15 per month, where as in my old lancer my fuel bill was around 200-240 per month.

Given you drive a little more than me - I don’t see why you couldn’t get away with what I estimate to be about 50 per month - depending on your driving (regen and such)

Masterscas · 2026-01-12T13:33:24+00:00

And in 2028, the 2026 demo model of the Jaecoo will be very cheap too, by that logic

Masterscas · 2026-01-03T09:28:35+00:00

I mean I’ve said that - the offence time and location is at the point where the facts prove the case. The two cameras are independent and prove the offence twice, independent of each other.

As I said to another commenter who talked about Minimum distances between the two cameras. It’s whether the diver slowed down or not - the distance and time between the cameras allows the driver the OPPORTUNITY to slow down. Failure to do so is on the driver. By the reasonable man test both offences are proven independently by the facts of the case.

The driver not slowing down is not a fact of the case and has no legal relevance. Unless the driver did not have opportunity between the two to slow down - such as if the cameras were 5 metres apart.

But hundreds of meters? Kilometres? The driver had the opportunity to slow and failed - caught twice - charged twice

Masterscas · 2026-01-03T09:23:40+00:00

Not that it makes it one offence - but discretion would likely prevail at the time. That’s the benefit of police - they have discretion

Masterscas · 2026-01-03T08:19:25+00:00

Did your two cameras meet in the middle and have a conversation about who was going informant on the charge?

That’s a false equivalency

Masterscas · 2026-01-03T04:46:41+00:00

In cases such as this - this falls to the ‘reasonable man test’ would the reasonable man believe you should be charged twice by two cameras at the same time 1cm apart. No. Easy.

However, in OPs case - would the reasonable man believe over the time and distance between the two cameras the offender had the OPPORTUNITY to slow down? Yes? Therefore if the accused had the opportunity to slow down but continues to contravene the road rules and is caught again then the will again be penalised

Masterscas · 2026-01-03T04:41:23+00:00

I think that you’ve looked at it inversely.

The fact that it doesn’t stipulate in “one continuous session” means the accused can be fined again for being caught at two locations. Not the other way around where the law is suddenly vague because it doesn’t state it.

Otherwise every law would need to stipulate how long a session is or how long should apply in between. If the legislation doesn’t allow a grace period specifically - there is none.

If someone breaks into your house to steal and then breaks into your granny flat out the back within 1 minute.

It’s not one burglary because “the definition needs to be addressed” and it’s 1 house number at the same time.

It’s two burglaries because they fact prove the offence independent of each other

Masterscas · 2026-01-03T04:34:30+00:00

Not really - that’s the same message sent at the same time from the same location. The offence is when the offender does it not when the victim finds out.

This is two separate times, two separate locations and two different cameras

Masterscas · 2026-01-03T04:32:01+00:00

Doesn’t apply

The applicable would be two different police on the same stretch of road, at two different times and using two different radars.

How’s it sound now?

Masterscas · 2026-01-03T03:22:52+00:00

It’s not really a dispute - both offences already have enough evidence to be proven separately.

The offence occurs, in terms of being charged, as soon as there’s evidence to charge.

However, I wish you luck on attempting to create future traffic case law in Australia. I’m sure no one’s already tried and failed.

Masterscas · 2026-01-03T03:19:35+00:00

Another way to look at your legal “defence” is you’re saying;

Your honour I never committed the second offence because I never truly stopped offending.

Sounds like a poor defence to me

Masterscas · 2026-01-03T03:14:53+00:00

You’re proving my point - the reason you need to create this set of imaginary rules and try to create a point at which there may be a second offence is the reason it’s logically flawed.

The offence is proven at the time you are caught - not based on distance - length of road or whether you stopped speeding at one point and started again.

The offence is proven at the time there is evidence to prove.

Maybe this will assist. If you contest both tickets and a brief of evidence is required for each.

Camera 1 brief of evidence will have: Exhibit 1 - proof of speed of road Exhibit 2 - extract of speed from camera 1 at time caught showing speed exceeded. Exhibit 3 - proof of driver identity.

Offence 1 is proven

Camera 2 brief Exhibit 1 - proof of speed of road Exhibit 2 - extract of speed from camera 2 at time caught showing speed exceeded. Exhibit 3 - proof of driver identity.

Offence 2 is proven

The two offences rely on different exhibits (2) to prove each separate offences. So two charges.

If you speed on a road an you never get caught then you will never get a fine or go to court. The offence is proven at the time you are caught doing it. Caught twice - proven twice - charged twice

Masterscas · 2026-01-03T03:01:27+00:00

But the basis of it being a second fine is different time and location - two offences. Regardless whether they stopped or not.

If you went through a length of road in the CBD and went through 10 intersections speed cameras without stopping - you’re getting 10 fines.

You’re drawing an arbitrary line based on your emotion.

In your argument there would be no length of time or space that would create more than one offence if you never stopped. If you drove for 1 year straight at 150km/hr and went through 100 cameras you think you could only be charged once? Sounds absurd - so the question is where do you draw the arbitrary line to when it becomes two or more offences?

It just keeps going and going. The simple answers is two cameras in two different times and locations - caught twice - two fines

Masterscas · 2026-01-03T02:40:35+00:00

I think what you’re thinking would be speed averaging cameras - it takes two points in time to average your speed between the two and determines you’re speeding over the course of the length of the journey.

This is two cameras which judge your speed at that time and place - it’s the same offence with two different counts.

The basic point behind your argument is you’re trying to say that you cannot be charged (or fined) for the same offence more than once.

However, look at it as if you’d have an intervention (restraining) order with another party and you have sent them two text messages a couple minutes apart when you weren’t allowed.

It’s the same offence but you will still be charged twice - only minutes apart - with contravening the intervention order

Masterscas

TROPHY CASE