From: corks on

"G-S" <geoff(a)castbus.com.au> wrote in message
news:13otvesn43sb161(a)corp.supernews.com...
> corks wrote:
>>
>> bullshit , i think most people would be more intimidatd by a big arsed
>> '1%�r , than prince harry on a night out ......
>
> Intimidated by? Maybe...
>
> Offended by? No way *frown*. [1]
>
>
> G-S
>
> [1] Of course a 1%er wearing Nazi logos is likely to tick both boxes. [2]
> Wearing a swatstika crosses the line.
>

well then plenty of patch d wear the swatstika in their ''uniform''....


From: corks on

"Damien" <al.qaeda(a)asio.gov.au> wrote in message
news:fmmpr5$jqm$2(a)aioe.org...
> 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%�rs ever respected the rights of
others............


From: G-S on
corks wrote:
> "G-S" <geoff(a)castbus.com.au> wrote in message
> news:13otvesn43sb161(a)corp.supernews.com...
>> corks wrote:
>>> bullshit , i think most people would be more intimidatd by a big arsed
>>> '1%�r , than prince harry on a night out ......
>> Intimidated by? Maybe...
>>
>> Offended by? No way *frown*. [1]
>>
>>
>> G-S
>>
>> [1] Of course a 1%er wearing Nazi logos is likely to tick both boxes. [2]
>> Wearing a swatstika crosses the line.
>>
>
> well then plenty of patch d wear the swatstika in their ''uniform''....
>
>
And plenty of them offend me because they do wear them, if you wanted to
ban people wearing swastikas from pubs I'd support you.

But this isn't about something offensive like the swastika, it's about
'colors' (which aren't in and of themselves offensive... although the
actions of some people wearing them are). [1]


G-S

[1] Or are you trying to say that the actions of patch clubs are so
offensive that their actions have permanently tainted the 'colour'
emblem concept? Because that's a *big* stretch.
From: G-S on
corks wrote:
> "Damien" <al.qaeda(a)asio.gov.au> wrote in message
> news:fmmpr5$jqm$2(a)aioe.org...
>> 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%�rs 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.

*simplified* 2 wrongs don't make a right.


G-S

From: Nev.. on
Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> There's a move afoot in Sydney to ban people from entering pubs if they
> are wearing outlaw club colours or otherwise displaying club logos. (And
>
> So tell me aus.moto, what do you want the MCC to do in this? Oppose the
> ban or not? If the MCC should support the UMC in opposition to the ban,
> what form should that support take?

It seems to me, that this is not a case of some discrimination against
motorcyclists, or anything to do with motorcycles, so there's really
little need for the MCC to get involved or represent the issue on behalf
of the patch clubs in this case.

This is about where people can wear their club colours, and if I recall
correctly, the wearing of club colours is/was self-policed by the outlaw
motorcycle clubs (google for the threats/actions the Rebels MCC made
against Ulysses members at the Canberra AGM a few years ago regarding
the wearing of coloured patches and rockers), and not the MCC.

Nev..
'07 XB12X