From: Hoodaman on
Has anyone put on thier badge covered vest then try to get in? Maybe a HOG
member. Would love to see if ur refused entry or can walk straight in. My
bet is u will get in. Someone put it to the test pleeeeze...

From: JL on
On Jan 18, 10:48 am, Damien <> wrote:
> 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!

Errm Damien, what makes you think that the Dri Rider had anything to
do with it ? :-)

From: Damien on
JL wrote:

> 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 ?

And there you go with the assumptions again...really, you should try
actually thinking for once, rather than relying on nothing more than
assumptions to make and carry your case. :-)

> 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.

So? The fact that there may exist certain avenues to pursue claims over
unjust calls does nothing in this case, under the rules as presently
understood, to prevent such injustices from occurring in the first
place. It's one thing to target a group that deserves it, but it's
another thing to knowingly also target innocents in the process, as this
rule has considerable potential to do. The problem is not the intent of
the ban, but the manner of its application and enforcement, although you
seem to have considerable difficulty grasping this difference.

> Oh puhleese - you're getting stupider by the post.

As compared to you? ROFL, pot to kettle, clean-up in aisle nine!
From: JL on
On Jan 18, 3:54 am, Iain Chalmers <bigi...(a)> wrote:
> The thing that's intriguing  me about it is that it's getting written
> into their licence conditions.
> I wonder who's behind _that_ and why?
> Is it the cops leaning on the publicans via the liquor licencing court
> (and if so is "giving the bikies a hard time when we've got nothing to
> charge them with but know where they're drinking" within the remit of
> either the cops doing the leaning or the liquor licencing court? It does
> seem likely to be an abuse of power to me...
> Is it the publicans looking to give themselves an excuse to not let the
> bike clubs in? If so, I'm with whoever suggested they read the fine
> print in their fire insurance policies, 'cause I'm sure the bike gangs
> wouldn't see right through _that_... "I'm _terribly_ sorry Mr
> Seargent-at-arms, but you lads can't come in here any more 'cause
> they've changed my licence conditions and I'll be out of business if I
> let you in! It's _tragic_, _really!_ We _so_ much enjoy your
> comapany..." Yep, they'll fall for that for _sure!_

Yeah I'd be very curious to know that one too. If it's the former then
it's a bigger issue, because then pubs who ARE willing to have OMCGs
as customer may be prevented from doing so if the cops attempt to push
this out across the entire state's licencing laws. I have a real issue
with that. If it's the latter then I can't see any real issue (aside
from the likelihood of my insurance premiums going up to pay for the 4
new pubs that will need to be built in Parramatta.

It must be almost time for an Ausmoto dinner, and Parramatta is the
geographic centre of Sydney, how about dinner at the Royal Oak guys ?


From: Damien on
JL wrote:

> If everybody around you seems to be an idiot you might do well to
> reflect on your own intellect.

I didn't say they SEEM to be idiots. I said they ARE idiots.

There's quite a difference. :-)