Comments on: When the ACCC is used as a tool by an enemy http://www.liligans.com/index.php/2009/04/27/when-the-accc-is-used-as-a-tool-by-an-enemy/ So you think you're cultured? Fri, 03 Feb 2012 05:49:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Lili http://www.liligans.com/index.php/2009/04/27/when-the-accc-is-used-as-a-tool-by-an-enemy/comment-page-1/#comment-450 Lili Fri, 01 May 2009 06:01:37 +0000 http://www.liligans.com/?p=725#comment-450 very funny very funny

]]> By: Jeremy http://www.liligans.com/index.php/2009/04/27/when-the-accc-is-used-as-a-tool-by-an-enemy/comment-page-1/#comment-449 Jeremy Fri, 01 May 2009 00:05:37 +0000 http://www.liligans.com/?p=725#comment-449 Ah yes, doubtless Graeme Samuel's crack team of consumer police are planning dawn raids and arrests of all the attendees as we speak. Do you even know what the ACCC does? Anyway, as for your new idea of 'trial by funeral attendance numbers', don't you think we should exclude the people who are beneficiaries of Pratt's philanthropy and political donations? Ah yes, doubtless Graeme Samuel’s crack team of consumer police are planning dawn raids and arrests of all the attendees as we speak. Do you even know what the ACCC does?

Anyway, as for your new idea of ‘trial by funeral attendance numbers’, don’t you think we should exclude the people who are beneficiaries of Pratt’s philanthropy and political donations?

]]> By: Lili http://www.liligans.com/index.php/2009/04/27/when-the-accc-is-used-as-a-tool-by-an-enemy/comment-page-1/#comment-448 Lili Thu, 30 Apr 2009 23:05:57 +0000 http://www.liligans.com/?p=725#comment-448 I am definitely tough on crime, but in my opinion, paying a fine of $36 million is enough, especially if he was led to believe that the ACCC would leave him alone. He should have known better than to trust a certain enemy of his, but there you are. In that he made a mistake. It is probable his staff was guilty of price fixing, and he certainly was punished for that. The last few years have been Hell for him. When you look at his entire life, you still have to say that he did more good than bad, especially in funding so much research, education etc. He was a great benefactor. Not a perfect man, but then who is? The interesting thing about Pratt's funeral is how many people who could later be targeted by Samuel's team still turned up to support Pratt. And how many spoke up to say he had been hounded to his death. Had they decided that Pratt had been a criminal, the way that you suggest, I don't think that they would have dared turn up in case the watchdog was watching. I am definitely tough on crime, but in my opinion, paying a fine of $36 million is enough, especially if he was led to believe that the ACCC would leave him alone. He should have known better than to trust a certain enemy of his, but there you are. In that he made a mistake. It is probable his staff was guilty of price fixing, and he certainly was punished for that. The last few years have been Hell for him. When you look at his entire life, you still have to say that he did more good than bad, especially in funding so much research, education etc. He was a great benefactor. Not a perfect man, but then who is?
The interesting thing about Pratt’s funeral is how many people who could later be targeted by Samuel’s team still turned up to support Pratt. And how many spoke up to say he had been hounded to his death. Had they decided that Pratt had been a criminal, the way that you suggest, I don’t think that they would have dared turn up in case the watchdog was watching.

]]> By: Jeremy http://www.liligans.com/index.php/2009/04/27/when-the-accc-is-used-as-a-tool-by-an-enemy/comment-page-1/#comment-446 Jeremy Thu, 30 Apr 2009 21:13:34 +0000 http://www.liligans.com/?p=725#comment-446 No, Pratt's lawyers SAID they wanted to continue his trial to prove his innocence. What they actually wanted is another matter. Why do you think they took every legal step they could to delay or prevent their client's day in court? Strange how your blog's 'tough on crime' stance has suddenly disappeared... No, Pratt’s lawyers SAID they wanted to continue his trial to prove his innocence. What they actually wanted is another matter. Why do you think they took every legal step they could to delay or prevent their client’s day in court?

Strange how your blog’s ‘tough on crime’ stance has suddenly disappeared…

]]> By: Lili http://www.liligans.com/index.php/2009/04/27/when-the-accc-is-used-as-a-tool-by-an-enemy/comment-page-1/#comment-443 Lili Thu, 30 Apr 2009 07:35:56 +0000 http://www.liligans.com/?p=725#comment-443 Pratt's lawyers actually wanted to continue the trial because they were convinced that they could prove his innocence. The admission he made to the ACCC was to put an end to the whole business. Pratt had been led to believe (untruthfully as it turns out) that that would be the end of it. He did pay an enormous fine and then the ACCC led by Samuel decided to get him anyway. They were the ones who betrayed him. As you can see by the turnout at Pratt's funeral, many people thought he had been treated badly. And yes, I still maintain that he was extremely generous to Australia and for that he should be praised. Pratt’s lawyers actually wanted to continue the trial because they were convinced that they could prove his innocence. The admission he made to the ACCC was to put an end to the whole business. Pratt had been led to believe (untruthfully as it turns out) that that would be the end of it. He did pay an enormous fine and then the ACCC led by Samuel decided to get him anyway. They were the ones who betrayed him. As you can see by the turnout at Pratt’s funeral, many people thought he had been treated badly. And yes, I still maintain that he was extremely generous to Australia and for that he should be praised.

]]> By: Jeremy http://www.liligans.com/index.php/2009/04/27/when-the-accc-is-used-as-a-tool-by-an-enemy/comment-page-1/#comment-442 Jeremy Thu, 30 Apr 2009 00:54:27 +0000 http://www.liligans.com/?p=725#comment-442 When Pratt was asked in court about whether or not he had a meeting with the Amcor boss Russel Jones (as Jones had testified), Pratt said 'He's lying'. Later on, as the evidence mounted, Pratt's lawyers offered to admit to the collusion, but added that they wanted to minimise Pratt's admissions because Pratt had promised John Howard that he hadn't colluded with Amcor. A man who is willing to falsely call another man a liar and to lie to a Prime Minister deserves to be remembered for more than just his 'generosity'. When Pratt was asked in court about whether or not he had a meeting with the Amcor boss Russel Jones (as Jones had testified), Pratt said ‘He’s lying’. Later on, as the evidence mounted, Pratt’s lawyers offered to admit to the collusion, but added that they wanted to minimise Pratt’s admissions because Pratt had promised John Howard that he hadn’t colluded with Amcor.

A man who is willing to falsely call another man a liar and to lie to a Prime Minister deserves to be remembered for more than just his ‘generosity’.

]]>