Prev: New mid-week ambiguious jokes and if you don't like them, fuckoff
Next: No helmet legal for Unicycle rider?
From: Damien on 17 Jan 2008 18:23
> Sure, but 1 wrong repeated several times deserves punishment or
Certainly. But shouldn't the punishment or censure be so designed as to
target only the guilty, rather than potentially catching many innocent
parties in the process? Are the guilty really so bad in this case that
sacrificing the innocent is worth the price?
From: Zebee Johnstone on 17 Jan 2008 18:36
In aus.motorcycles on Fri, 18 Jan 2008 10:06:25 +1100
Nev.. <idiot(a)mindless.com> wrote:
> 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
You may or may not remember that the start of the whole Poser Permit
thing was someone ragging on bods on 250 cruisers who were wearing
matt black open face helmets and daggy denims.
And me saying that posing on a bike was something all riders did, and
that I'd done a hell of a lot more than that in the "pretending to be
a bad bikie" stakes.
See how many Harleys there are now? Frasers is building a huge new
showroom at the moment and that's not because of Ducati. Heaps of
cruisers out there, and lots and lots of pre-distressed leather
jackets, and you look at the black open face helmet range compared to
any other colour.
How *you* may dress and ride might be different. I've done the
denim-with-winged-logo and shorty black openface and full on chopper
thing and it was way fun. (The bike was fun - although it had its
moments - without the kit to go with it, but the kit was part of the
pose, and I believe in posing!)
YOu and I can tell the difference between a 1%er and one of the Kings
Cross Bikers club, bet you few of the non-riding community can.
From: George W. Frost on 17 Jan 2008 18:38
"CrazyCam" <crazycam(a)upturnet.com.au> wrote in message
> Nigel Allen wrote:
>> Geez - I thought I was the only one going back that far :)
>> I've suffered the same thing in the UK in the 70's - it wasn't unusual
>> for pubs out in the countryside to have two signs outside of "No Coaches"
>> and "No Motorbikes".
> Late '70s, here in Oz, a few times in the seriously backblocks, I wasn't
> allowed into the front (white) bar, but I could get a drink in the back
> (abo) bar.
Can go back further to the mid 60s,
I was dressed in normal casual gear for Surfers going for a drink after work
and I got told to leave the lounge bar of the Surfers Paradise Hotel
"You know the rules, no abo's in the lounge"
things was, my workmate, a half caste, standing beside me was allowed to
but I was blacker than we was so I was out.
And I didn't even have a helmet.
From: JL on 17 Jan 2008 18:45
On Jan 18, 7:52 am, CrazyCam <crazy...(a)upturnet.com.au> wrote:
> JL wrote:
> It's like this John, if you, or GB, go into a complicated explanation,
> with quotes, footnotes, and commentaries, I can read the bits I want and
> then skip to next.
<fake cockney accent> That's a fair cop guv ! </fake cockney accent>
From: JL on 17 Jan 2008 18:51
On Jan 18, 10:22 am, Damien <al.qa...(a)asio.gov.au> wrote:
> 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.
Sure, but that's Zebee's take on it, unsupported by any evidence on
than a vague generalisation in the article in question. I assume you
take everything ACA tells you as gospel too ?
> > 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?
Because the licencing as written doesn't ban those people, and if a
brain dead bouncer fails to apply his rules correctly, you have a
comeback, two in fact, the licencing courts, and the fair trading
commission. 2 of 3 of those organisations are more than capable of
dragging a recalcitrant publican into court if they wished to.
> your unchecked hatred of OMCGs really clouded your judgement to such an
Oh puhleese - you're getting stupider by the post.