From: JL on
On Jan 18, 1:23 pm, G-S <ge...(a)> wrote:
> > 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 ?
> If I was in Sydney I'd pike now... given I'm not I'll just think
> insulting comments about the choice of venue.

I'd have thought you and Damien would be aching to test your thesis
about how non OMCG'ers are going to get banned.

(it's why I suggested it)
From: Damien on
JL wrote:
> 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.
> JL

So if the legislation quite probably wont even be able to deliver the
intended results anyway, and quite probably will lead to unfair
discrimination against innocent parties, can you tell me just where the
advantage then is in having it?

Clearly, and by your own words, the legislation is flawed - in
application, if not intent. Wouldn't the smart money then be on coming
with up an alternative that WILL deliver, rather than persisting on
trying to flog a lame horse to the finish line?
From: Damien on
Theo Bekkers wrote:
> Damien wrote:
>> corks wrote:
>>> to still keep it on track , no one ever went to court over the bikie
>>> shooting as a suspect died before he got to court
>> hmmm. Sounds very convenient, don't you think? Not all that surprising
>> though, but convenient.
> The whole Police dept and half of Parliament house heaved a sigh of relief
> when he blew up.
> Theo

I'll bet they did.

When corks is trying to paint the OMCG's as the collective devil
incarnate (not that they need much help with that image anyway), I hope
he doesn't forget the irony in the blind support he gives his
colleagues. As the above mentioned inconvenience attests, there are many
cops out there who are as bad if not worse than any OMCG member.

Thankfully they're not all like him. But there are enough who are for it
to make a difference even so.
From: JL on
On Jan 18, 12:48 pm, G-S <ge...(a)> wrote:
> JL wrote:
> > On Jan 17, 5:59 pm, G-S <ge...(a)> wrote:
> >> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> >> You and I would realise that there are no rockers, but would the average
> >> publican?
> >> I suspect not...
> >> Also what about prospects?  They don't have the logo so they'd be let in
> >> by the same uninformed publican...
> > I think you'll find many/most of the clubs use a small logo on the
> > front panel of the vest to identify the club as well the large logo on
> > the back, Noms get that small logo to identify what club they are
> > nominated for before they get their colours.
> > JL
> Oh they often do...
> but those small logos are not 'colours', and they are banning 'colours'
> aren't they? [1]

No, they are banning all logos and regalia (which raises George W's
point about the non direct logos of the Hells Angels which it is
unlikely the bouncers will be aware of - see further up thread and the
original url)

> [1] My point was that in addition to effecting people not involved with
> the patch clubs it will also not effect some people involved with them

Agreed, see earlier post, I think this is far more likely.

From: Damien on
Nev.. wrote:
> Damien wrote:
>> 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. :-)
> A difference in perception, not necessarily in reality.
> Nev..
> '07 XB12X

Says you. :-)