David Flint shamelessly argues that criticisms of his mate, industrial conman Richard Pratt, are “no more than manifestations of that tall poppy syndrome which afflicts jaded members of the commentariat”.

Pratt’s shameless crime against all Australians who buy things that need cardboard packaging (that cost $34m) is a mere bagatelle, in Flint’s eyes: “Richard Pratt’s offence seems to be in a vague imprimatur he gave en passant to some sort of understanding about prices proposed to his CEO by their competitor, Amcor.” A crime was never so well perfumed.

For Flint, being caught is just an inconvenience: “So it seems that whenever a major player in Australia chats with his chief executive officer, it would be prudent now to have a sharp lawyer present, however dulling that may be to the conviviality of the occasion.” Pass the sherry, old chap.

According to Flint, in future Pratt and his competitor should not “…make the mistake of sealing their conscious parallelism with even a nod or a wink…” because “It would seem obvious where there is a wafer thin distinction between conscious parallelism and price fixing.” In other words when you plan to rip off your customers do it smarter.

In Flint’s world there may be “a good case that in a concentrated market a price fixing arrangement should only constitute a serious offence where it can be shown that prices are, as a result, significantly higher”. Significantly higher? We note that Flint doesn’t bother to make that "good case" or the case to change the law to allow cartels to rip people off with impunity.

And so Flint returns to his “tall poppy” argument. “Richard Pratt may well have crossed the line between conscious parallelism and proscribed price fixing. The line is as artificial as the moral outrage of some in the commentariat whose aggregated contributions to the nation would not be an infinitesimal proportion of Pratt’s. Such is jealousy.”

Flint’s argument is essentially elitist and amoral - the rich ought to be able to rip off ordinary Australians. How else can they get wealthy? Pardon my moral outrage

I can't believe that David is serious about his article, he must know that the only regret Richard has over this matter is the fact that he has been caught and Jeannie is publicy humiliated over it.

I admire your deep devotion to your mates David, but Richard didn't play far and now he has to take his medicine.

Anyone on Centrelink social security benefits that makes a minor mistake gets hounded to the full extent of the rules and regulations of the law.
The ordinary person who is dishonest at work or embezzles also cops the full extent of the legal process and ends up in jail.
But hey Richard Pratt is a good guy---forgive him.
One rule for the rich and powerful and another for the hoi polloi.

I prefer to use the term "selective weeding" rather than tall poppy syndrome - far too many people with some standing in the commercial, sporting or social world - confuse their weed like characteristics with those of a poppy - a decorative and noble plant indeed - but if found in the wrong environment it too can be described as a weed.

The tall poppy defence, not patriotism, is the last refuge of the scoundrel.

Persdonally I find most of the views of the commentariat as superflous to the requirements of living - but if they want to brand Pratt a liar and a cheat - and the coursts seem to support their assesment - so be it.

Maybe their artificial outrage, as described by the Flnt, was fueled by the fact that the Pratt would seem to have a fair bit of moolah as it is - and you gotta wonder why he needs to engage in deceit and unlawful conduct in order to get more - and if you say to simply get more was his reason - well,,, Pratt by name I guess

No matter how you look at it, Pratt effectively stole money, albeit in a round-about way.
He didn't steal it from say, a shopkeeper.
He stole it indiscriminately from anybody and everybody who bought his products.

He also did it consciously and deliberately because of simple greed.

His personal millions were not enough for him and he thought he deserved more and his customers deserved less.

How much is enough for these people? At his stage in life he should have been sitting back, counting his blessings and looking for ways to improve the society that allowed him to achieve his success.

Although prison is probably not an option for rehabilitation he will still spend his remaining years in disgrace, for no good reason other than greed and arrogance.

This illustrates how some in society see themselves above the law of the common people.

Are we supposed to be grateful for what Pratt has done for the country? If he didn't make the boxes, somebody else would have. Perhaps just as well, and apparently at a cheaper cost.

Then again I may be too harsh.

Perhaps Martin Bryant should be let off with a harsh written warning. After all, it was only a first offence.

Let's get this in perspective. Richard Pratt is facing a fine tipped to be in the order of $35 million, for an offence calculated to have resulted in a windfall for the billionaire of something in the order of $700 million. Petty cash.

And the reaction from people in the know?

ACCC chairman Graeme Samuel called Pratt's offence a "form of theft and little different from classes of corporate crime that already attract criminal sentences".

Terry McCrann (News Limited): "The public Amcor company and the very private Dick Pratt Visy company conspired to rip-off every single Australian. All 21 million of us, year after year. To the tune of some hundreds of millions of very real dollars.

Malcolm Maiden (Fairfax press): "Visy is guilty of stupidity as well as breaches of the law. And the laws that were broken are not inconsequential: cartels are a cancer in the capitalist system, which stands or falls on the concept of fair competition."

A Roy Morgan Poll conducted this week asked 690 ordinary Australians: ''If price fixing were a criminal offence, should Mr Pratt be sent to jail or not?''. 71% said yes.

Meanwhile, the only public figures supporting Pratt are the Prime Minister and David Flint? John Howard: "[Mr Pratt's] been very successful in business and my own dealings with him have always been very positive. And I like him." And Flint: "I once wrote an article on this curious example of American legal casuistry in a French journal of comparative law." I know, I know; with friends like David...

Both are yesterday's men who have long lost their moral compass.