Kawasaki Sportsbike Riders Club - Australia - Online Forum

robracer wrote:

Six Addict wrote:

does this apply to family members or work colleagues??

there are loop holes....the new law does not apply to family or religious groups, so the 1% ers can join Gods squad... quite simple really.

but what if a family member is also a member of an OMC?? which takes precedence??

Six Addict wrote:

If the police have enough laws, how is that these motorcycle gangs are able to do what they do almost without challenge? Do we want to wait until we have another fathers day massacre before we say enough is enough?

so by your statement NIck, that current laws arent enough to curb the violence, criminal activity and menacing behaviour, what makes u think that introducing more laws will solve the problem??

i believe nick that its not the laws that are the problem, its the policing of them...laws dont automatically arrest people and bring them to justice so simply introducing them wont do squat...

If you are found to meet more then 5 times in a 12 month period with a member of banned club then you may be prosecuted

does this apply to family members or work colleagues?? how can u tell if the meeting is to arrange criminal activity?? and surely if u are meeting to arrange criminal activity, then thats a conspiracy charge (a law which already exists)... and if you're not meeting them to arrange criminal activity then basically you're being persecuted (prosecuted oops ) for knowing someone...and that nick is something that object to...

remember as hard as it sometimes is to believe, in our legal system we are innocent until proven guilty

Owen

There is truth if what you say regarding policing, however the police are saying they don't have enough power to stop the gangs. So what do we do? We can not continue to sit by and wait for them to kill more innocent people. As I mentioned before I don't like when people (like Guy) use edited parts to make point that is not based on facts.

The meeting more then 5 times again it depends on how it is applied which I believe you are saying is the issue, well it could be the issue. However these family and associates that know they are breaking the law then they are guilty of a crime as well, you do not have to be involved in criminal activity knowledge of a crime and not saying anything is also a crime.

Nick

However these family and associates that know they are breaking the law then they are guilty of a crime as well, you do not have to be involved in criminal activity knowledge of a crime and not saying anything is also a crime.

so why create the law?????!!!!! if u know people are conspiring then you too are conspiring, so why the extra law?? when laws already exist?? if these laws are to weak, then ammend these laws, and dont create 2 laws for the one offence, cos u know that they will still find loopholes in them...

i believe also that a lot of the time, the police say they need more powers because of the political influence...

government wants to be seen to be tough on crime, police commissioner (who i would think is appointed by a politician but i could be wrong) then says we needs more powers to stop these gangs...

this does two things, supports the government (thats good to do if you're a police commissioner ) and gives them an excuse... in truth i think we need more police officers in the country, especially when u have the numerous squads and task forces currently set up around the country... i also believe they do the best they can given what i believe to be poor staffing, not weak laws...

Does this all seem half arsed to anyone else?

You're an outlaw, so we'll pass a law that allows us to prosecute you for being an outlaw, rather than prosecute you for the laws you are breaking.

Where the outlaws are going to continue to break the law, as that's sort of what they do anyway.

photomike666 wrote:....You're an outlaw, so we'll pass a law that allows us to prosecute you for being an outlaw, rather than prosecute you for the laws you are breaking.......

You have hit the nail fair square on the head mate.

The issue is that laws *already exist* to deal with the criminal activities of OMCG's. The problem is that the enforcers (the big blue gang ) are not resourced sufficiently enough to deal with the criminal activities. Its that simple. Mike Rann is just looking for an easy solution to a difficult (but not insurmountable) problem. Inventing new laws to just target specific elements is not the answer. Using existing laws as they were meant to be enforced, is.

Even the NSW Attorney General, John Hatzigeros, has expressed his reservations about the intent and enforcement of the new laws, as they are being formed in SA at the moment.......you have to ask the question - if the Chief law official of NSW thinks something is *not quite right* about the proposed laws, what is the problem ? There must be *something* in there that does not sit right......

And - has anyone notice the *deafening* silence from Victoria about this whole thing ?????? I think its something called 'Freedom of Association' within their Bill of Rights. They won't support this type of law. In fact, last year they rolled out the red carpet with police escorts for an OMCG ride through Vic....

The problem, as a lot of people see it, is that more (unenforcable) laws, result in a loss of freedom for everyone, not just the targeted groups.

Thats a fact. Recent attempts to enforce this type of legislation within Oz have been nothing but a spectacular failure, at a cost of millions. That was to a normal, law-abiding citizen of this country, who had done nothing wrong. Those people who think that this type of legislation won't be applied to 'normal' people (ie you or I) - time to wake up and smell the roses - it already has.

Don't think for one minute that I support the type of criminal activity undertaken by elements of the OMCG's. I don't. I abhor the violence.

But they, like everyone else, have a right to the basic presumption of "innocence until proven guilty". Through a court-based system. Not a piece of paper.

This new legislation removes that right, simply by virtue of 6 'contacts' within a 12-month period. No recourse to the courts. No evidence available from the other side to be examined. No right to be tried in court.

Thats not a just law. The proposed laws are more akin to those that existed within the Spanish Inqusition !

Gosling1 wrote:The propsed laws are more akin to those that existed within the Spanish Inqusition !

Actually, the proposed OMC laws would also fit pretty neatly into communist China and most Middle Eastern nations too. Coincidentally I think the Federal Government also borrowed it's latest mandatory Internet filtering laws from the same rule books. There's a set of nations we can all aspire to become reminiscent of .

dave#3 wrote:

Gosling1 wrote:The propsed laws are more akin to those that existed within the Spanish Inqusition !

Actually, the proposed OMC laws would also fit pretty neatly into communist China and most Middle Eastern nations too. Coincidentally I think the Federal Government also borrowed it's latest mandatory Internet filtering laws from the same rule books. There's a set of nations we can all aspire to become reminiscent of .

Shit, you said exactly what i was thinking.

Gosling1 wrote:But they, like everyone else, have a right to the basic presumption of "innocence until proven guilty". Through a court-based system. Not a piece of paper.

I didn't really want to get "involved" in this conversation as a) I don't think it'd be totally appropriate and b) there's no point debating with a group of people who really have NFI!!

However Gos, the above line struck a chord. It's all well and good to say that they should be proven guilty in a court (I'm not going to start on the court system!!), but when these "people" (and I use the term loosely) rarely end up in court for half the crimes they alledgedly commit, how is the court system supposed to sort them out?

Get beaten up by club member for being in the wrong spot at the wrong time? Decide to take the matter to court? Good luck with that. Oh, and make sure to let your family know that they should also expect a visit or two. That's one example. There's plenty of others.

There was a story in the state paper several weeks ago regarding the fact that many members appear to suddenly turn over a new leaf when they become members. Well, duh!

This discussion will be difficult for you mate, I fully appreciate that. But if OMCG members rarely end up in court for the crimes they allegedly commit, then the fault lies not with the alleged crimes, but with the process used to prove that the crimes were actually committed. The whole system of law is based upon evidence presented. Its the job of the law-enforcement agencies to obtain and present that evidence, in a manner that cannot be defended, so that crimes can be proven. However, sometimes the end result may not always be what the prosecution is seeking, but thats why defence lawyers exist in the first place. Otherwise why have an evidentiary-based system in the first place ?

I know as well as you do that the court systems have systemic failures, and the recent example in WA regarding the bashing of a copper and the defence presented to the courts, are a perfect example of how the system does not work *100%* of the time. It also resulted in an outburst from the WA Commish, who basically said that the people of WA will now get the police service they deserve - intimating that WA coppers will now just ignore violent offences, and let the idiots take care of themselves. Its a step back to the dark ages.

Not all of us here have NFI - some have been on the pointy end of dodgy police charges, fought them, and won.

The basic problem with outlawing groups like bikers, is ....who is next in line ? Abo's ?? Leb's ?? Anyone that the government of the day takes a dim view of ?? Bloody hell the Collingwood Cheer Squad is in a spot of bother

I am not preaching here to defend the bikers culture of violence etc - the problem is that this culture can and should be tackled by the existing laws which already accomodate these problems...... thats my take on it anyway...

Gosling1 wrote:Not all of us here have NFI

Sorry, I didn't mean to intimate that everyone here had no idea. I had intended to include "many of whom", but the fingers didn't type what the brain was thinking.

It's a little hard to prove that a particular individual committed a crime, such as a serious assault, when the only real evidence you have is that of 5, 10 or even more witnesses. All of those witnesses are able to name the person involved but then, for some mysterious reason, none of them are prepared to give evidence in court when it comes time to. Anyway, this is getting off topic.

At the end of the day, something needs to be done. These arse-clowns are out of control. If anyone thinks they aren't, I'm sure there are plenty of innocent people who have been hurt recently who would be happy to disagree. I'm sure if anyone has a real alternative to the laws the SA government are implementing, then the other state governments would love to hear from you.

As if there wasn't already enough evidence that politicians make idiotic knee-jerk reactions, how about this beauty from Barnaby Joyce of the National Party - arm the airport police with machine guns. On what planet is that an acceptable reaction to the bashing death of a man at the hands of a group of other men. what next, arm mall cops with rocket launchers because two school kids got into a blue outside Coles. Unbelievable.

It seems to me that there's two distinct views being portrayed in this thread. Both sides seem to believe that OMCs are full of asshats, and that criminals should be prosecuted - the difference is that one side is prepared to give up their personal rights for the perceived greater good of the community, whereas the other side is prepared to stand up for their personal rights for the actual greater good of the community.

The proposed laws are lazy, ill-conceived and will ultimately be deemed unenforceable, but, like machine guns at the airport, appease the small-minded majority who want to see swift and decisive re-action (as opposed to real action).

I value a fair and reasonable legal and judicial system that promotes equity, justice and human rights and recognises that evil prospers when good men do nothing ..... Or maybe I'm just one of the group with NFI

dave#3 wrote: Or maybe I'm just one of the group with NFI

Dave you can be the club pres & gos can be the Sgt at arms..... NFI MCC

I keep looking at the title of this thread & think it needs to be changed

so change it mod

robracer wrote:

dave#3 wrote: Or maybe I'm just one of the group with NFI

Dave you can be the club pres & gos can be the Sgt at arms..... NFI MCC

I think it should be called NFI OMC to ensure we're quickly added to the list of proscribed organisations .

dave#3 wrote:Or maybe I'm just one of the group with NFI

Instead of considering you as being one with NFI, Dave, I'll just accept it as prima facie that you aren't fully aware of the facts.

Just out of interest, have you read the bill in its entirity?