Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

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.

NSW - police get free access to Hells Agnels clubrooms

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' at netrider.net.au started by edgelett, Jan 29, 2009.

  1. http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24977795-5006009,00.html

    very interesting.
    i wonder if the SA cops will be able to do a similar thing once the Finks are declared (which should be in the next week I think)

  2. The following words in the news do not scare me:
    war, nuclear, murder, binge-drinking, STDs, crisis.

    The following words in the news do scare me:
    new powers, police will no longer have to..., increased measures.
  3. I agree Ktulu but what do we do? just let the them break laws with no recorse.
  4. WTF are you on about? It's not like there isn't already a bazillion laws to pick them up the moment they do anything illegal outside of their premises, which they pretty much have to do to be guilty of all the things they're being suspected of.

    If the police have reasonable suspicion, they can get a search warrant as applies to any circumstance like that. If a crime is being actively committed, they don't need a warrant at all.

    ie. They already have some strong powers as it stands. What this new court order does is allow the cops to just walk onto private property whenever they feel like it, and just hang about hassling people.
  5. 100% agree, but the article is a little misleading. The Police can always enter a premises based on reasonable suspicion. The article seems to be implying that in this case it was debatable they had genuine reasonable suspicion and that the ruling fell in their favour.

    "Reasonable" has a very real definition in this case.

    It's not a change in law. It doesn't mean, as the article implies, they will always be able to do it.
  6. settle pettle what part of "I agree" did you not understand.There must be a reason they need this power maybe to get around something thats hindering investigations, maybe inside tipoffs who the fcuk knows. Im not saying its a good thing and i wasnt saying it was the answer. But if illegal operations are hapening in these premises then it should be delt with.
  7. quote]
    But if illegal operations are hapening in these premises then it should be delt with.[/quote]

    Yeah but isn't everyone entiled to being innocent until proven guilty. the inference here is that illegal activity is assumed to be happening at all times, so let's assume guilt based on who it is to justify a search. That's a big shift on what our supposed ideals are.
  8. Yeah but isn't everyone entiled to being innocent until proven guilty. the inference here is that illegal activity is assumed to be happening at all times, so let's assume guilt based on who it is to justify a search. That's a big shift on what our supposed ideals are.[/quote]

    thats why i agreed
  9. Now you're talking in circles.

    So you agree that people have a right to exist under the premise of innocent until proven guilty, but you still feel that the police/courts have a point in allowing people to be treated as guilty until proven innocent?

    The answer to your stance is that there isn't one. It's one way or the other. You either assume that people are innocent and catch them when they actually do something wrong without treating them like criminals before-hand, or you treat everyone like criminals all the time and watch over them all the time until they finally "slip up".

    So, what's it going to be?
  10. But what I am saying is there's enough recourse already.

    If they keep enhancing police powers to a point where basic rights of association and privacy, etc are taken away the behaviour amongst these groups and potentially others will adapt or escalate to address the threat of existence. The escalation of powers is counter productive and it's not a big stretch to see it applied to other people and groups.
  11. It was a question not a stance!

    Well i dont like the fact that these liberties are being taken by police. But if these clubs are in fact getting away with illegal opperations and the police with current powers cannot put a stop to it what do we do?
  12. So what are the bikie gangs involved in?
    Traditionally it's drugs, I suppose.

    You say they need to "put a stop to it"... but do you honestly believe the police will ever "stop" the manufacture, supply, and use of illicit drugs?

    Coz the yanks declared a war on drugs years and years and years ago, and haven't "stopped" them.

    Do we just keep on granting police more, newer, bigger, better powers to intrude upon the privacy of our communities while we wait for them to finally announce their success?

    Coz Australia will be pretty damn Orwellian before that happens; and I blow up parliament house well before we get there.
  13. The answer is that we make a choice for what we believe in.

    Do we believe that it's better to respect the populace's freedoms and privacy and accept that while we may not catch every single little thing, that sooner or later we will catch the bad guys.

    Or do we throw all our freedoms and privacy and hard fought values into the bin of fear and panic, and let our lives be stomped on by an Orwellian regime that operates under the premise of "If you do nothing wrong, then you've got nothing to worry about, and therefore you certainly won't mind that we're watching you 24/7".

    Your choice. I've obviously made mine based on my comments above.
  14. Well, yeah, but the Seppos haven't won a proper war since 1945 anyway.

    On a practical note, hands up who believes the HA will be stupid enough to do/store anything illegal at their clubhouse now.

    And on a note of principle, I'm with Flux and Ktulu on this.
  15. It's not about making a clear choice its about where to draw the line. If were to go to the opposite end of the scale and took all the powers away fom police what effect would that have. It would be mayhem Id suspect.
  16. Who was saying anything about removing existing powers? We're talking about extending powers to the point that police presence becomes invasive and without due reason.

    Let's face it. If there was a legitimate reason for the police to be there, they'd be there. The existing police powers allow that.

    We're talking about police being allowed to walk into private property whenever the hell they feel like it, and the property owner gets no say about it whatsoever.

    Can you not see how this has overstepped the line, or shall we expect you to make another post saying that you agree, and then ask "what if?". Either you agree and you accept the what if's, or you don't really agree at all.
  17. It was a hypothetical to make a point that its not as clear cut as you make it out to be.
  18. I'll bring sausages and beer.

    I don't think it's all too far off mate. It's all become a bit police-state like for me. The real thing that'll make me throw a brick at Rudd is the internet restrictions...
  19. Guys, despite what the headline state, they are not getting more power.

    They just had one instance ruled in their favour. it may well be successfully appealed.
  20. I'll lay odds that if any group had something incriminating in their clubhouse it's now long gone . Whether it be the Hells Angels, the Finks or the Outer Hebridean Brothel Creepers and Chowder Society, no organisation will be keeping illegal stuff in such an obvious place these days. (unless they're really really stupid)

    If this is a one off allowing them to make a raid (based on producing sufficent cause) it's nothing to worry about - if it's a generic order allowing them to walk in any time they fell like it - then I'd be very concerned. However it looks to me as if it's something to do with the licencing act (the bit about the illegal bar). If so then they probably already have those powers - enforcing liquor laws - like Customs and Excise and some other statutory bodies - means that there are far more powers of entry available than the police will ever be likely to have.

    The erosion of rights won't come about by police powers - it's all the other petty bureaucracies that have the right to enter properties without notice that is the real issue. The cops are only playing catch-up.