It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Australia to cover costs of Abby Sunderland's rescue

page: 7
8
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 01:07 AM
link   
this is part of being a 'part' of the global community mate, just as any other country would be expected to save an aussy in trouble off their waters, but if she try's this stunt again and cocks it up then I'm all for her having to pay.
and remember everyone told Jessica not to go she wasn't ready and blah blah blah but she did it and came out on top, now everyone say's good on her. I say don't chop the tall poppy




posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 01:13 AM
link   
Firstly, I am so pleased that she was rescued.

Secondly, it seems that acting the good Samaritan gets you a smack in the face.

Thirdly, her family, or at least her own country, should foot the bill.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 08:18 AM
link   
I just caught a quick snippet of this on the late-night MSM TV news.

One of her French rescuers fell into the water reaching out for her. He had to be hauled back in.

The figure of $300,000 was mentioned with regards to rescue costs. It was also mentioned that the parents claim they don't have the money to compensate the rescuers.

Link to an updated story


THE family of US solo sailor Abby Sunderland are seeking public donations to save her crippled boat Wild Eyes from the Indian Ocean, despite claims they don't have the money to compensate the Australian Government for her $300,000 rescue.

Abby's mother Marianne Sunderland, who is pregnant with the family's eighth child, said the family did not have the money to compensate Australian rescue officials, with the rescue costing $300,000, the Courier Mail reported.

"The full cost of chartering an Airbus would be so high, you'd think they would have to work with the US Government for that," she said from her California home.

"We're not wealthy people," she said. "What price would you put on a child's life?"


Rich little prat, Abby...



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 08:51 AM
link   
Rescues are the duty of industrialized countries coast guard/navy. This is the problem with capitalism. Everytime money is spent everyone is pointing fingers at who should pay the bill. If anyone deserves to pay the bill it is the media who made plenty of commercial money while the event was being broadcast. In most countries 16 is old enough. This girl was attempting to do what most can't even imagine and has been sailing all her life.

[edit on 14-6-2010 by jrod]



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by jrod
 


So, because she wants to go on this adventure, everyone else should shoulder the burden? That's the problem with the world today, nobody wants to take responsibility for their own actions. It's real simple, you mess up, you clean up. Did we not learn that in kindergarten or has the indoctrination to completely depend on government become so effective as to disregard basic common sense?

Sure, it's the Coast Guard/Navy's job to rescue people when they are in trouble but it is not the tax-payer's job to pay for it. Nobody is saying that she shouldn't have been rescued, validating the relevancy of your claim that it's their job. Sure, she should have been rescued, allowing the authorities to do their job, but she should have to pay for it. It is my lawn-care guy's job to cut my lawn, but that doesn't mean that I shouldn't pay for the service.

--airspoon


[edit on 14-6-2010 by airspoon]



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 10:05 AM
link   
I'll be buggered if I'm going to pay tax dollars for this snot-nosed rich little prat to be rescued. Sue the parents back into the Stone Age for all I care.

Sorry to be so blunt, but I would have said the same thing about Jessica Watson had she run into trouble. These bloody rich people thinking they can go around treading on everyone else, yet when they need help they expect us to hop up and down and do their bidding.....

Stuff em. Sue them back to the time before religion. It's the only way these arrogant prats will learn - hit them where it hurts them the most.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 11:40 AM
link   
It sounds like you guys think the military should be funded by private parties for their services. This mission was a drip in the bucket of their(the austrailan coast guard) resources. If nothing else this was a good training mission for the Aussies. I pity those who see the world as nothing but $$$.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by theability
 


Drivers pay registration fees and other taxes to the state which would cover the costs of any emergency services the state would have to provide to a driver. The state can place restrictions on who can drive so it can limit its cost of providing emergency services to drivers. This teenager has not paid any taxes to the Australian government to costs of her rescue.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Obviously, they had to rescue her, and I don't mind my tax dollars being used to fund a rescue effort in progress. That said, I also see no reason why the Australian government or its people should just be expected to eat the bill for this little publicity stunt gone wrong. They should have the right to reimbursement of the costs they incurred in this fiasco.

The parents should be 100% financially liable. If they cry poverty and claim they can't fork it all over at once...and I have my doubts about that...give them the same treatment the rest of us get: garnish their wages for however long it takes to get the money back. Maybe that'll make the next one think twice.

[edit on 14-6-2010 by vor78]



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by jrod
It sounds like you guys think the military should be funded by private parties for their services.

The military shouldn't be funded at all.

Who needs wars? Who really wants to pay for them?

Different topic though.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 05:13 PM
link   
I was watching CNN earlier and the talking head made a good point..

when his son did it, they were aiming for a movie deal
(or at least a made for TV / lifetime movie)

but when no-one flipped out from his son doing it..
they said it would be more marketable for a girl to do it..

sounds like the parents are almost broke and they are trying to keep the
silver spoon within reach..

CHILD ENDANGERMENT..

NO MOVIE DEALS...



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 08:46 PM
link   
This story gets better and better...

Abby Sunderland family kills TV deal after wave of public disapproval


The family has told heraldsun.com.au they were a clan of "adventurers, not accountants", but admitted they lacked the funds to cover the rescue costs themselves.

Mr Sunderland said that so far he has spent $250,000 financing Zac's and Abby’s trips, money he had set aside to buy a farm in Maine.


Adventurers? Sadly, no.

Rich prats, indeed.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


So in other words, that $250,000 was an investment. They were hoping to get the reality show, which would make the initial investment pay off. You think the Aussies would have ever seen any money, had she succeeded?

Plain and simple: This was a failed investment, The Aussie tax-payers should not have to pick up the tab for their failed investment.

--airspoon



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 03:48 AM
link   
Well, this thread continues.

On the one hand you have the "rich should pay for rescue" and the “stupid young girl” lobby and on the other you have those who think that Australia does the right thing by rescuing people regardless.

I just question the mentality of some people in this thread. Without people taking risk and fulfilling dreams (which may have an element of danger), or trying to do the extraordinary - like this young yachts woman - the world would be a very boring place. People are motivated to do things which push the boundaries and without that element of human nature we would still be in the dark ages.

Without people who are selfless in their motivation to rescue people in distress (regardless of age and wealth), the world would be full of sad selfish people. I hate to say it but the last thing I would want is to rely on some of the people in this thread making life and death decisions, as they busily calculate whether someone is “worth it” based on their worldview.

Following some of the selfish logic so far, we could have a rich, young American “girl” crashing a car in Sydney (her fault) and the police and ambulance crews refusing to help before her parents coughed up the cash. This is an analogy which is appropriate.

Australia did the right thing in this case and in countless cases in the past.

Regards


CX

posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 04:13 AM
link   
I agree that anyone of any age that undertakes these challenges should have the approriate insurance to cover the cost of rescues.

I've said it before though, two more years and this kid is an adult, theres not a thing you can have done or said about the issue then.

These youngsters have more experience tham most professional adult sailors and probably much more support services too, they would not be allowed to do it if they were not considered able enough.

Just imagine for a minute if we stopped or kids doing difficult challenges, they'd grow up to be sheltered individuals that were scared to do anything. That sort of thing is almost worthy of an ATS thread in itself.

I know it's hardly a comparison but both my kids enjoyed climbing Pen y Fan in the Brecon Beacons when they were 10 years old. Not quite solo around the world but still has it's risks, and at the top the only pics they had was of the whole class under a survival shelter because the weather was so bad.

Am i a bad parent for letting her go? I say no but others may disagree.

All i know is these things change their lives and make them stronger and more confident. Accidents are going to happen now and again, that can't be helped.

How many adults have been rescued because they've got lost asea?

Again, these kids do not do this without much experience and support.

CX.



[edit on 15/6/10 by CX]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by paraphi
On the one hand you have the "rich should pay for rescue" and the “stupid young girl” lobby and on the other you have those who think that Australia does the right thing by rescuing people regardless.

That's where you appear to be mistaken. You can't clearly define the two schools of thought in this thread.

No one is disputing that the rich little prat needed saving. No one is disputing that Australia did the right thing by saving her. That's a given fact. She needed to be saved. She should have been saved and she was saved.


The dispute is about the irresponsible attitude shown by the rich little prat and the rich little prat's family. The dispute is about who should be paying for the rescue costs.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 04:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
The dispute is about the irresponsible attitude shown by the rich little prat and the rich little prat's family. The dispute is about who should be paying for the rescue costs.


Is it the word "rich" that gets you. If this was a "poor" person whould you have the same attitude. The cost of the rescue is fixed, so perhaps the poor person could (say) "work it off" over a few decades.

If a cruise liner got into trouble would you suggest that all the rich had to pay? What income level do you think qualifies the person from exemption?

Regards



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 04:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by paraphi
Is it the word "rich" that gets you. If this was a "poor" person whould you have the same attitude. The cost of the rescue is fixed, so perhaps the poor person could (say) "work it off" over a few decades.

A poor person would not be able to sail a boat in the middle of the ocean. Poor people generally don't own boats that can make ocean crossings into International Waters. They don't have the means to indulge in frivilous stunts like the little prat did.



Originally posted by paraphi
If a cruise liner got into trouble would you suggest that all the rich had to pay? What income level do you think qualifies the person from exemption?

Huh? Cruise liners have insurance. I imagine that the insurance would be part of the ticket price, which is passed on to the customers. Comparing apples to oranges is a pointless exercise.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 04:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
A poor person would not be able to sail a boat in the middle of the ocean. Poor people generally don't own boats that can make ocean crossings into International Waters. They don't have the means to indulge in frivilous stunts like the little prat did. .


I disagree. There are many people of modest means who sail. You do not need to be rich to sail. I know several people who have sailed across the Atlantic and they are not rich. Many people, have circumnavigated the globe (there are races, plus solo attempts), so are these all “frivolous”? Is climbing a mountain frivolous?

But my point. If a poor person had to be rescued, should they pay? Let’s call them people of “modest earnings who own a yacht” if the word “poor” carries too many connotations.


Originally posted by tezzajw
Huh? Cruise liners have insurance. I imagine that the insurance would be part of the ticket price, which is passed on to the customers. Comparing apples to oranges is a pointless exercise.


You don’t get the point. Does the cruise liner company pay for the rescue? No, they do not. They may have insurance to cover loss. They are rescued because governments and organisations do so selflessly and without prejudice. But, if they were rich people on board would you want them to pay?

What’s the difference between this lone yachtswoman (who just so happens to be rich) and 500 rich people on a liner?

Regards



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 05:02 AM
link   
Edit: never mind.

[edit on 15/6/2010 by Dark Ghost]



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join