David Hicks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eddie Jones

1. Hicks was caught, carrying arms, by the Yanks, in a hostile area.

---

As far as I recall Hicks was handed over to the Yanks by a group of Afgani in exchange for a bounty.
In other times and places this is called kidnapping for ransom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eddie Jones

2. He didn't work for the Yanks, or any of their allies.

---

this we don't know. Given how the Afgan civil war ended, it's quite possible that Hicks was working with an Afgan war lord who after switching sides was a US ally, putting Hicks on the side of the angels so to say.
The point is WE DON'T KNOW and until Hicks goes on trial in a properly constituted court we can't know.
However, the fact that the UK released all their nationals who were detained in circumstances similar to Hicks, suggests, at least to me, that many of the foreign detainees ended up on the winning side

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eddie Jones

3. He was/is not an enlisted member of ANY nation's armed forces.

---

While we think of Afganistan as a country, at the time (2001) I don't think there was such a thing as a formal Afgan Army. Just a bunch of war lords and their fighters who supported the Taliban led government. So your point is moot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eddie Jones

4. If he was not a terrorist, please tell us all what YOU think he was.

---

well according to the Oxford Companion to Military History terrorism is "the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear through violence or its threat" as the Oxford goes on to say the definition is very subjective and "one man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist, one man's bomber-pilot is another's terror-flyer" (think about how the British and Germans viewed the bombing of Germany in WW2.)
As to Hicks, what evidence do you have that Hicks was in the business of "creating and exploiting fear through violence or its threat"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ian

the case would seem to turn on that if a suspect is held by a foreign jurisdiction (or in the case of Australia in another state) how does an AFP officer (or even you if you wish to question a suspect in the Albury lockup) demonstrate that you can deliver on the obligation to allow a person to communicate with their lawyer?

---

Pick up the telephone. Same as when you're here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ian

From memory the "problem" with Hicks is that when originally questioned he was either not warned or was not provided access to legal representation so the interview record is inadmissible.

---

He was clearly warned with a formal reading of his rights, which he refused, he was then clearly told again of his right to speak to a lawyer, which he again refused. The legislated requirement was well and truly satisfied.

Dan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ian

.....As to Hicks, what evidence do you have that Hicks was in the business of "creating and exploiting fear through violence or its threat"?

---

Posing for photos with an RPG launcher in the ready to go position does not suggest to you "creating and exploiting fear through violence or it's threat"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eddie Jones

Posing for photos with an RPG launcher in the ready to go position does not suggest to you "creating and exploiting fear through violence or it's threat"?

---

It might, but the photo was taken when Hicks was training with the Kosovo Liberation Army which at the time had been removed from the US State Department's terrorism list and was being trained and equiped by the German civil and military intelligence services. So when the photo was taken Hicks was on the side of the "good guys", ergo he was not a terrorist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanP

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER- 1px inset; BORDER- 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by ian
the case would seem to turn on that if a suspect is held by a foreign jurisdiction (or in the case of Australia in another state) how does an AFP officer (or even you if you wish to question a suspect in the Albury lockup) demonstrate that you can deliver on the obligation to allow a person to communicate with their lawyer?
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Pick up the telephone. Same as when you're here.

---

Australian public phones are taken to be secure and private.
even if there not, there are compensating controls to prevent use of any information obtained by tapping the phone.
How do you demonstrate to an Australian court that the same applies to phones in Pakastani gaols?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanP

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER- 1px inset; BORDER- 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by ian
From memory the "problem" with Hicks is that when originally questioned he was either not warned or was not provided access to legal representation so the interview record is inadmissible.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
He was clearly warned with a formal reading of his rights, which he refused, he was then clearly told again of his right to speak to a lawyer, which he again refused. The legislated requirement was well and truly satisfied.

Dan

---

Dan,
I think that you are confusing Hicks with Jack Thomas
I'm sure there was an admission back in 2001 that Hicks had been questioned by the AFP while he was in US custody without the AFP telling him of his rights.


ian

1. Hicks wanted to have an adventure.

2. He wandered around Europe and Asia with various friendly (a) terrorists or (b) freedom fighters (Choose your own terminology)

3. He got caught up fighting on the wrong side against the Yanks.

3a. Ooops what an adventure life is!

4. He is lucky to be alive

5. Unlike others at G Bay, if released, he probably won't seek to return to Asia to take up his (a) terrorist or (b) freedom fighter activities, but like other at G Bay, there is however a chance he may want to return to the fray, so he will be kept out of the fighting by being locked up until his friends in The Taliban becomes a political group only..... which may take time

6. Therefore like others at G Bay he will stay locked up to keep him away from any potential return to fighting in Asia..

7. He may stay locked up for a while yet

Regards
Greg

I watched "The falling man" last night on ABC tv.
What a stark reminder this was of just why the yanks are fighting this war!
I think its gonna get down to us and them (Christians v Muslims)the way it's going!!:mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coastie

I watched "The falling man" last night on ABC tv.
What a stark reminder this was of just why the yanks are fighting this war!
I think its gonna get down to us and them (Christians v Muslims)the way it's going!!:mad:

---

Hi Starkie

your right, it may very well get down to us and them. That is why debate and keeping our eyes on the ball is so important.

What started all this? A nutter living in a cave who has a fundamentalist belief in islam, and the shonky deals that the west made with him to fight battles on thier behalf.:rolleyes:

A nutter in a cave, who deserves to be dealt with, and a nutter in the white house with no idea how to deal with him.

Those poor people in the towers died not because of Islam but because of these stupid deals with a nutter.

Just like WW1, a war started by a small amount of stupidity that built until what the initial beef was about was well and truly forgotten.

The sad thing is that the country that spawned 96% of the 9/11 bombers has been totally left in peace, while the country that had 100% of nothing to do with it is reduced to rubble.

The saddest thing is that a split between Islam and Christianity is being fed by nutters on both sides.:(

Sad times ahead.

Wow

He just plead guilty.

I was wrong all along:-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dazzler

Wow

He just plead guilty.

---

Funny how mental torture can do that do a person huh?

Edit: I dont know if hes guilty or not and I dont care either way.

Al :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dazzler

He just plead guilty.

---

I don't think this proves anything, and not whether he's guilty.

I think this is part of the typical American practice of plea bargaining, whereby you plead guilty (guilty or not) and get an agreed sentence. So it may well be a minimum sentence and taking into account time held in custody be out very shortly. Quite understandable on Hicks part so that he doesn't face another 5 years while the yanks work out how to try the detainees.

So rather than remark on Hicks guilt or otherwise reflect on the American system of justice where this pernicious system of bargaining for your sentence involving the prosecution, defence and judge is common. Many people plead guilty in these kind of circumstances as they cannot afford to defend themselves or the time taken to get justice is way too long.

So wait until it is clearer rather than pontificate or pass judgement.


Peter.

On "holiday" in Afgahnistan, photographed with a rocket launcher on his shoulder and caught in a terrorist cell. This does not require any pontification to understand his stupidity ( I am being kind). The media has most certainly distiorted the whole scenario just to get ratings or flog fish and chip wrappers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ernknot

On "holiday" in Afgahnistan, photographed with a rocket launcher on his shoulder and caught in a terrorist cell. This does not require any pontification to understand his stupidity ( I am being kind). The media has most certainly distiorted the whole scenario just to get ratings or flog fish and chip wrappers.

---

Or

Training with terrorist camp

Photographed with a rocket launcher in Bosnia during that fight (lets not look under that blanket as there are a few aussies involved in that one)

and

Protecting an abandoned tank with an AK47:D

I am well and truely OVER David bluddy Hicks.. He was caught red handed doing something his country was against.. even if it was on the say so of George dubbya.

He appears to have displayed a lack of judgment in what he wanted to be involved in.

Then just because he is/was an Australian citizen we, the taxpayers of australia, are expected to dip into our pockets AGAIN, to help bring this moron home!!:(( :(( :(( :~

What really gets right up my nose is that WE supposedly paid for his damn father to fly to see him:o :o

Were we consulted:? No Bloody way.. And NOW just because he has decided to plead guilty, we may get to have him back here for the term of his incaseration!:~ :~ I dont think so!.

More of my damned hard earned dollars going out to feed some useless P%^@K and house him for however long he will be in prison..

STUFF IT, between this clown and those other cretins in prison in Bali, I have absolutly NO sympathy for any of them.. I was taught to take resonsibility for my actions.. just what are we teaching people like this:? :? :? :?

Sorry IF I an ranting but enough is enough

PHEW [rant mode off]

If his guilt was so obvious why did they give him a fair trial in reasonable time frame?

The military commission is a kangaroo court. They got the only result that was acceptable to the US government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Christopha

Yep, thats right, just a littlr kid who would have cheerfully killed Aussie troops and just a little kid who was part of a regime which is one of the most inhumane on the face of the planet..... Sod the "little Kid", I hope they keep the piece of ##### right where he is......... or perhaps if he was shot "attempting to escape"

---

Lucky little shyte,pleads guilty and still keeps his head

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sundowner

Lucky little shyte,pleads guilty and still keeps his head

---

After spending 5 years in the modern equivalent of a mediaeval dungeon complete with torture facilities many (if not most) people would plead guilty.

THE obsecenity about Hicks is that he was held in prison without ANY charges being laid for 5 years.

So the moral of the story is that if someone with power decides to dislike you they can lock you up without any fair hearing for the duration of their pleasure.

This isn't about David Hicks so much as about American Justice. The whole idea of having a prison on Cuba is to make sure that real American Justice cannot be applied.

This is all about the right to torture, and to use processes that strike directly against any idea of international justice. It is purely revenge using sadistic and brutal methods against people who are denied any right to prove their innocense or guilt.

The idea that an Australian government would allow one of its citizens to be caught up in this mockery of a legal process shows that our politicians couldn't give a stuff about us as individuals and lack the moral integrity to speak out against injustice. We have become apologists for the Bush camp of right wing nutters, who incidently have proved themselves hopelessly inadequate in Iraq

Regardless of what Hicks deserves this process proves nothing other than the superiority of Amercian beligerence against justice and reason.

John.

here, here John.

What John said.

It was with a fair bit of trepidation that I looked back at this thread. I felt it would be safe as after all this time, some of the ignorant, bigoted ranters would have seen past their own noses and realised that David Hicks is a pawn in a big, ugly political game.

Alas no the same old ignorant, vengeful sentiments are still being vehemently regurgitated.

There really is no hope for humanity.:( :no:

And for all those that share the sentiments of Brudda et al... if your son or grandson ever accidently got caught up in the shyte that Hicks just has - you better pray that the Western Justice is improving - it just seems to be getting worse from where I'm standing.

I'm with Brudda! Don't get me started, (Red mist descending) else we'll be on to flag burners, greenies, libbers(of all types) and all those other noisy minority groups whose lives seem to be dedicated to bringing this great country of ours down.
The b#^*#*ds seem unable to realise that this is THE BEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. If they said and did in public almost anywhere else what they say and do in Oz they would be incarcerated so quickly that they would not know what hit them. What's more they would like as not, never be heard from again!
There,I feel better now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackoH

I'm with Brudda! Don't get me started, (Red mist descending) else we'll be on to flag burners, greenies, libbers(of all types) and all those other noisy minority groups whose lives seem to be dedicated to bringing this great country of ours down.
The b#^*#*ds seem unable to realise that this is THE BEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. If they said and did in public almost anywhere else what they say and do in Oz they would be incarcerated so quickly that they would not know what hit them. What's more they would like as not, never be heard from again!
There,I feel better now.

---

One of the things that makes this country great is that we have a sense of a fair go. Allowing one of our citizens to be put through a trial that was plainly unfair diminishes one of the things that makes this country what it is.

Unfortunately this is about the alleged American justice system.

David Hicks is being tried by the Americans as a terrorist as a result of their unilaterally declared “War on Terrorism”. If this is indeed a war than he is and should be treated as a POW under the Geneva Convention of which the US is a signatory.


Under that convention the US is indeed allowed to keep imprisoned any POW until they wish to release them. For instance the USSR, after WW2, marched all their German POW’s into Siberian labour camps and only started to release ordinary soldiers after 10 years, some officers after 15 years and any SS was never released.


But the US does not acknowledge Hicks, or anyone else, as a POW. Instead it tried to cloak their detaining of their detainees under some kind of show justice, that even the US Supreme court ruled unacceptable. They even keep them in a foreign country in an attempt to by pass American law.


Then when it finally comes to trial two-third of Hicks legal team is refused admittance to the court and the remaining one is left to battle on alone. And they call that justice.


Then there is the issue of a 5 year wait before the trial. In our country he would have been released by the Supreme Court long ago because justice delayed is justice denied.


So yes it is a trial of the American justice system and in my opinion it stinks and our PM is supporting this.


Now I don’t know if he was guilty or not but at this stage in the show trial that the US is trying to do ( just like Stalin did in the 30’3 and 40’s) it is irrelevant. What they are doing is not justice and unless they want to hold him as a POW until the war against terror is over they should release him.


Peter.

Tell all that to the people who died in the twin towers, in Bali and all the other bombing atrocities around the world fuelled financed and encouraged by terrorists.
I seem to remember that when he was caught the consensus at my watering hole was "String the b#^*#^d up. Too bloody good for him!"
How time dims and softens the memory.
Now he's pleaded guilty for whatever reason. Probably so that he can come home and serve his time in a nice comfy(comparatively) Aussie prison!
Then the Australian taxpayer can fund his stay.

I'm not a fan of David Hicks. Seems to me that he was aiding the terrorists and planning to fight for them, if he had not started to fight for them already.

But, we live in a democracy, and our country supports a basic standard of human rights. One of these rights is the right to a trial. We do not allow people (nor should we) to be held indefinitely without charge or trial. The US does, which is a blight on their democracy and an indictment on the Bush administration. Hicks should have been charged and tried years ago. By all means, if he is guilty of a crime, incarcerate him. But it is wrong to lock him up indefinitely without charge or trial. This is one of the freedoms that we are supposed to be fighting for.

In our system Hicks is also entitled to a fair trial with legal representation. I'm pretty sure that he isn't getting that. I think our government should stand up to the US and demand that he be sent home, so that he can be tried here. I'm rather sick of Howard's toadying attitude towards Bush - who is a president who has proven his lack of intelligence and his complete self-interest to the point where the majority of people in his own country don't want him as president anymore and the majority of people in the rest of the world despise him. Why is our PM cow-towing to a man like that?

[quote=Poppa;486116]. I think our government should stand up to the US and demand that he be sent home, so that he can be tried here. I'm rather sick of Howard's toadying attitude towards Bush - quote]

The Americans were practically begging Howard to apply to get Hicks sent home last year because they feared his trial was going to be an embarrassment.
But for some unfathomable reason our government wouldn't change their stance.

I think that (Matrix?) may be right about the timing of all of this.

One could never question Howard's intelligence or his political astuteness - its just his ideology that scares me.

Quote:

---

Then the Australian taxpayer can fund his stay.

---

We do this for every criminal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackoH

Tell all that to the people who died in the twin towers, in Bali and all the other bombing atrocities around the world fuelled financed and encouraged by terrorists.

---

Rather irrelevant and inflammatory.

David Hicks was fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan when he was caught by the Northern alliance of warlords in Afghanistan and handed over to the Americans. They paid a rather large bounty for this as it suited the yanks to have something to show to their people of how good they were capturing alleged terrorists. But Hicks wasn't a terrorist at that stage but a soldier in the Afghanistan army.

Don't forget the Taliban regime was the legal government of Afghanistan who because they refused to hand over OBL were invaded by the US. A sovereign country that did not kowtow to the yanks, unlike us, was invaded because Bush didn't like their policies. Hence he should be treated as a POW.

But how can you expect justice from the US when Bush, with our support, invades countries like Afghanistan and Iraq when he doesn't like their internal policies. And they wonder why the rest of the world dislike them?

They wonder why more than 50 &#37; of Iraqies think it is right to bomb the invading and occupying forces.

No wonder Hicks is using the plea bargaining to regain his freedom.


Peter.

Hi,

Now all those people who said Hicks is scum. Have any of you contacted the former managers of AWB who gave millions of $$$'s in back handers to Saddam and his merry men?. We know for sure that money (Australian) was used to purchase weapons (maybe not of mass destruction but weapons all the same) has resulted in deaths of innocent Australians, many hundreds of American soldiers and thousands of innocent lives.

Don't you think they were traitors and deserve to be locked away in conditions like Hicks. No course not or you would have done something about it - at least whinged here at WW. Instead they are living in luxury in comparison.

It won't be long before the yanks will be dragging us into war with Iran which they have wanted for at least a couple of years now.

MH

Have any of you contacted the former managers of AWB who gave millions of $$$'s in back handers to Saddam and his merry men?. We know for sure that money (Australian) was used to purchase weapons (maybe not of mass destruction but weapons all the same) has resulted in deaths of innocent Australians, many hundreds of American soldiers and thousands of innocent lives.

Stretching a bit of a long bow there, Metal

1. Without these 'commissions' AWB would not have got the business. The US or Canada would have
2. The commissions went into the personal pockets of the then regime bigwigs, none of whom would be fighting or financing the present unrest. Too busy on their yachts and Swiss mansions (or executed)
3. Many Australians would have experienced a drop in living standards, particularly in the bush, had the price of wheat fallen due to a surplus supply

It's not right, but it is the way things go in many parts of the world.

Any one who has done business in Asia knows that you need to grease the wheels.
It is considered an insult not to.

Never thought I would agree with Kevin Rudd, but I reserve my judgement until the end of this military commission. Until that time most of what the media is reporting is pure speculation and hype.

Mr Hicks will have to explain what he is pleading guilty to and that will make an interesting story, unless he commits perjury perhaps?

At the end of the day there seem to be 2 camps, anti-Hicks and pro-Hicks and I wonder how many in the pro-Hicks camp are really using this for a bit of old fashioned Howard bashing?

About the only one I have any respect for is Terry Hicks, any man that sticks up for his son and stands by him despite public opinion deserves respect.

At the end of the day, the truth about all this was lost long ago in the "fog of war".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bodgy

Have any of you contacted the former managers of AWB who gave millions of $$$'s in back handers to Saddam and his merry men?. We know for sure that money (Australian) was used to purchase weapons (maybe not of mass destruction but weapons all the same) has resulted in deaths of innocent Australians, many hundreds of American soldiers and thousands of innocent lives.

Stretching a bit of a long bow there, Metal

1. Without these 'commissions' AWB would not have got the business. The US or Canada would have
2. The commissions went into the personal pockets of the then regime bigwigs, none of whom would be fighting or financing the present unrest. Too busy on their yachts and Swiss mansions (or executed)
3. Many Australians would have experienced a drop in living standards, particularly in the bush, had the price of wheat fallen due to a surplus supply

It's not right, but it is the way things go in many parts of the world.

---

AWB was the worst offender by a long way. If you want to justify behaviour like that on the grounds that 'if they don't, someone else will', you'd might as just scrap any ideas of justice.

Oh hang on, that is what's happened. :doh:

David Hicks was fighting for another country. He broke NO laws - the charges against him have been trumped up since. The fact that that country also harboured a terrorist organisation is no justification for the appalling suspension of human rights and justice by the American government. That our government seems to think this all really neat is no justification either.

America has made this world far less safe than it was before because is has shown to the world that there is no justice in America nor are they interested in justice - they are only interested in chasing their own purposes. Welcome to the law of the gun (or the nuke as the case may be). That may have been the case before, but now that is acknowledged openly (is even government policy) and that is always the precursor to unrestricted use of that power.

David Hicks may have been misguided. He may have been a fool. He may even be the complete tosser that many believe he is, but his (and other's) treatment at the hands of the most powerful country in the world was and continues to be, appalling. Those who believe that torture, imprisonment without trial, deliberate attempts to divert whatever safeguards are present under a political system should consider what their position now is in this world. We, citizens of one of America's closest allies now have fewer rights and protections than Americans. And you're happy with that?

The American military is growing stronger and now that it has proven the methods for bypassing American justice, will only go from strength to strength. America isn't far from the point where a military coup can be affected legally and if not, without risk of failure.

But hey, that's not scary. We're America's friends ... you can tell that by the way they treat us :C

Richard

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bodgy

Stretching a bit of a long bow there, Metal

1. Without these 'commissions' AWB would not have got the business. The US or Canada would have
2. The commissions went into the personal pockets of the then regime bigwigs, none of whom would be fighting or financing the present unrest. Too busy on their yachts and Swiss mansions (or executed)
3. Many Australians would have experienced a drop in living standards, particularly in the bush, had the price of wheat fallen due to a surplus supply

It's not right, but it is the way things go in many parts of the world.

---

But does that mean it is right Bodgy - sorry I meant Dodgy given your values. It sounds like you would rather sell your ethics & morals for money rather than stand up for what is right. Thus not much difference to David Hicks who you think is a scum bag, so you should take a look at yourself before judging others.

So you would be one of those people who would pay protection money rather than stand your ground?. So it's all right for Williams (HIH) to screw a lot of elderly people out of their life saving if it means people like him can live a life of luxury when they have served their punny sentences.

What this about the poor farmers doing it tough they are one of the biggest bluggers in this country - always crying wolf when something goes wrong. If it isn't viable then like other industries here (mainly manufacturing) then close and go into another line of work. No one is making them do what they choose to do. We were having to pay through the nose when the banana's plantations were damaged. Why could we get them from overseas for a third of the price?. No it wasn't the fear of pests coming in but the government doesn't want to lose their votes because it knows it is on borrowed time:wink:. When Australians start thiking about others rather than themselves then this will be the country it once was.

MH

MH,

Lay off the farmers, your comments show a bigoted attitude with no understanding of the issues which I might add are not relevent to this topic. One thing that has not been mentioned is the fact that America has made sure its soldiers cannot be tried by any other country, infact it went out of its way to ensure that a U.N. resolution to make troops accountable to international law would not be applied to them. We should also reflect on the fact that its own troops have been involved in brutal prisoner abuse along with the rape of a 14 year old girl and the murder of her and her entire family. To the credit of the U.S. those responsible will be tried and punished if found guilty. However they will be tried in American courts according to U.S. rules.

These same rights are not available to those held at Gitmo and the yanks would find what they are doing to foreign nationals totally unaceptable if the roles had been reversed. This is utter hypocrisy by those blinded by a right wing fervour to punish anyone they feel threatened by, and runs counter to the rules we need to live by to maintain a civilised society.

John.

Gents, discuss the topic but don't attack each other please.

Guilty or innocent, just or unjust, the saddest thing in the whole episode is that Australia lost the greatest chance to get inside the mind of a fairly normalish, somewhat naive, perhaps somewhat dim witted, young male who was successfully "converted" to militant islam.

As a willing human source (intelligence and MO of militant islamist recruiters), and lets face it there were deals to be made upon his initial capture to entice this, would have been immeasurable.

Thats where we lost it big. :doh:

cheers

dazzler

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Metal Head

But does that mean it is right Bodgy - sorry I meant Dodgy given your values. It sounds like you would rather sell your ethics & morals for money rather than stand up for what is right. Thus not much difference to David Hicks who you think is a scum bag, so you should take a look at yourself before judging others.

So you would be one of those people who would pay protection money rather than stand your ground?. So it's all right for Williams (HIH) to screw a lot of elderly people out of their life saving if it means people like him can live a life of luxury when they have served their punny sentences.

What this about the poor farmers doing it tough they are one of the biggest bluggers in this country - always crying wolf when something goes wrong. If it isn't viable then like other industries here (mainly manufacturing) then close and go into another line of work. No one is making them do what they choose to do. We were having to pay through the nose when the banana's plantations were damaged. Why could we get them from overseas for a third of the price?. No it wasn't the fear of pests coming in but the government doesn't want to lose their votes because it knows it is on borrowed time:wink:. When Australians start thiking about others rather than themselves then this will be the country it once was.

MH

---

Hi Metal Head

You are welcome to come work on my FIL's banana plantation anytime.

Its great, we just bludge all day and the fruit somehow grows, is fertilised, weeded, desuckered, bunches picked, seperated, packed and off to market. No idea how it happens but were all too lazy to see how. :2tsup:

Come on up :2tsup:

Time for a beer break.:drink:

We are all woodies here. :beer:

Lets respect each others rights to disagree
and be thankful that we can.