From: G-S on
JL wrote:
> 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 legislation that brings unintended consequences down upon the heads
of innocent people, that requires people to spend small fortunes in
court to get justice that previously was theirs by right is ok with you?

Sounds more like something John Howard would have pushed than you...

From: G-S on
Simone wrote:
> Dunno why anyone should get their nickers in a knot over how an innocent
> motorcyclist could be mistaken for a gang member.
> A simple check of the carpark would determine their credentials...are they
> riding a motorcycle or a HD?
> Sim.

You Simple Simone are trolling (and not very well).


From: G-S on
JL wrote:
> 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%�rs 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 ?

As long as the ban doesn't cause 'collateral damage'.

>> *simplified* 2 wrongs don't make a right.
> Sure, but 1 wrong repeated several times deserves punishment or
> censure.

I never said it didn't... I said this is way causes problems in addition
to what it's intended to do.

> JL
From: Theo Bekkers on
CrazyCam wrote:
> Damien wrote:
>> 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.
> Now there is a quotable quote...pity it's too long for a T-shirt.

Might fit Clem. :-)


From: G-S on
JL wrote:
> On Jan 18, 8:59 am, G-S <ge...(a)> wrote:
>> Simone wrote:
>>> As for banning "certain colours" if it looks like a duck & quacks like a
>>> duck...then expect to get shot at!
>>> Sim.
>> That's the justification used for discrimination against minorities down
>> through the ages... are you sure you want to go down that path?
> No it's not; the justification for discrimination against minorities
> down the ages is "they're different to us, so they should be treated
> 'differently' " (read less well/ less fairly).

A difference which makes no difference is no difference JL.

> You're confusing that with "well if you don't want to be discriminated
> against,and you're not part of the minority, don't look like the
> minority"

See above.

> Which would be fair comment if many bikers looked like OMCG members,
> nobody I ride with does, do your friends ? And if they do

Lots of them do (personally I mostly don't).

They aren't trying to send a message... most of them are just stuck in
the 1980's wearing the same Brando jackets and still riding Harley's as
they were back then.

You forget... I live in a country town... Harley's aren't bought here as
a fashion statement they are bought because the nearest bike shop is
50kms away and Harleys are easy to work on at home.

Most of the Harleys are older and with signifcant kms on them too.

Think Pisshead Pete less a wheel and you'll be much closer than Hells