From: JL on
On Jan 18, 1:52 pm, "George W. Frost" <fro...(a)> wrote:
> "JL" <jlitt...(a)> wrote in message
> It's just as plausible a scenario as the Damien "the world is caving
> in every biker will be banned from every pub in Australia" version.
> I don't know which will happen, but I'm betting on the latter.
> The HA could also turn up with their red "81" shirt
> which knuckle dragging bouncer would know what that meant?

It's scary that I'm agreeing with you on something, but yes, I suspect
the key knowledge gap isn't going to be who *isn't* someone on the
banned list, I suspect it's going to be who SHOULD be refused and
isn't going to be.

From: JL on
On Jan 18, 1:55 pm, Zebee Johnstone <zeb...(a)> wrote:
> In on Fri, 18 Jan 2008 13:20:08 +1100
> G-S <ge...(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.
> Well...  
> 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.

Actually they can already do that too, the difference is they
currently need two of them to lie that you were being violent (and no
other witnesses...)

Now you don't have to get stroppy for them to call the cops.

> 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.

That's the worry for me.

From: Theo Bekkers on
Boxer wrote:

> a ratty EH Holden Ute.

Classics, those.


From: JL on
On Jan 18, 1:21 pm, G-S <ge...(a)> wrote:
> JL wrote:
> > On Jan 18, 9:03 am, G-S <ge...(a)> wrote:
> >> [1] Anybody else noticing how this world is slipping from offence
> >> committed and action is taken to 'oh we don't have proof, but lets take
> >> action anyway'.
> > Just because Australia and the US are, doesn't mean all of the world
> > are. Some countries still care about the rule of law (that's places
> > like the "cheese eating surrender monkeys" who revived modern
> > democracy).
> OK... I'll admit Australia and the US (I'd add the UK though).

Yeah, i thought about putting UK on the list, but I'm less clear about
their current legal status (I"m aware of two dodgy areas but haven't
had time to read up on it)

> Having said that... why not try and slow the slide by opposing laws and
> regulations that encourage this slide in 'our world' (where we live).

I am, actively.
I just don't see the point fighting something that is semi-
justifiable(1), when there are any number of current laws that are
absolutely horrificly (sp?) anti-freedom of movement, speech and
association. Rule one of problem resolution knock over the big issues
first and tidy up the loose ends afterwards.

(1) if the best argument that can be raised against it is it MAY have
unforeseen consequences then we should remove pretty near all laws - I
don't have a problem with that but i suspect there are a few who would
From: Damien on
George W. Frost wrote:

> Could also be that Damien could have been walking through the Cairns
> shopping centre
> and the looks were not of disgust, but amazement because of the heat

George, we're not all like you, don't forget that. :-)