From: G-S on
Boxer wrote:
> Hoverer I
> may speculate that one would get a similarly hostile reception adorned as a
> Bogan with questionable personal hygiene in a ratty EH Holden Ute.

You might well speculate that... however is it justified to refuse
service to that bogan in the EH Holden ute if they have paid in advance
and haven't done anything wrong simply based upon perception?

From: G-S on
JL wrote:
> 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).

I'm not arguing with that either... I'm saying that these biker
unfriendly pubs (publicans) will now have the ability to use the police
to back up their unfriendly to bikers attitude.

I can't really see that as a good outcome, no matter how people try to
spin it.

From: G-S on
Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> 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.
> 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.

And If I wasn't in breach of a *posted and visible* dress code then I
would of course 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.

Excuse me If I don't trust the pollies not to use this as the thin edge
of wedge Zebee :)

From: G-S on
JL wrote:
> 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.
> JL
> (it's why I suggested it)

[1] I don't fit into my cut off gear anymore (errr it shrank...).

[2] The only 2 HD's I have ready access to these days are a sportster
and an electro-glide ultra classic; neither of which are likely to be
usable to test the hypothesis.
From: G-S on
Boxer wrote:
> "G-S" <geoff(a)> wrote in message
> news:13p021d9fa5m3c2(a)
>> 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...
>> G-S
> Speculation about possible future unintended consequences, is just that
> speculation, it is without foundation and in this context without merit.
> Boxer

Planning for the future unintended outcomes of actions is entirely
sensible and is part of most sustainable plans.

If you can't see that...