// you’re viewing...

Finance

FIX THIS: A dying man should be honoured not hunted

richardpratt Committed atheist Graeme Samuel is the Chairman of the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission.

One’s religious faith is not normally a matter for public discussion, certainly here at least. But it seems interesting Samuel is so certain that God doesn’t exist. We understand agnosticism, and respect it too. But the certitude underlying atheism has always seemed quite absurd. It’s a faith of its own, albeit in our view a rather bizarre one.

But it seems to typify the man. There’s no room for uncertainty.

He told ABC weirdo Terry Lane that he “absolutely certain” God doesn’t exist. A notion God probably found quite amusing.

And it’s that arrogance that he brings to the prestigious post he currently occupies, which is the highest paying gig on offer from the Commonwealth Government.

THE COMMISSION UNDER FIRE
And there’s no doubt the ACCC has an important role to play in eliminating the “excesses” of capitalism and monopolies that can easily occur.

It’s also true to say that while he’s the Chairman, he’s the public face of a vast and self-sustaining bureaucracy. He doesn’t make its every decision.

But he is of course ultimately responsible for all of them.

And when they made a fateful decision to hoodwink and deceive Richard Pratt into what he thought was a full settlement of their case against him about what they allege was a price-fixing arrangement between two competitors Amcor and Pratt’s company Visy they put the entire culture of the ACCC into legitimate public discussion.

It was clear at the time and is made even clearer by recent reports than Richard Pratt is unwell that he wanted out of the stress of the litigation. And was willing to say what he otherwise might not have to make it go away.

It’s particularly interesting that his company Visy did not settle on that basis. They’re fighting it all the way and strongly disagree they entered into price-fixing deals with Amcor. Quite the reverse, Amcor were their foe and they wanted to destroy them.

AMCOR’S CORRUPTION
Amcor’s culture was indeed a sick one. A company riddled with corrupt practice. Amcor’s legal proceedings against its former executives “the Amcor Five” include allegations that a $13 million Amcor business was sold to the Amcor execs personally for $1 million.

It is on people like that the ACCC need to rely to prove up their claims.

At one level Graeme Samuel was just doing his job.

And I don’t doubt the ACCC would have pursued this case whether he was Chairman or not.

But the reason people like Lindsay Fox say they consider Graeme Samuel a ‘betrayer’ can be at least partly explained by the approach taken by Samuel.

When his crew had conned Richard Pratt and his nearly criminally negligent lawyers at Arnold Bloch Liebler into agreeing the deal, he crowed like a well-plumed cock.

His words of gloat got a lot of people’s goat. Particularly in the Jewish community.

In this press release he falsely and outrageously accused Richard of engaging in fraud, not even something that the ACCC had ever suggested let alone litigated. The breaches of the Trade Practices Act he was alleging are not fraud, they’re all about encouraging and protecting competition. Worthy objective, yes. Is it the same as defeating fraud?

Samuel accused him of greed, ripping people off and all sorts of other emotive terms that weren’t made out in the ACCC’s claims. He wasn’t done there.

He thundered on that executives ought to attract criminal liability for engaging in a cartel. There are plenty of arguments in favour of that proposition but it’s interesting that he chose the time of the Pratt settlement to make that case. In any event, we’d always hoped that Mr Samuel would do his job of enforcing the law rather than attempt to direct the elected.

And of course, that was it seems the ACCC’s desire all along with Richard Pratt. Hoodwink him into making statements he’d otherwise never have made to get a settlement so he could spend his twilight years with family and friends and especially his young daughter.

Richard Pratt has been very fortunate. Or perhaps more accurately has made his own good fortune. The harder he worked, the luckier he got, as the famous golfer originally said.

ROBBED OF TIME
But those most precious of commodities – time and health – has been taken from him.

The bringing of charges against him – after a settlement had been agreed – as he was winding down in business and finally taking it easy has been a remarkably cruel and pointless pursuit.

It seems to matter little now whether the ACCC and authorities will end their very odd prosecution.

They’ll probably withdraw their case soon enough, or perhaps wait for his death to do so. It was never going to succeed, with the authorities considering withdrawing it a number of times, so weak was their case.

It scarcely matters.

They’ve already punished him in the most chilling and sinister and devastating way.

It’s a grave injustice, to be sure. And not without consequences for the rest of us.

THE DAMAGE DONE
In a way that makes it unlikely that any person will ever be advised to settle this kind of case with the ACCC. They have made their job much more difficult by not being able to resist the temptation to try to cut down a tall poppy and pull some quick and dirty headlines.

In my faith, we acknowledge that’s human nature. But there’s hope, if you can keep the faith.

In the after life Graeme Samuel will have – but doesn’t yet know – we think he’ll have much to reflect on. And this whole sordid, despicable drama doesn’t really reflect well on him at all.

And when this city – to which he and his wife Jeanne have given so much – says its goodbyes, there won’t be many kind words left for the atheist that tried to bring Pratt down to make himself and his big-spending government agency look good.

It’s too early for epitaphs. While it’s been splendid to see him acknowledged as a giant in the community by the Herald Sun, we hope and pray there’s enough fight in the old bloke yet. We hope the doctors have somehow got it wrong and that he can box on for much longer than they’ve been saying.

There’s a city full of schnorrers – freeloaders – who’ve enjoyed his hospitality over the years who need to say thank you for that and for his contribution overall.

GAGGLE OF GHOULS
In the meantime, we can only hope the authorities see sense and withdraw their case against him, before it’s too late and they are left looking very ghoulish indeed.

Interestingly, Pratt doesn’t want the case to be dropped. Like his mate the prize fighter Mohammed Ali, he wants the case fast-tracked so he can beat it in full public view, as has increasingly seen in legal circles as inevitable.

But the community – and its servants in the ACCC and prosecutors – owes itself more than that. It should now end what should never have been started.

No one should be above the law. But nor should it be used as an instrument for the pointless self-aggrandisement of its enforcers.

Richard Pratt’s life of generosity and achievement will be celebrated, the fact that this was brought forward while he’s still with us has been a remarkable and heart-warming thing to see.

If we can’t celebrate this man’s amazing life, we’ll be left a barren, morally desolate place indeed.

It’s not fair to single out one person who received a Companion of the Order of Australia who compares unfavourably with Richard Pratt who decided to hand his back in case the toffs and tossers in charge of the process decided to insist that he should. Sir James Gobbo was one of them apparently. Tsk tsk.

RICHARD v RON, WHO SHOULD GET A GONG?

It’s not fair but we’ll do it anyway. Ron Walker. His great business legacy is a casino that principally redistributes money from its legion of pokies players to one of James Packer’s companies.

We don’t have a problem with Crown. Or with casinos. But it doesn’t really compare with the full scale of Visy.

And Ron Walker’s generosity with his time in winning the Grand Prix and whatever has clearly had a business imperative for him as well as a civic one.

By contrast Pratt’s remarkable philanthropy has touched the lives of some of the most disadvantaged in this city from Broadmeadows to Dandenong. He and his wife turned their home into a venue for fundraising for so many charitable causes, it’s impossible to list them.

And with Pratt’s only real blemish being an unnatural affection for the Carlton Football Club and an odd desire to give it financial assistance, that cannot be compared with Ron Walker’s biggest shame. Chairing Fairfax Media, presiding over its near collapse under a mountain of debt and newspapers that prosecute views about the Middle East, the United States and business generally that in some cases wouldn’t be out of place at a Nuremberg rally or Socialist Alternative gathering.

As things stand, and we can only hope this is corrected ultimately, Ron Walker has an AC. Richard Pratt does not. There’s something wrong with that picture.

We doubt very much that Richard Pratt cares. But the rest of us should. If we don’t celebrate our achievers, we will all achieve less as a society. But more than that, if we’re not generous with each other, we’ll become that bleak place of desolation. That’s why he should get his gong back. And quickly. He’s earned it.

Click on this list to see who else has an AC. Their achievements are wonderful but few compare with Richard Pratt.

Let him live in peace. And – when the time comes – die with the dignity he so richly deserves. If we don’t, we’ll all be poorer for it.

Discussion

Comments are disallowed for this post.

  1. Hear that sound?

    It’s the world’s smallest violin playing for all the rich dying cartel price-fixers.

    (Nothing against the guy personally, and he did some good stuff. But let’s face it – the AMCOR/VISY price fix sent some of my hard-earneds his way.)

    Posted by Squeaky | April 23, 2009, 13:36
  2. Dick Pratt is a true patriot. There is simply no room for criticism of the man. One in a million.

    Posted by Anonymous | April 23, 2009, 14:01
  3. Why do people eulogise convicted criminals?

    As Mike Carlton said:
    ” … the Melbourne establishment is queuing up to say what a terrific bloke Dick Pratt is, all of them, you know, the usual suspects …
    Premier John Brumby comes out to say that Dick Pratt was a remarkable Australian, a stunning success story, all that, all of which is true but spare us the hypocrisy.
    He was also a crook.
    He ran one of the crookest business operations in the country, a price fixing racket, a cartel in the packaging business which ripped off, cheated customers and companies out of about A$700 million
    So his philanthropy, his generosity, was with other people’s money. …
    Eventually the ACCC got him, he was fined a record $36 million, forced to hand back his Order of Australia and, at the moment, as we speak, Dick Pratt is facing criminal charges alleging that he lied on oath about the price fixing scandal, charges which if proved could get him up to four years in jail, should he ever get to court.
    ….
    Dick Pratt is a convicted crook who built a reputation as a generous philanthropist with other people’s money. …”

    Posted by JudySulo | April 23, 2009, 15:35
  4. I agree with Judy. We all may have forgoten that Howard gave him $36 million to create jobs and grow his plant etc. Now how much was that fine? Hmmmm So he just handed back the money he was given!!!!!
    Too sad, too bad, bye bye…move on

    Posted by cartel appreciation society | April 23, 2009, 16:00
  5. He’s obviously to sick for a criminal trial.

    Samuel should pull his head in.

    Go Blues!

    Posted by drop the charges | April 23, 2009, 16:02
  6. Judy, he’s not convicted at all actually. He’s been charged, that’s it and is expected to be found not guilty, if he lives that long.

    Posted by ahem | April 23, 2009, 16:03
  7. Ahem, please please get your facts right.
    As per Mike Carlton’s article which I quoted …
    Richard Pratt HAS BEEN CONVICTED. He has been convicted of price-fixing – ON HIS OWN ADMISSION. That’s what the fine of $36 million was about.
    He has not (YET) been convicted of the current charge against him of lying under oath about the price fixing scandal – that charge has yet to come to court.
    Please don’t pre-empt the decision of the court on that charge.
    And if, for whatever reasons, that charge is only now withdrawn, that will prove nothing.
    The ACCC tries very hard and very honestly – but it is an uphill battle when inordinately rich people are involved.

    Posted by JudySulo | April 23, 2009, 16:29
  8. Judy, could not agree with you more! The ACCC should be more vigorous in its pursuit of white collar crooks. I did not hear Mike Carlton’s comments but it seems to be a pretty accurate overview of the situation.

    Posted by Annika | April 23, 2009, 16:36
  9. WRONG !

    He has NOT been convicted of any CRIME. He agreed a civil settlement with the ACCC. No crime.

    They since charged him with lying to them prior to the settlement.

    Posted by lies | April 23, 2009, 16:43
  10. Posted by lies | April 23, 2009, 16:57
  11. Pratt is a very rich man who was made much richer by the use of price fixing. If the community deems him a saint then that’s a reflection of the standards of the community.

    Outside of Victoria he is seen more as a crook than anything else.

    Once again we realise death is the great leveller – rich and poor, good businessman and bad businessman and everyone in between falls off the perch in the end.

    Posted by Dr Smith | April 23, 2009, 17:04
  12. I think your above email is a crime, does that make you a crook?

    Posted by lies | April 23, 2009, 17:58
  13. The persecution of Richard Pratt is the same as the Insider 3 of the 80’s.
    Both times the government agencies (Henry Bosch and now G Samuel)sided with and gave indemnity to corporate criminals.

    This needs a royal commission into the giving of indemnities.

    Try being a whistle blower – you are then persecuted.

    But crooks side with the Government to get off and convict others.

    The Government should withdraw this action and reinstsate the AC

    Posted by hopeless | April 23, 2009, 18:05
  14. My oh my…a hero is he? Lets see how many remember him in the future when all is done and dusted. He’s just another corporate criminal who when about to get busted…he squeeled! What a hero!! The vomit I read from those comparing him to a “hero” is typical of the behavior expected from “A List” morons who have for too long become too separated from reality….NEXT!!!

    Posted by Gulfstream Jockey | April 23, 2009, 20:31
  15. The guy was a price-fixer ie. thief. It’s of course sad he’s dying, but your (and other’s) sycophantic words about the guys saintliness don’t do him or the cause any favours. Just STFU and have a bit of dignity about it please.

    Posted by abe herschberg | April 23, 2009, 20:36
  16. Damn Im gonna miss flying “Look-at-me” Shorten across the country for a Green tea and scones.

    Posted by Gulfstream Jockey | April 23, 2009, 22:14
  17. there’s a mix of good & bad in everyone. and he’s not dead yet. let’s save the eulogies for later

    Posted by Astounded of Melbourne | April 23, 2009, 22:25
  18. will you fly for anthony & the girls, GJ?

    Posted by Astounded of Melbourne | April 23, 2009, 22:26
  19. I wonder if his girlfriend and his ‘lovechild’ are at his bedside? All one big happy family. Do all tycoon price fixers have girlfriends and ex nuptial children? Just asking.

    Posted by Annika | April 23, 2009, 22:48
  20. Richard Pratt, Shari-Lea Hitchcock love child Paula recognised

    By Michelle Cazzulino
    The Daily Telegraph
    June 05, 2008 12:00am

    HER existence has until now been ignored by high-brow reference publications, but one magazine has finally recognised billionaire Richard Pratt’s youngest child. Ten-year-old Paula is the only daughter of the Melbourne-based businessman and his one-time lover, Sydney-based former lawyer Shari-Lea Hitchcock.

    The little girl has largely been kept out of the spotlight since her birth was accidentally discovered by the media in 2000.

    Now Melbourne-based magazine Business Review Weekly has updated its records.

    This month’s edition, which has Mr Pratt at No. 4 on its annual Australian rich list, says he has four children.

    The cardboard tycoon, who has appeared on every one of the magazine’s Rich 200 lists for the past decade, had previously been said to have three descendants.

    This is despite the magazine documenting Mr Pratt’s affair with Ms Hitchcock in a blurb accompanying his entry eight years ago.

    “The two-year-old daughter of Pratt and Hitchcock will be well looked after but she is not an heir to the family fortune,” the magazine said at the time.

    Nice, not an heir to the family fortune!! This is a truly tacky man.

    Tell it like it is Andrew.

    Posted by Annika | April 23, 2009, 22:54
  21. Mike Carlton is probably the biggest deadshit on Australian radio. I’m surprised he wasn’t given the arse at least 2 ratings periods ago.

    Posted by Daniel Lewis | April 24, 2009, 0:25
  22. Unlike some of us, Mr. Pratt is rich enough to fight his cae head on, what about those unfortunate people who have been targeted by a cartel behaviour and can not afford the take part in this legal circus? dare to have a look at the Cartel in my case.
    http://www.rodneyadler.com

    Posted by Frank M. Nejad | April 24, 2009, 4:04
  23. Are they going to burry him next to skase. They could keep with the same genre at the graveyard- you can just direct people to the corporate crook section of the cemetry without looking around. There can be a plot dug for Alan Bond next to it.

    Posted by Chace for skase | April 24, 2009, 9:59
  24. Andy, read the comments. When you boost guys like Pratt and Conroy, you come across as a fanboi.

    Most of your punters see Pratt on a par with Solly Lew and his ilk.

    I don’t buy Pratt as a hero; and I don’t buy Solly as a demon – just rich boys lining their pockets. Good luck to them, but spare me the halo/horns claims.

    Posted by Squeaky | April 24, 2009, 11:38
  25. Pratt is a rich man who is dying. People are entitled to point out his strenghths and weaknesses in life. You dont pay $36m if you did nothing wrong. Get a grip Andy.

    Posted by hedgehog | April 24, 2009, 12:01
  26. You raise an interesting point,Gulfstream Jockey.I wonder where “Lord” Shorten will find a new “sponsor”,particularly one with a suitably elegant aircraft to ferry him about in the style and luxury for which he has been developing a taste.Perhaps Mr.Fox can help him out.

    Posted by Nark Latham | April 24, 2009, 12:44
  27. I wonder who will assist King Billy in transporting his ‘make up van’ around the country for all his media appointments. Since his appendage has met Chloe the door is well and truly closed for Beale bank book and lucrative connections

    Posted by anon | April 24, 2009, 13:12
  28. You’re wrong Andrew. I normally support you but you’re totally wrong here.

    Mr Pratt stole/ripped off/purloined/took over $300 million from the community. From us. that Mr Pratt’s group took $300m. If Mr Pratt was more contrite, if he gave back the money to a greater exstent rather than keeping (after the fines) over $200 m of the purloined funds, the public might think differently.

    The donations to the community, even if tens of millions, don’t change the morals of the net gain by criminality of over $200 m.

    You’re wrong,. Andrew. Sorry.

    Posted by andy | April 25, 2009, 13:46
  29. That is, as they say, crazy talk.

    Nothing was stolen.

    What was alleged – and never proven to my satisfaction – was that Visy and Amcor cosied up over box prices.

    The truth is that Visy & Amcor are fierce rivals, competing very vigorously, with price wars so vicious that it’s nearly impossible for new entrants to make a quid in packaging.

    Pratt – and this is just my opinion – settled because he wanted it over and done with so he could concentrate on living his remaining years in peace.

    Events subsequent have shown that was a big mistake.

    Settling the ACCC’s civil proceedings was falsely painted as admitting a crime, when no crime occurred and in my view no cartel was formed anyway.

    Compare what we pay for packaging with other markets, Australia isn’t paying more.

    If there ever was a cosy cartel, that wouldn’t be the case.

    I don’t like monopolies, or cosy duopolies at all.

    Microsoft has been fined billions for anti-competitive conduct of this kind. And you don’t see Bill Gates vilified over it as we see Richard Pratt vilified by a few spivs in the Sydney media where the culture of bung-taking and moral depravity is firmly established.

    Melbourne is rightly proud of Richard Pratt and you mark my words, we’ll reclaim his reputation, his legacy, his honours and proud record back from doom boosters, wankers and the self-righteously ignorant.

    Posted by VEXNEWS | April 25, 2009, 14:20
  30. Visy-Amcor cartel: the facts don’t fit the spin
    Email Printer friendly version Normal font Large font Malcolm Maiden
    October 17, 2007

    The risk Richard Pratt and his Visy group ran in spinning their involvement in price and market share rigging with Amcor before the official version of events surfaced in court became clear yesterday.

    Visy’s version of events was contradicted on critical issues by the 104-page agreed statement tabled in Federal Court, and by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s penalty submission.

    The picture the documents paint is one where Visy and its leaders, including Pratt, were knowing participants with Amcor in a secretive and damaging cartel. In an interview this month, Pratt confirmed that Visy would settle the case, but said Visy’s culture had been to improve volumes and cut prices.

    “If anybody had an incentive to fix prices it was Amcor, not Visy,” he said. “If there was an instigator, it was Amcor, not Visy.”

    But the court documents tell a different story. The statement of facts that Visy and the ACCC have signed reports that an “overarching understanding” for the cartel was struck in 2000 at meetings between Visy chief executive Harry Debney and then head of Amcor Australasia, Peter Brown.

    The meetings were at Brown’s home, but it is agreed that at one meeting, Debney said words to the effect that he believed it was not in Visy’s interests to continue a cardboard carton price war, that Visy intended to lift prices, and “words to the effect that he wanted the intense competition between Visy and Amcor to cease”. The agreed statement adds that at one meeting Debney also indicated that “Visy proposed that each of Visy and Amcor could continue to enjoy roughly the current share they each had . . . that neither Visy nor Amcor would poach each other’s customers and that prices would be increased”.

    The statement records that Debney described these as basic principles, and that he and Brown committed their companies to abide by them.

    On May 21 the next year, Pratt met former Amcor boss Russell Jones at the All Nations Hotel, at Jones’ request.

    Amcor executives were concerned, with cause, that Visy was not honouring its illicit agreement. The agreed statement records that Pratt “communicated to Jones that Visy would adhere” to the understanding.

    In a submission to the court yesterday, Pratt and Debney stated they sincerely regretted their actions. Pratt acknowledged it was his responsibility as Visy chairman to ensure he and his employees kept within the law. But in a statement to customers and employees last

    Posted by ignor the spin | April 25, 2009, 14:52
  31. AAP General News (Australia)
    10-16-2007
    Vic: Agreed statement of facts in Visy case

    Highlights from the Agreed Statement of Facts between the Australian Competition and
    Consumer Commission (ACCC) and Visy.

    * A “price war” between Visy and Amcor resulted in both companies suffering significant
    trading losses in 1998-99.

    * In 2000 Visy CEO Harry Debney and Amcor Australasia managing director Peter Brown
    arrived at an understanding that included:

    – The companies would permit each other to maintain approximately their current share
    of the corrugated fibreboard packaging (CFP) market.

    – They would not enter contracts to supply CFP products with each other’s principle customers.

    Posted by ignor the spin | April 25, 2009, 14:55
  32. Malcolm Maiden
    November 3, 2007

    WHAT cartel cronies Visy and Amcor did wrong was summarised in five sentences yesterday by Federal Court Judge Peter Heerey.

    “The cartel went on for almost five years,” he said. “Had it not been accidentally exposed, it would probably still be flourishing. It was run from the highest level in Visy, a very substantial company.

    “It was carefully and deliberately concealed. It was operated by men who were fully aware of its seriously unlawful nature.”

    That, in a five-piece nutshell, is why Visy has copped the heaviest penalty ever levied on cartel behaviour in this country, and why fines will become even higher, following the introduction of tougher penalty formulas. It is also why Australian Competition and Consumer Commission chairman Graeme Samuel is calling for criminal penalties for cartel behaviour, which the Dawson review of competition law recommended in 2003.

    Justice Heerey’s observation that the Visy-Amcor cartel only came to light as by-product of a separate legal action is important. Once it was accidentally discovered, the existence of the cartel was quickly brought to the ACCC’s attention, because the ACCC offers whistle-blowers immunity from ACCC action, and Amcor grabbed it.

    But cartels are easy to hide, particularly in industries in which ownership is concentrated in a few hands.

    Samuel was no doubt right yesterday when he asserted that there were many other cartels out there that had been operating undetected for years.

    Right, too, that fear of criminal prosecution will drive more use of the whistle-blower mechanism if Australia follows countries including the US, Canada and Britain and finally introduces criminal sanctions.

    Yesterday’s decision from Justice Heerey also exposed Visy’s earlier attempts to portray itself as an almost accidental participant in the cartel for what they were: ill-considered and counter-productive.

    The ACCC did not not make specific allegations that losses were sustained, but the whole point of price fixing was to generate above-market prices that, by definition, resulted in losses, he said. And he skewered the defence Visy ran ahead of its settlement that its involvement with Amcor amounted to “commercial tactics” aimed at gaining market intelligence while it actually continued to compete.

    It flew in the face of the facts that were eventually agreed about Visy’s role in the cartel, Heerey said, adding that it also ignored the fact that cartel agreements were illegal regardless of whether one of the participants intended to cheat.

    Statements of contrition by Richard Pratt, Visy’s now departed chief executive Harry Debney, and a former Visy executive, Rod Carroll, were noted, but so was their late arrival in the proceedings. Heerey said statements made by Visy ahead of the settlement that it had been “motivated by a desire to take advantage of our competitor” were in effect a revival of the group’s failed legal defence, without merit, and “hardly consistent with a frank admission of wrongdoing”.

    The earlier agreed statement of facts about the cartel was so unequivocal about the involvement of Visy and its leaders that the judge’s decision was always going to be a blow to their reputation. It is clear now, however, that Visy’s attempt to spin its decision to settle was a disaster. Visy should have sat tight, and tight-lipped: the attempt to pre-market its version of events has, predictably, added to the collateral damage.

    Posted by ignor the spin | April 25, 2009, 14:58
  33. This article proves how corrupt our political system in Australia really is. You factional scum had better watch the fuck out, we are coming for you (YES THAT MEANS YOU SHORTEN AND CONROY)

    Posted by fap fap fap | April 25, 2009, 15:10
  34. Soon, branch stacking will be a jailable offense, not a ‘internal party discipline’ issue. What are you Labor Unity and Socialist cunts going to do then? haha

    Posted by fap fap fap | April 25, 2009, 16:56
  35. One must remember there are no pockets in a shroud.

    Jack

    Posted by Jack Hackett | April 25, 2009, 17:25
  36. Andy – “Nothing was stolen.”

    Cool – price collusion is a victimless crime!!

    All those supply chain suckers who paid over the odds were making a charitable donation to help Pratt and his wonderous works.

    Posted by Anonymous | April 25, 2009, 19:04
  37. It’s not a crime at all actually it’s a civil breach and nor should it be, no bureaucrats should meddle in what I charge for my hamburgers. If I want to consult with Hungry Jack at a pub in Richmond before making a price decision why the he’ll shouldn’t I?

    The world has gone to shi’ite.

    Big government is now an obese drunk farting Sir Les Patterson…

    Posted by Ronnie Mac | April 25, 2009, 19:43
  38. Andrew,

    You wouldn’t know the price of a cardboard box from a Christmas pudding! Your analysis is stupid. Aussie box purchasers got milked silly by the rotten price-fixing. Maybe Sir Dick could give a deathbed statement about it all!

    Posted by Mea Culpa | April 26, 2009, 0:04
  39. If there was overcharging the federal government should give back the tax it collected.

    Brumby should give back the excess GST he collected.

    Join the coallicition for abolishment of the dreaded GST

    Posted by hopeless | April 26, 2009, 19:14
  40. It is so easy to be generous with proceeds of crime. What’s more such generosity is required to get the inevitably required sympathy. Wake up folks the man was a hyprocritic thief who despite being near death is probably laughing at all his fans. The “hero” tag is plain insultingly stupid especially at this time of April. Is Pratt going to play the game to the end? Perhaps the best chapter is on the way.

    Posted by David | April 27, 2009, 23:47
  41. Honeys…

    When in doubt – follow the money trail.

    Who is getting Jeannie’s hubbys lovely funding – and who defends him the loudest.

    The Lib/Lab conservatives – thats who! seriously honeys…

    Posted by Natasha The Despoiler | April 27, 2009, 23:53
  42. Dying men should be cared for then buried with a minimum of fuss – we – Victorians at least have been wrapped in an ecstasy of eulogies once Pratts imminent demise was made public – and it goes on after his death – it will continue until at least the siren sounds at the end of the Hawthorn Carlton game this coming Sat’dee.

    Posted by Kym Durance | April 30, 2009, 15:25
  43. That one man are steal people money
    and my naptop. I going to kill that
    man are thief. YOU call ucp pay me
    right now and there very very very badman steal Cops bad is not protect that one man are thief. from NYC ucp. I’m adventurous hero
    to be good hearted and generous just me. I don’t like war and I fighting cop liar about me.

    Posted by Richard Pratt | June 26, 2010, 23:12
  44. That one man are steal people money
    and my naptop. I going to kill that
    man are thief. YOU call ucp pay me
    right now and there very very very badman steal Cops bad is not protect that one man are thief. from NYC ucp. I’m adventurous hero
    to be good hearted and generous just me. I don’t like war and I fighting cop liar about me.gggrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

    Posted by Richard Pratt | June 26, 2010, 23:15
  45. Richard Pratt:

    Did you use Google Translate to create that post?

    Posted by Henry Higgins | June 27, 2010, 0:19

VEXNEWS Archive

November 2017
M T W T F S S
« Jul    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930