Separate names with a comma.
Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.
Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by edgelett, May 14, 2009.
well - there it is.
Let's see what happens.
Now we get to see who's got the better lawyers. Having worked in a State Govt department, my money's on the Finks :twisted: .
apparently the AG has prepared a 52 page document in support of his declaration as a kind of 'pre emptive measure' on any appeals
Michael Atkinson is the AG that is stopping any discussion on video games getting an R rating as he knows he will get beaten as he has very little to defend his point of view. I wouldn't be surprised if his 52 page document is a flip book of him beating up all the Finks members.
The man is a tool.
I agree with OU818
My personal opnion of the guys is the same if not worse...
Needs to go back under the rock he crawled out of, before someone puts him permanantly under one!
Which given the passionate nature of this legislation, may indeed be plausible in the eyes of those with less self control.
They said on the news, and I don't know if this is just hype or what, but they were saying that even having a drink in a pub with anothe rmember of the Finks would get them in trouble.
Bit rude. While I'm not denying they're criminals, if all your mates are Finks, there goes your entire social life.
Although, going by the track record, I don't think a bit of legislation will stop them seeing each other. Just might be a bit more quiet about it.
Be interesting to watch. This is the first to be declared, yeah?
That's right, no socialising at all. Too bad if you're related to another Finks member, no more family functions for you.
Now, the thing is, you can't label them criminals. The reason for this legislation is to allow the govt to charge and prosecute you without having to prove anything. They haven't been able to prove anything so far on these guys, hence the big push for the legislation.
How do I join?
TP - some of your comments are a little misleading.
It is now an offence to associate with a member of the Finks more than 6 times a year. And, close family members are exempt.
Close family includes:
(i) 1 is a spouse or former spouse of the other or is, or has been, in a
close personal relationship with the other; or
(ii) 1 is a parent or grandparent of the other (whether by blood or by
(iii) 1 is a brother or sister of the other (whether by blood or by
(iv) 1 is a guardian or carer of the other.
so it would only be an issue if you had a cousin who was a member who you had contact with MORE than 6 times a year.
Re: not having to prove anything, again this is not entirely true.
In order to be declared a criminal organisation under this Act, the AG has to be SATISFIED that the organisation exists purely for the purpose of committing serious & organised crime. The AG makes public his intention to declare, and the public can view the documents and submissions he's considering & make submissions of it's own. In the case of the Finks, the crimes most of them were charged with were made public. The only ones that weren't were crminial intellignce files.
What is criminal intelligence?
i.e they don't just say 'nah we're not telling em', it HAS to fall under that legal definition.
the Act provides that a retired judicial officer must review whether the AG acted appropriately. hence why he has 52 pages of evidence to back up his declaration.
ok the Hansard has just been tabled, for those who want to know what the AG said about it on Thursday:
Looking at the article quoted by edgelett, it looks like â€œdue processâ€ for want of a better term has been followed in this instance, but if you note the two elements I have highlighted in the article, that is entirely at the AGâ€™s Discretion. As such he has outright stated that
A) he doesnâ€™t have to apply any â€œrules of evidenceâ€
he doesnâ€™t have to provide reasons for his conclusions.
This is BAD Legislation!
NSW DPP is concerned at the legislation in that state:
so in effect, two Finks with control orders against them, could go to jail, for having a beer at the pub together, more than once every two months.
this is ridiculous, and a complete violation of human rights in my eyes. sure, they may both be criminals, they may be meeting to plan some drug smuggling or something, but prove this, and charge them for it. dont send them to jail for 5 years, on the basis of having a beer together :roll: :roll:
the law should not be above itself, ever.
The man's got a point, and he know's his sh1t.
Seems his main argument is that the legislation allows too much influence and control over the implementation and enforcement of the legislation by the government and it's appointees rather than by the judiciary. The obvious danger being that the laws could be used for political rather than greater good purposes - not always the same.
Again - eroding or seeking to bypass the traditional checks and balances in our democratic system (ie seperation of legislative, executive and judicial powers - which have been more or less in place for hundreds of years) = BAD legislation.
And it's been said again and again - we have had laws to combat violence, shooting, drug manufacture/trafficking, ****/sexual assault, blackmail/extortion, and pretty much everything else that bikie gangs are accused of, for ever. Cowdrey is right - the need is for better enforcement, not new laws. There have even been 'consorting' laws on the books (mentioned in a previous quoted article in this thread) they just haven't been used.
Funny that the response of the then Iemma government to the DPP criticising it was to shorten the term of the office in the future. Odds on the next DPP will be an ALP lackey.
I don't even worry about this government, but what about the next? All we need is an extreme version of either side of politics and they've got the legislation already in place to effectively remove and silence organised groups. All within a perfectly legal framework that they didn't even put in place.
I do. Shit, look at them.
Yeah, but it's not the devil you know, it's the devil you don't.