under one god,
you mention old Adi being a greenie. I wonder which one of the world's influential leaders in the past century deserves to be credited with the most foresight in hindsight of course. Which one was closest to the mark in predicting today's dilemma ?

OUG I have no evidence any government has passed such a law here, link please.
I do think we ask governments to both agree and disagree with us,, then blame them if we fall over.
As most states are, or soon will be, Conservative are/will they be, nanny states?
I tended not to blame God in my days beleiving as you do.
And do not credit any of the great numbers of them we have now.
This much is true, that girl had as many not wanting her to go, as supporting her.
In hindsight she knew best.
Those fearful before she left, not wanting her to go, was that a crime?
We are, as usual, bogged, in a mud that seems to want our views first and no chance we may well be wrong.
In my view nanny state is erring 0n the side of caution.

Belly,
Hope you had a good day at the markets, my wife buys most veges, etc there, all locally grown.

I was refering to what Individual said in last post, page 10. Its about self disipline.

In relation to Jessica Watson, there were many who were advocating that Qld gov take court action to prevent her going. That is nanny state thinking. The gov did not, but the Premier strongly opposed her going, but lined up to welcome her home.

I would like to know how you felt about it. Do you know that the young Dutch girl, sailing RTW was in Darwin recently and has left to head west across the Indian Ocean, the most dangerous part of her journey. Not the same as Jessica though, this girl has stop overs and so on while Jess did it not stop.

As I said where do you, or we, draw the line?

What gets me with such cases is that in the end we, the taxpayers again & again fork out for rescues costing quite a lot. Just go back to the billionaire yachtsman who had an australian Navy vessel sent to the southern ocean to rescue him after having been rescued previously by australian taxpayer funded organisations. He then apparently wanted to make a movie about the rescue & cash in on it. Australia is obliged by international maritime law to assist at sea. No problem there from me thus far. However, try going down the road & slip & break your ankle.. Call the Ambulance & if you're not a subscriber you pay several hundred Dollars for a ride in the Ambulance. Now think back to the billionaire adventurer who's rescue cost millions & yet he didn't have to pay & he wasn't even Australian. Had Jessica required rescue how many of her supporters would have volunteered to pay ? Who paid for her to be brought in after her first night at sea & how much ? I'm sure a family in need is more deserving of assistance than adventurers who don't seem to be short of a Dollar but does the family get help ? Let's prioritise please.

Welcome to Australia, the land of unobtanium with a severe case of banatitis!

Individual,
You are right that Australia has obligations covering a vast area of the oceans surrounding us, including the vast Southern ocean.

First a quick correction. After the bulk carrier ran her down, Jessica made her own way to port. The Water police attended and helped her ready the boat and escorted her in.

Jessica also had 'rescue insurance' for her RTW voyage. But after, when she visited Canberra she called at the Rescue HQ to see their operations set up and thank them for keeping an eye out for her.

The US girl Abby Sutherland was demasted almost halfway across the Indian ocean. Our marintine rescue organised an Airbus and located her. I think an RAAF Orion attended next day when she was picked up by a French fishing vessel which took he to Madagascar.

Sure we bear the cost of all the aircraft in this, but I view it as a training exercise as next time it may well be a large passenger liner in trouble when hundreds need to be rescued. The more we do the better we get at it.

However, this thread is about nanny state and I do not wish to deviate from that.