NSW/SYD: banning colours

"diogenes" <cynic.RemoveThis@society.sux.ok> wrote
> I think outlaw clubs are being hypocritical by complaining about being
> outlawed.
>
> What a joke!!!
>
> I think the MCC ought to patiently and calmly explain to the UMC the
> full meaning of the term "outlaw" is...
>
> They can't have it both ways...
>
>

*Applause*

Cheers,
Dale.
 >> Stay informed about: NSW/SYD: banning colours 

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 03:58:46 GMT, "Boxer" <someone RemoveThis @nowhere.com> wrote:

>
>"JL" <jlittler RemoveThis @my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:94120cab-d516-428a-8f7f-060d71651764@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>On Jan 17, 12:55 pm, Damien <al.qa... RemoveThis @asio.gov.au> wrote:
>
>
>>Already happens now, any pub or club can enforce any dress code they
>>want - just try to get into any of Sydney's inner city nightclubs in
>>the wrong clothes and see how far you get.
>
>>JL
>
>In Brisbane you will have trouble getting into night clubs if you are too
>old, too ugly or dressed unfashionably

Damn! and I had a trip planned to Brissie~

Johno

Coopers mate?
 >> Stay informed about: NSW/SYD: banning colours 

In aus.motorcycles on Thu, 17 Jan 2008 06:14:35 GMT
Boxer <someone.RemoveThis@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>
> How many inocent law abiding motorcyclists wear Outlaw Colors?

It's not just colours, but anything with the logo of the gang, or
related to it.

So a t-shirt with "big red machine" on it, as that's a Hells Angels
publicity group.

We don't know what criteria they are using to decide what is a gang
logo or gang regalia, we don't know what criteria they are using to
pick one named/logoed group over another.

Zebee
 >> Stay informed about: NSW/SYD: banning colours 

"G-S" <geoff.TakeThisOut@castbus.com.au> wrote in message
news:13otvesn43sb161@corp.supernews.com...
> corks wrote:
>>
>> bullshit , i think most people would be more intimidatd by a big arsed
>> '1%ér , than prince harry on a night out ......
>
> Intimidated by? Maybe...
>
> Offended by? No way *frown*. [1]
>
>
> G-S
>
> [1] Of course a 1%er wearing Nazi logos is likely to tick both boxes. [2]
> Wearing a swatstika crosses the line.
>

well then plenty of patch d wear the swatstika in their ''uniform''....
 >> Stay informed about: NSW/SYD: banning colours 

corks wrote:
> "G-S" <geoff DeleteThis @castbus.com.au> wrote in message
> news:13otvesn43sb161@corp.supernews.com...
>> corks wrote:
>>> bullshit , i think most people would be more intimidatd by a big arsed
>>> '1%ér , than prince harry on a night out ......
>> Intimidated by? Maybe...
>>
>> Offended by? No way *frown*. [1]
>>
>>
>> G-S
>>
>> [1] Of course a 1%er wearing Nazi logos is likely to tick both boxes. [2]
>> 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). [1]


G-S

[1] 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.
 >> Stay informed about: NSW/SYD: banning colours 

On Jan 17, 11:24 pm, diogenes <cy....TakeThisOut@society.sux.ok> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 16:44:09 +1100, Damien <al.qa....TakeThisOut@asio.gov.au>
> wrote:
>
> >But what safeguards are in place to ensure that innocent law-abiding
> >riders are mistakenly lumped in with them?
>
> Easy.  If you don't wear 1%er colours, you won't have a problem.  If
> you DO wear 1%er colours, stop bitchin about people wanting you off
> their premises.  Simple.
>
> I'm waiting for some 1%er to come in here and threaten me with dire
> consequences.  That would prove my point nicely.
>
> They want to be outcasts, and then they say "Ooooooer... You can't
> treat us like outcasts, we're going to sick the MCC onto you!"
>
> They behave in intimidating, control-freak stand-over packs and then
> reckon their "rights" are being trampled when some pub owner says "Not
> here you dont - bugger off!"
>
> A bit too girly if you ask me...

Oy! That's an insult to girls!

betty
 >> Stay informed about: NSW/SYD: banning colours 

On Jan 17, 4:37 pm, Damien <al.qa... DeleteThis @asio.gov.au> wrote:
> JL wrote:
> > On Jan 17, 12:55 pm, Damien <al.qa... DeleteThis @asio.gov.au> wrote:
>
> >> If a particular organisation has a proven (in court) track record of
> >> breaking laws that might warrant such a ban, then I'm all for those
> >> specific organisations being banned if there is a direct and demonstrate
> >> benefit to law-abiding citizens in doing so.
>
> >> However, any individual or organisation (whether or not they belong to a
> >> patch club, and whether or not they are wearing clothing to indicate
> >> this) should have the full rights of any other citizen to go wherever
> >> wish in public and not be subjected to any restrictions not universally
> >> applied to others irrespective of any club allegiances they might have.
> >> If you have done nothing wrong, then the jacket you wear should not
> >> preclude you from participating/attending a venue/event just like
> >> everyone else who has also done nothing wrong.
>
> > In public place, sure. But a public house is not actually a public
> > place per se. It's a private business open to entry to those  of the
> > public the proprietor chooses to allow in. A publican is also required
> > to prevent the entry (and forcibly eject) those who are intoxicated
> > (for example).
>
> >> The moment you start banning members of patch clubs who wear their
> >> jackets, you automatically open the door for some overzealous twat to
> >> just ban any person in a leather motorcycle jacket,
>
> > Already happens now, any pub or club can enforce any dress code they
> > want - just try to get into any of Sydney's inner city nightclubs in
> > the wrong clothes and see how far you get.
>
> > JL
>
> You're missing the point.
No I'm afraid you're the one who is missing the point.

>We're not talking about trendy places that
> already have a recognised dress code. We're talking about your local
> down the road, where the only standard re clothing is that you actually
> have some on you.

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.

>
> This is not a standard being imposed to give pubs a certain 'character',
> which is the sort of thing you are referring to in your 'examples'.

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.

> This
> is a new standard, that did not exist previously in the places to which
> it is applied, and which has been crafted with the sole and express
> purpose of deliberately excluded a class of people on the basis of their
> clothing.

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.

>The very fact that people are being classed according to their
> clothing should be offensive enough to you, let alone the potential for
> general abuse through misunderstandings etc

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.
 >> Stay informed about: NSW/SYD: banning colours 

On Jan 18, 8:59 am, G-S <ge....TakeThisOut@castbus.com.au> wrote:
> Simone wrote:
>
> > As for banning "certain colours"  if it looks like a duck & quacks like a
> > duck...then expect to get shot at!
> > Sim.
>
> That's the justification used for discrimination against minorities down
> through the ages... are you sure you want to go down that path?

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
 >> Stay informed about: NSW/SYD: banning colours 

On Jan 18, 7:58 am, CrazyCam <crazy....TakeThisOut@upturnet.com.au> wrote:
> 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".

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
 >> Stay informed about: NSW/SYD: banning colours 

On Jan 18, 9:03 am, G-S <ge....DeleteThis@castbus.com.au> wrote:

> [1] Anybody else noticing how this world is slipping from offence
> committed and action is taken to 'oh we don't have proof, but lets take
> action anyway'.

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)
 >> Stay informed about: NSW/SYD: banning colours 

On Jan 18, 7:52 am, CrazyCam <crazy... RemoveThis @upturnet.com.au> wrote:
> JL wrote:
> 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.

<snicker>

<fake cockney accent> That's a fair cop guv ! </fake cockney accent>

JL
 >> Stay informed about: NSW/SYD: banning colours 

On Jan 18, 10:22 am, Damien <al.qa....TakeThisOut@asio.gov.au> wrote:
> JL wrote:
> > 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.
>
> 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.

Sure, but that's Zebee's take on it, unsupported by any evidence on
than a vague generalisation in the article in question. I assume you
take everything ACA tells you as gospel too ?

> > 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.
>
> 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?

Because the licencing as written doesn't ban those people, and if a
brain dead bouncer fails to apply his rules correctly, you have a
comeback, two in fact, the licencing courts, and the fair trading
commission. 2 of 3 of those organisations are more than capable of
dragging a recalcitrant publican into court if they wished to.

>Has
> your unchecked hatred of OMCGs really clouded your judgement to such an
> extent?

Oh puhleese - you're getting stupider by the post.

JL
 >> Stay informed about: NSW/SYD: banning colours 

On Jan 18, 10:23 am, Damien <al.qa... RemoveThis @asio.gov.au> wrote:
> JL wrote:
> > Sure, but 1 wrong repeated several times deserves punishment or
> > censure.
>
> Certainly. But shouldn't the punishment or censure be so designed as to
> target only the guilty, rather than potentially catching many innocent
> parties in the process? Are the guilty really so bad in this case that
> sacrificing the innocent is worth the price?

You really are a silly twat aren't you.

The rules *have* been laid out to *explicitly* target only the guilty,
you're hypothesising that they won't work. We have one FACT and you're
using it to run off into the horizon.

For all I know you may be right, but your hysterical outbursts aren't
exactly very convincing that it is going to happen.

JL
 >> Stay informed about: NSW/SYD: banning colours