Time to bid adieu myself....Thank fuk its Friday. A quick ride (2 out) and back to a clandestine locale to engage in much merriment.....and ...despite the accusations.. .. fuk all mischief.. !

Only ever made 1 comment on this forum on VLAD laws on another thread, which was, I cannot agree or support any government that passes a law that means that 2 bikers can sit on the verandah and have a beer but if a third biker sits with them, there suddenly breaking the law, but there not law breakers if 2 are sitting on said verandah. The most stupid idiotic law ever passed. Regardless if 1 or 20 bikers are sitting on the verandah, if the police have investigated and found evidence on any biker, club or non.club, they then arrest and put before a magistrate. Isnt that what true freedom in a democratic country is all about. This isnt a pro or anti club biker post.

Now if the gov wants to clean up crime in society, fine, thats good, but it should clean up crime in all sections of society.

Now heres my reason.

Now they want to clean up the building and construction industry and go after unions. Fine, But Senator Glen Lazzarus made the best comment of all polititions that I have ever heard about building site unions/corruption.. He said he would support a building and construction watchdog/cop if the government installed  that corruption watchdog/cop that is able to take on corruption in all sectors of australian buisness with the appropriate power to do so. He included banks, political parties ect to be included. Allthough I would rather that everybody is treated equally before the law. I absolutely agree with lazzareth. If your going to have a coruption watchdog, then have a corruption watchdog for all.

Now I used this true analogy above to demonstrate that the government should give resources to investigate all sectors of criminal activty and take action as appropriate. If the government are going to keep VLAD type anti association laws, then include all sectors where records shows criminal activity. Say priests, bishops ect of all religions, Financial consultants that have been shown to commit criminal activity like all those in the commonweath Bank. Once convicted, dont let them near any other financial institutions or each other with severe penalties if there caught associating.. and on and on i could give examples where criminal activity is rife in australia. 

Because it should be one law for all, Not one law for them and one law for everbody else. That is unconstitutional and immoral in every sense of the word. Simplistic my view may seem, But I dont think it is. Perhaps Arkoms Razor is valid at this time. Now we can debate till the cows come home on how tough or strong our laws should be, as long as everbody is subjected to laws equally.

I allways thought that the actual intent of our constitution was to treat everybody equaly before the law. 

Agreed.....Wholeheartedly.
Interestingly you mention criminal behaviour in and around the Church......no matter what anyone thinks of the sporadic behaviour of some bikers SURELY child exploitation and predatory sex crimes against children..little children more often than not, is the most despicable of all ?........ AND YET....No 'special laws' for groups proven to be involved in those crimes or covering them up, often for decades. The Royal Commission into child sexual abuse has been in session for 3 years now (when it was only supposed to run for 2) and has passed hundreds, if not thousands of cases by now, to the relevent authorities for prosecution. No doubt when they finally stop hearing evidence (if theres ever no more to hear ?) they will hand down a bunch of reccommendations to encourage Govts to legislate protections for the vunerable and young.
Does anyone really believe those reccommendations will close down the Church, Salvo's, Orphanages meeting places and ban them from associating in more than 2's ?...really ?....I dont...... I think it will be business as usual for them, their influence is too intrenched in the corridors of power......and some of their 'kind' are intrenched in the very bodies that make the decisions...
I await the outcome of that Royal Commission and lets see who denounces its outcomes and recommendations !

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/crime-and-justice/magistrate-says-vlad-laws-cant-be-used-against-an-unnamed-drug-syndicate-in-landmark-court-ruling/news-story/2ae753284b7949275c36ea3f1e137af1

And you are right.......It seems that the real   'only existing for criminal purpose groups'  are not targeted at all .... and parts of the Wilson Report are scathing of Vlads narrow focus.

The recommendations include broad legislation that includes syndicates with no names on their backs.....like the ones you mentioned.. the real Organised Crime groups. Ya gotta wonder why they didnt do that in the first place ?...... I guess its impossible to ban more than 2 triads or mafioso gathering in public.....how do you identify them ?....and ban their gathering houses....dont they meet in restaurants ?...or is that a generalisation that movies portray innacurately ?...probably.

Either way its obvious the witchunt against bikers was the easy option.....a highly visible target, generally unpopular, and are renown for not being mainstream types who have amongst their numbers just enough misbehavors to keep the media sniffin around.  Unfortunately the thousands among, and around, the clubs that dont frequent court houses ever got their rights trodden on by all and sundry in the rush of moral panic.....     Maybe there is some change coming...probably not.

That view is of course the LNP's and reasonably accurate...even tho Wilson could have advised..no amendments necessary. The Byrne Commission which ran alongside The Wilson inquiry had much broader TOR and yet it too was scathing of the effectiveness of VLAD.....

Just in case you forgot.....

 

Time to bid adieu myself....Thank fuk its Friday. A quick ride (2 out) and back to a clandestine locale to engage in much merriment.....and ...despite the accusations.. .. fuk all mischief.. ! []

Actually I bid adieu to you Pauly....after reminding you it was you that wasnt interested in the topic....I never meant I wasnt interested...IF thats your perception, I cant help that.

Time to bid adeiu myself....because its Friday and im headin out for a ride...its all in the sentence, no matter how you perceive it Pauly..... As for integrity...well Im not concerned about being judged by someone who wasted 4 pages of a thread repeating their lack of interest in the topic....but didnt actually stop showing an interest.....

Here is a small fact for you ....of the 88 posts on the topic you and i have had 50 combined, you outraged and me i dont really care and the remaining 11983 members not giving a toss. Conclusion... i am old and argumentative and most dont care either way.  

Fark ...

Been away for the w/e and miss all the fun & frivolity.

Oh ... 'a private gathering' ?

 

I think, somewhere in QLD ...  there is is a law against such things.

 

Perhaps best to desist.

Sarcasm ?

Pauly, I've lost track of this thread ...

Would you be kind enough to distill the difference of your view, vs that of GGs, in a sentence or two.

If at all possible.

Ta

please don't distill the difference pauly, let him figure it out

Hey Flip ...

Am not your f**king plaything !

Its not clubs that interest me, Its when laws are introduced that are in breach of of human rights as any human right you loose is a human right you wont get back. I base my opinion on below:

Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law."

Equality before the law is one of the basic principles of liberalism.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1948 at the Palais de Chaillot, Paris.

On 10 December 1948, the Universal Declaration was adopted by the General Assembly by a vote of 48 in favor, none against, and eight abstentions (the Soviet Union, Ukrainian SSR, Byelorussian SSR, People's Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, People's Republic of Poland, Union of South Africa, Czechoslovakia, and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia).

Saudi Arabia abstained because they belived the universal declaration of human right was in breach of sharia law. 

Australia signed that declaration on 10 december 1948.


I read this as anti association laws are in breach of the above declaration. I know many have criticised human rights activists, ect, but I would answer those views by simply saying: Look at any country where Human Rights are abused. Ive allways looked at Human Rights and Civil Rights as a co-existance, not seperate entities in there intent anyway. 

China, Im discussing the fact that 2 bikers having a coffee in a coffee shop are not criminals but if a third one joins them, there criminals just for talking to each other. Im not referring to wether they should be allowed to, or not allowed to wear patches. I personaly have no interest in thier rights to wear patches in public legaly or illegaly. I couldnt care less. I dont know how you compare bikers associating to isil terrorists. Terrorism is an act of war to try to change a countries constitution for ideological reasons using religion as the driving force to promote that act of war. terrorism is not a criminal act in my view.

How does that anti assiciation law apply equaly to all sectors of society where criminals exist like churches and financial institutions. Anti association law is designed to target only one sector of society. That much is pretty obvious.

You think im supporting 1%bikers. You couldnt of misunderstood my posts any more if you tried. My interest in human and civil rights and laws intoduced that all citizens are not subject to.

I guess the reason they have the numbers quota is to stop 30 odd members gathering together in a public place to fight as happened on the Goldie. They have made the punishment for meeting in numbers like this the deterrent and it's worked.

It's easier for the cops to handle 2 without huge amounts of back up.

I don't support the Anti association laws. Just giving my interpretation.

Pretty accurate interpretation Undercover....a well meaning law in intent but so over the top the Task Force has recommended dispensing it to history.

The same 3 that cant go pub crawling cannot go to a wedding or funeral or footy match or work together either which is where it oversteps the mark.

The Victorian and ACT Human Rights Laws have provided law makers there with some guidelines how to construct consorting laws without affecting non criminals. Thats why they dont have the same 'more than 2' association law.

Even so the seeping of the 2002 Federal anti terror style laws down into state law and directed at non terrorists was predicted by many commentators back then and has come true.

The recent inquiries recommendations are proof of the overstepping, thats why they are urging Govts to put all these issues into the Supreme Court....as democratic nations should.

http://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/the-death-of-australias-liberal-democracy/

China, forgot to add, I dont think anti-association laws should ever have been passed.  The debate should always have been about the adequate or in-adaquate punishments given out by judges when convictions are made. That way the law would apply equaly to all.