So i'm back in Australia for a couple of weeks.....

Pegged him as a Valiant man, myself.

Prince Valiant?

Bit of an inside joke, actually. I'm sure our man from the north won't take it the wrong way.

tac wrote:qmy would be a zephyr man . . .

qmy is a man who believes that association doesn't equate with guilt or a prison sentence. And as this country (much to it's credit) voted down legislation against association, whether I be a zephyr man, harley man or whatever, there are enough laws to regulate the activities of most groups in society, whether they be bikie gangs, Rotary or the CWA.

If you sell drugs or murder people you go to jail. It's just that with the parlous state of funding for law enforcement agencies in this country we've taken the attitude that "you get what you pay for" so let's have police forces that couldn't recite rules of evidence if you walked up and smacked them with the regs.

So the Hells Angels/Banditos/Comancheros have retained you to represent them??

I'd represent them pro bono skulls. The proposed laws are a blight on society. Just ask Donald Woods et al.

I'd point out that I would also gladly prosecute individual members for breaking the law and any of their counterparts who helped.

Again these laws are on the books. Before you know it we'll have a thrid referendum on banning the Communist Party.

Hass wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:I was over in Australia for most of October - work trip.

One question for the Aussies, because it's bad for this in Britain as well, but far, far worse in Australia. How the hell did you let the "authorities" get away with this endless petty officialdom? It's a nightmare now.

I'd also go for apathy.

I've also noticed a change in the press these days. An attempt to replace glass schooners in pubs with plastic cups after 10pm would once have stirred up a headline: Hey [insert name of Premier], Keep Your Hands Off Our Beer!

Today the headlines are all: Hey [insert name of Premier], How Many More People Must Suffer [insert bad thing] Before You Ban [insert whatever the paper blames for said bad thing]

Whatever the problem, the answer always seems to be to ban something and then to give some group extra powers to enforce the bannings.

I'm hoping that in the not too distant future it will all go too far and the people will stop being apathetic, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

Hey, David Bartlett, How Many People Must Suffer T20s Before You Ban India?

Hehehe, noice.

Hass wrote:I'd also go for apathy.

I've also noticed a change in the press these days. An attempt to replace glass schooners in pubs with plastic cups after 10pm would once have stirred up a headline: Hey [insert name of Premier], Keep Your Hands Off Our Beer!

Today the headlines are all: Hey [insert name of Premier], How Many More People Must Suffer [insert bad thing] Before You Ban [insert whatever the paper blames for said bad thing]

Whatever the problem, the answer always seems to be to ban something and then to give some group extra powers to enforce the bannings.

I'm hoping that in the not too distant future it will all go too far and the people will stop being apathetic, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

Sage. Too many qunts in this country get off on being outraged by the most trivial of things. Unfortunately, most of us sane types adopt the laid-back Ocker attitude that "she'll be apples."