From: JL on
On Jan 18, 12:57 pm, G-S <ge...(a)> wrote:
> JL wrote:
> > JL
> > (1) except when accountant OMCG wannabes wear something that's
> > indistinguishable and bring down the inevitable consequences - if it
> > walks like a duck and quacks like a duck be prepared to be treated
> > like a duck.
> And you think that's ok?
> Because I don't...

I think I was a bit obscure with the reference - I was referring to
the Ulysses incidents, not the remote possibility that a Ulysses or
HOG member might be barred from entering a pub.

But as far as it goes, to the extent that a wannabe makes himself
indistinguishable from the real thing TM then he can't complain if he
is treated like a 1%er too loudly. He's obviously getting some
personal benefit from attempting to appear to be a 1%er, you have to
take the good with the bad.

> Are you going to generalize on religion next?
> That muslim looks like a terrorist... let's restrict him from going here
> or there because he's a security risk.
> Is that ok with you too?

No but if he's a muslim who goes around telling everyone that Al Qaeda
are going to soft on Australia and that it's about time that someone
bombed parliament then he can't complain that he then gets treated as
a (potential) terrorist by the Feds.

Which would be a far closer analogy to the above. Walking like a
duck, quacking like a duck, then you're getting treated like a duck.

You have done the same thing Damien keeps doing - you're generalising
the particular to the wider group without much basis. There's no
reason that any old muslim should be treated as a terrorist any more
than any old biker will be treated as a 1%er. I object strongly to the
move from the particular to the general (as you well know). But unlike
our terrorist laws these don't give general powers to deal with a
particular issue. They give particular powers to deal with a
particular issue, which is how laws should be drafted.

From: Zebee Johnstone on
In on Fri, 18 Jan 2008 13:20:08 +1100
G-S <geoff(a)> wrote:
> The fact that it's plausible that the bouncer will refuse admission in
> the first place is reason enough to oppose this legislation.


There was always the chance they would refuse admission.

There are 2 differences here.

1) they can now call the police if you refuse to go.

2) It is *possible* that other pubs will have the same licence
conditions. It is unknown if this will be forced on them or not.

From: Zebee Johnstone on
In on Fri, 18 Jan 2008 02:39:27 GMT
George W. Frost <frosty(a)> wrote:
> "Zebee Johnstone" <zebeej(a)> wrote in message
> news:slrnfp00be.86v.zebeej(a)
>> It isn't just patches. It is, as far as can be determined, any
>> "regalia" associated with the club.
>> Such as someone with a Big Red Machine t-shirt.
> is that the shirt with the "81" written on it ??

That's another Angels related shirt.

From: JL on
On Jan 18, 1:02 pm, G-S <ge...(a)> wrote:
> 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%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 ?
> 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.

<shrug> You may be right. I'm willing to put my money where my mouth
is. See other post. There's no way in mind that I can envisage
Damien's doomsday scenario coming to pass. I'd suggest roughly the
same percentage of "biker unfriendly" pubs will exist before and
afterwards. As has always been the case which ones have an issue and
which ones don't is something that ebbs and flows over time (mostly
with changes of publican).

But then again, I rarely drink alcohol in pubs that I turn up to in
bike gear, so neither I nor they will miss me if I'm gone. I doubt
they'll notice a lemon squash less on their bottom line. The only time
I'll turn up to a pub intending to drink I won't be on the bike - for
the bleedingly obvious reason.

From: CrazyCam on
Theo Bekkers wrote:
> 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. :-)
> Theo