From: JL on
On Jan 17, 9:18 pm, G-S <ge...(a)> wrote:
> corks wrote:
> > "Damien" <> wrote in message
> >news:fmmpr5$jqm$2(a)
> >> corks wrote:
> >>>> Forget about who it is intended to target, shouldn't the simple fact
> >>>> that it is wrong be sufficient reason to oppose such actions?
> >>> NO!!!!!!!
> >>> they deserve all they get .....
> >> Who deserves it? The completely innocent law-abiding motorcycle rider who
> >> gets mistaken for a member of a patch club?
> >> I guess respect for the rights of others doesn't mean a whole lot to some
> >> people...
> > what a crock - since when have 1%érs ever respected the rights of
> > others............
> People aren't saying that they do.
> What they are saying is that just because they don't behave in a moral
> manner is no reason for us support immoral actions.

Is it immoral to ban them based on their actions ?

> *simplified* 2 wrongs don't make a right.

Sure, but 1 wrong repeated several times deserves punishment or

From: JL on
On Jan 18, 7:58 am, CrazyCam <crazy...(a)> wrote:
> Hi corks.
> I know this may sound like a daft question, but, if all the 1%ers are
> such evil nasty law breaking people why aren't they in jail?
> Like, "everybody" knows that they do illegal babies, double
> park, have noisy exhausts on their bikes, and probably enjoy themselves
> (Obviously a major crime in NSW) so why is it that there is such a big
> deal about trying to stop them going into pubs?
> I mean it's a pretty pathetic and niggly "punishment".

Naah, it's two reasons; it's happening at this pub because this is one
of a couple in the area that they frequent (and the publican wants rid
of them because they're scaring away the punters from spending their
pension cheques on the pokies). The other reason according to the UMC
delegate to MCC (and it sounds plausible) is that there's been a
fistful of money given by Howard to the state govt's to attack
"organised crime" and like with Al Capone the cops have limited means
of attack so they're using what they have.

From: JL on
On Jan 18, 9:03 am, G-S <ge...(a)> wrote:

> [1] Anybody else noticing how this world is slipping from offence
> committed and action is taken to 'oh we don't have proof, but lets take
> action anyway'.

Just because Australia and the US are, doesn't mean all of the world
are. Some countries still care about the rule of law (that's places
like the "cheese eating surrender monkeys" who revived modern

(then again, some countries have never known rule of law other than
From: Nev.. on
Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> In on Thu, 17 Jan 2008 23:08:25 +1100
> diogenes <cynic(a)society.sux.ok> wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 16:39:36 +1100, Damien <al.qaeda(a)>
>> wrote:
>>>> they deserve all they get .....
>>> Who deserves it? The completely innocent law-abiding motorcycle rider
>>> who gets mistaken for a member of a patch club?
>> And how would one get "mistaken" for a member of a patch club, Damien?
> You can wear an unadorned jacket and carry a bike helmet.
> I thought you were old enough to remember those days Gerry?
> I can remember the day after the Milperra shootout when anyone carrying
> a helmet was trouble. I - female, 20s, unadorned jacket - had concerned
> mothers dragging their children away from my dangerous presence. It
> got so bad that the MRA had to hold a press conference to reassure
> people that your average rider wasn't going to shoot people.
> Riders know the difference. Many others don't.

Maybe back then 24 years ago that was the case, but nowadays I think the
distinction between 1%ers and the rest of the biking community is far
greater, and much more easily recognisable by the average person. The
distinction between the bikes we ride and the bikes they ride are more
obviously different. How they dress and how we dress as riders is now
more different. I reckon most of the general population would easily be
able to make a distinction between a club member, and one of Hell's
Accountants who was doing his best to act and dress the part. And the
one's who can't probably don't have a job enforcing such a restriction
as has been suggested at a pub door.

'07 XB12X
From: Damien on
JL wrote:
> No, we're talking about one pub actually, although it may well become
> your local down the road (I'm sure it'll spread to Victoria if it's
> successful in Parramatta.

Really? Here's a quote from the original post in this thread:

"There's a move afoot in Sydney to ban people from entering pubs if they
are wearing outlaw club colours or otherwise displaying club logos."

Note the use of the plural form? "pubs" means MORE THAN ONE. In this
case, ANY pub at all.

> Lastly, and it's the nub of this issue which you are choosing to
> ignore, 1%ers wear those clothes as a point of difference to the rest
> o us. It's a source of pride that they choose to display. It's also a
> very simple way of distinguishing an OMCG member from the general
> populace (1) so they can't complain when that clothing is used to
> distinguish them for the purposes of preventing their entry to a pub.

Why do you continually ignore and misrepresent what I have actually
said? Is it because otherwise you have no point to make?

I'm well aware of how 1%ers represent themselves and how they operate
and so on and so forth. I've never disputed that, and have actually
agreed with such statements as the above on a number of occasions. I
don't know why I'm being attacked for something on which I actually
agree with those doing the attacking!

The point which you continue to ignore is that the dangers of such bans
is that people who are NOT 1%ers are at real risk of being caught in the
crossfire by idiots too stupid to recognise the difference between a
1%er and an ordinary rider who just happens to wear a leather jacket
with patches - various people have mentioned groups such as Vietnam
Vets, H.O.G, and Ulysses as cases in point.

Why is such a simple and clear point so difficult for you to grasp? Has
your unchecked hatred of OMCGs really clouded your judgement to such an