Schapelle Corby blasts Qantas
 

Corby blasts Qantas ban

SMH Friday Nov 17th

Corby ... says "an innocent holiday on one of their planes ripped my life apart".

If Qantas believed I was just a girl who got lucky smuggling drugs, surely a picture of me at the airport would be a great anti drugs warning - a deterrent! But to ban a large poster of my book ... it is

Schapelle Corby says it is "sinister" that Qantas has refused to display advertising of her new book at its Australian terminals.

The convicted drug smuggler's new book, My Story, went on sale last Friday and is already fifth on the bestseller list from just one day of recorded sales.

The book's publisher, Pan Macmillan, had hoped to have large light-box advertisements displayed at airports across Australia throughout December.
But Qantas has deemed the ads, which simply show the cover of the book, "inappropriate" for its terminals

"We reserve the right to refuse any advertising we deem inappropriate for our premises and that is one that's been refused," a Qantas spokesman told smh.com.au.

In comments collected from her Bali prison by her sister Mercedes, Corby said she was dumbfounded by the decision.

"I don't know what the problem with publicising the book is, as everything I have written is true. Qantas has a lot to hide," Corby said.

"So Qantas doesn't believe in free speech? This says everything to me."

"They don't want to remind the public of what happened on their flight ... that I flew Qantas on a holiday to paradise and ended up in hell."

"If Qantas believed I was just a girl who got lucky smuggling drugs, surely a picture of me at the airport would be a great anti drugs warning - a deterrent! But to ban a large poster of my book ... it is sinister... it backs what my family has said all along.

"They want all this to go away, they want me to go away, vanish, rot in this hellhole for 20 years ... let the public forget the terrifying truth ... that an innocent holiday on one of their planes ripped my life apart. It can happen to anyone. It did happen to anyone ... but that anyone was me ... Schapelle Corby.

Pan Macmillan publisher Tom Gilliatt said advertising space at airports and shopping centres across the country had been booked back in February for various Pan Macmillan titles, including My Story.

"Virgin [Blue] and the shopping centres have no problem with advertising Schapelle Corby's book but Qantas obviously does."

The book's co-author, Kathryn Bonella, said the ad ban was "unbelievable".
"Qantas know Schapelle Corby is innocent otherwise surely it would be a great deterrent to have a picture of Schapelle Corby at an airport terminal. Virgin has no problem with it."

Asked to explain why Qantas had deemed the ad inappropriate when Virgin Blue had found no problem with it, the Qantas spokesman said: [That's] completely and utterly up to them."

Qantas has a lot to hide," Corby said.:D :D :D

made me giggle.

Qf dont believe in free anything!

Have I got this right?
She accused Qantas baggage staff of planting drugs in her bag and is now complaining because Qantas doesn't want to give her publicity:confused:

Tell me one other company that would not have acted in the same manner

I'll bet the slapper spells it Quantas.

Islander Jock,

Qantas is very willing to give free publicity to an number of other enterprises ranging from the Gay Mardigra festival to a certain pub in Wagga so why should they not allow an ad for a book which is selling in paper shops.

The Book will probably sell in terminals that VB fly out of so this a little like sticking your head in the sand and pretending no one can see you.QF has also given Schappelle more free advertising by not allowing it than by doing nothing.

so let me get this straight, QF wont allow the book to be advertised by light boards out the front of the usual bookstores in its terminals, and in doing so, they have created a news story that will be seen by many more people, all over oz, who don't regularly fly, giving the book that much more exposure.....

on a second note, Im sure QF don't own all of their terminals, and wouldn't it be up to the terminal owner to decide what their tenants, the bookstores, can advertise in their terminal space and not QF?

No, I believe QANTAS have retained the right of advertising veto in their lease agreement

What company would allow someone to advertise their 'anti-company' propaganda on their property? For her to suggest that this proves anything or is even remotely sinister shows her substance :yuk:

Or does QANTAS indeed have something to hide?

Either way - when launching a book, any advertising is good advertising.

I didn't even know QF was implicated in the whole affair until I read this!

****su,
As you are ovbiously unaware, Schappelle arrived in Bali on an Australian Airlines flight, owned by Qantas. She has filed appeals to the courts disputing her arrest and blaming Qantas for "planting" drugs in her luggage. Now I'm sure that most of us have made our own minds up as to who is the "guilty" one however Qantas is and always will be implicated in this case until proven 100% innocent of this accusation. It is not in the best interest of Qantas to support her claims and therefore not support her or I should say her family proffiting from a book or any other publication written by the accused. Untill this is finally laid to rest, and that will be a long time as appeals in Indonesia seem to be endless how could you expect the prime defendant to support the accused. That could lead to further implications in the future and the decision made by Qantas not to sell the book in it's terminals is quite possibly a choice made by lawyers on behalf of Qantas. And if it did happen to Virgin, well, they would probably cash in and take the puplicity, thank God I work for a company that stands their ground.

Young Miss Corby was CONVICTED of smuggling drugs. Now while I would rather we did not go into the finer points of the investigation or Indonesion courts, she has been convicted of a serious crime. In Australia we have laws regarding the profits Criminals can make from books or publicity about their crimes. Miss Corby may not be subject to those laws because her Crime was committed in another country, but well done Qantas for for sticking to the spirit of those laws.

Any inference of Qantas employee involvement in this case is unproven in court and it's a fair call if a company would rather not have their reputation sullied by a convicted drug dealer.

This has got nothing to do with QF's social conscience and upholding the 'spirit' of Aussie laws. It is about QF copping a shellacking in her book and not wanting it advertised. The only thing stopping QF from having shops stock it in the terminal is the breach of the competition rules in this nation. If QF could do so without copping a breach from the ACCC (or whoever it is that enforces such competition issues) then they would have banned the book in a blink.

From cold hard experience lots of people who are guilty are found to be 'not' and lots of people who are 'not' are found 'guilty'. I'd bet money that she probably didn't do it. I'd have money each way on whether it was her brother or baggage handlers. I had a mate with a certain police agency who was investigating drug trafficking through the airport. He reckons that she's an even money chance to not have done it. :eek:

Mr Keg as I said I would rather not go into the intricacies of the investigation or the courts, I will go by the facts as I see them. Miss Corby was convicted of smuggling drugs. If she is innocent it is a tragedy, but as it stands she is a convicted criminal. Good luck with her appeals and if someone else is guilty and she knows who, she should talk.

As to Qantas not putting the book on display, would you if you were bagged on a purely speculative unproved level? Would you if the intent of the bagging was for purely self serving reasons? I think it is already a PR disaster, no need to make it worse.

I doubt the reasons Qantas are not putting the ads up are for my fine noble reasons. They are probably the same selfish reasons Miss Corby wants them there, but doesn't it look good for them.

Personally, I think she did it, or more likely her brother/half brother or whatever did it and she took the fall.

Over the years a small element within the brotherhood of bagsnatchers has been proven to be less than squeaky clean, but they are not total dopes. If one was going to load a bunch of Noosa Hedz into a bag for pickup in Sydney, you sure as hell would pick a terminating bag or long stay domestic transfer and not an international tranship. Once the thing has left Australia, there is absolutely no control over any planted items.

Where Miss Corby went totally wrong was her handling or lack thereof of the Indonesian Police.They are indeed the finest Police money can buy, and a well placed $20,000 bribe initially would have made all her problems go away. As it became more public, the ante would have gone up but the bastards are so corrupt that there is always a price.

I have personally paid a bribe to make a traffic infringement go away and have been present when a US citizen has bribed his way out of a Visa overstay. This is much more serious, but there is always a price.

Miss Schapell may be ( or was - as the mileage is no doubt clocking up at an alarming rate now) a pretty lady, but unfortunately nobody had given her a good whacking with a clever stick.

I am not in the least amazed that QF wants nothing to do with her. It would be right up there with renaming Club Rat the Osama Lounge.

Best all

EWL

This is not a court room and whether Ms Corby is guilty or not is irrelevant.

The point is that by denying the ad in it's terminal the company has given the sort of publicity that the publishers could have only wished for.

If they had done nothing the book would have been just one of a numer of books that come out every few weeks and after a while fade into oblivion.

It is decisions like this that really make me wonder about the capability of senior management

Well I for one didn't realise the book was even out there, but I do now, thanks to PPRUNE and Qantas.

Great advertising. :ok:

Well all I can say is that she must be a real bimbo not to realise that her boogie board bag weighed an extra four kilo's. How dumb can one be?

guilty
 

so let me see, convicted imprisoned ,now wants to make some extra cash since her family trade is busted do the crime do the time just say no to drugs ok would it have mattered who she flew?

"Well all I can say is that she must be a real bimbo not to realise that her boogie board bag weighed an extra four kilo's. How dumb can one be?"

I would also love to see the video footage as she collects her body board and discovers the new shape from all the 'lightweight padding'. Defineatly GUILTY and keep her locked up if not for the drugs but for also riding a bodyboard:mad: .

As said by Eastwest Loco

"I have personally paid a bribe to make a traffic infringement go away and have been present when a US citizen has bribed his way out of a Visa overstay. This is much more serious, but there is always a price."

Care to elaborate or will you plead the 5th under cross? A more dumb statement I haven't read for a LONG time.......thanks for the giggle.

Well ,If we are going to play amateur sherlock holmes and proclaim someone guilty without being privy to the evidence how about the identity of the other gunman on the grassy knoll????


Then again QF will want to ban any advertising on that book because the taxi driver who dropped the gunman off on the grassy knoll flew QF on his next holidays!

However any publicity is OK for Lee Harvey Oswald because he had been on a skiing holiday a year previously at a certain resort in Japan.

I agree with EWL. I've paid a "traffic fine" in cash on the spot too. Just pull out the wallet and ask how much the official fee is for the Fine/Visa/ whatever.

Schapelle and her handlers were too stupid to take a very low profile and buy her way out, as many others have before and since.

To believe that this doesn't happen in the East (except perhaps Singapore) is totally naive.

Given the fact that the passenger surrenders control of the baggage from the point of check in, retrieving the baggage at the point of disembarkation it is a sad indictment of legal process that one of the most important legal principles involving a nexus between the accused and the evidence must exist. As the passenger does not control their baggage it is difficult to conclude legally that the accused is in fact guilty at the point of disembarkation.

That is however assuming the law continues to abide by those rules. As Keg alludes to, there have been a number of investigations into carriage of narcotics via domestic flights. I know of such investigations too.

When you consider that all bags can be opened, and often are, no watter what your locking device, is it plausible it was not put there by her? The answer is affirmaitve.

Consider if you will the situation in the United States. A bag can be opened and searched by the "TSA" and the search need not be in your presence. It remains however grounds for legal conviction if something is found, depsite the search being conducted away from the accused. I as flight crew, cannot believe such rubbish is not challenged, it doesn't follow established legal principle.
In assessing the particulars of this case, just remember she lost control at the point of check in...The bag passes through a number of "secure" (my emphasis) areas, through a number of hands to arrive overseas a number of hours later to be retrieved by the accused.

I'm not sure the failure belonged to the airport, QF or anyone else. However, the system could well have failed! Anybody who understands legal principle realises that the necessity to prove the connection between check in baggage and baggage retrieval assumes you are in control of the bag, which you are not. This raises the prospect that reasonable doubt exists........

Well said QFinsider but it is a pity that the same definition of reasonable doubt is not applicable in Indonesia unless of course the son of a senior minister is in your group.

The other point I would like to know is who was the clown that advised or rather did not advise against young Schappelle wearing a low cut top with a push up bra to an Indonesion court.

Not only the weight, but did you see the size of that 4kg of green? Not exactly an inconspicuous size change to the bag in question :suspect:

Here Here :D :D

Im not surprised Q doesnt want it advertised and i dont blame them, depending on how far the accusations go in the book.
Does anyone know what rights Q have to prevent/pursue Libel Slander on their personel etc?

And as said earlier, being a convicted drug smuggler, making profits off of the book like she is is almost as bad as what she was convicted of and shouldnt be allowed, take the profits and give them to some worthy charity, or customs, anything but her families pockets.

Turbz:cool:

EWL has it in one - this thread is (should be) about QF not wanting to give a book publicity, and in executing this policy, has unwittingly given it more publicity than if it had just kept schtum - thus calling into question the thinking behind its decision and therefore the competence of those who made the decision.

And for the armchair lawyers out there... what about bailment on terms after the bag was surrendered? It amazes me that apparently no-one in her camp has sought to go after QF or SACL etc. on civil grounds in Australia, where the burden of proof would be lower, namely simply the balance of probabilities. A half-decent QC/SC should be able to get a few jurors on-side quite quickly, given the camel-suit incident and other bits & pieces that have popped up in the news. That, then, could not harm her appeals in Indo courts.

One thing I have learnt from this is to always demand that the weight of the checked be recorded at check-in. IME it's rarely done. I've been given some funny looks but I'd rather get a funny look at check-in than to have to explain something in a small room at the other end... :eek:

She's not at all helped by all these other nongs who seem to get pinged in Indo on a regular basis these days. Don't these people read the papers/watch TV, etc. and see what happens to them? :ugh:

Advice From a QC
 

In discussions over lunch with a QC mate some time ago about Schapelle Corby, I was given the following advice in dealing with police/customs/etc. , to avoid self incrimination and provide maximum room for your ultimate defence if you are in danger of getting Corbyised. Pity Schapelle didn't know this. - never give a direct answer - ever.

Customs: "Is this your bag?"

Sunfish: "It looks like my bag"

Customs: "Did you pack this bag yourself?"

Sunfish: "It looks like the bag I packed"

Customs: " Are these your drugs?"

Sunfish: "I reject that allegation...and so on

P.S. That is why you hear John Howard "reject that allegation" all the time. It sounds like a denial, but it isn't really anything at all one way or the other.

It is a very good point especially as most of us go through some country's customs hall every time we go to work.

Our bags have been out of sight and therefore our control for up to 20 hours or so.Blind Freddy could open the usual lock and if you fly into or out of the US you have the TSA who can and do open your bags without you being present.

When asked " Did you pack your bag"...you can answer "YES"

"are you aware of the contents of your bag"....." I was when I packed it but not now as the bag has been out of my sight for nearly 20 hours"

The problem is that with most western countries that line of discussion is possible but with some other countries you might as well be bashing your head against a brick wall.

I didn't watch the show, but did I hear correctly...that the Lawyer made up the whole "baggage handlers put the drugs in the boogie board"???

I believe the TWU are chasing an apology, but I'd like to see if Qantas will demand the same for their employees. Also, how can this "lawyer" be allowed to continue practicing law if he's admitted to fabricating stories for a defence???

Lawyers...:suspect:

Buster I did watch the show and according to her lawyer he made up the defence after hearing it on an ABC radio show. The previous defence was going to be the Indo's planted the drugs for bribery purposes. The lawyer pointed out this would offend the indo's and not be that logical with the amount of dope found, could have used a small amount for the same result, also how could they be sure of their intended victims cash resources. They were looking for an explanation that would be credible, defendable and the media could run with. There were some strange media toying scenes with Miss Corby coming across as a victim, which she may very well be, of what though?

Breaking news The West Australian

Union demands apology

Schapelle Corby's legal team owes an apology to Australian airport baggage handlers over a made-up claim they planted marijuana found in the convicted drug smuggler's bag, unionists say.
Corby's former lawyer Robin Tampoe has revealed he made up the baggage handler theory after hearing a talkback program where callers were discussing alleged corruption among airport staff.

In a documentary on the case that aired on the Nine Network on Sunday night, Mr Tampoe said: "Baggage handlers didn't put drugs in the bag, nothing to do with it."

"Now she (Corby) believes it. They all f****** believe it. It's not true."

Transport Workers Union (TWU) Queensland secretary Hughie Williams said on Monday he was "very angry" to hear the damaging claims had been invented.

"It was a very, very serious matter ... to make such an allegation at that time against people who had nothing to do with it and it's proved now beyond all doubt now that they had nothing to do with it and it was a fabricated story - I think those people should give all baggage handlers a public apology," Mr Williams told ABC Radio.

He said he never believed a baggage handler had been responsible.

"Those people conspired to make up a story that baggage handlers could, or more, did put the marijuana in that boogie board and I think that's a disgrace for any lawyer, or anybody in public life, or anybody at all, to make such an outrageous allegation," he said.

Corby, 30, who is serving a 20-year sentence in Bali's Kerobokan prison for importing the drugs, maintains her innocence despite all of her appeals being rejected by the Indonesian courts and government.

She sacked Mr Tampoe, who no longer practises law, after she was sentenced to 20 years' jail.

AAP

Noticed in the news, just this morning, that the accusation that the baggage handlers planted the "stuff" was made up by her lawyer! (Channel 7 "Sunrise" News... Now, the media doesn't make up stories... Does it? Well, it wasn't "Today Tonight"!)

don't Qantas record the weight of check in items that are not a standard bag? How do they account for the weight of the board in there load sheet?

"Also, how can this "lawyer" be allowed to continue practicing law if he's admitted to fabricating stories for a defence???"



A TV reporter last night, (Ch.9), said he wasn't practicing law any more!

I turned it off.

Well if it has done nothing else it has made us all aware of the consequences if the stuff is dumped upon us. I arrived SIN sans the padlock which was locked on it in BNE. I called customs, refused to touch the bag, insisted on a dog going over the bag, and a customs officer to go thru it. This was done with the minimal of fuss, and the usual good manners of the Singaporians. I had no intention of ending up on the end of a rope, or spending the rest of my life in Changi. Lesson is don't even pick it up if it doesnt look right, and make a hell of a noise if you are even remotely suspicious. As for Shapelle, who knows, its like the Azaria Chamberlain thing, everybody has their own opinion. Up here on the Gold Coast the Corbys were not exactly known for their church going, but does that make her guilty, probably not, regardless she has done enough time in that hellhole, and should now be released. It is a bit of a standing joke, as you can buy that crap anywhere in Bali.

If we demanded an apology every time some Plaintiff or Defence Lawyer suggested that .... "someone else (policeman, wharfie, doctor, teacher etc etc) did it" .... we'd have more "sorrys" than a Labor Party conference ..

QFinsider
Very good post. Makes a lot of sense.

Sunfish
I have seen/experienced this quite a bit in Indonesia. Corruption is rife and nothing is as it seems. Most Australians also seem to have no problem fitting in when travelling there.
She may well be guilty (everyone has an opinion) but a conviction from an Indonesian court does not necessarily mean this is so. If she was guilty, maybe she should have played the game as they used to say in my Army days.

Yep, just like that Aussie fellow that was also convicted for drugs and firearms (Chris Judd or Judge I think). He was caught, he admitted it, paid some dough and was convicted to time already spent in goal.

There was also someone recently who some members of this board may know. He was charged (drugs) and convicted, but he too played the game and is now free. From what I heard it wasn't cheap though. But it did become complicated once the Australian Embassy got invloved, as the Indonesian couldn't be seen to be corrupt. Once the media and govt involment died down, the game could be played.