Conflict Resolotion 101 - Rebels style

Well that's either a well-founded fear or pure paranoia. Either way,
the only sane thing to do is to study the proposed legislation and
fight any seriously unjust bits.

What parts of the proposed legislation do you have problems with?
(Please cite actual wording of the irksome bits - paraphrasing would
be unacceptable for the purposes of this exercise.)

If I can agree with you on any or those, myself, Rosinante, and Sancho
will have at them immediately !!! Don't you worry about that... You
mark my words, you, you, you... You can right that down! By golly,
yes. Don't yo worry about that...


=================

Onya bike

Gerry

 

Once again, you're doing the straw man shit of trying to put words in
my mouth and then apparently having a problem with the words you put
in my mouth.

But you NEARLY got it right.

If only you 'd restricted yourself to saying "the appropriate response
is not to assume", you would have gotten a gold star on the back of
your hand. Now go put the "Dunce" hat on and stand in the corner for
half an hour whilst the rest of the class continues with the lesson.

Wanker.

=================

Onya bike

Gerry

 

So far, you've failed to articulate any which make any sense...

Oh really????

But... but... but.... You said " I'm asking a new question, which
I'd still like you to answer."

And having read my answer, and having grokked that your own semantic
phallus has been frimly inserted way up into your own anus, you
suddenly "lose interest".

Wanker.

=================

Onya bike

Gerry

 

Reminds me of the Monty Python fish-slapping skit...

I don't know the answer to that question, Peter.

I'm not the one urging for new laws. My only position about the
proposed new legisaltion is that I can't comment on it until I can see
a copy of it. How can I be for or against proposed new laws which I
haven't studied yet?

Have you studied them?

Care to highlight the "dodgy bits" ??

=================

Onya bike

Gerry

 

I have a better idea. Rather than requiring people who oppose new law
to demonstrate what's bad about them, thus encouraging endless
proliferation of needless and oppressive laws (like ones that restrict
freedom of association for example) why don't we require people who
support new law to demonstrate why the existing laws are inadequate
and new ones are both needful and not oppressive.

Yes, I have a knee jerk reaction to proposed new laws, particularly
those which restrict long recognized rights such as freedom of
association. So demonstrate why new legislation is needful.
Demonstrate why it wont be oppressive and that it wont be used upon
people other than outlaw motorcycle gangs.

Please cite actual wording of the useful bits - paraphrasing would
be unacceptable for the purposes of this exercise

 

So far, that's an unproven assertion. It is generally accepted among
reasonable folk that the onus of proof resides with the person making
the assertion. So... I request that you provide some proof for that
thus-far unfounded assertion... ;-)

Well d'oh... I would have thought that the best people for you to
take that up with are those who are proposing the new law.

They are the best ones to tell you why they think it's a good law. In
fact, I think you'll find they did exactly that in their proposal.

I would even go so far as to say that the process for getting that law
enacted, requires them to convince the relevant house of parliament
why this law is a good law.

Why don't you ask _them_ ???

I haven't seen the new laws, so how can I comment?

I haven't seen the proposed law. Has it been drafted yet? Has it
been debated yet? Has it been enacted yet?

Do you even know what the **** you're on about?

See above.

See above.

=================

Onya bike

Gerry

 

As far as I'm concerned, the onus of proof for any new law lies with
those who propose to enact it. (btw, which assertion would that be?)

The residents of those houses make their decisions based largely upon
the likely electoral outcome of that decision. This being the case,
it is unwise to leave those people in any doubt as to that outcome:
sitting around waiting for them to tell us what they're doing is only
going to convince them that the proposed legislation faces no serious
public opposition and that they don't need to convince anyone except
their peers. Who are uniformly in favor of being "tough on crime"...
regardless of whether the measures are wise or likely to be effective.

You don't ask your servants anything. You tell them.

A proposal has been floated in public, for public debate by the NSW
Police Minister (to "emulate" south australias laws wrt outlaw
motorcycle gangs). The reception that it receives in public will
determine whether the Police Minister goes forward with drafting said
laws. At which point, senior members of the NSW Labor Party will be
committed to that proposed legislation or risk being accused of having
"backflipped" (which is apparently a bad thing).

Short version, if we wait for the Police Minister to draft the
legislation before expressing an opinion, it will be too late:
opposing the legislation will then be the job of the largely impotent
(spineless, incompetent) NSW Liberal Party.

So no, I'm not going to wait for the Police Minister to commit himself
to the legislation before expressing my opinion of the broad
brushstrokes that have so far been outlined.

Fairly plainly, you don't.

 

The assertion that you have a better idea...

Yep, that's what we call "democracy"... Some even have the temerity
to call it "majority rule". Bastards !! ;-)

Hey, I'm all in favour of you lobbying your head off. No worries
there... Go for it.

Hey, I'm all in favour of you lobbying your head off. No worries
there... Go for it.

Hey, I'm all in favour of you lobbying your head off. No worries
there... Go for it.

I know that there are more than enough civil libertarians with serious
legal qualifications who will be crawling all over the proposed
legislation. Therefore my unqualified opinion will not be needed at
this stage.

Once the legisaltion is at the stage where it can be critiqued, I'm
sure the hairy bits will be given a public airing by said civil
libertarians.

At _that_ stage (and we're certainly not there yet), all manner of
motorcycle and civil liberty activist groups will crank up and mount
protests if they don't like what they are hearing - and if I don't
like what I'm hearing, I'll be joining them at the barricades (or
protest ride). Have done so in the past, and will do so again.

But all this premature kneejerking and frothing at the mouth is a
wank.

=================

Onya bike

Gerry

 

I didn't claim this was a bad thing.

And yet, you get strangely worked up over it.

It's much better to prevent it getting to the stage where it has been
drafted than to wait for the only functional political party in NSW to
get itself committed to the idea. Far better to make a big ruckus
early on and convince the police minister that he is on electorally
uncertain ground.

If it's not premature for the police minister to announce his
intention to emulate South Australias recent "anti bikie" laws, it's
not too early to let him know that it's a bad idea. It's a lot easier
to convince a politician to stay away from an idea in the first place
than to convince him to look indecisive by backflipping on something
that he's spent a bunch of time developing.

 

Gee... And here was I thinking you guys were the ones getting
strangely worked up over it...

Funny how perceptions can vary, eh...

Hey, I'm all in favour of you lobbying your head off.  No worries
there...   Go for it.   I was just telling you where I'm at.

I can see that you are quite worked up about it. This is not
necessarily a bad thing.

Of course you would know tha the SA laws have yet to be tested. From
what little I know about them, I'd say they were stupidly written and
will fail when seriously tested.

So if your activism can stop bad laws getting written, you'll get no
grief from me.

I just have a different roadmap for that stuff. And at the end of the
day I don't have a lot of sympathy for thugs and their toadies. Call
me heartless...



=================

Onya bike

Gerry

 

Wrong organ.

 

wrong as always

 

You're the teacher?

He has elevated perception.

Theo

 

I though you meant to have a small rest before continuing your
response. See if you can manage asstop.

Theo

 

You say that like it would be bad thing.

Theo

 

I'm guessing you're not a believer in "Loud Pipes Save Lives" [1]


G-S


[1] My tattoos aren't on display (expect if I'm swimming) either.

 

That seems a tad limiting... why not rage against people who threaten
violence or do actual violence outside say Australian law?
International Law?

You don't think it's a court's (more specifically a judge's) job to judge?


G-S

 

Ta

G-S

 

1. It doesn't mean he was guilty either.

2. It does mean he/she/it is still entitled to the presumption of
innocence.


G-S

 

It's hard to shoot rabbits or pigs for eating with a plastic gun
(seriously). [1]


G-S

[1] These days I fish instead of shoot (until they ban fishing too). [2]

[2] Yes I admit to being a primitive carnivore.