A new threat

[dpex]

Do the anti-gang laws now operating in Australia, and set to be introduced here, threaten we bikers?

The answer seems to be a declaratory YES!

From NZ Herald, Tuesday 16th, "Declaring an organisation meant police had to apply to the Attorney-General when they were satisfied the group existed for criminal purposes or was a risk to public safety."

The intent of the law is, on face-value, aimed at restraining various gangs. I have no problem with that providing such restraint is applied to demonstrably illegal gangs. But note the last part of the above paragraph, ".....or was a risk to public safety".

Is that the thin edge of the wedge? Who determines the nature of the "risk"?

It appears the police have to make a case for such identification then apply to the Attorney General for an enforcement warrant. So far, so good. But is there a set of criteria, or some threshold requiring some minima even before an application for a warrant can be sought?

Apparently, that minima is, "....or was a risk to public safety".

So what happens when anal-retentive, Ernie Dickbrain reports he and his family were terrorised by a group of 20 KBers who passed him buy on SH16, in lawful procession?

It is quite clear that such a complaint could be measured against this "quite generic" legislation and KBers could be forced to restrict group ridings to say six bikes per group.

The Herald article goes on to say, "If this application is successful, we will then apply for control orders to be placed on the individual members of that declared organisation,"

This means we, as individuals, could be forced to submit to arbitrary and thus unknowable restrictions on our rding freedoms.

Now then, your initial reaction might be, 'Nar. They wouldn't apply a law aimed at bad-arses to ordinary folk going about their business touring as a bike group.'

Really? Then explain how it was that the new Boy-racer legistlation was applied to an employee driving a front-end loader on the streets of Westport in a manner deemed "unacceptable". The police seized the loader under the powers of the Boy-racer legislation. And some smug cop was quoted as saying, "That's what the legislation was designed for. To stop this sort of thing and severely penalise a malfactor 'before' he she have their day in court."

You will all, no doubt, appreciate that the Boy-racer legislation could be applied by any mean-spirited cop (of which there are few among the many good) to any two KBers who are riding in echelon, safely passing car-after-car, and then defined as racing each other. Our bikes can be seized on the spot. There is no right of immediate reply.

A further example of law being stretched: The promoters of the anti-smacking law asserted "No parent will be prosecuted for using light smacks to maintain the safety of a child," yet there is now a father being prosecuted for flicking his son on the ear to dissuade him from racing across a busy road against the fathers' perfectly reasonable instructions.

And so, you see, once the police have a new toy to play with, "a new law" they can apply it when and where they choose. The victim of any misuse of a law must then face paying thousands of dollars to defend the misuse in court.

In my opinion we need to fight hard to make sure any such 'Gang' laws are made way more specific in description and application to the point where they cannot be applied to folk going about their lawful business.

[dpex]

Excuse my stupidity Dark Universe, but could you change the text colour back to white.

[davereid]

Do the anti-gang laws now operating in Australia, and set to be introduced here, threaten we bikers?

The answer seems to be a declaratory YES!

From NZ Herald, Tuesday 16th, "Declaring an organisation meant police had to apply to the Attorney-General when they were satisfied the group existed for criminal purposes or was a risk to public safety."

The intent of the law is, on face-value, aimed at restraining various gangs. I have no problem with that providing such restraint is applied to demonstrably illegal gangs. But note the last part of the above paragraph, ".....or was a risk to public safety".

Is that the thin edge of the wedge? Who determines the nature of the "risk"?

It appears the police have to make a case for such identification then apply to the Attorney General for an enforcement warrant. So far, so good. But is there a set of criteria, or some threshold requiring some minima even before an application for a warrant can be sought?

Apparently, that minima is, "....or was a risk to public safety".

So what happens when anal-retentive, Ernie Dickbrain reports he and his family were terrorised by a group of 20 KBers who passed him buy on SH16, in lawful procession?

It is quite clear that such a complaint could be measured against this "quite generic" legislation and KBers could be forced to restrict group ridings to say six bikes per group.

The Herald article goes on to say, "If this application is successful, we will then apply for control orders to be placed on the individual members of that declared organisation,"

This means we, as individuals, could be forced to submit to arbitrary and thus unknowable restrictions on our rding freedoms.

Now then, your initial reaction might be, 'Nar. They wouldn't apply a law aimed at bad-arses to ordinary folk going about their business touring as a bike group.'

Really? Then explain how it was that the new Boy-racer legistlation was applied to an employee driving a front-end loader on the streets of Westport in a manner deemed "unacceptable". The police seized the loader under the powers of the Boy-racer legislation. And some smug cop was quoted as saying, "That's what the legislation was designed for. To stop this sort of thing and severely penalise a malfactor 'before' he she have their day in court."

You will all, no doubt, appreciate that the Boy-racer legislation could be applied by any mean-spirited cop (of which there are few among the many good) to any two KBers who are riding in echelon, safely passing car-after-car, and then defined as racing each other. Our bikes can be seized on the spot. There is no right of immediate reply.

A further example of law being stretched: The promoters of the anti-smacking law asserted "No parent will be prosecuted for using light smacks to maintain the safety of a child," yet there is now a father being prosecuted for flicking his son on the ear to dissuade him from racing across a busy road against the fathers' perfectly reasonable instructions.

And so, you see, once the police have a new toy to play with, "a new law" they can apply it when and where they choose. The victim of any misuse of a law must then face paying thousands of dollars to defend the misuse in court.

In my opinion we need to fight hard to make sure any such 'Gang' laws are made way more specific in description and application to the point where they cannot be applied to folk going about their lawful business.



I hate gangs with a passion.

But all this kind of law does is show us how much Labour hates freedom. It lies with the loss of the privy council, loss of unanimous jury, loss of right not to be re-tried for the same crime, elctoral finance act etc etc etc all stolen from us by the socialists.

[James Deuce]

Good lord, you have one supporter.

The normal Kiwi response is, "Nah mate, doesn't happen here", followed by a big wimp out when it does happen here.

Don't forget to take a Diazepam from time to time.

[Tank]

Come on guys - this is never going to happen.

Heck 9 years in power and this is the first time they mention it. Its never been part of their policy documents yet - and I'm sure wont be in any they issue for this election.

heck Labour actually commented that it was against human rights or the like when Michael Laws tried to get the patches banned from the high street.

Its nothing more than a soundbite.

And if you read his actual comment its ONE person in labour looking at it and if HE thinks its a good idea then POSSIBLY it will be looked at properly.

Typical Labour spin-doctoring.

[QMOTO]

Gangs with patches should be encouraged, if Alqueda (how ever ya spell it) had patches it would make identifcation easy wouldnt it:2thumbsup

[CookMySock]

I think this sort of speak is just a wind up. How the fuck this legislation can be applied to any reasonable citizen is absurd. "Threat" ? I highly doubt it, unless it threatens YOUR bizo.

Steve

[slofox]

We could have it applied to that big gang that wears blue and drives around in cars with blue and red lights on them couldn't we....? And what about those Rotarians? Or the Lions Clubbers? And golfers - you can get your head busted in with those danged golf balls.......THEY oughta be banned as well.......and rugby players......they injure each other every week......and so the list goes on...

[slimjim]

Gee's wonder if that includes My Club Logo.. wear that on my vest... while growing old disgracefully......:calm:..and we ride in pack's....:whistle:..yes and have too been pulled over.. til young copper realised we were all greying..:laugh: Ulysses:bleh:nope its a Club Logo:jerry:not a patch..:weep:

[Ixion]

It is stated that the SA law is targeted at "motorcycle gangs". Can someone provide a definition of a "motorcycle gang" that could not be extended to any group of motorcyclists?

The inherent prejudice is self evident if we consider that there is no statement that the laws are targeted at "car gangs". Yet I will bet that more of the bad guys drive cars than ride bikes.

To many cops (and politicans) motorcycle=gang=criminal.

It would be a small and all too easy step froma lsw banning "motorcycle gangs" to a law banning "motorcycles".

Dude you need to come along to BRONZ.

[Skyryder]

There's more here than gangs.

'Public safety' could be applied to extreem environmental groups and even legitimate protests.

I think this is just the opening shots. I'll wait and see just what comes up first before I declare good bad whatever. But bear in mind that when the Govt bought in the instant loss of licence no one stood up and cried foul except myself and Jim2.
So if you want your voice heard take to the streets.


Skyryder

[R6_kid]

unless you are heading out as a group of bikers with the intent to undertake criminal activity then you won't have anything to worry about.

Furthermore they would only be able to ban you from an event where they believe you would be there with intent or the possibility to cause a disruption to that event.

As far as I know, all the KB meetups/rides etc i've been on have never fallen into either of the those two groups, nor are we a 'patched organisation'.

The only 'criminal' activites undertaken by most people on this site are much more likely to fall under 'boy racer' legislation or dangerous driving than that of 'criminal gang activity'.

[mstriumph]

:Oi: KB isn't a 'gang', nor is it a 'club' or 'association'

KB is a website ...... Spank said so

[dpex]

Dangerous, how this legislation can be applied to other than demonstrable arseholes is really easy. Say, for example, sufficient folk from this site decided it was worth mounting a physical protest. We gather together,say, 100 bikers and head for Wellington.

Some us wear hi viz, most others wear leathers. The cops get a complaint from some anal retentive that he and his wife and kids were scared shitless by 100 bikers passing by.

That's all the power boys need. A complaint which demonstrates the activities of a group are upsetting the public....and the bastards are bikers!

The cops could hound us to a standstill before we got past Taupo.

Generic law...and that is what is being proposed here...is very bad law. It provides unbridled power. And we know where unbridled power leads.

Our rights, as decent citizens, is being daily eroded by legislation....poorly considered in terms of the Human Rights Act, and such teeth as the gummy rules related to freedom of association.

Personally, I am sick and tired of idiot politicians being pushed by their bureaucratic masters (the real power behind the throne) to create generic laws...like the boy-racer law.

The fact of the matter is, there are many laws enabling the cops, the SFO, the IRD, et al, to roam over the arses of every gang in the country. But do they use those laws. Oh no. Why not? Because they simply haven't got the balls.

It's far easier to invoke generic laws, aimed at picking off the peripherals.

Look at what happened just last week. Two cops got caught planting a bug on an arsehole's car. Said arseholes saw the action as other arseholes interfering with their car. So they chased them and shot the shit out of them with air-rifles. Where the AOS while the cops were planting the bug? Around the bloody corner having a fag and a coffee instead of being right there, providing back-up, just in case.

The result of this fiasco? The cops come up smelling of roses and everyone weeps for the dead cop. The bad guys are being done for murder, despite the fact the cop died of a heart attack.

So the next step? Yes! Ban air-rifles.

That's the game, see, Dangerous. When incapable of offering a proper solution, ban it.

Will we be next? Ban bikers? They scare the fuck out of little Annie.

[Grahameeboy]

It is stated that the SA law is targeted at "motorcycle gangs". Can someone provide a definition of a "motorcycle gang" that could not be extended to any group of motorcyclists?

The inherent prejudice is self evident if we consider that there is no statement that the laws are targeted at "car gangs". Yet I will bet that more of the bad guys drive cars than ride bikes.

To many cops (and politicans) motorcycle=gang=criminal.

It would be a small and all too easy step froma lsw banning "motorcycle gangs" to a law banning "motorcycles".

Dude you need to come along to BRONZ.

What a load of bollocks....there is no prejudice...they are referring to "Gangs" who are identified by the fact that they ride bikes i.e. Hells Angel chapters and the like...never heard of "car gangs" although I guess gangs need transport...never hear of the Toyota Angels chapter....

Car gangs would be criminals who steal cars.

How you can link a group of motorcyclists going for a blat as a gang is ludicrous....BRONZ should be renamed "BRASSEDoff" as they have no real impact on stuff and just create stuff for the sheer hell of it...

Laws are only a problem if you break them...here is the definition of a gang

The police's definition of a gang is: a group of individuals, juvenile and or adult, who associate on a continuous basis, form an allegiance for a common purpose, and are involved in delinquent or criminal activity. This definition is simple and functional. It allows the police departments to take proactive law enforcement action normally before the gang gets an organized structure. The gang may range from a loose knit group of individuals who hang around together and commit crimes together, to a formal organization with a leader or ruling council, gang colors, gang identifiers, and a gang name.

Simple really...but not if you cannot get on the band wagon...

Peace be with us...enjoy life and learn to let go.

My rant at this silly thread..sorry

[dpex]

The major prob with this type of legislation is, it's applied against the individual. Like you, for example. You might obtain the sympathy and even the vocal support of hundreds, but few if any will put their hands in their pockets to help you out with your legal bills when it comes to you fighting a demonstrably unreasonable charge.

That's what the power-brokers rely upon. Divide and conquer.

They know, fully, that group action breaks down when an issue s focused upon an individual.

They have the group power, and the money (our money) to prosecute.

But I tell you. When the very first KBer is ensnared by this vile legislation, and calls for monetary help, you will be the last one to dip into your pocket on account of you have enough financial issues already, right?

And so the state moves against the powerless individual. And when they do the individual is fucked.

Recently, I spent over $120K in the Family Court. I beat back every posit from the opposition. So the judge went looking for some thread not connected. She found one. The judgment of the bitch judge was so full of holes it was disgusting. But to appeal it meant spending another $20k. By then I'd simply run out of money.

Did any of the various groups vociferously campaigning against the tyranny of the Family Court offer the one thing I needed...Money? No.

So don't hope that great intentions will help you when next you get tagged as a Boy-racer, or a part of some gang by some cop with his/her own issues.

[davereid]

What a load of bollocks....there is no prejudice...they are referring to "Gangs" who are identified by the fact that they ride bikes i.e. Hells Angel chapters and the like...How you can link a group of motorcyclists going for a blat as a gang is ludicrous....BRONZ should be renamed "BRASSEDoff" as they have no real impact on stuff and just create stuff for the sheer hell of it...

My rant at this silly thread..sorry

Its already happened.. July 2006

At the time I posted it was all crap etc... changed my mind now... !


http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=32810


There is an interesting letter in the Dispatch Rider section of the latest Bike Rider Magazine. It concerns a group of 12 riders on Harleys, from the Otaki area. All riders are in the late 40s or 50s. Initially one of the riders was pulled over for speeding. He was asked what gang he was with, given a warning and sent on his way with the rest of the group at their steady speed of 100 kmh. The cop followed the group, then another cop joined in, then another. Finally there were 8 cop cars and a Bike cop when the entire group was pulled over for a rego and warrant check. Again they were asked about this Ulysses gang that they were all members of.

But the real kicker came whaen they were told that they constituted an "Unlawfull Assembly". Thats right, more than three people constitute an Unlawful asembly. So if you and your mate want to go for a ride, thats Ok, but add a another couple and its illegal.

I know this law is rarely invoked. It was used during the 1951 dockyard strikes, and again in 1971 against three Otago University Students (one is now a KBer :innocent: ), but I haven't heard of it being used since.

So for future KB rides, if you are expecting more than 3 riders, make sure you go to the nearest police station and get a permit to meet.

[Grahameeboy]

Dangerous, how this legislation can be applied to other than demonstrable arseholes is really easy. Say, for example, sufficient folk from this site decided it was worth mounting a physical protest. We gather together,say, 100 bikers and head for Wellington.

How so....

Some us wear hi viz, most others wear leathers. The cops get a complaint from some anal retentive that he and his wife and kids were scared shitless by 100 bikers passing by.

That's all the power boys need. A complaint which demonstrates the activities of a group are upsetting the public....and the bastards are bikers!

Rubbish....you are getting paranoid

The cops could hound us to a standstill before we got past Taupo.

Generic law...and that is what is being proposed here...is very bad law. It provides unbridled power. And we know where unbridled power leads.

No it does not

Our rights, as decent citizens, is being daily eroded by legislation....poorly considered in terms of the Human Rights Act, and such teeth as the gummy rules related to freedom of association.

Oh dear not that old Kiwi favourite...my world my world.....

Personally, I am sick and tired of idiot politicians being pushed by their bureaucratic masters (the real power behind the throne) to create generic laws...like the boy-racer law.

If you are sick you should get a Dr's note....."is prevented from enjoying life due to a terminal illness"

The fact of the matter is, there are many laws enabling the cops, the SFO, the IRD, et al, to roam over the arses of every gang in the country. But do they use those laws. Oh no. Why not? Because they simply haven't got the balls.

I think you will find that gangs manage to use loopholes...this Law seems to say something easy and simple..you belong to a criminal gang and you are nicked sonny...sound a giood idea to me and may save lots of cops time..

It's far easier to invoke generic laws, aimed at picking off the peripherals.

Look at what happened just last week. Two cops got caught planting a bug on an arsehole's car. Said arseholes saw the action as other arseholes interfering with their car. So they chased them and shot the shit out of them with air-rifles. Where the AOS while the cops were planting the bug? Around the bloody corner having a fag and a coffee instead of being right there, providing back-up, just in case.

The result of this fiasco? The cops come up smelling of roses and everyone weeps for the dead cop. The bad guys are being done for murder, despite the fact the cop died of a heart attack.

After being shot at!!!

So the next step? Yes! Ban air-rifles.

That's the game, see, Dangerous. When incapable of offering a proper solution, ban it.

Will we be next? Ban bikers? They scare the fuck out of little Annie.


.......................

[Grahameeboy]

Its already happened.. July 2006

At the time I posted it was all crap etc... changed my mind now... !


http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=32810

Yep the whole thread is crap.....

[twinkle]

so that cop on SH16 can use this for the thursday night ride then? :Police:
:laugh:

[Ixion]

The police's definition of a gang is: a group of individuals, juvenile and or adult, who associate on a continuous basis, form an allegiance for a common purpose, and are involved in delinquent or criminal activit


Uhhuh

A group of individuals who associate on a continuous basis

OK, that sounds like an awful lot of bikers I know of

Form an allegiance for a common purpose. Ditto. The Thursday night rides would be a prime example

And are involved in delinquent .. activity

Now, there is no legal definition of 'delinquent' . It means just exactly what any cop wants it to mean. If the cop decidees he doens't like what you are doing, then that is delinquent. And given that the majority of cops don't make any distinction between 'real' gangs (MM, HA etc) , and a bunch of guys on motorbikes; and given that to an awful lot of the Interchangeable Mabels, what we do as a normal part of a ride is pretty 'delinquent' (and, indeed, somewhat illegal!) , I'd say that if such a law is passed there'd by a major probability of it being used to outlaw rides like the Thursday night ride.

I remember Gideon Tait, too. Don't EVER assume that the freedom we enjoy is in any way guaranteed. Look at England which, in less than 20 years has gone from being the traditional bulwark of freedom, to being the most totalitarian and fascist state in the western world.Just because people said "Oh, they won't use those laws like that". And , lo, when they do, sorry, too late now, the law is passed

People need to take off their rose coloured spectacles. The Government , and the Police, are NEVER there to help you.

[dpex]

Your reply is excellent. It states the nub of the matter. Good cops (read most) don't practice bad law enforcement. Bad cops, of which there are a few, especially in the road-cops dept (the MOT dressed up as real cops) have no such concerns for reason. They are out there to hassle, to issue tickets to fill a quota, and generally act out their lack of personal power by beating up on whomsoever they can find to beat up on.

If this 'gang' law gets into legislation the bad ones amongst them will have a field day.

And just remember, Dangerous. It's all very well for you to believe in tooth-fairy application of the law...clearly you've never been at the sharp end of a bad cop.... but the fact remains, there are thousands of examples of one law being created to address one issue, then applied to many others.

As has been stated earlier on this page, the boys from Ulysses bore the brunt of what you say 'can't' happen. Well, it does. And if this law makes it into the books, we're all turkeys waiting for the man with the gun.

I say again. They can tag you wrongfully. Your redress is the court. You pay for your defense and, from your taxes you pay a small part of their prosecution. Either way, you pay.

I believe it was Voltaire who said, 'There is no sweeter taste than the moral high-ground, and none so bitter as proving you have it.'

As of now, Dangerous, these pricks can confiscate your bike by simply asserting your were racing the Missus. They don't have to prove it. You have to prove they are wrong.

Wake up, man! 1984/Animal Farm is here, alive and well in NZ, and getting worse by the day.

[twinkle]

funnily enough this was in the NZ Herald this morning:


In 2003, Britain gave officials greater power to place people under surveillance, in the name of fighting terrorism. But the Telegraph has found many councils have used this power to investigate allegations of crimes such as noisy children, selling pizza without a licence, and noisy dogs.

Whether that story is true or not is irrelevant, the point is that laws like this will be misused at some point.

Except it isn't really misuse, if the law isn't very specific, if you get what I mean. That law banning gangs can be potentially applied to almost everybody in this country.

What is to stop the police/policitians using this law to its full extent in the future?
Won't happen, maybe, with the current batch of politicians, but who knows who will be in power in the next 50 years or so. I mean, you won't be able to do stuff all about them anyway, no matter who they are, since you've already given them a law to potentially eliminate any opposing political parties, any protests etc.

[Grahameeboy]

funnily enough this was in the NZ Herald this morning:



Whether that story is true or not is irrelevant, the point is that laws like this will be misused at some point.

Except it isn't really misuse, if the law isn't very specific, if you get what I mean. That law banning gangs can be potentially applied to almost everybody in this country.

What is to stop the police/policitians using this law to its full extent in the future?
Won't happen, maybe, with the current batch of politicians, but who knows who will be in power in the next 50 years or so. I mean, you won't be able to do stuff all about them anyway, no matter who they are, since you've already given them a law to potentially eliminate any opposing political parties, any protests etc.

Life ain't specific either...I guess the whole population of NZ is a gang by your viewpoint...it just gets sillier and the kness wobble...me think I will enjoy life instead....:woohoo:

[Grahameeboy]

Your reply is excellent. It states the nub of the matter. Good cops (read most) don't practice bad law enforcement. Bad cops, of which there are a few, especially in the road-cops dept (the MOT dressed up as real cops) have no such concerns for reason. They are out there to hassle, to issue tickets to fill a quota, and generally act out their lack of personal power by beating up on whomsoever they can find to beat up on.

If this 'gang' law gets into legislation the bad ones amongst them will have a field day.

And just remember, Dangerous. It's all very well for you to believe in tooth-fairy application of the law...clearly you've never been at the sharp end of a bad cop.... but the fact remains, there are thousands of examples of one law being created to address one issue, then applied to many others.

As has been stated earlier on this page, the boys from Ulysses bore the brunt of what you say 'can't' happen. Well, it does. And if this law makes it into the books, we're all turkeys waiting for the man with the gun.

I say again. They can tag you wrongfully. Your redress is the court. You pay for your defense and, from your taxes you pay a small part of their prosecution. Either way, you pay.

I believe it was Voltaire who said, 'There is no sweeter taste than the moral high-ground, and none so bitter as proving you have it.'

As of now, Dangerous, these pricks can confiscate your bike by simply asserting your were racing the Missus. They don't have to prove it. You have to prove they are wrong.

Wake up, man! 1984/Animal Farm is here, alive and well in NZ, and getting worse by the day.

Ixion's buggered you eh.....and 1984 is not here, it has been and gone so you need to get wid de times dude.....

[Big Dave]

>>BRONZ should be renamed "BRASSEDoff" as they have no real impact on stuff and just create stuff for the sheer hell of it...<<

And that is named pure, unadulterated, BULLSHIT.

[Salival]

Just my 2c - I couldn't agree with you more, dpex.

There are a few bad eggs in the Police force but that's all it takes. I've had some bad dealings with cops and it's left a sour taste in my mouth.

Generic law is bad. And the current administration's approach of banning everything they don't like just makes matters worse. Case in point: BZP.

[avgas]

oh well - now joining a club sounds cooler
we need eye patches or something

[Headbanger]

The police's definition of a gang is: a group of individuals, juvenile and or adult, who associate on a continuous basis, form an allegiance for a common purpose, and are involved in delinquent or criminal activity. This definition is simple and functional. It allows the police departments to take proactive law enforcement action normally before the gang gets an organized structure. The gang may range from a loose knit group of individuals who hang around together and commit crimes together, to a formal organization with a leader or ruling council, gang colors, gang identifiers, and a gang name.


Damn, by that definition a social group of bikers who are speeding=gang.

To bad if one of em gets caught with a bit of weed.....

[Dargor]

I agree this potenial-law could be very bad. And i agree that it is better to fight for your freedom while you still have it than wait untill your in the big house.
But untill there is an actual push to get such a law in NZ we are safe. Call me when that happens and ill join the protest.

[AllanB]

Hmm those strip clubs are pretty naughty - arrest the tarts.

Hmmmm - on every group ride I've been on there was a bunch of bikes streaming past cars well above the speed limit doing a very good impression of a 'race'. Standard practise from my experience. This may be different in Auckland where I understand you often stop for cups of tea and bird watching.

Hmmmmmmmm - restrict rides to six bikes only - great idea - I pick the bunch without a Suzuki in it - those mad GSXR buggers are always flying past me, cutting in front on corners, knees dragging on the road. Dangerous buggers.

Hmmmmmmmmmm - is a bunch of cops all dressed the same a 'gang' ? - they have those patches with P O L I C E on the back. And they carry weapons.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[mstriumph]

............

That's all the power boys need. A complaint which demonstrates the activities of a group are upsetting the public....and the bastards are bikers!

.........................


:devil2: KB isn't a 'gang', nor is it a 'club' or 'association' or 'group'

KB is a website ...... Spank said so