Being A Member Of A Motorcycle Club Is Now Illegal

[Jonno]

This topic is most excellent

*rant*
Sorry, off topic slightly and a bit silly; what about unregistered vehicles such as push mowers or ride-on mowers outside of private property as I see often, kids not wearing helmets on bikes, scooters and boards, even walk behind diggers and mobile lift platforms, earth moving machinery, riding a shopping trolley home down the hill or being an active member of the local wheelie bin surfing club or pushing a trailer out of your drive and so on?

Maybe someone who knows should inform the good people here about what scenarios legally have you in charge of a vehicle wether or not you are in or on it, or standing nearby with keys in your pocket and or intent to operate it. Also what vehicles have exemption from road reg and what constitutes a vehicle needing to be registered?
(State dependant obviously)



Ok back on topic now IMO these laws were designed to target OMC's directly and I can see avenues for abuse and misuse later on, the ironic thing is the outlaws have always had a code of silence especially towards the police and would deal with their own, now the law enforcement now can do simular and drag them through the courts without showing the evidence to them at any stage which has another effect of protecting witnesses which may be critical for a good outcome with a conviction. The flip side will be the outlaws will become invisible to the public and go further underground. I can also see our liberties being eroded to draconian systems of governance potentially, if our society continues to self-destruct as it is IMO there may be no other way.

Some perspective on this (maybe), it was mentioned that the fathers day massacre was a terrible act and whatever and it is even though that was 15 odd years ago, but how many innocents killed? Now compare that with one afternoons outing by Martin Bryant and he wasn’t in an OMC afaik. I would like to see accidental and intentional shootings by law enforcement, by the public, other criminals and compare that to outlaw shootings/ murders.
Lets throw in shark attack stats' as well, workplace deaths, death by drug overdose, drinking, smoking, talking on mobiles and speeding, driving fatigued, diabetes, suicides, heart disease, and obesity which are by far the biggest killers of all and mostly preventable, so where is the legislation for fixing health issues to stop people wasting tax payers money by some of those things?. Yeah I know you could say they are non-related but people are still dying and end up dead!

Morally, anyone who deals in drugs should be punished harshly, they deal death and lifetimes of misery to so many, but yeah, what can I do other than look after my own family and hope for the best..

[DaBigfella]

and i think its his job more to educate than just dish out their kind of "justice"

Totally and utterly disagree. There's a reason it's called Law Enforcement, and not Law Education. There are other sections of the public sector who are supposed to deal with education. This whole naby-pamby poofta approach that the various police departments currently have to law enforcement shits me to tears. Trust me, the wanker civil libitarians and hippies have brought about a change in the sort of person currently being recruited. These days, they are looking for 4 foot tall sooks who want to hug the crims and tell them it's alright and that their past is a perfectly good reason for their current behaviour.

The total and utter disrespect that the youth (and particular racial elements of todays youth are far worse than others) of today have towards, well, towards just about anyone are pitiful. Todays youth seem to be all about (and yes, I'm stereotyping - get off your high horse) "It's not my fault", and the way it's going, it's only going to get worse.

In 10 years time when you're too scared to walk down the street, in the middle of the day, because these fuckhead kids are so out of control, and the coppers don't want to turn up for fear of reprisal (or being on the receiving end of brain damage, which the courts consider to be ok - apparently) then you'll finally get a real glimpse at the direction society is currently heading in.

Most people today are either so ilinformed, or prefer to just stick their heads in the sand and make out it doesn't happen (hey, as long as it doesn't happen to you, it's ok... right?), that they think there isn't anything wrong, and that really, societal behaviour is no different than it was a decade ago. This is the reason I'm not getting directly involved in the debate surrounding the original topic. I have an intimate enough knowledge of what is really going on, and have dealt with enough victims, that I have my opinions about what should be happening with regards to these laws and others. However, anything I might have to say on the matter, or generally any legal matter on this forum, ends up turning into a "What a load of shit, we should be able to do whatever we want" rant by a number of members of this forum, who then suggest that my opinion is only as it is because of my chosen profession.

Having said that, I think I'm a pretty fair and reasonable person, and I do my job based around that presumption. However, there are several things I wont tolerate. Liers, smart-arses, and those that think they are above the law.

Having said that, if I came across someone pushing their unregisted bike along the footpath, we'd be having a chat. Their attitude from the start will determine the outcome. Be a cockhead from the start, you're nicked. Be a cockhead from the start, realise it isn't working, then decide to turn your attitude around? Stiff... Decide to be a reasonable person from the start, realise - after being told - that yes, you are doing the wrong thing, and the outcome will probably be different.

Mate, i 100% agree with what you are saying, i too am in law enforcment in Sydney, and deal everyday with the kind of shit you are talking about, my point is basically agreeing with your last statement, if i caome across someone like myself, who admits i am wrong when i am, and (the most important thing in our line of work) shows respect to the fact that they are being spoken to because THEY did the wrong thing, NOT ME, then i will educate the person rather than rant then wiggle my finger at them, but you put me in a situation where shit bags are carrying on, particularly these "lads" that have the mentality that its my fault for talking to them, "customer service" goes well and truly out the window. Also agree with basic laws, which was really what i was saying about the speeding thing. So my comment was more specific to this topic than generally about society....

[the kid]

Having said that, I think I'm a pretty fair and reasonable person, and I do my job based around that presumption. However, there are several things I wont tolerate. Liers, smart-arses, and those that think they are above the law.

Having said that, if I came across someone pushing their unregisted bike along the footpath, we'd be having a chat. Their attitude from the start will determine the outcome. Be a cockhead from the start, you're nicked. Be a cockhead from the start, realise it isn't working, then decide to turn your attitude around? Stiff... Decide to be a reasonable person from the start, realise - after being told - that yes, you are doing the wrong thing, and the outcome will probably be different.

Fair enough . That is exactly what I would want from a copper .
Just dont like stories of coppers being cockheads . Myself , have never been a smartarse to the law and have never had them being a cockhead to me . And I have had a few kerbside chats

[robracer]

Update frm SMH

Draconian legislation designed to fatally fracture outlaw gangs has been agreed to by the NSW Attorney-General, John Hatzistergos, and the Police Minister, Tony Kelly.

The Premier, Nathan Rees, will make good his pledge to do "whatever it takes" to smash bikie criminals by making it virtually impossible for members of banned gangs to associate with each other.

In a joint submission to cabinet tomorrow, Mr Rees, Mr Hatzistergos and Mr Kelly will propose new laws that go even further than the controversial South Australian model, expected to be challenged in the High Court soon.

In contrast to South Australia, members of NSW gangs who continue to associate with each other after their gang has been declared a "criminal organisation" by the Supreme Court will be charged immediately.
Despite community horror at last Sunday's Sydney Airport bashing, the Government will face a hard sell on these new laws.

The NSW Law Society president, Joe Catanzariti, said the proposed laws would be "the thin edge of the wedge", with other groups including sporting, ethnic and religious organisations able to be targeted.

It was always dangerous to make assumptions about people merely based on the groups to which they belonged, Mr Catanzariti said. "Where is the defect in the current laws that says these people [criminals] can't be dealt with?" he asked. "No one applauds what has been happening but this is unusual hysteria - an overreaction."

[Cath]

...smash bikie criminals by making it virtually impossible for members of banned gangs to associate with each other.

Hahahahaha. "Making it virtually impossible" is not *quite* the same thing as "making it illegal". Isn't the whole point of the legislation that these groups don't obey the law? But I'm sure they'll obey this new law!!! But now we can put them in jail for breaking this new law. But wait - why didn't we just put them in jail for breaking the other laws... you know - then ones they're breaking, like murder and drug dealing, etc?

Let's just create new laws to solve this, then everyone will be safe and no bad stuff will happen to innocent people and all the baddies will be in jail.
I feel safer. Thank god for our politicians!!! And our faithful, learned, intellectually honest journalists!!!

[kaneg]

Lady Cath, I share your views 100%..... that's the good news,

The bad news is that I'm highly cynical about the police and what they are and will be able to do in this instant.

Normally I see the positive in things, but with the outlaw bikie gangs I see that a very disturbing picture is emerging.

Hope I'm wrong in my predictions .....

[ty]

"Where is the defect in the current laws that says these people [criminals] can't be dealt with?" he asked. "No one applauds what has been happening but this is unusual hysteria - an overreaction."

That's the thing I still have questions over - what's wrong with the current laws.

Laws are always open to misuse by radical enforcers - political or police - so there's always an element of trust involved on our part.
For my part I'm not sure how far I trust at the moment - the previously mentioned mistakes regarding the terrorist laws and an honest individual foremost in my mind. He was let go in the end, but what hell to go through.

But let's face it - with the way the bikie gangs are at the moment, and the public response, the law was always going to go through. Now we need to see how it's upheld, and how it holds up in courts.
Might sound like a bit of a weak/give-up response - but I think it's realistic, even though I don't like the law any more than most of you.
ty

[DaBigfella]

Basically what it is saying is that once an organization is deamed "criminal" then members are guilty by association, a far easier crime to prove beyond reasonable doubt than the drug dealing or murder.....unless they are caught red handed........

[Mojo67]

One day we'll get on TV. Four Corners will do a story on the outlawed KSRC. We got it all! Funded by our interstate money laundering (through our "merchandising"), we terrorise the populace with our thundering machines. Our wild brawls (albeit online, but some people can be BRUTAL with a caps lock key). We can beat up some links with our police members, not to mention a Victorian vigilante obsessed with cleansing the road of SCAGS. Wild porn shows (well it was just Neka in his sleeping bag, solo) and who could forget those notorious criminals trying to sneak into the Kawasaki corporate box without a pass?

Underbelly 3. The Curse of the Kudas.

[robracer]

love your work

[rooster]

So how many busom shots will there be in Underbelly 3 I fear for what may follow.

[corvus2606]

what has me confused is that in order to declare an organisation illegal, they first have to prove that they are guilty of commiting a crime, or conspiring to comit a crime.

doesnt this put us in the conundrum where they already arent getting arrested because proof cant be found, or wont stand up in court. so why would this law actually change anything in that instance?

also, i believe that the potential for misuse is a big thing, not by the police, but by politicians, if this were to become a national law, it would slide in place perfectly with the broadband filter, and once a site is blacklisted, there is a potential for its content to be declared illegal, then that group has commited crime, and bobs your uncle, another political group silenced.

call me paranoid, but im leaving the country before that happens.

[Naked Twin]

call me paranoid, but im leaving the country before that happens.

Paranoid Cheap flights are available just be careful about the destination.

I can't see it going to that extreme based on the Australian culture, we are not a nation that historically has fallen into such a way. Around the world absolutely but remember every law is open to abuse and interpretation but with so many checks in place (organisations like the civil libertarians, green peace etc) it will be very hard to do.

Nick

[Cath]

what has me confused is that in order to declare an organisation illegal, they first have to prove that they are guilty of commiting a crime, or conspiring to comit a crime.

doesnt this put us in the conundrum where they already arent getting arrested because proof cant be found, or wont stand up in court. so why would this law actually change anything in that instance?

No conundrum. Different standards of proof are required.
Becoming a declared organisation is basically up to the Attorney-General deciding it agrees with the police argument that the members of the organisation “associate for the purpose of organising, planning, facilitating, supporting or engaging in serious criminal activity”.
Very different from a court convicting a person (who is a member of the organisation) of a specific crime

It pretty much means that the police can try a sneaky end-run on the members of the organisation (i.e bikie gangs). Can't get them thrown in jail for murder or drug-dealing, for whatever reason (valid or not)? OK then, we'll throw them in jail for 5 years for being a member of a group that we are sure engage in criminal activity.

Oh, and the organisation isn't declared illegal - that's undemocratic! You can just be imprisoned if you meet with anyone from a "declared organisation" after being told not to. Even if you weren't actually told - they just nailed a piece of paper to the door. See - it's a totally different situation - it's all in the wording!

It's kinda Orwellian on one hand, but also kinda practical on the other. I'm sure the cops are frustrated at not being able to put the scum away, and will use this law to the benefit of society as a whole. I'm also sure that it opens up a whole new avenue of possible abuse. While I can see that overall this law will probably help take more of the scum off the streets, I lean a bit more to the cynical / civil liberties side of things and find the whole idea of being jailed for 5 years for hanging around with someone who is/was a criminal or in a gang, a bit repulsive and police-state-ish. I like that old-fashioned, boring "innocent until proven guilty" thing.

[Strika]

However, anything I might have to say on the matter, or generally any legal matter on this forum, ends up turning into a "What a load of shit, we should be able to do whatever we want" rant by a number of members of this forum, who then suggest that my opinion is only as it is because of my chosen profession.

Having said that, I think I'm a pretty fair and reasonable person, and I do my job based around that presumption. However, there are several things I wont tolerate. Liers, smart-arses, and those that think they are above the law.

Having said that, if I came across someone pushing their unregisted bike along the footpath, we'd be having a chat. Their attitude from the start will determine the outcome. Be a cockhead from the start, you're nicked. Be a cockhead from the start, realise it isn't working, then decide to turn your attitude around? Stiff... Decide to be a reasonable person from the start, realise - after being told - that yes, you are doing the wrong thing, and the outcome will probably be different.

What a load of shit Aardy!!!!!

Mate, I have no issue with what you do as a job. I have several good mates on the Job. So there is no animosity towards the law from my side. However, I found your above comments most hypocritical. One one hand you state that you...... "Having said that, I think I'm a pretty fair and reasonable person, and I do my job based around that presumption."

To me, fair and reasonable has nothing to do with if the said perpertrator is in fact a Smartarse or not! To me, your just making it personal and you are making a decision to issue an infirngement or not purely based on Personal issues. that doesn't suggest to me that you administer the law in a "fair and reasonable" Manor as you have clearly stated above!!!! Based on that, the person who you get on OK with gets off free and the person who you don;t get on OK with gets nicked! So which is it mate, fair and reasonable, or purely based on if you like them or not????