Homeless man fined $3250 over plane bomb 'joke'



A homeless Melbourne man has been fined more than $3000 for suggesting to a plane crew he had bombs and weapons in his hand luggage.

Jason Brown was on his way from Melbourne to be reunited with his family in Western Australia when he was taken off a Virgin Blue flight on Monday night after boarding in Adelaide for the final leg of his journey.

Prosecutor Anna Brebner told the Adelaide Magistrates Court on Tuesday that when the 39-year-old boarded the plane the cabin crew noticed some unusual behaviour.

Advertisement: Story continues below
She said that when Brown was asked to put his shoulder bag under the seat rather than on the seat next to him he responded by saying, "leave it there, maybe it's got weapons and bombs in it".

Ms Brebner said Brown was then told he would be removed from the plane in line with airline policies with his comments regarded as a threat to the aircraft.

The prosecutor said there were 125 passengers on board at the time and the offending was serious given the community's sensitivity to threats of terrorist activity.

Duty solicitor Stephen Law said Brown, who suffers from schizophrenia, had lived in Melbourne for seven years but had been homeless for the past 12 months after losing his job.

Brown had saved up money from a disability pension to afford the flight to Perth to be reunited with his parents.

Mr Law said his client's comments were made as a joke but he now appreciated that it was the type of joke that should never be told.

Magistrate Joseph Baldino told Brown his assertions might have been empty threats as there were no bombs or weapons in the bag.

But he said the authorities were well within their rights to take the comments seriously.

Mr Baldino said the offending would have created alarm and fear in the minds of the passengers who also had their travel delayed.

"This is not a trivial offence by any stretch of the imagination," he said.

The magistrate imposed a $3250 fine and also ordered Brown to pay court and prosecution costs.



http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/homeless-man-fined-3250-over-plane-bomb-joke-20110216-1aw8l.html


Is financial punishment skewed in favour of the rich.

For example


D.S.P $330 wk
Average Weekly Wage $1400 wk
Ultra rich Weekly income ... ?

A $3000 plus fine inflicts more pain onto a low income earner. How is this fair, or is court only for punishing low income earners.

Surely fines should be scaling to take income into the equal to level the playing field.

Agree?

If you can`t pay the fine, don`t do the crime.

mavisdavis wrote on Feb 16^th, 2011 at 7:59pm:

If you can`t pay the fine, don`t do the crime.

Sure, no argument there. Yet the system is set up to favour the rich over the poor.

How long would it take to pay off a $3000 plus fine when someone is homeless and on about $330 a week.

Compared to someone who could pay the same fine, for the same charge, out of loose change. Where is the punishment for the financially well off person.

____ wrote on Feb 16^th, 2011 at 7:56pm:

Homeless man fined $3250 over plane bomb 'joke' Jason Brown was on his way from Melbourne to be reunited with his family in Western Australia

He can afford to fly (maybe first class) yet he can't afford a fine. Cue the violins.

salad in wrote on Feb 16^th, 2011 at 8:22pm:

____ wrote on Feb 16th, 2011 at 7:56pm: Homeless man fined $3250 over plane bomb 'joke' Jason Brown was on his way from Melbourne to be reunited with his family in Western Australia He can afford to fly (maybe first class) yet he can't afford a fine. Cue the violins.

I am not saying he can or can't afford the fine, I am using him as an example.

The fine is same, if it is a homeless pensioner or the richest person around. How is this level justice. It is skewed to punish low income earners harder and that isn't fair.

I think the judge was using him as an example and not a very good one at that... everyone knows not to do bomb jokes anywhere near an airport letalone on a plane..however this person is an invalid and should be treated as such I think...

I remember a few years back John Singleton I am sure you all know him multi millionaire owns a radio station and race horses amongst other things..

was booked doing about 200 k in his Bentley when he went to court he pleaded not guilty as he forgot to put his auto speed on.. and the judge agreed with him saying those Bentley are so smooth to drive its very easy to go over the limit.. so he let him off no fine or anything...

I wish them luck in getting the fine paid.. its ridiculous and petty but that is our justice system these days.

____ wrote on Feb 16^th, 2011 at 8:37pm:

salad in wrote on Feb 16th, 2011 at 8:22pm: ____ wrote on Feb 16th, 2011 at 7:56pm: Homeless man fined $3250 over plane bomb 'joke' Jason Brown was on his way from Melbourne to be reunited with his family in Western Australia He can afford to fly (maybe first class) yet he can't afford a fine. Cue the violins. I am not saying he can or can't afford the fine, I am using him as an example. The fine is same, if it is a homeless pensioner or the richest person around. How is this level justice. It is skewed to punish low income earners harder and that isn't fair.

On being found "guilty", I've always believed a magistrate should issue a fine of X percentage of the annual income of the defendant

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 16^th, 2011 at 8:51pm:

____ wrote on Feb 16th, 2011 at 8:37pm: salad in wrote on Feb 16th, 2011 at 8:22pm: ____ wrote on Feb 16th, 2011 at 7:56pm: Homeless man fined $3250 over plane bomb 'joke' Jason Brown was on his way from Melbourne to be reunited with his family in Western Australia He can afford to fly (maybe first class) yet he can't afford a fine. Cue the violins. I am not saying he can or can't afford the fine, I am using him as an example. The fine is same, if it is a homeless pensioner or the richest person around. How is this level justice. It is skewed to punish low income earners harder and that isn't fair. On being found "guilty", I've always believed a magistrate should issue a fine of X percentage of the annual income of the defendant

Money means nothing. Hard labour.

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 16^th, 2011 at 8:51pm:

____ wrote on Feb 16th, 2011 at 8:37pm: salad in wrote on Feb 16th, 2011 at 8:22pm: ____ wrote on Feb 16th, 2011 at 7:56pm: Homeless man fined $3250 over plane bomb 'joke' Jason Brown was on his way from Melbourne to be reunited with his family in Western Australia He can afford to fly (maybe first class) yet he can't afford a fine. Cue the violins. I am not saying he can or can't afford the fine, I am using him as an example. The fine is same, if it is a homeless pensioner or the richest person around. How is this level justice. It is skewed to punish low income earners harder and that isn't fair. On being found "guilty", I've always believed a magistrate should issue a fine of X percentage of the annual income of the defendant

and if he has NO income???

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 16^th, 2011 at 9:17pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 16th, 2011 at 8:51pm: ____ wrote on Feb 16th, 2011 at 8:37pm: salad in wrote on Feb 16th, 2011 at 8:22pm: ____ wrote on Feb 16th, 2011 at 7:56pm: Homeless man fined $3250 over plane bomb 'joke' Jason Brown was on his way from Melbourne to be reunited with his family in Western Australia He can afford to fly (maybe first class) yet he can't afford a fine. Cue the violins. I am not saying he can or can't afford the fine, I am using him as an example. The fine is same, if it is a homeless pensioner or the richest person around. How is this level justice. It is skewed to punish low income earners harder and that isn't fair. On being found "guilty", I've always believed a magistrate should issue a fine of X percentage of the annual income of the defendant and if he has NO income???

throw away the key by the sound of some people.

I am as a disabled person taking the Government to the High court of Australia to refuse and fight the carbon tax - please support my fight when you hear about this and remember me in your prayers.  We're not gonna take it! >:(

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WT1LXhgXPWs 8-)

____ wrote on Feb 16^th, 2011 at 8:37pm:

I am not saying he can or can't afford the fine, I am using him as an example. The fine is same, if it is a homeless pensioner or the richest person around. How is this level justice. It is skewed to punish low income earners harder and that isn't fair.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

When I set out in my motor vehicle I am aware that exceeding the speed limit might see me fined $XXX. If I fail to obey a traffic light I may be fined $XXX. If I make stupid remarks on a flight which may cause alarm I may be removed from that flight and fined for making threats. An inspection of the contents of my wallet and bank account would not normally be done prior to my sentencing.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

<<On being found "guilty", I've always believed a magistrate should issue a fine of X percentage of the annual income of the defendant






and if he has NO income??? >>


You mean like buzz?

____ wrote on Feb 16^th, 2011 at 7:56pm:

Homeless man fined $3250 over plane bomb 'joke' A homeless Melbourne man has been fined more than $3000 for suggesting to a plane crew he had bombs and weapons in his hand luggage. Jason Brown was on his way from Melbourne to be reunited with his family in Western Australia when he was taken off a Virgin Blue flight on Monday night after boarding in Adelaide for the final leg of his journey. Prosecutor Anna Brebner told the Adelaide Magistrates Court on Tuesday that when the 39-year-old boarded the plane the cabin crew noticed some unusual behaviour. Advertisement: Story continues below She said that when Brown was asked to put his shoulder bag under the seat rather than on the seat next to him he responded by saying, "leave it there, maybe it's got weapons and bombs in it". Ms Brebner said Brown was then told he would be removed from the plane in line with airline policies with his comments regarded as a threat to the aircraft. The prosecutor said there were 125 passengers on board at the time and the offending was serious given the community's sensitivity to threats of terrorist activity. Duty solicitor Stephen Law said Brown, who suffers from schizophrenia, had lived in Melbourne for seven years but had been homeless for the past 12 months after losing his job. Brown had saved up money from a disability pension to afford the flight to Perth to be reunited with his parents. Mr Law said his client's comments were made as a joke but he now appreciated that it was the type of joke that should never be told. Magistrate Joseph Baldino told Brown his assertions might have been empty threats as there were no bombs or weapons in the bag. But he said the authorities were well within their rights to take the comments seriously. Mr Baldino said the offending would have created alarm and fear in the minds of the passengers who also had their travel delayed. "This is not a trivial offence by any stretch of the imagination," he said. The magistrate imposed a $3250 fine and also ordered Brown to pay court and prosecution costs. http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/homeless-man-fined-3250-over-plane-bomb-joke-20110216-1aw8l.html Is financial punishment skewed in favour of the rich. For example D.S.P $330 wk Average Weekly Wage $1400 wk Ultra rich Weekly income ... ? A $3000 plus fine inflicts more pain onto a low income earner. How is this fair, or is court only for punishing low income earners. Surely fines should be scaling to take income into the equal to level the playing field. Agree?

Stupid is as stupid does.
And who cares about 'levelling the playing field', this isn't a game.
Perhaps the nutter should have engaged brain before engaging mouth.
If he was ever under any illusion that authorities appreciate these sort of 'jokes', he knows different now.

Q Can A Homeless Pensioner Afford A $3250 Fine

A No but an illegal immigrant can afford to travel Xmas Is - Sydney for free

Everyone knows airlines are paranoid, and riduclously sensitive to this kind of thing.

It might be ridiculous, but it's well known what happens - It's his own fault, so that's gonna cost him an awful lot of recycled cans.

... wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 11:58am:

Everyone knows airlines are paranoid, and riduclously sensitive to this kind of thing. It might be ridiculous, but it's well known what happens - It's his own fault, so that's gonna cost him an awful lot of recycled cans.

65,000 to be exact when working on 5c a tin.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 12:03pm:

... wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 11:58am: Everyone knows airlines are paranoid, and riduclously sensitive to this kind of thing. It might be ridiculous, but it's well known what happens - It's his own fault, so that's gonna cost him an awful lot of recycled cans. 65,000 to be exact when working on 5c a tin.

The Governments hate agenda is clearly outlined in the McClure report of 2000 - they plan to force homeless people into reeducation programs and impose mutual obligation breech penalties on them to force them to comply and find work. 8-)
http://www.workplace.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/97EF2B51-F393-4FCA-AD97-64CCCDFE5258/0/McClureReport2000_Final.pdf 8-)

Anyone who states this to an airline deserves to be fined the full amount.

I don't care if they earn $10 per year or $10,000,000 per year.

An idiot is an idiot, no matter what he earns or where he lives.

Prevailing wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 2:01pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 12:03pm: ... wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 11:58am: Everyone knows airlines are paranoid, and riduclously sensitive to this kind of thing. It might be ridiculous, but it's well known what happens - It's his own fault, so that's gonna cost him an awful lot of recycled cans. 65,000 to be exact when working on 5c a tin. The Governments hate agenda is clearly outlined in the McClure report of 2000 - they plan to force homeless people into reeducation programs and impose mutual obligation breech penalties on them to force them to comply and find work. 8-) http://www.workplace.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/97EF2B51-F393-4FCA-AD97-64CCCDFE5258/0/McClureReport2000_Final.pdf 8-)

What 'hate' agenda is that then?
Would the government demonstrate their love for the homeless any more by leaving them to rot forever in our parks with no hope for the future?
I don't think so.
They are in the parks because they have nothing left to give and nothing left to lose so they are at rock bottom.
At least 'someone' is going to take charge and give these people the lift up they so desperately need.
It's about time the government did something about this issue.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 2:15pm:

Prevailing wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 2:01pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 12:03pm: ... wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 11:58am: Everyone knows airlines are paranoid, and riduclously sensitive to this kind of thing. It might be ridiculous, but it's well known what happens - It's his own fault, so that's gonna cost him an awful lot of recycled cans. 65,000 to be exact when working on 5c a tin. The Governments hate agenda is clearly outlined in the McClure report of 2000 - they plan to force homeless people into reeducation programs and impose mutual obligation breech penalties on them to force them to comply and find work. 8-) http://www.workplace.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/97EF2B51-F393-4FCA-AD97-64CCCDFE5258/0/McClureReport2000_Final.pdf 8-) What 'hate' agenda is that then? Would the government demonstrate their love for the homeless any more by leaving them to rot forever in our parks with no hope for the future? I don't think so. They are in the parks because they have nothing left to give and nothing left to lose so they are at rock bottom. At least 'someone' is going to take charge and give these people the lift up they so desperately need. It's about time the government did something about this issue.

The Homeless have no greater entities to fear than the Government Beauracracies and corporations all seeking to financially benefit from the exploitation of the poor, when they are not actually exterminating them. 8-)

The Government is responsible for these people being homeless - its their fault.

Forced labour and reeducation of the Homeless constitutes clear breech opf the Nuremberg Principles.

http://infao5501.ag5.mpi-sb.mpg.de:8080/topx/archive09?link=/362/192362.xml&style

Prevailing wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 2:27pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 2:15pm: Prevailing wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 2:01pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 12:03pm: ... wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 11:58am: Everyone knows airlines are paranoid, and riduclously sensitive to this kind of thing. It might be ridiculous, but it's well known what happens - It's his own fault, so that's gonna cost him an awful lot of recycled cans. 65,000 to be exact when working on 5c a tin. The Governments hate agenda is clearly outlined in the McClure report of 2000 - they plan to force homeless people into reeducation programs and impose mutual obligation breech penalties on them to force them to comply and find work. 8-) http://www.workplace.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/97EF2B51-F393-4FCA-AD97-64CCCDFE5258/0/McClureReport2000_Final.pdf 8-) What 'hate' agenda is that then? Would the government demonstrate their love for the homeless any more by leaving them to rot forever in our parks with no hope for the future? I don't think so. They are in the parks because they have nothing left to give and nothing left to lose so they are at rock bottom. At least 'someone' is going to take charge and give these people the lift up they so desperately need. It's about time the government did something about this issue. The Government is responsible for these people being homeless - its their fault. http://infao5501.ag5.mpi-sb.mpg.de:8080/topx/archive09?link=/362/192362.xml&style

So let them fix it.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 2:43pm:

Prevailing wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 2:27pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 2:15pm: Prevailing wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 2:01pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 12:03pm: ... wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 11:58am: Everyone knows airlines are paranoid, and riduclously sensitive to this kind of thing. It might be ridiculous, but it's well known what happens - It's his own fault, so that's gonna cost him an awful lot of recycled cans. 65,000 to be exact when working on 5c a tin. The Governments hate agenda is clearly outlined in the McClure report of 2000 - they plan to force homeless people into reeducation programs and impose mutual obligation breech penalties on them to force them to comply and find work. 8-) http://www.workplace.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/97EF2B51-F393-4FCA-AD97-64CCCDFE5258/0/McClureReport2000_Final.pdf 8-) What 'hate' agenda is that then? Would the government demonstrate their love for the homeless any more by leaving them to rot forever in our parks with no hope for the future? I don't think so. They are in the parks because they have nothing left to give and nothing left to lose so they are at rock bottom. At least 'someone' is going to take charge and give these people the lift up they so desperately need. It's about time the government did something about this issue. The Government is responsible for these people being homeless - its their fault. http://infao5501.ag5.mpi-sb.mpg.de:8080/topx/archive09?link=/362/192362.xml&style So let them fix it.

Oh really and dont you think the Homeless have some choice as to whether or not they will comply with their persecutors? :)

Avail yourself of the Nuremberg Principles which clearly outlines the obligations of the state under international law.
:)

Prevailing wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 2:50pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 2:43pm: Prevailing wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 2:27pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 2:15pm: Prevailing wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 2:01pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 12:03pm: ... wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 11:58am: Everyone knows airlines are paranoid, and riduclously sensitive to this kind of thing. It might be ridiculous, but it's well known what happens - It's his own fault, so that's gonna cost him an awful lot of recycled cans. 65,000 to be exact when working on 5c a tin. The Governments hate agenda is clearly outlined in the McClure report of 2000 - they plan to force homeless people into reeducation programs and impose mutual obligation breech penalties on them to force them to comply and find work. 8-) http://www.workplace.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/97EF2B51-F393-4FCA-AD97-64CCCDFE5258/0/McClureReport2000_Final.pdf 8-) What 'hate' agenda is that then? Would the government demonstrate their love for the homeless any more by leaving them to rot forever in our parks with no hope for the future? I don't think so. They are in the parks because they have nothing left to give and nothing left to lose so they are at rock bottom. At least 'someone' is going to take charge and give these people the lift up they so desperately need. It's about time the government did something about this issue. The Government is responsible for these people being homeless - its their fault. http://infao5501.ag5.mpi-sb.mpg.de:8080/topx/archive09?link=/362/192362.xml&style So let them fix it. Oh really and dont you think the Homeless have some choice as to whether or not they will comply with their persecutors? :) Avail yourself of the Nuremberg Principles which clearly outlines the obligations of the state under international law. :)

The homeless have always had a choice to some degree, but many are unable to make a rational decision.
So then it needs to be made for them.
Spending years sleeping rough and eating out of dumpsters really isn't an option.
What does the Nuremburg principles which was derived after WW2 have to do with homeless people?

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 2:56pm:

Prevailing wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 2:50pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 2:43pm: Prevailing wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 2:27pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 2:15pm: Prevailing wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 2:01pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 12:03pm: ... wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 11:58am: Everyone knows airlines are paranoid, and riduclously sensitive to this kind of thing. It might be ridiculous, but it's well known what happens - It's his own fault, so that's gonna cost him an awful lot of recycled cans. 65,000 to be exact when working on 5c a tin. The Governments hate agenda is clearly outlined in the McClure report of 2000 - they plan to force homeless people into reeducation programs and impose mutual obligation breech penalties on them to force them to comply and find work. 8-) http://www.workplace.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/97EF2B51-F393-4FCA-AD97-64CCCDFE5258/0/McClureReport2000_Final.pdf 8-) What 'hate' agenda is that then? Would the government demonstrate their love for the homeless any more by leaving them to rot forever in our parks with no hope for the future? I don't think so. They are in the parks because they have nothing left to give and nothing left to lose so they are at rock bottom. At least 'someone' is going to take charge and give these people the lift up they so desperately need. It's about time the government did something about this issue. The Government is responsible for these people being homeless - its their fault. http://infao5501.ag5.mpi-sb.mpg.de:8080/topx/archive09?link=/362/192362.xml&style So let them fix it. Oh really and dont you think the Homeless have some choice as to whether or not they will comply with their persecutors? :) Avail yourself of the Nuremberg Principles which clearly outlines the obligations of the state under international law. :) The homeless have always had a choice to some degree, but many are unable to make a rational decision. So then it needs to be made for them. Spending years sleeping rough and eating out of dumpsters really isn't an option. What does the Nuremburg principles which was derived after WW2 have to do with homeless people?

Then the state must compensate them for their crimes against them. 8-)

But of course you don't want to actually hear that the state actually owes anybody anything for its actions and policies do you?  Competition policy is fair game eh? except when its on the other foot. ::)

Prevailing wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 3:08pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 2:56pm: Prevailing wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 2:50pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 2:43pm: Prevailing wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 2:27pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 2:15pm: Prevailing wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 2:01pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 12:03pm: ... wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 11:58am: Everyone knows airlines are paranoid, and riduclously sensitive to this kind of thing. It might be ridiculous, but it's well known what happens - It's his own fault, so that's gonna cost him an awful lot of recycled cans. 65,000 to be exact when working on 5c a tin. The Governments hate agenda is clearly outlined in the McClure report of 2000 - they plan to force homeless people into reeducation programs and impose mutual obligation breech penalties on them to force them to comply and find work. 8-) http://www.workplace.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/97EF2B51-F393-4FCA-AD97-64CCCDFE5258/0/McClureReport2000_Final.pdf 8-) What 'hate' agenda is that then? Would the government demonstrate their love for the homeless any more by leaving them to rot forever in our parks with no hope for the future? I don't think so. They are in the parks because they have nothing left to give and nothing left to lose so they are at rock bottom. At least 'someone' is going to take charge and give these people the lift up they so desperately need. It's about time the government did something about this issue. The Government is responsible for these people being homeless - its their fault. http://infao5501.ag5.mpi-sb.mpg.de:8080/topx/archive09?link=/362/192362.xml&style So let them fix it. Oh really and dont you think the Homeless have some choice as to whether or not they will comply with their persecutors? :) Avail yourself of the Nuremberg Principles which clearly outlines the obligations of the state under international law. :) The homeless have always had a choice to some degree, but many are unable to make a rational decision. So then it needs to be made for them. Spending years sleeping rough and eating out of dumpsters really isn't an option. What does the Nuremburg principles which was derived after WW2 have to do with homeless people? Then the state must compensate them for their crimes against them. 8-) But of course you don't want to actually hear that the state actually owes anybody anything for its actions and policies do you?  Competition policy is fair game eh? except when its on the other foot. ::)

The Nuremberg principles were set out to prevent any further atrocities against the homeless, the disabled and mentally ill happening at the hands of the state ever again.  No self respecting untermensch is going to comply with state terrorism and forced labour and reeducation.

Prevailing wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 3:08pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 2:56pm: Prevailing wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 2:50pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 2:43pm: Prevailing wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 2:27pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 2:15pm: Prevailing wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 2:01pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 12:03pm: ... wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 11:58am: Everyone knows airlines are paranoid, and riduclously sensitive to this kind of thing. It might be ridiculous, but it's well known what happens - It's his own fault, so that's gonna cost him an awful lot of recycled cans. 65,000 to be exact when working on 5c a tin. The Governments hate agenda is clearly outlined in the McClure report of 2000 - they plan to force homeless people into reeducation programs and impose mutual obligation breech penalties on them to force them to comply and find work. 8-) http://www.workplace.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/97EF2B51-F393-4FCA-AD97-64CCCDFE5258/0/McClureReport2000_Final.pdf 8-) What 'hate' agenda is that then? Would the government demonstrate their love for the homeless any more by leaving them to rot forever in our parks with no hope for the future? I don't think so. They are in the parks because they have nothing left to give and nothing left to lose so they are at rock bottom. At least 'someone' is going to take charge and give these people the lift up they so desperately need. It's about time the government did something about this issue. The Government is responsible for these people being homeless - its their fault. http://infao5501.ag5.mpi-sb.mpg.de:8080/topx/archive09?link=/362/192362.xml&style So let them fix it. Oh really and dont you think the Homeless have some choice as to whether or not they will comply with their persecutors? :) Avail yourself of the Nuremberg Principles which clearly outlines the obligations of the state under international law. :) The homeless have always had a choice to some degree, but many are unable to make a rational decision. So then it needs to be made for them. Spending years sleeping rough and eating out of dumpsters really isn't an option. What does the Nuremburg principles which was derived after WW2 have to do with homeless people? Then the state must compensate them for their crimes against them. 8-) But of course you don't want to actually hear that the state actually owes anybody anything for its actions and policies do you?  Competition policy is fair game eh? except when its on the other foot. ::)

And the state will compensate them for any crimes proven against them in a court of law.

Prevailing wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 3:22pm:

Prevailing wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 3:08pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 2:56pm: Prevailing wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 2:50pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 2:43pm: Prevailing wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 2:27pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 2:15pm: Prevailing wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 2:01pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 12:03pm: ... wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 11:58am: Everyone knows airlines are paranoid, and riduclously sensitive to this kind of thing. It might be ridiculous, but it's well known what happens - It's his own fault, so that's gonna cost him an awful lot of recycled cans. 65,000 to be exact when working on 5c a tin. The Governments hate agenda is clearly outlined in the McClure report of 2000 - they plan to force homeless people into reeducation programs and impose mutual obligation breech penalties on them to force them to comply and find work. 8-) http://www.workplace.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/97EF2B51-F393-4FCA-AD97-64CCCDFE5258/0/McClureReport2000_Final.pdf 8-) What 'hate' agenda is that then? Would the government demonstrate their love for the homeless any more by leaving them to rot forever in our parks with no hope for the future? I don't think so. They are in the parks because they have nothing left to give and nothing left to lose so they are at rock bottom. At least 'someone' is going to take charge and give these people the lift up they so desperately need. It's about time the government did something about this issue. The Government is responsible for these people being homeless - its their fault. http://infao5501.ag5.mpi-sb.mpg.de:8080/topx/archive09?link=/362/192362.xml&style So let them fix it. Oh really and dont you think the Homeless have some choice as to whether or not they will comply with their persecutors? :) Avail yourself of the Nuremberg Principles which clearly outlines the obligations of the state under international law. :) The homeless have always had a choice to some degree, but many are unable to make a rational decision. So then it needs to be made for them. Spending years sleeping rough and eating out of dumpsters really isn't an option. What does the Nuremburg principles which was derived after WW2 have to do with homeless people? Then the state must compensate them for their crimes against them. 8-) But of course you don't want to actually hear that the state actually owes anybody anything for its actions and policies do you?  Competition policy is fair game eh? except when its on the other foot. ::) The Nuremberg principles were set out to prevent any further atrocities against the homeless, the disabled and mentally ill happening at the hands of the state ever again.  No self respecting untermensch is going to comply with state terrorism and forced labour and reeducation.

So what attrocities would be occurring in the state assisting these people to get on with their lives, considering that they are sleeping rough, and eating out of rubbish bins isn't an option.
It would be an attrocity if the homeless were left to their own devices wouldn't it?
Maintaining the status quo doesn't work for individuals or for society in this case.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 2:13pm:

Anyone who states this to an airline deserves to be fined the full amount. I don't care if they earn $10 per year or $10,000,000 per year. An idiot is an idiot, no matter what he earns or where he lives.

It was schizophrenia, in this person's case
Do you make no concession for mental illness - or only for Thatcher and Reagan ?

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 10:06am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 17th, 2011 at 2:13pm: Anyone who states this to an airline deserves to be fined the full amount. I don't care if they earn $10 per year or $10,000,000 per year. An idiot is an idiot, no matter what he earns or where he lives. It was schizophrenia, in this person's case Do you make no concession for mental illness - or only for Thatcher and Reagan ?

He is an idiot.
If he has schizophrenia he shouldn't be allowed on a passenger airline anyway.
I have no compassion for it.