NSW/SYD: banning colours

JL wrote:

Why do I get the feeling that Alice (remember Alice?) may well be
thinking about publishing some kind of list of pubs and hotels where
certain folk would not be welcomed?

It's like this John, if you, or GB, go into a complicated explanation,
with quotes, footnotes, and commentaries, I can read the bits I want and
then skip to next.

regards,
CrazyCam

 

Hi corks.

I know this may sound like a daft question, but, if all the 1%ers are
such evil nasty law breaking people why aren't they in jail?

Like, "everybody" knows that they do illegal stuff...eat babies, double
park, have noisy exhausts on their bikes, and probably enjoy themselves
(Obviously a major crime in NSW) so why is it that there is such a big
deal about trying to stop them going into pubs?

I mean it's a pretty pathetic and niggly "punishment".

regards,
CrazyCam

 

Oy! That's an insult to girls!

betty

 

Geez - I thought I was the only one going back that far

I've suffered the same thing in the UK in the 70's - it wasn't unusual
for pubs out in the countryside to have two signs outside of "No
Coaches" and "No Motorbikes".

Like it or not - in the mind of a sizeable percentage of the community
we are ALL Hell's Angels (or worse) because they are frightened at the
freedom which we enjoy. We are different and therefore something to be
afraid of. When some FW starts on one section of the motorcycle
community it affects us all regardless of how much we bang on about
whether or not we give a fsck about others. We ARE others.

Nigel.

 

Nigel Allen wrote:

Late '70s, here in Oz, a few times in the seriously backblocks, I wasn't
allowed into the front (white) bar, but I could get a drink in the back
(abo) bar.

regards,
CrazyCam

 

A uniformed opinion? I wonder if the local pubs can make a rule banning
members of the Blue gang wearing their regalia on the premises?

Theo

 

Shit! only 9 hours late.

Theo

 

They are, actually. I have stated that exact same point repeatedly, and
yet diogenes (and corks) seem obsessed with pointing out that "it only
affects 1%ers, so what the **** is your problem?"

I could tell them what their problem is, but they don't want to know
about that either.

 

So, if I ride up on the Z50, wearing my all white outfit, do you think
they'll let me in, even though I have been known to have a beer with
some of the Gladiators?

Anyway, I never even see bouncers when I go for breakfast.....

regards,
CrazyCam

 

ROFL!

The blue gang aren't exactly renowned for getting it right. How many
times have people been hounded mercilessly by them (and the legal system
that follows on their heels), only to later find "oops, we might have
got the wrong guy". The Mickelberg case is a good current example - $1
million compo each because the cops fucked up and hammered a couple of
innocent people. And these guys are the ones who (in theory) get
extensive in-depth training in how to spot the bad guys in the first place.

And corks, in all his wisdom, is expecting us to believe that a $2
bouncer (with an IQ to match in many cases) is going to be able to do
better than the people he'll be calling on for backup? ha! I bet corks
reckons politicians are honest as well.

 

With the WA Gov't this week paying out $1.5M to a pair of suspects that were
beaten up till they confessed, and then spent some years in gaol, there will
be a two week moratorium on beating up suspects in WA.

To keep on track, it was the 1%'s who had subsequent problems with the
retired copper in charge of that fiasco (after he shot and killed one of
them for giving his daughter some lip in his pub), and removed him from the
scene with some explosives in his car.

Theo

 

Ooeeer, one of the smarter ones.

Theo

 

No I'm afraid you're the one who is missing the point.

No, we're talking about one pub actually, although it may well become
your local down the road (I'm sure it'll spread to Victoria if it's
successful in Parramatta.

Umm it could well be argued that is exactly what is being done I refer
you to the quote above about the pub changing it's demographic.
They're changing the character of the pub - presumably to be that
nebulous "family friendly" atmosphere, as opposed to a popular hang
out of one particular club, and a popular place from inter club fights
in the carpark.

However I would suggest it is the police via the licencing courts who
are seeking to change the character of the pub rather than the
publican per se not that it makes much difference - it doesn't sound
like the licencee is too upset about it.

Indeed. Which is perfectly legal in our society and is often used to
exclude people other than 1%ers as I've already pointed out, and Boxer
also did.

Not in the slightest, everybody classifies and groups people by their
clothing among other heuristics. You assume someone in a good suit has
a certain socio-economic standing, and if in a bad suit then a
different social point. If you see someone in a flouro green panelled
shirt you'll assume they are a labourer of some sort in an a warehouse
or other environment where visibility is important.

Lastly, and it's the nub of this issue which you are choosing to
ignore, 1%ers wear those clothes as a point of difference to the rest
o us. It's a source of pride that they choose to display. It's also a
very simple way of distinguishing an OMCG member from the general
populace (1) so they can't complain when that clothing is used to
distinguish them for the purposes of preventing their entry to a pub.

The OMCGs in question have bought this on themselves - this pub has
had more problems than you can poke a stick at with them. I don't
blame them in the slightest for agreeing to these licencing
conditions.

JL
(1) except when accountant OMCG wannabes wear something that's
indistinguishable and bring down the inevitable consequences - if it
walks like a duck and quacks like a duck be prepared to be treated
like a duck.

 

Is it immoral to ban them based on their actions ?

Sure, but 1 wrong repeated several times deserves punishment or
censure.

JL

 

Well in that case you shouldn't care as only 1%ers are banned, not
motorcyclists...

JL
(when a non OMCG biker gets bounced then there'd be reason to complain)

 

No it's not; the justification for discrimination against minorities
down the ages is "they're different to us, so they should be treated
'differently' " (read less well/ less fairly).

You're confusing that with "well if you don't want to be discriminated
against,and you're not part of the minority, don't look like the
minority"

Which would be fair comment if many bikers looked like OMCG members,
nobody I ride with does, do your friends ? And if they do, exactly
what message are they trying to send the world ? Is it like the bee
which has evolved to look like a wasp "I'm dangerous don't touch me
" ? If that's the case they might want to respond to some of that
Viagra spam and get to the root cause of their issue.

JL

 

Naah, it's two reasons; it's happening at this pub because this is one
of a couple in the area that they frequent (and the publican wants rid
of them because they're scaring away the punters from spending their
pension cheques on the pokies). The other reason according to the UMC
delegate to MCC (and it sounds plausible) is that there's been a
fistful of money given by Howard to the state govt's to attack
"organised crime" and like with Al Capone the cops have limited means
of attack so they're using what they have.

JL

 

Just because Australia and the US are, doesn't mean all of the world
are. Some countries still care about the rule of law (that's places
like the "cheese eating surrender monkeys" who revived modern
democracy).

JL
(then again, some countries have never known rule of law other than
despotism)

 

Maybe back then 24 years ago that was the case, but nowadays I think the
distinction between 1%ers and the rest of the biking community is far
greater, and much more easily recognisable by the average person. The
distinction between the bikes we ride and the bikes they ride are more
obviously different. How they dress and how we dress as riders is now
more different. I reckon most of the general population would easily be
able to make a distinction between a club member, and one of Hell's
Accountants who was doing his best to act and dress the part. And the
one's who can't probably don't have a job enforcing such a restriction
as has been suggested at a pub door.

Nev..
'07 XB12X

 

Really? Here's a quote from the original post in this thread:

"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."

Note the use of the plural form? "pubs" means MORE THAN ONE. In this
case, ANY pub at all.

Why do you continually ignore and misrepresent what I have actually
said? Is it because otherwise you have no point to make?

I'm well aware of how 1%ers represent themselves and how they operate
and so on and so forth. I've never disputed that, and have actually
agreed with such statements as the above on a number of occasions. I
don't know why I'm being attacked for something on which I actually
agree with those doing the attacking!

The point which you continue to ignore is that the dangers of such bans
is that people who are NOT 1%ers are at real risk of being caught in the
crossfire by idiots too stupid to recognise the difference between a
1%er and an ordinary rider who just happens to wear a leather jacket
with patches - various people have mentioned groups such as Vietnam
Vets, H.O.G, and Ulysses as cases in point.

Why is such a simple and clear point so difficult for you to grasp? Has
your unchecked hatred of OMCGs really clouded your judgement to such an
extent?