Australia to cover costs of Abby Sunderland's rescue

I love how people can complain about the so-called 'millions' that have been spent on her rescue, yet the very same government probably pisses away more than the cost of the rescue from a daily basis on stupid crap they don't need. How can I say this without knowing the exact numbers? 1. Because no one knows the numbers, and 2. because every government in the world pisses away money like it was going out of style. It's called corruption and waste. Gods forbid that some of that money actually go towards helping someone. As for the folks saying that she should never have been allowed to do this in the first place, I agree, and disagree. There should have been some kind of insurance or some similar fall-back in case of emergency. But there wasn't... Whoop-de-doo. Seems like a lot a latent jealousy here. Granted, I could think of way better things to do with the 300k or so she probably spent on this trip. BUT, having said that, I have to say that if I had the chance to sail around the world, pretty much on a lark, then I would, in a New York minute.

Chrono

I have to say that I am rather shocked and disappointed that some people seem to take the view that some people in distress at sea should be left to drown. This is extraordinary. There is a duty to render assistance to anyone in distress.

I would hate to live in a world where some people on this forum have any position of responsibility as they busily judge who should live and die at a whim because they are perceived as “rich” or “too young” or “reckless”.

I think the Australian (and New Zealand) authorities, who regularly save and assist countless people in distress in their waters and the dangerous Southern Ocean should be commended for the work they do.

Regards

reply to post by paraphi


I don't think she should have been left to drown, but the parents could have atleast insisted on footing the bill...

Australia - ...So, we rescued the girl, and it used up some resources...
Parents - Oh...um, well, we'll pay for it...
Australia - It's ok, they were our boats...
Parents - kthxbai!!
Australia - DAMMIT! We were only being polite!!

reply to post by The Theorist


I agree with your posts and appreciate the 'denying of ignorance'. I don't understand the negativity and even pure hatred for this girl and her family, especially if they offered to cover the costs. It seems there were a lot of accusations flying, without looking at all the facts.

I agree about letting your kids take risks. That's how we learn. Although I can see how some people think it's ridiculous to let a 16 year old sail around the world, but if she had sufficient skills and experience, I don't see any problem. The mast snapping would have happened to anyone, regardless of age. She is doing something she loves, and living life, which is more than most can say.

Originally posted by airspoon
Her parents are filthy rich. They can afford a whole fleet of million dollar vessels, including at least one each for their children. If they are forced to pay this bill, then they may not be able to afford another multi-million dollar vessel. Poor family.

I've been following your Israel-Palestine thread, and have agreed with your posts, and the way you portrayed the facts. Have you been as diligent with your facts here? Just because I can't find any information to corroborate this.
Sure, you'd have to have a fair bit of wealth to afford something like this, even with sponsors, but that doesn't make them filthy rich millionaires.

I agree that they should be held accountable for costs. But I disagree with people saying they are bad parents and should be charged. If she had the skills, then I don't think it's any different to letting your children drive (probably less dangerous). You can't keep them wrapped in cotton wool all their lives. Before people hurl abuse at the family, perhaps hear what the Aussies have to say.

When asked if Australia would seek to get the money back, Mr Kinley said: "No, that's the way the system runs.
"We would expect people to rescue any Australian yachtsman in these conditions,'' he said.
"It's our obligation to do this and we'll fulfil those obligations as Australia does.''

reply to post by InfaRedMan


I totally agree.... they need some type of insurance. Why should the Aus government have to foot the bill. If anyone is going to undertake that type of risk their own government should be responsible, if Jess Watson had to be rescued anywhere on her journey i would expect our government to pay the cost's.

I see what people are saying, but wouldn't you rather a young life be saved when there is a reasonable chance of survival? I think most Australians would rather see their taxes used on rescuing people at sea as opposed to replacing a satisfactory ticket system with a broken one (MYKI). Especially when the cost of the former is about 3.1~ billion dollars less...

[edit on 13/6/2010 by Dark Ghost]

reply to post by Curious and Concerned

Sure, you'd have to have a fair bit of wealth to afford something like this, even with sponsors, but that doesn't make them filthy rich millionaires.

I have actually followed this family when their son was successful at the task that their daughter just failed. They seem pretty well off. A fleet of sailing vessels, worth millions, at least a 1 - 2 million dollar home in a very nice neighborhood in California. Whether they have over a million dollars in cash, I don't know but they definitely have it in assets.

I agree that they should be held accountable for costs. But I disagree with people saying they are bad parents and should be charged.

In fact, we agree and disagree on the same things. I'm never one to advocate the government initiating force, to include telling us how to raise our children. Because of this, I feel as if its none of my business what they choose to do or not do, however, it becomes other people's business when public funds are used. Using public funds winds up being the government initiating force against its citizens.

If you want to go out on adventures than good for you but don't expect the tax-payer to have to pay for your excitement, especially when many of those tax-payers can't even provide for their own families. It's all good that the parents offered to pay however that so-far has not changed the end result and the end-result is all that matters: the tax payer being forced to pick up the tab for some spoiled brat's sense of adventure.

When I was a youngster, I had to pay for my own sense of adventure and sometimes with a pound of flesh. It's not really an adventure otherwise and lessons won't be learned. However, this was nobody else's business before the public was forced to pay for it. You think the Aussie govt. would be so willing to pay for the shenanigans of some 16 year old that was less wealthy? Lets say a back-packer passing through?


--airspoon


Note: initiation of force does not include response to force. Force can be applied through fiscal, physical, social or other means. Just because you may not believe in the initiation of force, doesn't mean that you are against the application of force.

reply to post by InfaRedMan

That's not too much to ask is it?

No it isn't to much to ask, I agree.

Risk takers should have coverage for such situations automatically.

reply to post by paraphi

I have to say that I am rather shocked and disappointed that some people seem to take the view that some people in distress at sea should be left to drown. This is extraordinary. There is a duty to render assistance to anyone in distress.

Yes there is a duty, its called compassion for our fellow Man and Woman!

Great post!

Kudos to Aussie for rescuing this girl. HOWEVER.

They should not have HAD to. There is even talk now to the effect of when someone knowingly places their life at risk, such as climbing Everest, and then placing the lives of others in great danger to execute a rescue and search, they should be charged.

I honestly agree. Especially when the person being rescued is not even a taxpayer in said country.

Some people have taken this too far, even saying if you need the fire department, you should be charged after the fact. I disagree with this, because the taxpayer contributes to this service. The service would not exist, but for the taxpayer's contribution.

But these kind of wild and crazy endeavors? Admittedly it was kind and generous of Australia to commit to this rescue effort, and had they not, they would have been criticized world wide.

But I do believe the family should have to pay some type of fine, or restitution, even if the girl has to go serve coffee to the poor for a month, or clean out kangaroo cages. lol.

Mandatory insurance before one of these trips sounds like a fine idea....
if they can find an insurance company willing to sell it to them. These are high-risk endeavors, and should not be taken lightly.

People should have their own back-up plan for rescue before striking out on such an adventure.

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
But these kind of wild and crazy endeavors? Admittedly it was kind and generous of Australia to commit to this rescue effort, and had they not, they would have been criticized world wide.

These are not "wild and crazy" endeavours - it is what people choose to do. These are fantastic challenges. Without the "wild and crazy" nothing would ever happen.

It was not really “kind and generous” of the Australian authorities to rescue this yachts woman. They did it because it was the right thing to do and because they could. They are not troubled with questions of whether the person in distress “deserves” their assistance, they are motivated only that there is a person in distress. This is the right way to do it and does not even bother with questions of circumstance.

Most nations would act like Australia. If this happened 300 miles of the west coast of the US you would expect the US authorities to render assistance, without question or judgement. In fact, you would not “expect” because you know that the US would do it, whether it was the Coastguard or someone sailing nearby. It is the nature of what nations and people do.

Why, once rescued, would the person have to pay? Does a trawler-man rescued in a storm have to pay – even though they are in hazardous seas and in a notoriously dangerous occupation. No, of course not. Whether someone is doing it for a living (the trawler man) or for sport / personal reasons (this yachts woman) the fact that they have been helped is the end of it and justification enough for so doing.

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
People should have their own back-up plan for rescue before striking out on such an adventure.

They do have their own backup plan. They have radios to call for help! Would you rather they had a flotilla of rescue ships following ten minutes behind in the off chance something goes wrong?

By the way, I am a supporter of the RNLI.

Regards

reply to post by paraphi


I agree it was a great humanitarian effort, and I see your point, sincerely I do.

I don't have my "knickers in a knot" over this, because the rescuers were not in danger. It's only money.

But when others have to place their own safety and lives at risk to rescue someone else, who has elected to engage in extremely risky behavior, I do have a problem with it.

Insurance, or a pre-arranged back up plan seems like a better solution.
In this case, the parents should be the responsible parties. I can't believe they let this young girl do this without a back up plan. Very irresponsible
in my opinion.

edit: n/m

[edit on 6/13/2010 by ladyinwaiting]

Originally posted by airspoon


Are you kidding me? The Australian tax-payer is being forced to pay for the rescue of a girl involved in a media stunt that should have never happened in the first place.

Remember that 16 year old girl who decided to sail across the world alone and her parents allowed her to, even against the advice of just about everyone, including officials of at least two different countries?

Well apparently everyone was right and the parents were wrong, yet the Australian tax-payers are forced to fit the bill for the rescue that was inevitable according to the nay-sayers from the beginning.

Why not force the stupid family to foot the bill, since it was their stupidity to begin with? Unfortunately the bill isn't cheap either since the Australian government has already spent a ton of money chartering commercial aircraft and other needs.

If these parents wanted to let their child do something so stupid, then so be it, however their stupidity shouldn't be the burden of everyone else. I think that people should be made to pay for their own stupidity, that way people may just be less inclined to be so stupid in the first place. I'm not even Australian and this kind of stings my blood.

--airspoon

www.news.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)

I am an Australian tax payer and I am fine with it.

It is reciprocal...
...Australia helps sailors in our waters and other countries help Australian sailors in their waters...
...it's true humanity at work...
...don't frustrate it with your selfish motives.

reply to post by troubleshooter


Make no mistake about it, I have no motives here except for my ultimate goal of liberty and justice. You may be fine with it but that doesn't give you the right to force others to go along with what you feel is right. Apparently other Aussies are not okay with it.

The parents should be the ones footing the bill. So what if she wanted to go on an adventure? Many young kids want to partake in adventures. Some do it through backpacking across a continent while others do it through drugs, sex, the latter two or all three combined. Some do it through bank-robbery or car-theft while others do it academically. The tax-payers should not be responsible for footing the bill of these adventures, especially when they are prone to failure due to inexperience.

Some people have said, "so what, let her live life". My child would love nothing more than to live life through playing with matches. If he creates burns down someone's house, should the tax-payer be burdened for footing the bill of that damage? No, a government should not be allowed to initiate force against its citizens by making them pay for something in which they had no input in the first place.

Sure, other countries might rescue an Aussie for free... but they might charge that Aussie too. Also, the majority of Aussies are never going to need rescuing by another country.

It's real simple, if you want to cuase undue risks upon your person, then you should be responsible for those risks, not everyone else who had absolutely no say in the descision in the first place. What kind of lesson is this young lady learning? That she can get into situations and expect the tax-payer to bail her out if she runs into trouble? Too many children are going without so that their families can afford to pay their taxes. Taxes that are being used for rich kids like this girl to go on adventures at everyone else's expense.

I'm not saying she can do these things, only that if she does, she needs to be responsible for her actions.

--airspoon

Reply to post by airspoon

That is the problem in the world today. No one cares about helping their fellow man.

All anyone cares about is money. Even if it is a mere one cent per person.

Pathetic.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Im Australian and im happy tp pay for this. If it had gone well we would be cheering along with the rest of world.
I cant believe your having a winge about this.

I'd rather pay for her safty than pay for mining adds.
Why is our money is being spent on this.
$38.5 million taxpayer-funded advertising

Jeez guys

Enough with the comments of letting the girl drown. Sure its complete BS we have to front the bill, but its better than lettuing someone die...sheesh

I really hope the parents send us thanks in some way though...my taxes would be better going towards our public schools or health system rather than this

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


In my mind this has less to do with money, than it does stupidity.

The parents should have had a boat packed and ready to go if she needed them, or a helicopter, or one of those planes that land on water, or something.

They did not. They were short-sighted and neglected parental responsibilities.

..And what happened was not the only liability. What about pirates, rapists, thieves and murderers? And you think it's okay to let a kid strike out on a trip around the world on her own?

Hardly. Foolhardy.

[edit on 6/13/2010 by ladyinwaiting]

reply to post by OzWeatherman


Is someone advocating not rescuing her at all? I sure wasn't saying that they should let her drown, rather that she should pick up the tab.

--airspoon



reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


It has nothing to do with "willing to help your your fellow man" and everything to do with responsibility for your own actions. Like it or not, you need money for your own survival and that of your family in the western economy that we now find ourselves in. I don't see how this young lady's adventures should take precedent over a child eating healthy or having adequate shelter. When people are struggling to pay their taxes, it seems silly that this young lady who probably doesn't even know the meaning of "need" to be using those precious tax-dollars on her own selfish adventures.

--airspoon


reply to post by Whateva69

If it had gone well we would be cheering along with the rest of world.

Actually, I wouldn't care as it has no bearing on me, my family, my neighbors or the world as a whole. Sure I'd be happy for her that she accomplished what she set out to do but that's about as far as it would go.

I cant believe your having a winge about this.

It's not just this incident but what this incident symbolizes. This incident is only indicative of one of the things that I see wrong with the world. People should not have force initiated against them, especially when they, their family members or their neighbors and loved ones don't benefit what-so-ever. It's not okay to initiate force against people as it is the anti-thesis of liberty.

I'd rather pay for her safety than pay for mining adds.

The lesser of two evils is still evil.

--airspoon


[edit on 13-6-2010 by airspoon]

what's one more rescue to add, in all that are performed throughout a year, what about the taxpayers money for all these others.
so what if she isn't australian, it doesn't make any difference to a rescue effort being needed.

she was at right in her call for use of the standards of maritime safety and australia being the closest in aid, is responsible and does foot the bill luckily for such rescues and others, wether one likes it or not. no different than being a tourist and getting lost somewhere in the great australia's outback.

good on her for trying to achieve something she more than likely holds as a lifetime dream come true. nothing wrong with that or the way it has been handled.