NSW/SYD: banning colours

Sure, and firstly where the rules are clear and explicit it's hard to
**** them up, even when you're an idiot, and secondly those who are
affected have recourse - the amusing part of codifying them into the
licencing laws is that it actually significantly reduces their ability
to apply them indiscriminately.

A vague "dress code applies" can be applied to anyone. A specific "no
OMCGs" can be legally (sucessfully ) protested through several venues,
and Ulysses and HOG have the resources to do so.

They've actually REDUCED their ability to ban non OMCG bikers....

What you don't like it when your own tactics are used against you ?
Besides which Damien, you *are* being hysterical. You're extrapolating
an unlikely scenario from few facts and presenting it as the only way
this could play.

JL

 

<shrug> You may be right. I'm willing to put my money where my mouth
is. See other post. There's no way in mind that I can envisage
Damien's doomsday scenario coming to pass. I'd suggest roughly the
same percentage of "biker unfriendly" pubs will exist before and
afterwards. As has always been the case which ones have an issue and
which ones don't is something that ebbs and flows over time (mostly
with changes of publican).

But then again, I rarely drink alcohol in pubs that I turn up to in
bike gear, so neither I nor they will miss me if I'm gone. I doubt
they'll notice a lemon squash less on their bottom line. The only time
I'll turn up to a pub intending to drink I won't be on the bike - for
the bleedingly obvious reason.

JL

 

<applause>

regards,
CrazyCam

 

Sorry mate, you're missing an important distinction. The keyword in
the sentence is "justification". The justification for discrimination
is difference. The difference can be real or imaginary, that's
irrelevant. That's the *justification*.

It's the *acting on discrimination* Sim's referring to. Two different
things. You object to *both* the act of justification and the act of
discrimination (IIANM). However the sentence above is not correct to
say the discriminatory act is the same as the act of justification of
being bigoted.

OK, fair enough, its not a demographic I see much of, it's not very
big and not very likely to be fronting up at the Royal Oak on a
regular basis. So lets say there's a good chance if they happened to
rock up to this pub they got refused entry, is this any different to
the fact they'd already (right now) struggle to get into any pub East
of Glebe dressed that way ? Noting of course that once they got in
they struggle to find a beer they recognised on the menu, then exclaim
"how fucking much !?!" loudly before striding back out of the yuppie
playground to find a pub more their style....

On the other hand, do you think their local publican who's probably
been serving them VB for the last 40 years is suddenly going to stop
serving them because something about the Commancheros got written into
their licence(1) ?

Publican reading list "Dave are you a hells angel, commanchero, bandit
or a black ute ?"

Dave "Ferfuxsakes Joe are going senile ? Pour me a bloody beer
already, a man's not a camel"

I really can't see how the world is going to change.

JL
(1) Assuming the worst case

 

It's scary that I'm agreeing with you on something, but yes, I suspect
the key knowledge gap isn't going to be who *isn't* someone on the
banned list, I suspect it's going to be who SHOULD be refused and
isn't going to be.

JL

 

Actually they can already do that too, the difference is they
currently need two of them to lie that you were being violent (and no
other witnesses...)

Now you don't have to get stroppy for them to call the cops.

That's the worry for me.

JL

 

Classics, those.

Theo

 

George, we're not all like you, don't forget that.

 

Yeah, i thought about putting UK on the list, but I'm less clear about
their current legal status (I"m aware of two dodgy areas but haven't
had time to read up on it)

I am, actively.
I just don't see the point fighting something that is semi-
justifiable(1), when there are any number of current laws that are
absolutely horrificly (sp?) anti-freedom of movement, speech and
association. Rule one of problem resolution knock over the big issues
first and tidy up the loose ends afterwards.

JL
(1) if the best argument that can be raised against it is it MAY have
unforeseen consequences then we should remove pretty near all laws - I
don't have a problem with that but i suspect there are a few who would

 

So if the legislation quite probably wont even be able to deliver the
intended results anyway, and quite probably will lead to unfair
discrimination against innocent parties, can you tell me just where the
advantage then is in having it?

Clearly, and by your own words, the legislation is flawed - in
application, if not intent. Wouldn't the smart money then be on coming
with up an alternative that WILL deliver, rather than persisting on
trying to flog a lame horse to the finish line?

 

I'd have thought you and Damien would be aching to test your thesis
about how non OMCG'ers are going to get banned.

JL
(it's why I suggested it)

 

I'll bet they did.

When corks is trying to paint the OMCG's as the collective devil
incarnate (not that they need much help with that image anyway), I hope
he doesn't forget the irony in the blind support he gives his
colleagues. As the above mentioned inconvenience attests, there are many
cops out there who are as bad if not worse than any OMCG member.

Thankfully they're not all like him. But there are enough who are for it
to make a difference even so.

 

Says you.

 

No, they are banning all logos and regalia (which raises George W's
point about the non direct logos of the Hells Angels which it is
unlikely the bouncers will be aware of - see further up thread and the
original url)

Agreed, see earlier post, I think this is far more likely.

JL

 

You're exactly right, and I've said it myself MANY times - it is the
bouncers who will be enforcing it.

Are you really willing to trust to the intelligence and judgment of a
bouncer to get this right, without picking on the wrong people?

The fact that clubs have been identified for exclusion is irrelevant.
What matters is whether the guys on the door are actually capable of
getting it right on the front-line. The problem is that anyone who knows
the sort of person that is usually employed as a bouncer also knows that
they're not exactly the sharpest knives in the draw even at their best.

That's a problem.

You don't work as a bouncer, do you?

 

There you go again.

I never said I was that smart at all. Far from it in fact!

My comment was one of a relative nature (pardon the pun), not absolute.
I'm not actually that smart at all, I'm just that much smarter than JL.
And you, for that matter.

 

Again with the hyperbole. I'm not talking about anything that could be
described as a "doomsday scenario", not that I would ever expect
sufficient honesty from you to admit that you know it, even though you do.

What I am talking about is that this is a law with a very real and
considerable capacity for abuse, involving innocent and non-gang riders.
The scale of the injustice I could not make a guess at, whether big or
small or in between.

But it's not the actual numbers that concern me, even if it's all you
can keep banging on about yourself. What concerns me is the prospect for
abuse, and that should concern you as well, because such issues
ultimately affect all of us, whether directly or indirectly.

 

Plenty of gang members out there riding non-HD bikes. Surely a slapper
like you should know that already?

 

Doesn't the simple principle of it still concern you?

As I said in another post, it is not the numbers or the scope that is
the concern. It is the potential for abuse that exists irrespective of
actual numbers affected, and the principle that we stand to sacrifice
for nothing in allowing such abuses to go unchallenged.

 

"To dream,
The impossible dream..."

I _thought_ I recognised you from that Honda ad,Cam...

Pat