Ulysses, we're coming for you bitches

[F5 Dave]

http://https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350191502/new-law-give-police-courts-greater-powers-gang-crackdown (https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350191502/new-law-give-police-courts-greater-powers-gang-crackdown")

No seriously. If you were a cop maybe you 'couldn't tell the difference ". Pay is the same, and you don't have to spend your time harassing gang members who can find out where your family live?

[R650R]

Think they’re safe never seen them riding V-rods. Be interesting to see how this plays out in reality as there’s nothing to stop you painting your bike red, blue or whatever relevant colour to achieve same goal.

[Laava]

And rightly so. They deserve everything that is coming to them! Old fuckers!

[pritch]

It's hard to get excited about the proposed law changes. The cops have already got draconian laws they can use but don't. For instance any group of three people or more who cause anybody to fear for the safety of themselves or their property can be declared an unlawful assembly. (That's from memory, but that's the gist.)

If there's twenty gang members causing post menopause pessimists to fear for their safety the cops won't be doing anything until they outnumber the gang members, and that ain't likely to happen anywhere more than a few Ks from Queen Street.

At best we'll likely get some new rushed and badly written legislation which will then be filed somewhere the paper slowly turns yellow. At worst some enthusiastic idiot will misuse it.

[Laava]

Still, it was nice to see them crush some P Rods

[F5 Dave]

Took em near 5 years though.

[roogazza]

It's hard to get excited about the proposed law changes. The cops have already got draconian laws they can use but don't. For instance any group of three people or more who cause anybody to fear for the safety of themselves or their property can be declared an unlawful assembly. (That's from memory, but that's the gist.)


haha cheers pritch, 3 or more for a common purpose = unlawful assembly !!!!! Case law in that probably from us and the Sin Fein ,Upper Hutt 1973 hahahahaha :laugh:

[R650R]

They all said it wouldn’t work, here’s some learned chap who made it work. And some interesting comments from top cops to those that were reluctant to enforce….


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDdLoa3MIqY

[R650R]

Jesus will save you all. Uncle Brian has a dollar each way in this battle

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/kahu/bishop-brians-bikers-will-wear-their-leather-vests-with-pride-because-they-are-korowai-not-gang-patches/

[R650R]

An interesting step forward in enforcement. But how long before this tool extends perhaps to rural folk filming us on a Sunday backroad scratch session…
Our local council is already promoting a snitch on your neighbours thing called see snap send where they get a photo of whatever your latest non consent backyard project that the neighbour is jealous of…

https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350297874/police-monitoring-gang-members-napier-hikoi-tangi

[R650R]

No more group rides….

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/boy-racers-crackdown-swift-destruction-of-vehicles-under-proposed-legislation-new-powers-for-police/RPN4MERT3NGVBFWZ7LDNWY77NM/

[pritch]

That link doesn't work. Of course it may be that I haven't paid a sub but you talk about main stream media and the Harold is just joke status. Can you cut and paste the guts of the article?

[R650R]

“The changes, which are expected to be introduced in Parliament in the middle of the year, include establishing a presumptive sentence of vehicle destruction or forfeiture for those who flee police, for street racers, those in intimidating convoys and for owners who fail to identify offending drivers.

Bishop said this change meant convicted fleeing drivers, boy racers and people participating in intimidating convoys will have their vehicle destroyed or forfeited.”

“The legislation will establish a presumptive court-ordered sentence of vehicle forfeiture or destruction. This means that if someone is convicted of these offences, courts must order that vehicle be destroyed or forfeited to the Crown to be sold,” he said.

“There will be some limited exceptions where the vehicle is owned by someone other than the offender, or if it would be manifestly unjust or cause extreme or undue hardship to do so.”

nti-social road users are those who fail to stop for police while speeding or driving dangerously, participate in unauthorised street racing, do burnouts, carry out intimidating convoys and unlawful dirt bike gatherings or cause excessive noise by taking part in siren battles.

There is an existing offence for a vehicle owner not immediately providing information about a driver who used a vehicle to flee. But this will now be expanded to apply to those participating in street racing, doing burnouts or taking part in intimidating convoys. They can be penalised by the court with a fine not exceeding $10,000.

Bishop said police have told the Government there is “no incentive” for people to identify who is actually driving the vehicles.

“They either lie or they refuse to participate. Pretty canny, some of these guys, they know exactly what the law says. So we are strengthening that.”

Mitchell on Sunday also announced police would be given more powers to manage illegal vehicle gatherings by closing roads or public areas. They will also be able to issue infringements to those who fail without a reasonable excuse to comply with a direction to leave or not enter a closed area.

The police-issued fine for people intentionally creating excessive noise from within or on a vehicle will be increased from $50 to $300, while the court-ordered fine will jump from $1000 to $3000.

“People have had enough of boy racers and their dangerous, obnoxious behaviour. These people drive without regard for the danger and disruption it causes to our communities. They have no consideration for anyone other than themselves,” Mitchell said.

[SPman]

Can we apply those rules to politicians?

[pritch]

Thanks for posting that R650R. The average Ulysses run is unlikely to be described as an 'intimidating convoy'. An excessively enthusiastic cop may cause a problem though.

The first local here to be charged with sustained loss of traction was a businessman with an expensive Mercedes. Not what the politicians said they were aiming for but OK. He had about 600 bhp available but had turned the traction control off.

There also comes to mind a kid charged with sustained loss of traction. The police gave evidence that he had spun his wheels for three metres. The kid claimed it was only one metre. The judge stated that he'd split the difference and two metres was not sustained anything. Dismissed.

[SaferRides]

Disappointed that they haven't included sustained revving of engines. That seems to be a favorite pastime of some local Harley riders.



Sent from my SM-S938B using Tapatalk

[pete376403]

Disappointed that they haven't included sustained revving of engines. That seems to be a favorite pastime of some local Harley riders.

"The police-issued fine for people intentionally creating excessive noise from within or on a vehicle will be increased from $50 to $300, while the court-ordered fine will jump from $1000 to $3000."

Other than the dollar amount the police have these powers now, but they are not enforced to any meaningful degree. (eg every Hoggly with shotgun pipes) Add a provision that the the excessively noisy vehicle has a current WoF, then the shop that issued that Wof is fined or in worst case looses WoF authority. Again, police may well have that power too, so comes down to police or courts enforcement of current law, not writing more laws that will be ignored

[pritch]

police may well have that power too, so comes down to police or courts enforcement of current law, not writing more laws that will be ignored

And so say all of us.

[TheDemonLord]

Again, police may well have that power too, so comes down to police or courts enforcement of current law, not writing more laws that will be ignored

This, I think, needs to be repeated.

Often and loudly.

It is something I have observed numerous times:

"The current laws are difficult to use, so let's write new law that does the same thing"

I can think of multiple examples from across the political spectrum where this has occured - and it seems to me that it is ultimately doomed to failure.

In that, It is often not the Law itself that is the issue per se, but that someone comes up with a good legal argument that becomes precedent. The example that comes to mind is the infamous Anti-Smacking Bill - Someone made the argument that using a riding crop or rubber hose was the equivalent of using a Jandal and therefore was covered under reasonable force.

Coming up with a judicial argument that refutes that is hard - writing overly broad legislation with the addition of "we promise it won't target regular people, honest guv'nor" - that is much easier.

FWIW - I feel these laws definitely fall into that category. I see the pragmatic value of them - but they are an abomination against civil liberties.