csteele *never the twain shall meet* you and I never will agree.
For that I am both proud and grateful.
I agree with protesting, most protests are worth my support.
But warn laws are not to be miss used.
Leftists recently took this country's government on, because they did not agree with migration offshore processing, deliberate use of term migration.
They use abuse and miss use laws!
To place lessor value on law you disagree with, no value at all in this case is cheeky.
A list in this mornings Sydney press, shows who is supporting Greenpeace.
While supporting anti Whaling protests, those supporters if supporting breach's of law/safe protest should pay the bill.

Worth consideration, the extremes take extreme actions and this was planed to be the stunt it is.
Manipulation of this kind harms all protests.
How many think this takes the spotlight from dieing Whales and puts it on fools?

Interesting set of examples, csteele.

>>If you rammed a get-away car... armed Israelis storm vessels on the high seas... multi-million dollars yachtsmen putting themselves in harm's way for a sport...<<

The topic here is "who should pay", right?

If you rammed the getaway car, would you expect the government to pay? If so, why?

The "armed Israeli storm vessels" is a total red herring. It was clearly a government action, and the costs would therefore be paid by their government. If the whaling incident had been a government-sanctioned effort, the same would apply.

As for the multi-million dollars yachtsmen, I take the same position: the government should send them the bill, which (presumably) their insurance policy would pay.

I resent the assumption that the taxpayer will simply stump up every time someone takes it into their head to do something stupid.

lexie quote...[supporting bellies words and even drawing in the whilly percules]

""Dear Belly,

I think the government..should present the organisation
that these three came from..with the bill for their
rescue.""

great
lets have the same rules
for unions..for political parties...for bankers

for big buisiness
for accountants

let hold the other bellicose protesters
innocently protesting..[like mr bell]..fully responsable

in a just world...austraklia would be policing their OWN territories

please note this
THAT THEY DIDNT...is proof they got no lawfull claim..!

by their own lack of protecting what they claim is theirs
they forfeit the claim to it

think thatcher..faulklands..claim

australia...by doing nuthing
ionvalidates its own claim

in fact by virtue of the 'state of japan fishing arresting holding imprioned others disputing THEIR claim...have now a higher claim..!

use your minds
not ya loyalist party policy treasoning reasoning

""It's one thing..to protest against something,
quite another to break the law.""

obeyance to the law
makes the law..'state of japan..NOW has the law on its side

next it will claim the adjoining lands
adjoining the waters their works made claim to

UNDISPUTED CLAIM
by our govt silence

its treason
doing nuthing
validates the real crime

""..What these three did
was wrong""

means state of japans claim
is all rIGHT..!

""and there should be consequences for their
actions.""

there weill be
in court the japs will claim..no govt actiobn
means they had the right to act
ON THEIR OWN CLAIMED TERRITORIES

not ours..!

ya get it yet
ya lot of yes men?

these 3 are agents..for our own claim
or criminals..invading others sovereign territory!

Dear Pericles,

Thank you though I'm willing to concede one or two are a little trite. None-the-less they have come from my pen/keyboard so I had better defend them.

“If you rammed the getaway car, would you expect the government to pay? If so, why?”

It depends on the circumstance. If I rammed the car of a shoplifter then the answer would be no, however if I prevented armed bank robbers from escaping then yes I would expect to be compensated. Why? Because not only will the resources they have appropriated be returned the likelihood of them attempting further hold-ups endangering life and property would have been quite high and that is without including the resources in police manpower that would have to been utilised to track them down.

My example of armed Israelis storming vessels on the high seas was addressing the use of the word piracy to describe the actions of the three rather than costs but as that seems to be your focus then I should respond. You said “It was clearly a government action, and the costs would therefore be paid by their government.” yet aren't you arguing against yourself? Surely if you were going to be consistent you should be putting the argument that because the flotilla was intending to 'trespass' into Israeli territorial waters, just as the three had 'trespassed' onto the Japanese ship, the cost should be borne by the peace flotilla organisers.

If we run with the premise of your argument then the Greenpeace members boarded the vessel with the intention of forcing it into port to disembark them. The Japanese decided to keep steaming. The government made the decision to retrieve them at our expense. To use your own words, ''It was clearly a government action, and the costs would therefore be paid by our government.'

“I resent the assumption that the taxpayer will simply stump up every time someone takes it into their head to do something stupid.” So do I although your view of what is stupid and mine obviously differ.

Cont...

Cont..

'Bali boy' was obviously stupid but having kids I am happy that my government is prepared to put resources into assisting any Australian caught in such a situation. The move of the three boarders was in many eyes a legitimate non-violent protest action, both intelligent and courageous, an entirely different kettle of fish, or vat of whale blubber.

So if we return to the question of who should pay, if not our government, for attempting to protect the whales, noting of course we are a pretty poor nation if economics were the only determinate of their value. I recently stumped up a few hundred dollars for a whale viewing helicopter ride for the family near Warrnambool. I have also spend money on whale tours in WA and was more than happy to have spent over a thousand bucks swimming with the whale sharks off Ningaloo reef if they had been there at the time. Perhaps a one percent tax on whale tourism might be in order.

Dear Belly,

As it is your thread I will do you the courtesy of replying, though not without a little trepidation. Your quote “They use abuse and miss use laws!” could easily apply to the Japanese who try to dignify what they do as 'scientific whaling' which we all know is a complete and utter scam. Why isn't your anger directed at them as they are forcing young idealistic Australians into actions such as these? And just what would you consider a responsible form of action against the Japanese. This didn't involve ramming or throwing bags of rancid fat, or hosing, or putting themselves in the path of harpoons, it was as responsible as it gets while still being effective. Would you prefer they stay at home and pen little letters to the Japanese embassy? Not going to get it done my friend. What suggestions would you give them?

I still find your approach a little hard to swallow, csteele.

>>If I rammed the car of a shoplifter then the answer would be no, however if I prevented armed bank robbers from escaping then yes I would expect to be compensated.<<

An interesting approach. But I think it might founder on the rocks of bureaucracy. For a start, I think you will find that the police specifically discourage the intervention of civilians in these matters, especially if you are putting yourself - and possibly bystanders - in harm's way. Two wrongs not being a right, you have therefore a) illegally rammed another vehicle and b) done so against the express wishes of the authorities.

You'd need a silver tongue and a half to get that through.

>>Surely if you were going to be consistent you should be putting the argument that because the flotilla was intending to 'trespass' into Israeli territorial waters, just as the three had 'trespassed' onto the Japanese ship, the cost should be borne by the peace flotilla organisers.<<

Ummm... it was the Israelis who did the boarding, as did Greenpeace. The intentions of the boarded vessel do not come into consideration.

>>The government made the decision to retrieve them at our expense.<<

That's the part I disagree with.

>>I am happy that my government is prepared to put resources into assisting any Australian caught in such a situation.<<

Two words.

Julian Assange.

This is a general issue, not uniquely associated with beating up on the Japanese whaling industry. Our government, of whatever hue, feels entirely at ease with the concept of deciding, unilaterally, where our money is frittered away. The lack of accountability they display is both blatant and despicable.

They don't mind "compensating" themselves, either.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/revealed-millions-of-dollars-worth-of-claims-made-by-former-premiers-20120110-1ptm5.html

Bludgers.