Bandido chief stranded in Thailand after Australian govt refuses to renew visa

[mikebike]

Would the narrative change any if we replaced "bikie" with "terrorist" and "Bandidos" with "terrorist organization" in the original story?

[Time Traveller]

"Bikie"?

Call an American Biker a "bikie" & you may not live to tell about it.

is pedofile a more appropriate term for those gay morons?

Edited May 20, 2015 by Time Traveller

[PHP87]

Are you being purposely obtuse?

[Time Traveller]

Are you being purposely obtuse?

yes. The terms - bikie - used to describe bikers of the criminal persuasion is to deliberately make them feel inadequate, to belittle them and make them angry.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Time Traveller

[giddyup]

Jeez Bluespunk, you're a broken record.

Give it a rest <deleted>.

He's not an Aussie.

He has a checkered past and questionable character.

He's therefore no longer welcome.

Now, as I previously posted, the Chav must soon leave Thailand.

It'd be a sound move if the Thais followed my country's lead and refused him back here after he leaves.

No I won't.

Don't like what I'm saying then report me.

You've painted yourself into a corner and you keep repeating the same losing argument.

And will continue to do so.

There's a word for that, I think it's insanity.

Edited May 20, 2015 by giddyup

[Bluespunk]

Bluespunk, are you an Australian citizen?

I am, I completely agree with these laws and the way they are applied.

If your not a Australian then nobody really cares about your opinion, if you are then vote in the next election. Not that it would make much difference as the majority of Australians would support this law and the way it is applied.

Doesn't change the fact that I think it's wrong.

Yep, and I think it's wrong that I can't buy a beer from a 7/11 at 4.30pm in Thailand. But my opinion don't mean sh!t. So I don't bother complaining cause I would look like a fool!

Yet here you are doing so.

[PHP87]

As long as you don't say it within earshot of a "bikie?"

[Bluespunk]

There's a word for that, I think it's insanity.

Nope.

[giddyup]

Bluespunk, are you an Australian citizen?

I am, I completely agree with these laws and the way they are applied.

If your not a Australian then nobody really cares about your opinion, if you are then vote in the next election. Not that it would make much difference as the majority of Australians would support this law and the way it is applied.

Doesn't change the fact that I think it's wrong.

Yep, and I think it's wrong that I can't buy a beer from a 7/11 at 4.30pm in Thailand. But my opinion don't mean sh!t. So I don't bother complaining cause I would look like a fool!

Yet here you are doing so.

Yeah, but not 200 times like some.

[giddyup]

There's a word for that, I think it's insanity.

Nope.

I think I'd want a second opinion, preferably from a mental health professional.

[Bluespunk]

There's a word for that, I think it's insanity.

Nope.

I think I'd want a second opinion, preferably from a mental health professional.

Doesn't matter what you want. However we now seem to be completely off topic. So best get back to that, eh.

[giddyup]

There's a word for that, I think it's insanity.

Nope.

I think I'd want a second opinion, preferably from a mental health professional.

Doesn't matter what you want. However we now seem to be completely off topic. So best get back to that, eh.

It seems the topic has been pretty much done to death.

[malt25]

Mods.... don't you think we've all suffered this rubbish long enough ? Commonsense & logic finished many, many pages back. We're now just into childish banter. No matter what each member's viewpoint might be, are we achieving anything letting this personal bickering continue ?

How about closing this until new facts become available.

Just a thought.

[canuckamuck]

What Blues problem is, is that he doesn't believe it is possible to determine whether or not a person is an dangerous character until that person does something illegal. It is a good thing he is not in charge of national security anywhere. Criminal association is meaningless apparently. Perhaps we should also offer visas to members of ISIS if it can be proved they have committed no crimes. No record no problem, come on in boys.

[Time Traveller]

Why should his family have their whole life disrupted because of a presumption.

He has not been convicted of anything.

Yeah, he was not convicted of anything, but neither was Bin Laden convicted of anything either dude.

Pretty sure you don't need a conviction to identify who the bad guys are. Good riddance to bad trash. If this is a problem for his family, then his wife should have taken more care in selecting a better quality husband

[giddyup]

Mods.... don't you think we've all suffered this rubbish long enough ? Commonsense & logic finished many, many pages back. We're now just into childish banter. No matter what each member's viewpoint might be, are we achieving anything letting this personal bickering continue ?

How about closing this until new facts become available.

Just a thought.

Here's a tip. If you are bored with the topic, don't read it or contribute to it. There are many Thai Visa forums to choose from with a multitude of topics. You aren't the arbitrator of how long a post should run.

[Bluespunk]

What Blues problem is, is that he doesn't believe it is possible to determine whether or not a person is an dangerous character until that person does something illegal. It is a good thing he is not in charge of national security anywhere. Criminal association is meaningless apparently. Perhaps we should also offer visas to members of ISIS if it can be proved they have committed no crimes. No record no problem, come on in boys.

What is my problem?

No problem just a point of view that the way his visa renewal was refused was wrong.

I accept it's legal, but that doesn't make it right in my opinion.

Simple really.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Bluespunk

[giddyup]

Are the guys wife and kids Aussy citizens....?

If the guy ain't a citizen and is KNOWN to be involved in stuff, is on Aussy RADAR then they have every right to deny entry back to Auss, one less to spend tax payers money on.

I don't know HIS story, was he employed, paid taxes etc..Any one know...?

He was a Bandido, yes, he had a job flipping burgers at Burger King. Part-time he bashed people and helped manufacture and distribute speed.

[malt25]

Mods.... don't you think we've all suffered this rubbish long enough ? Commonsense & logic finished many, many pages back. We're now just into childish banter. No matter what each member's viewpoint might be, are we achieving anything letting this personal bickering continue ?

How about closing this until new facts become available.

Just a thought.

Here's a tip. If you are bored with the topic, don't read it or contribute to it. There are many Thai Visa forums to choose from with a multitude of topics. You aren't the arbitrator of how long a post should run.

Here's a tip for you. There's a PM option for those of you that must continue pointless banter.

[giddyup]

Mods.... don't you think we've all suffered this rubbish long enough ? Commonsense & logic finished many, many pages back. We're now just into childish banter. No matter what each member's viewpoint might be, are we achieving anything letting this personal bickering continue ?

How about closing this until new facts become available.

Just a thought.

Here's a tip. If you are bored with the topic, don't read it or contribute to it. There are many Thai Visa forums to choose from with a multitude of topics. You aren't the arbitrator of how long a post should run.

Here's a tip for you. There's a PM option for those of you that must continue pointless banter.

Who decides it's pointless. You?

[Walter Travolta]

It is nice to see how many criminal sympathizers we have on board, not surprising considering the expat community here has an above average content of societal underclass. Also the lib's are just being true to their worldview that no one should ever be judged.

I am confident that if you put the matter of this man's visa to a vote in Australia you would see an overwhelming majority vote to refuse it. So in this case the government is representing its constituents well, and should be commended.

I must admit I was surprised at the number of sympathisers, all crying "wot about his hooman rights", with no thought to the hundreds of lives he's helped destroy by peddling poisons to Australia's youth, or the people he's bashed in his role as the club enforcer. "But he ain't been found guilty of nuttin" I hear them cry. He doesn't have to be, guilty of being a member of a criminal enterprise, that's good enough for me.

Just like the 2 executed in Indo giddyup. I rest my case - you are a hypocrite. What about all the lives they destroyed by peddling their poisons, yet YOU talk about them being reformed characters

I knew you were a joke and now you have just proved it. Maybe you are just anti-english because you bite at any convict joke, you are hell bent on trying to convince everyone this bloke is the father of the devil, yet you back the Indo 2 to be spared. You are so transparent

I didn't say that they should be released, I just said I was against the death penalty. However, as I pointed out, it's their country, they can do as they wish. I can disagree with the law, but I don't expect them to change it. Is Mr Roach going to be executed, spend the rest of his life in prison? No. So, I'm being a hypocrite because I agree with him being refused entry into Australia? Sorry, fail.

and where did I accuse you of saying they should be released? I said you wanted their lives spared so twisting what I said to defend your hypocrisy regarding cherry picking who is bad for dealing drugs is an epic fail on your part

Also who mentioned this Roach bloke is gonna face a death penalty? Again changing the lines of what I said does not trick me

As far as your argument with Bluespunk goes, I go with you on that, AUS has the right to let in who they deem fit and they dont see this fella as someone they want in AUS. I have mentioned that on a previous occasion because if that was a foreigner applying for a visa for the UK, i would ask why if they let him in. So unlike you, Im not a hypocrite and if you dont believe me that you are, read your comments on page 18 and see how they look to the viewer?? You come across as making out this Roach guy is a terrible man for dishing out drugs and ruining the lives of many families, yet you are not as aggrerssive towards you compatriots who did the same thing?? I suggest you take your aussie hat off (with or without corks dangling from it) and realise you have double standards in this subject

[RigPig]

Bluespunk, you and I are often on the same page, but I really don't understand you on this one. Australian society regards the Bandidos as a criminal organisation - few seem to disagree, therefore the majority back sanctions against the group. That includes surveillance and questions of legal domesticity of non-Aust members. The Bandidos are more than just a threat - they have already been proven to be a menace to society, but are much smarter about being caught these days. Roach openly acknowledges his membership of this criminal group, therefore should be aware he is vulnerable and likely at any time to be removed from Aust society under that society's rules of acceptable standards for non-Aust residents.

There are many reasons to deny entry. Sometimes those reasons are not even explained, as many Thai women well know. In this case there is a man with proven connections to a subversive group that has evil intentions for society. That is potent enough, not whether he has been convicted of a crime. The only question in my mind in respect of his civil rights is why it took so long, and why didn't they handle it in the form of a properly organised expulsion rather than wait for him to go overseas (somewhat cowardly, in my opinion).

He's been living there for 24 years and has children.

He has been convicted of nothing.

If they want rid then do so by convicting him of something.

He's not a tourist nor is he a recent arrival.

He's grown up in the country and therefore should be at least entitled to a trial or hearing, with representation.

If he's guilty of something then <deleted> him, expel him.

But to do it like this, that's wrong.

Stop making us all laugh Bluey, try just posting something derogatory about you know who or you know what and see what kind of a trial you get before you are shown the door here (if you are lucky that is and not immediately banged-up).

It comes down to this "better that one hundred inocent Bandido's are denied entry to Oz (or booted out) than One guilty one is allowed in (or allowed to remain)" without any evidence other than that they are proven Bandido's (or ets).

Don't like it, let them stop them selling drugs/guns/Thai women/etc and live like angels. No problems. No need to winge.

Don't see why they can't just ditch the monica and live like normal oz crims (the guilty one's that is). No bad images. No problems. No need to winge.

But if you continue to insist on fair trials for all, why don't you swap to the Yingluck forum?

I forgot to add that they could try the North Korean option for undesirables, "anti-aircraft guns at dawn".

So how would you feel if I said ¨It comes down to this "better that one hundred inocent Muslims are denied entry to Oz (or booted out) than One guilty one is allowed in (or allowed to remain)" without any evidence other than that they are proven Muslims (or ets).¨

It seems to fit in the current climate.

I guess if you are Anti- Muslim you would be p!ssed the government isn´t using these laws to get them all deported.

If you are pro- Muslim I guess you will be p!ssed if the government did it.

It could be argued that the terrorist threat (the same reason they have used to encroach on many of your rights, which have been removed) and affiliation with these people warrant their complete expulsion, especially using your argument above.

Or is it that the ¨gang¨ in question is too big for the government to handle and even they fear the repercussions...

And I am not trying to turn this thread into a religious debate, I only used Muslims as an example of why these laws / rules are wrong. It is in effect Article 44 of the imigration act IMO

[Walter Travolta]

Bluespunk, you and I are often on the same page, but I really don't understand you on this one. Australian society regards the Bandidos as a criminal organisation - few seem to disagree, therefore the majority back sanctions against the group. That includes surveillance and questions of legal domesticity of non-Aust members. The Bandidos are more than just a threat - they have already been proven to be a menace to society, but are much smarter about being caught these days. Roach openly acknowledges his membership of this criminal group, therefore should be aware he is vulnerable and likely at any time to be removed from Aust society under that society's rules of acceptable standards for non-Aust residents.

There are many reasons to deny entry. Sometimes those reasons are not even explained, as many Thai women well know. In this case there is a man with proven connections to a subversive group that has evil intentions for society. That is potent enough, not whether he has been convicted of a crime. The only question in my mind in respect of his civil rights is why it took so long, and why didn't they handle it in the form of a properly organised expulsion rather than wait for him to go overseas (somewhat cowardly, in my opinion).

He's been living there for 24 years and has children.

He has been convicted of nothing.

If they want rid then do so by convicting him of something.

He's not a tourist nor is he a recent arrival.

He's grown up in the country and therefore should be at least entitled to a trial or hearing, with representation.

If he's guilty of something then <deleted> him, expel him.

But to do it like this, that's wrong.

Stop making us all laugh Bluey, try just posting something derogatory about you know who or you know what and see what kind of a trial you get before you are shown the door here (if you are lucky that is and not immediately banged-up).

It comes down to this "better that one hundred inocent Bandido's are denied entry to Oz (or booted out) than One guilty one is allowed in (or allowed to remain)" without any evidence other than that they are proven Bandido's (or ets).

Don't like it, let them stop them selling drugs/guns/Thai women/etc and live like angels. No problems. No need to winge.

Don't see why they can't just ditch the monica and live like normal oz crims (the guilty one's that is). No bad images. No problems. No need to winge.

But if you continue to insist on fair trials for all, why don't you swap to the Yingluck forum?

I forgot to add that they could try the North Korean option for undesirables, "anti-aircraft guns at dawn".

So how would you feel if I said ¨It comes down to this "better that one hundred inocent Muslims are denied entry to Oz (or booted out) than One guilty one is allowed in (or allowed to remain)" without any evidence other than that they are proven Muslims (or ets).¨

It seems to fit in the current climate.

I guess if you are Anti- Muslim you would be p!ssed the government isn´t using these laws to get them all deported.

If you are pro- Muslim I guess you will be p!ssed if the government did it.

It could be argued that the terrorist threat (the same reason they have used to encroach on many of your rights, which have been removed) and affiliation with these people warrant their complete expulsion, especially using your argument above.

Or is it that the ¨gang¨ in question is too big for the government to handle and even they fear the repercussions...

And I am not trying to turn this thread into a religious debate, I only used Muslims as an example of why these laws / rules are wrong. It is in effect Article 44 of the imigration act IMO

agreed

https://www.facebook.com/SkyNewsAustralia/videos/vb.57886636727/10152878170571728/?type=2&theater

[giddyup]

I suggest you take your aussie hat off (with or without corks dangling from it) and realise you have double standards in this subject

You do know not every Aussie looks like Crocodile Dundee? No double standards, being against the death penalty doesn't mean I didn't think they shouldn't be punished. You are flogging a dead horse here trying to score some points.

[neverdie]

The events in Waco yesterday would come as no surprise to Australians: a similar thing happened in Sydney a number of years ago in the carpark of a pub/shopping centre, as well as the shooting of innocent bystanders in Melbourne in 2013.

These bikie gangs control large parts of the drug trade ( manufacture, importation, distribution), money laundering, "security", internet fraud.

They are not some old style rough'n'tough types but low-life scumbags

Milperra Bikie Massacre 1984. The good old days, some good old police work got a Pile of murder and manslaughter convictions out of that.

It happened on Father's Day . Seems like yesterday

Scumbags !

Yeah and well done on this job too, if only they could get rid of a few more thousand of these lowlife douchebags

Edited May 20, 2015 by neverdie

[Blackfox]

Online Australian Broadcasting Corporation have a report today of government spending to counter the increased use of ice.

If you really want to play, then the house eventually wins.

They're a bad group, The Bandido's, and anyone aligned to them should feel the full force of the law.

As an Australian tax payer living in Thailand, I'm damn happy the government have him out, and to stay out with no cost to the public.

You're not Australian Roach, so you can now piss off.

The house just won.

Deal with it.

[Walter Travolta]

Yep flogging you - now giddyup

[giddyup]

Yep flogging you - now giddyup

Sad.

[neverdie]

The only good OMCG member is a dead OMCG member.

Hopefully this guy ends up in the sewer back in old blighty, where he deserves to be!

Edited May 20, 2015 by neverdie

[RigPig]

He's been living there for 24 years and has children.

He has been convicted of nothing.

If they want rid then do so by convicting him of something.

He's not a tourist nor is he a recent arrival.

He's grown up in the country and therefore should be at least entitled to a trial or hearing, with representation.

If he's guilty of something then <deleted> him, expel him.

But to do it like this, that's wrong.

Stop making us all laugh Bluey, try just posting something derogatory about you know who or you know what and see what kind of a trial you get before you are shown the door here (if you are lucky that is and not immediately banged-up).

It comes down to this "better that one hundred inocent Bandido's are denied entry to Oz (or booted out) than One guilty one is allowed in (or allowed to remain)" without any evidence other than that they are proven Bandido's (or ets).

Don't like it, let them stop them selling drugs/guns/Thai women/etc and live like angels. No problems. No need to winge.

Don't see why they can't just ditch the monica and live like normal oz crims (the guilty one's that is). No bad images. No problems. No need to winge.

But if you continue to insist on fair trials for all, why don't you swap to the Yingluck forum?

I forgot to add that they could try the North Korean option for undesirables, "anti-aircraft guns at dawn".

So how would you feel if I said ¨It comes down to this "better that one hundred inocent Muslims are denied entry to Oz (or booted out) than One guilty one is allowed in (or allowed to remain)" without any evidence other than that they are proven Muslims (or ets).¨

It seems to fit in the current climate.

I guess if you are Anti- Muslim you would be p!ssed the government isn´t using these laws to get them all deported.

If you are pro- Muslim I guess you will be p!ssed if the government did it.

It could be argued that the terrorist threat (the same reason they have used to encroach on many of your rights, which have been removed) and affiliation with these people warrant their complete expulsion, especially using your argument above.

Or is it that the ¨gang¨ in question is too big for the government to handle and even they fear the repercussions...

And I am not trying to turn this thread into a religious debate, I only used Muslims as an example of why these laws / rules are wrong. It is in effect Article 44 of the imigration act IMO

agreed

https://www.facebook.com/SkyNewsAustralia/videos/vb.57886636727/10152878170571728/?type=2&theater

The thing is, I am not worried about the ones that leave the country to go fight somewhere, it´s the ones that don´t that are the worry. Judging how these terrorist cells seem to operate, using Mosques as part of their under cover operations. We should exel all of them, just to be sure....

¨Beter to deny 10,000 innocent Muslims........¨ according to some people.

Once again I iterate, this is only to DEMONSTRATE why this is wrong, stop thinking about the tattooed biker and think about the implications laws like this can have.............