Prev: New mid-week ambiguious jokes and if you don't like them, fuckoff
Next: No helmet legal for Unicycle rider?
From: Simone on 17 Jan 2008 08:11
>>>> 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?
As a decent law abiding motorcyclist turning up at a pub on my 250 Honda I
strongly suspect I'll get a lot less grief from an over zealous bouncer than
I would at a pub full of inebriated 1%ers.
As for banning "certain colours" if it looks like a duck & quacks like a
duck...then expect to get shot at!
From: JL on 17 Jan 2008 09:08
> JL wrote:
>>> One wonders if the H.O.G. riders will be upset if the are banned or
>>> upset if they aren't banned. ;-)
>> Well they're not banned (it's just 1%ers - Rebels, Gypsy Jokers,
>> Commies etc)
> But some of the HOG lot go to such extremes to try and look like 1%ers.
Yes, yes they do :-)
>>> N.B. I am slightly concerned that such action has been made illegal.
>>> GB, JL?
> No, John, it was organising a commercial boycott, as in a web page with
> the names of pubs not to go to.
> I have a sort of feeling that doing that has actually been made illegal.
OH ! Missed your point. Errm, actually you may be right, I'll have to check.
(you could always just ask the better half)
From: JL on 17 Jan 2008 09:12
Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> In aus.motorcycles on Wed, 16 Jan 2008 20:24:19 -0800 (PST)
> intact.kneeslider(a)start.com.au <intact.kneeslider(a)start.com.au> wrote:
>> Or, if they want to say you can't go in wearing patch club colours,
>> they can already do so. No need to codify it, as such.
> The difference here is that they can call the cops. Previously they
> had to do it with their own security. Now they can call the cops who
> you can bet will respond with great joy to bang people up.
> Having it as part of the licence gives the publican much more backup.
Mmm but also the flip side applies, the publican can't choose to allow
OMCGs in - and I suspect yu'll find that's why its being done this way -
cos not all publicans don't want em.
From: corks on 17 Jan 2008 09:27
"G-S" <geoff(a)castbus.com.au> wrote in message
> corks wrote:
>> "G-S" <geoff(a)castbus.com.au> wrote in message
>>> 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*. 
>>>  Of course a 1%er wearing Nazi logos is likely to tick both boxes.
>>>  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). 
>  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.
ummm can you name or tell me of a patch club that hasnt lived up to their
From: Damien on 17 Jan 2008 10:22
> hello pot kettle , but by all means keep twisting your arguement to suit
I didn't think I'd get an honest answer.