Lemmiwinks; live and livid in Canberra hospital

Only if the structure has water views!

 

Not at my RSL!
(I used to be president of an RSL down here)

But yeah, exactly my point.

 

I don't think it is that black and white. It's a fucking hard call.
Yes - I'd like to see the groups that do regularly use standover
removed. But to legislate it means that you then impose on the rights
of other groups to do what they are doing leagally. Where does it end?

 

Dunno what you're on about there. But I think you're drawing a long
bow there.

Until some Law Reform expert can tell us that there are dubious
aspects to the proposed legislation (and what they are) , we're all
just kneejerking all over the place.

See above.

Dunno what you're on about there. Show us the FULL wording, not just
a phrase plucked out of god know where, and possibly out of context.

So? Does that mean the law is flawed, or does it mean the enforcement
of the law is flawed?

No I don't trust politicians. But that does not mean I will
automatically conclude that a conspiracy agaist the people is afoot.

Until some Law Reform expert can tell us that there are dubious
aspects to the proposed legislation (and what they are) , we're all
just kneejerking all over the place.


Onya bike...

Gerry

 

It depends entirely on the wording of the whole piece of legislation.
To make the assumption you're making, you're jumping to conclusions.
i.e. kneejerking.

Let's see the whole legislation.

See my comment to Zebee.


Onya bike...

Gerry

 

I think you are probably kneejerking more than me. I am still open to
either option. Which ever way it goes I can understand. I'm trying to
state it is a grey area. We can argue our arses off. I'm leaning more
towards the "leave the clubs alone but get tough on the 1%'ers" but if
they feel like kicking the crap out of the clubs for not monitoring it
themselves, then fine. But I think it is the gumbiment being too
lenient for too long. A simple example is me getting booked lots in
Melbourne in the 80s for a loud exhaust on my Honda, but did the
1%'ers get pulled? No.
We are now paying for that. And the clubs that are doing the right
thing will also pay for it under this legislation. That's what I have
a problem with.

 

In aus.motorcycles on Thu, 08 May 2008 18:43:32 +1000

I'm not old enough to remember the Red Bill either, but I have studied
history.

The point is that you don't make laws against thought crimes. When
people actually *do* things, then deal with them. But don't attack
people for the clothes they wear or what they are thinking, or who
they have a drink with.

Zebee

 

Good grief, Zebee, what an old fashioned liberal you are.

regards,
CrazyCam

 

Yes, but your're making a whole bundle of unsupported assumptions as
far as I see it.

All I'm saying is "which bits of the actual wording in the proposed
legislation do you have a problem with?"

All this "they're going to this" or "they're going to that" stuff is
pure paranoid specualtion unless you can show which bits of the
legislation would allow this and why/how this could happen.


Onya bike...

Gerry

 

I'd be with you on that. and what I'm saying is let's look at the
proposed legislation to see what it actually says before going off
half-cocked.

Show us the contentious wording.


Onya bike...

Gerry

 

Geeez, and I thought I was cynical. Clearly I'm just a novice at
cynicism.

SteveB

 

Distrust born of watching pollies over react in the past. Check out
the Howard lots anti-terrorist law.

Agree there are some who should be dealt with, but proscribing is not
the way. That only pushes them further into the corners, from which
the reaction could be more extreme.

From my understanding the minister can proscribe based on " police
intelligence" which is beyond the reach of any defence lawyer,
therefore you have no grounds for appeal since you cannot find out
what the grounds for the proscription were in the first place.

Yep, see above.

SteveB

 

Most of the western nation governments are run by war criminals.

Nev..
'07 XB12X

 

My glass half empty seems to have a leak...


G-S

 

I'm guessing that that was meant to ask "what percentage of RSL members
have committed criminal acts" as opposed to "how many people have
committed criminal acts whilst in an RSL"

N/

 

Well go on then Gerry, have a look at the legislation, it's been
tabled in the SA parliament - get those fingers typing and then have a
read.

JL

 

In aus.motorcycles on Thu, 8 May 2008 17:33:39 -0700 (PDT)

I've done it for him.
http://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ...SED LC/SERIOUS CRIME CONTROL BILL 2007.UN.PDF

And it really is looking like "the communist party is anything the
government says is the communist party"

Basically a couple of cops make a stat dec to say "of course these
guys are baddies" and the Attorney General says "we believe you, they
are now a declared organisation".

The AG gets to take into account anyone who might have been in the
same pub with members of the organisation and who is a bit iffy as a
reason to ban the organisation.

Read it and see just how bloody flimsy it is. OK, it's not saying
"and anyone who rides a motorcycle", but you had better watch who you
drink with or sit near at the supers... Because they aren't really
defining "members" of these organisations.

Me, I spend a surprising amount of time with a senior Hells Angel
discussing ways to overturn government initiatives and indeed to
coerce the government into doing things that would benefit the Hells
Angels amongst others. Looking at the legislation I'm glad I don't do
it in SA.

Zebee
- who has valued the input of the delegate from the UMC at MCC
meetings.

 

In aus.motorcycles on 9 May 2008 00:59:01 GMT

See also
http://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ... LC/STATUTES AMENDMENT GANGS BILL 2007.UN.PDF

where if they suspect you are a member of a "criminal gang" that's the
only excuse they need to detain you, search you, move you on, search
your house, and so on. You don't have to have been doing anything at
all, you don't have to *be* a member of a gang, you just have to have
some rookie cop figure your leather jacket is "reasonable grounds".

As someone who was stopped, questioned, and disbelieved for a time,
merely because she was riding a bike while wearing a logo on the back
of a denim jacket, I do believe this can happen. Happened to me, in,
I point out, South Australia.

Zebee

 

Anyway...

Lemmiwinks apparently got a ambo-flight to his hometown hospital,
where he'll be for about a month.

 

anyone in a bike acc like this WILL
NOT BE DOING THE MRS anytime soon. HEHE