It easy to give money away when you've ripped it off the public. Pratt would have got a tax deduction for his charity donations too. And his private life has also been pretty sleazy. No sympathy for him at all.

David Flint observes:

"In the meantime Richard Pratt has been a leading contributor to national debates on a remarkable range of issues - water management, population planning and immigration, climate change and industry.

Now Mr. Pratt has been criticised in recent times for his role in a recent trade practice case about a price fixing and market sharing agreement between the Visy Group and Amcor. Amcor subsequently reported this to the ACCC in return for a guarantee of immunity, and as a result the ACCC sued Visy, but not Amcor.

According to the agreed facts, the executives of Visy and Amcor had reached an understanding about prices and market shares. As Visy chairman, Richard Pratt had one meeting - one meeting - with the head of Amcor where he said he would adhere to the understandings reached between the executives.

In this Visy has consistently said that it entered into the understanding to take advantage of Amcor. This is not of course a legal defence, but it is not improbable. Indeed it is more than likely.

The cardboard container market is highly concentrated, in fact so much so an agreement to fix prices is hardly necessary."

To say that Visy entered the agreement to "TAKE ADVANTAGE OF Amcor" implies it was Amcor that first proposed the agreement. Is this correct?

If it was by Amcor, or at Amcor's effective instigation, that the agreement was first proposed, and subsequently Amcor reported the agreement to the ACCC in exchange for immunity against prosecution, does that not bring to mind the prospect that the whole deal was for no other purpose than to 'set up', or entrap Richard Pratt? It was, according to the agreed facts before the court, that Pratt had no part in negotiating the egreement himself. He simply took responsibility for the outcome.

What was the problem? Richard Pratt too influential in the actual doing of what the 'climate change industry' propounds that it is best fitted to direct and control? Or did the ACCC or its proponents simply need some runs on the board that they couldn't get otherwise?

Noble as the Pratt foundations benevolences are, and considering:

"In the meantime Richard Pratt has been a leading contributor to national debates on a remarkable range of issues - water management, population planning and immigration, climate change and industry."

and given the commercial nature of the price fixing/market sharing issue.....

One is drawn to the conclusion that self interest is indeed involved in those 'remarkable range of issues'....

I am reminded of another 'great humanitarian'... who did the following:

-built hospitals
-built schools
-built soccer pitches for underprivelaged children
-built Churches in poor neighbourhoods..

The place is Medayin, Columbia...and the man was Pablo Escobar.

The funds came from murder, drug trafficking and so on.

Now..while Mr Pratt is nowhere remotely the villain that Escobar was, the principle remains that crime is crime...and no amount of public benevolence changes that. (Al Capone was also a public benefactor in his area)

Whether a man raids 'non his mob' and takes their valueables, food, women and children as slaves, but then spends much on building up his own community, or sells drugs and kills rivals, or makes agreements about price fixing.... it's all wrong and always will be wrong, no matter how many supportive friends or followers they can muster up to say things to the contrary.

I am incensed that Shimon Peres is doing it in Beersheba which was Palestine at the time while murdering and oppressing the Palestinian people.

Israel did not exist until it committed the ethnic cleansing of Palestine 30 years later so why is the Israel thug and founder of the illegal settlements having his dabs on this?

It is an outrage to all Palestinians and to our soldiers who fought alongside the Palestinians who treated them with great hospitality and now we cheer lead for the Israel's who kill them?

Shameful and sickening and Jeffrey should know better.

Pratt just wants to aggrandise himself with Israel in this disgusting ceremony.

Why cry for Mr. Pratt? He was not fined. Not one dollar came out of his personal wealth.

Fined was his firm; that is, the fine will come out of future profits.

We did not hear of any dent on the duopoly. Business goes on as usual and Mr. Pratt, who cannot possibly spend all the money he gets from his business in feeding, housing or clothing himself and his family has to give it away of leave it behind.