"I really do hope that the twits defending this bloke have superannuation schemes"

The Greens Senators need not worry. They have taxpayer funded superannuation. Lee Rhiannon gets two big dips: one from NSW and the other from federal Parliament.

That this was some sort of harmless prank and that only rich people got hurt is how various NGO’s regularly pass off their immoral and illegal acts that cause real harm to ordinary people.
The mining industry can be brushed aside (according to them) because they are big and rich and foreign owned. Any retirees are acceptable collateral damage.
The forestry industry and the lives of forestry workers are expendible (according to them). Are they too big and rich? The damage done would indicate not.
The livestock and farming industries have been tagged as big and rich in the past. They too come under NGO attack with unsubstantiated claims for which they cannot be prosecuted and family farmers are forced to the wall.
These so-called “pranks” will ensure that we are eventually broke and hungry.
Throw the book at all the self-styled “high moral grounders” causing severe financial and emotional distress to hard working Australians.
It is the NGO’s who are big and rich and foreign. They prey on poor and defenceless industries. Marilyn Shepherd is seriously deluded or playing cutsie games if she is claiming that environmental groups in Australia are Australian.
Throw the book at them whenever they step outside the law, ensure that they must obey the same laws as the rest of us and make sure they get custodial sentences for fraud.

Don't misquote me, Luciferase.

>>Still going with "the conned are the guilty", Pericles?<<

Moylan, on his own admission, is guilty of perpetrating the fraud.

My point, though, is that it is the journalists and day-traders who are to blame for the furore that surrounds Moylan's act.

No little old ladies were harmed by it, only a handful of players who are, by definition, gamblers. Yet the headlines screamed stuff like "Hoaxer Jonathan Moylan cost Nathan Tinkler $180 million" (news.com.au), which would only be true if Tinkler had sold exactly at the bottom of the share price dip. Which, apparently, he didn't. Then there was "Fake press release wipes $314 million off Whitehaven" (Australian Miner), which was true only for the shortest amount of time. The price recovered to within $0.02c of its opening price, by the closing bell.

If you want a neat sidebar to Moylan's action, take a look at this.

http://www.theage.com.au/business/chinese-miner-looks-set-to-grab-tinklers-share-of-whitehaven-coal-20130114-2cpo5.html

The net result of Moylan's petty stunt could be the sale of the mine to overseas interests.

That will no doubt bring him great pleasure.

>>The price of not punishing Moylan is to undermine the law and does not pass on the matter to a court to decide for future reference by others considering hoaxing.<<

The only damage was to pride, and the reputations of a few players in the media, and in the broking fraternity.

De minimis non curat lex.

>>I want you to defend me next time I get a speeding fine.<<

Your speeding, on the other hand, was potentially physically and fiscally dangerous to other road users. So you can look for someone less ethical to represent you on that one, I'm afraid.

All deflection, Pericles, and blithe assumptions about the effect of the hoax on people.

I still want you to represent me. You deflect and stretch the limits of mitigation better than many of lawyers for the accused I have observed. You make it sound almost as if Moylan has done a public service in exposing a sleepy media and those money-grubbing gambling day traders, as if this was the intent of his behaviour. Meanwhile Milne et al take care of the left flank by justifying his law-breaking as a public good, averting global warming, as if we are not already on that path. One day it may be viable to outlaw coal mining, but not yet.

Good grief, Pericles, Moylan purposefully broke the law to bring maximum publicity to his naive contribution to forcing change upon a world already on the road to change. Give him the punishment he sought and deserves by charging him and letting the court decide what the punishment should be.

Your suggestions amounting to slapping him with a wet lettuce leaf is no great dissuader to others, IMO.

__________

It was a clear day on an endless stretch of highway, Your Honour, without an intersection for miles, and I could see to the horizon. That little hidden camera clocked me at 11 kilometres over the limit. In my mind was the idea that if I shortened my journey time, I'd emit less CO2, and so do my bit to save humanity from global warming. I see now I was wrong and expect to be punished accordingly. I had other, legal options at my disposal to help make a difference.

Close, Luciferase.

>>You make it sound almost as if Moylan has done a public service in exposing a sleepy media and those money-grubbing gambling day traders, as if this was the intent of his behaviour.<<

I disagree that it was his intention to demonstrate the stupidity of the media and the venality of day-traders. I don't think he had thought it through that far, or that he is even smart enough to think at that level of detail. But that is certainly what he achieved.

>>Moylan purposefully broke the law to bring maximum publicity to his naive contribution to forcing change upon a world already on the road to change. Give him the punishment he sought and deserves by charging him and letting the court decide what the punishment should be.<<

Yep, he broke the law. But to give him the satisfaction of continuing his publicity-seeking crusade by actually taking him to court, with the attendant blaze of attention he would get from the gullible media, would in my opinion be counter-productive. It might give the grumpy "hang-em-high" brigade something to gloat about over their gin'n'tonics, but will only create a minor martyrdom cult for Moylan, and land him on the gravy-train lecture circuit for decades. That is not what I would describe as punishment.

I stand by my proposal, that he should be slowly roasted. As a deterrent to recidivism, and to discourage copycat nerds, I believe it would be far more effective.

And, being invisible to the general public, would provide the additional satisfaction of causing more old buffers to choke into their gin.

"That is not what I would describe as punishment." Well, that would depend on how long he was jailed before being released to the speaking circuit. Presumably a hat would be passed around to cover any fine.

Not only do I want you as my defense lawyer, Pericles, I want you as my sentencing judge!