NSW/SYD: banning colours
in [Aussie Motorcycles]
|
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 18:48 Zebee Johnstone wrote: > 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. > > Zebee I just think of some of the look I've had myself, just walking through a shopping centre with nothing more intimidating than a dri-rider jacket! Your comment above is one I have made and restated continually, and yet various people continue to ignore it and to have a go based on their assumption that this matter affects ONLY 1%ers and no one else at all. Some people will only ever see what they choose to see, and will steadfastly ignore anything that may challenge their incorrect assumptions and distorted worldview. 1%ers may be the source of the problem, but this response has potential repercussions on a great number of completely innocent and unassociated bike riders also, but I don't think any amount of commonsense is going to make the supporters of this policy change their minds. It doesn't affect them directly and personally, so why should they care who gets fucked over in the process, as long as it isn't them?
From: corks on 17 Jan 2008 18:57 "Zebee Johnstone" <zebeej(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:slrnfovbk5.6pj.zebeej(a)gmail.com... > In aus.motorcycles on Thu, 17 Jan 2008 23:27:21 +0900 > corks <trigarti67(a)nospam.iinet.net.au> wrote: >> >> ummm can you name or tell me of a patch club that hasnt lived up to their >> ''colours'' > > Vietnam Veterans? > > Zebee hmmmm, they dont actually claim to be 1%�rs tho, tho over here they do hang out a bit with them
From: JL on 17 Jan 2008 18:56 On Jan 18, 2:23 am, Damien <al.qa...(a)asio.gov.au> wrote: > diogenes wrote: > > On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 16:39:36 +1100, Damien <al.qa...(a)asio.gov.au> > > 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? > > I must be surrounded by idiots, if such a simple point still requires > explanation. If everybody around you seems to be an idiot you might do well to reflect on your own intellect. JL
From: CrazyCam on 17 Jan 2008 18:58 corks wrote: > "Zebee Johnstone" <zebeej(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:slrnfovbk5.6pj.zebeej(a)gmail.com... >> In aus.motorcycles on Thu, 17 Jan 2008 23:27:21 +0900 >> corks <trigarti67(a)nospam.iinet.net.au> wrote: >>> ummm can you name or tell me of a patch club that hasnt lived up to their >>> ''colours'' >> Vietnam Veterans? >> >> Zebee > > hmmmm, they dont actually claim to be 1%�rs tho, tho over here they do hang > out a bit with them > > but does that make them guilty? regards, CrazyCam
From: corks on 17 Jan 2008 19:00
"JL" <jlittler(a)my-deja.com> wrote in message news:2e5d21f6-6662-447e-9417-6ae638edcab4(a)s27g2000prg.googlegroups.com... 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. >Has > your unchecked hatred of OMCGs really clouded your judgement to such an > extent? Oh puhleese - you're getting stupider by the post. JL well said, tho i think his rapid hysteria seems to be clouding his ....... |