From: Damien on
Nev.. wrote:
> Damien wrote:
>> JL wrote:
>>> Which would be fair comment if many bikers looked like OMCG members,
>> It's already been pointed out by a number of other people that many
>> innocent bikers do indeed look like OMCG members - at least in the
>> eyes of ignorant Joe Public, if not in actual fact.
> You keep going on and on about this, but it's not Joe Public who will be
> doing the scrutinizing, it's whoever is controlling entry to the
> premises in question... and if they can't identify who is and who is not
> a patch wearing club member in question, how do you explain the fact
> that they've already identified 15 specific patch wearing clubs to
> single out?
> Nev..
> '07 XB12X

You're exactly right, and I've said it myself MANY times - it is the
bouncers who will be enforcing it.

Are you really willing to trust to the intelligence and judgment of a
bouncer to get this right, without picking on the wrong people?

The fact that clubs have been identified for exclusion is irrelevant.
What matters is whether the guys on the door are actually capable of
getting it right on the front-line. The problem is that anyone who knows
the sort of person that is usually employed as a bouncer also knows that
they're not exactly the sharpest knives in the draw even at their best.

That's a problem.

You don't work as a bouncer, do you?
From: Damien on
JL wrote:

> <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).

Again with the hyperbole. I'm not talking about anything that could be
described as a "doomsday scenario", not that I would ever expect
sufficient honesty from you to admit that you know it, even though you do.

What I am talking about is that this is a law with a very real and
considerable capacity for abuse, involving innocent and non-gang riders.
The scale of the injustice I could not make a guess at, whether big or
small or in between.

But it's not the actual numbers that concern me, even if it's all you
can keep banging on about yourself. What concerns me is the prospect for
abuse, and that should concern you as well, because such issues
ultimately affect all of us, whether directly or indirectly.
From: Damien 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.

Plenty of gang members out there riding non-HD bikes. Surely a slapper
like you should know that already? :-)
From: Damien on
JL wrote:
> On Jan 18, 1:00 pm, G-S <ge...(a)> wrote:
>> 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...
> Yeah, you have a point, it's certainly unusual for me to be sitting on
> the same side of the fence as Boxer...
> I guess because I can't see the potential as a real issue. It's
> certainly not *impossible* that every pub in NSW will suddenly refuse
> to serve anyone in bike gear; but I just can't see it happening
> anywhere other than a handful of pubs who have a jumped up idea of
> their own status.
> I also can't see how it actually changes anything. There are already
> pubs today that will prevent people entering based on what they wear.
> The only thing that worries me is the possibility that it is being
> forced on the pubs - if that's so, I have a real issue with it.
> I have no issue with any pub trying to choose who their patrons are.
> JL

Doesn't the simple principle of it still concern you?

As I said in another post, it is not the numbers or the scope that is
the concern. It is the potential for abuse that exists irrespective of
actual numbers affected, and the principle that we stand to sacrifice
for nothing in allowing such abuses to go unchallenged.
From: PostmanPat on
On Jan 18, 9:05 am, CrazyCam <crazy...(a)> wrote:
> G-S wrote:
> > diogenes wrote:
> >> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 16:44:09 +1100, Damien <>
> >> wrote:
> >>> But what safeguards are in place to ensure that innocent law-abiding
> >>> riders are mistakenly lumped in with them?
> >> Easy.  If you don't wear 1%er colours, you won't have a problem.  If
> >> you DO wear 1%er colours, stop bitchin about people wanting you off
> >> their premises.  Simple.
> > So I ride to the local pub with Ulysses (or HOG)... ride up on HDs in
> > Brando jackets with Harley logos and FTW logos and/or a Ulysses/HOG
> > patches on their gear and tattoos showing but  *not* wearing 1%er
> > colours and I'm not doing anything wrong but the pub calls the cops
> > because we look like 1%ers to some bouncer with an IQ of 80 with a 1%er?
> > You're can't seriously be relying on bouncers to make this sort of
> > distinction...
> So, if I ride up on the Z50, wearing my all white outfit, do you think
> they'll let me in, even though I have been known to have a beer with
> some of the Gladiators?
> Anyway, I never even see bouncers when I go for breakfast.....
>         regards,
>                 CrazyCam- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -

"To dream,
The impossible dream..."

I _thought_ I recognised you from that Honda ad,Cam...