Haha, not your best work China...but got a chuckle....

And welcome back Pauly....after nearly 24 hours I thought we'd lost ya......

As you can see we've included some Bill of Rights/Human Rights discussion for you to not be interested in...enjoy 

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/support-for-queensland-bill-of-rights-not-universal-20160410-go33rx.html

GG, where you say, "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", let me tell you about how well that's worked in the ACT.

First of all there is no consorting law in the ACT. I don't think it's possible to legislate any practical or workable consorting law because of the human rights act. So the bit about the ACT providing guidelines on constructing consorting laws is bullshit.

The human rights act in the ACT has caused nothing but problems except if you're part of a minority group, like everything politically correct, are easily offended or a crook who wants further avenues in getting out of the shit. The ACT government who enacted the human rights act also had a priority to legalise gay marriage above all its other priorities. One of their other priorities is making everything better for cyclists at significant cost. They built the first human rights compliant prison which is a joke that presents no deterrence, hasn't demonstrated any improvement in rehabilitation rates, cost a fortune to build and operate, and was filled over capacity a short time after being built despite being built for future needs. And they've been trying to get a needle exchange program in the jail which has only been thwarted because the screws rightfully see it as an oh&s issue. And now this government wants to spend hundreds of millions on building a tram on a single line for a population less than 50,000 that independent transport, economic and infrastructure experts have ridiculed. The last statue they erected was of Al Grasby, the corrupt politician who bought all his Mafia wog mates into australia, for his "great work helping immigrants and multiculturalism". They're a pack of dickheads that formed government at the last election only after being held to ransom by a sole greens politician who held the balance of power.

As the ACT is one of the only, if not the only jurisdiction without consorting laws, the ACT has attracted multiple, large scale interstate runs by the rebels and more recently the commancheros who set up in the ACT only two years ago. This has occurred because these clubs know the ACT is a soft jurisdiction and they can't mix together anywhere else. So the other states who have prohibited club members meeting up have had a win by displacing some of the large interstate gatherings to someplace else.

My point is don't use the ACT and it's human rights act to make any positive example of anything. It's the biggest crock of shit

I lifted these couple a paragraphs from the very Wilson Task Force Report released last week on pg 44 and 45 and it looks to me like the Human Rights Act does have an impact on how they constructed anti association legislation...maybe you should've read it first.....

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

 

ANTI-CONSORTING: A NOVEL APPROACH

In 2005 the ACT introduced ‘two new, important preventative tools for courts’ as sentencing options: non-association orders and place restriction orders.345

A non-association order prohibits an offender from associating with a specified person for a specified time.

A place restriction order prohibits an offender from being, or attempting to be, in a specified place.

STRENGTHENING LAW ENFORCEMENT

Like other jurisdictions the ACT enacted a suite of investigative powers between 2008 and 2011 based on model legislation prepared by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General.350

ACT – A REFUSAL TO RUSH TO LEGISLATE

Only nine days after the bikie affray at Sydney Airport on 22 May 2009 the ACT Attorney-General responded to ‘sensationalist headlines and media coverage’ by calling for evidence gathering and reflection rather than ‘a knee-jerk reaction to put in place similar laws to those in one or two other jurisdictions just because they suddenly seem like a good idea at the time’.352

The following day, the ACT Legislative Assembly passed a motion resolving that the government provide advice to the Assembly about the effectiveness of organised crime legislation in the ACT as well as in other jurisdictions, particularly the control order regimes in South Australia and NSW.353

Nearly two months later the Attorney-General tabled a comprehensive review of serious organised crime legislation in the ACT.354

It noted that similar legislation in the ACT would engage a number of rights under the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT), including freedom of association, and the rights to a fair trial and to examine prosecution witnesses.356 The report instead suggested a number of other ‘legislative enhancements’.357

These enhancements were delivered in 2010 in a series of amendments to the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) and the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT).358

The amending legislation introduced offences of affray,359 participation in a criminal group360 and recruiting people to participate in criminal activity.361 It also expanded the offences relating to the protection of people involved in court proceedings to cover those involved in criminal investigations.362

Don't need to read it to know that the ‘two new, important preventative tools for courts’ as sentencing options: non-association orders and place restriction orders" are not actually used in the ACT!

You can read all you want on this stuff but still have no appreciation for how it actually works or in this instance "not work"

As for the other ACT offences in the crimes act 1900 that your you quoted like affray, participate in criminal group etc, have a look at these provisions - they have nothing to do with consorting or association laws.

Some of these "experts" can lead people up the garden path by providing information that sounds useful and relevant but when the substance of what they say isn't actually used or is misleading,.as is the case with how they represent the ACT Human Rights act and how it relates to consorting and association, it's really not worth quoting them and misleading more people.

Wether or not they are used is by the by when discussing legislation, its the potential to entrap non criminals innocently is the concern for Commissions of Inquiry to assess. There have been consorting laws around most states of Aust for decades, and they only get used sporadically. SA has had the 'new and improved' version that NSW has and hasnt arrested 1 person for them since they were included in the existing 'old' consorting legislation last July. NSW has about 30 convictions in recent years last time I read the figures.
The Wilson Task Force included the Police and the Commissioned Officers Union as members so I would imagine that the 'experts' opinions handed down last week would be far removed from leading anyone up any garden paths....you obviously know better..

I disagreed with some of the material you posted up re the ACT which I do know about and which I think is bs. I was very specific about calling bs on the material you posted re the human rights act and consorting where your report suggests something I disagree with. You suggested I didn't know what I was talking about and pointed to a couple of sentencing provisions which were referred to in your report which I then told you are not used and haven't been used (in eleven years). Either there is a problem with those laws, or perhaps there are no organised criminals in the ACT?

I am sure your report has some interesting material but I don't believe everything I hear, read or is being quoted by others and i have my own thoughts and experience. Of course Government reps have big input on those reports and if you think they are going to say there's a problem with their laws or no organised criminals, then think again. As for commissioned officers, any influential ones are too far up the arse of the government to have a real opinion. And unions aren't going to make waves and have many dissenting or honest views with Labor governments.

I've posted earlier in this thread about not caring much about this stuff as it doesn't impact most of us. But if I see anything suggesting that the ACT's spin on human rights is good for anything, I'll contribute and disagree based on experience rather than following a report which must be correct on everything

GG is that correct that 3 more members of a declared criminal organisation cannot go to a wedding, funeral or meet at a house?

could you copy and paste that piece of the legislation,

do you feel the campaign run by people against VLAD is just costing taxpayers money as no-one has been charged and sentenced under VLAD,

i see even the guy from misfits has launched his political career from the carry on at the servo when he refused to present his licence

thanks GG-74 you right on top of this stuff,

not necessarily speedy but the chances are pretty good.

Oooh ...

Someone pass the popcorn ...