AJ gets pie in the face

[Reeldeel]

Interesting that if one views the reader's comments underneath 'The Australian's' article about the alleged pie thrower being banned from QF, JQ, EK and so on, there is almost no support for the ban that Mr Joyce has imposed on the gentleman concerned.

We need to remember that while hardly anyone supports throwing pies in public figures' (or anyone's) face(s), it has a long tradition in Australia (and probably other democracies) as a way of demonstrating disquiet, with no resultant physical harm to the recipient. The other factor is that the gentleman concerned has not been convicted of any offence, and even if he was to be, the act was not committed on board an aircraft or anywhere near an airport.

Immigration Minister Peter Dutton has summed it up pretty well (although making these two separate comments at different times).

He said that company CEOs and others should stick to the knitting and concentrate on running their businesses, rather than being social engineers. That comment was made before the pie throwing incident.

The second comment was to condemn the pie throwing incident.

How many conservative Australians has this company offended with its constant support for changing a key maxim of society that has stood the test of time for thousands of years?

I wonder if Peter Dutton still has access to the Chairman's lounge?

 

[esseeeayeenn]

Interesting that if one views the reader's comments underneath 'The Australian's' article about the alleged pie thrower being banned from QF, JQ, EK and so on, there is almost no support for the ban that Mr Joyce has imposed on the gentleman concerned.

We need to remember that while hardly anyone supports throwing pies in public figures' (or anyone's) face(s), it has a long tradition in Australia (and probably other democracies) as a way of demonstrating disquiet, with no resultant physical harm to the recipient. The other factor is that the gentleman concerned has not been convicted of any offence, and even if he was to be, the act was not committed on board an aircraft or anywhere near an airport.

Immigration Minister Peter Dutton has summed it up pretty well (although making these two separate comments at different times).

He said that company CEOs and others should stick to the knitting and concentrate on running their businesses, rather than being social engineers. That comment was made before the pie throwing incident.

The second comment was to condemn the pie throwing incident.

How many conservative Australians has this company offended with its constant support for changing a key maxim of society that has stood the test of time for thousands of years?

Once again, the pie was not thrown.

And your so called "key maxim of society" has only been law since 2004.

But why let facts get in the way of prejudice?

 

[eminere]

I don't think someone has to be convicted of a (criminal) offence in order to be banned from an airline. Just be shown likely to present an unruly person likely to cause disruption in the air.

I read on the news somewhere (sorry I don't recall the source anymore) that apparently it is Qantas's policy to ban any person who harrasses or abuses its staff.

 

[Pushka]

I read on the news somewhere (sorry I don't recall the source anymore) that apparently it is Qantas's policy to ban any person who harrasses or abuses its staff.

Well that's a good thing. And explains that this person hasn't been singled out as thought by some. Sounds like a good and responsible Occ Health and Safety policy.

 

[samh004]

Recent posts in this thread have remained close to the line, but ultimately, on-topic. Watch that you aren't the poster that takes the thread away from the discussion of the facts in this case, or your post and subsequent replies will be removed.

 

[dajop]

He said that company CEOs and others should stick to the knitting and concentrate on running their businesses, rather than being social engineers.

A contrary view is that companies are taking the stand they are taking on various issues, including the one here, in way which is entirely consistent with, and in some cases enhances, the successful operation of their businesses. This could be a) avoid consumer boycotts, b) make their businesses a more attractive place to work for a range of employees, thus attract better talent c) to appeal to particular segments of consumers to enhance profitability. QF could be taking the stand it is, because of it's CEO's personal views, or because of commercial reasons, or a combination of both, I don't know. Also, it is not entirely outside the realms of possiblity that QF has a higher proportion of LGBTI etc employees than most businesses, particularly in customer facing roles, therefore is doing this in support of that part of their workforce.

In fact a big criticism (particularly from the radical left) of companies doing a bit of "social engineering" (to use Dutton's words) is that they are doing it for their sole commercial benefit. I'm sure some companies do this stuff to enhance their profitability, and therefore they are indeed sticking to their knitting.

 

[drron]

I read on the news somewhere (sorry I don't recall the source anymore) that apparently it is Qantas's policy to ban any person who harrasses or abuses its staff.

Well that's a good thing. And explains that this person hasn't been singled out as thought by some. Sounds like a good and responsible Occ Health and Safety policy.

I'm sorry but this policy should not apply here.AJ was not on official QF business but addressing a conference.
No different to say JohnK having a car park bingle and the other driver worked for QF and had just picked up a snack before going to work.If JohnK abused her should he then be banned from flying QF for life?
Sorry John but in view of the way you sometimes get treated here for your views I thought this would be the worst case scenario incident.

In this incident AJ is the person in a position of power when it comes to flying.This retribution before any court case to me represents bullying.I know many will disagree but it is my opinion.

 

[dajop]

I'm sorry but this policy should not apply here.AJ was not on official QF business but addressing a conference.

Not getting into arguments about whether or not the ban was appropriate, I am sure under Workplace Health and Safety Law, addressing a conference whilst representing Qantas is actually being present in a workplace, and therefore any safety/health incidents would fall under the responsibility of the employer, whether it is core business activity or addressing a conference (and in this case also the responsibility of the conference organiser and venue to provide a safe place of work). This is different to travelling to work from home.

 

[Pushka]

If there was any mention of the fact that Joyce was CE of Qantas in any publicity blurb or was introduced as such or if the red roo logo was seen anywhere at the breakfast then of course he was representing his employer, Qantas, and therefore receives all the benefits and protection as such. My opinion. . Can anyone confirm if that was the case? I can't access the original article for some reason.

 

[muppet]

I'm sorry but this policy should not apply here.AJ was not on official QF business but addressing a conference.
No different to say JohnK having a car park bingle and the other driver worked for QF and had just picked up a snack before going to work.If JohnK abused her should he then be banned from flying QF for life?
Sorry John but in view of the way you sometimes get treated here for your views I thought this would be the worst case scenario incident.

In this incident AJ is the person in a position of power when it comes to flying.This retribution before any court case to me represents bullying.I know many will disagree but it is my opinion.

Bahahahhaha OMG!

Guy smashes pie in other guy's face and when other guy wants to prevent ever encountering said pie smasher again, it is he who is the bully??? Give it a rest.

I'm outraged you think random unprovoked pie smashings in the face require the victim to forever appease the perpetrator rather than the perp experiencing any minor consequence for thier assult!

 

[RooFlyer]

Hmmmm. I'm pretty sure the pie incident was neither 'random' or 'unprovoked' ( at least in the mind of the assailant).

How does banning the chap from flying Qantas ensure they don't meet again? The incident didn't occur anywhere near a plane or the airline offices or an airport.

Im also confused about the use of 'appeased' in this context. How is that envisioned?

Of course what Joyce is doing can be construed as bullying. Even convicted criminals can be bullied, let alone this guy, not yet convicted.

 

[oz_mark]

Plenty of companies have 'sacked' customers without things ever going to court. They just decide they don't want someone as a customer.

 

[drron]

I doubt that the pie smasher would ever meet AJ on a QF plane so not a case of not wanting to meet him again.
As to other companies QF is a little different being a public carrier.

 

[DC3]

Plenty of companies have 'sacked' customers without things ever going to court. They just decide they don't want someone as a customer.

Yes and the fool who decided to do the pie thing can go ...

 

[Melburnian1]

The Bolt Report tonight headlines its show with (to paraphrase) 'Qantas flies murderers and rapists but it bans someone who aims a cream pie..'

Fair point. I agree with RooFlyer that Alan Joyce could well be accused of bullying this man, who as mentioned above has yet to face court, so he is not convicted of anything.

QF is a private company, but it is essentially operating what the aviation authorities call 'regular public transport.'

While it is not a 'common carrier' as defined by legislation, it carries anyone who purchases a ticket and who fronts within the required time, provided that the passenger is not carrying any prohibited items (with the rare possible exception of someone who is so overweight as to require more than one seat on a fully booked flight - but there is little or no publicity in Australia about such instances. Minors who turned up without the required documentation to be carried as unaccompanied would be another exception, and the negative publicity that JQ suffered some time back from not carrying disabled passenger(s) or not carrying them appropriately is another possible exception.)

Cream pies are not a 'prohibited item.'

 

[DC3]

So, the pie man becomes the victim? Why didn't I see this coming?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

... so he is not convicted of anything.

He doesn't really need to be convicted of anything... he 'did' the act. Had it been a staff member going about their duties (ground or air crew), the ban is almost certainly appropriate. Whether a high-profile CEO should take measure to effect a ban? I dunno if that promotes or hurts the cause. Part of me says that at the top of your league you generally brush something like this off and continue on (just as AJ did on the day), and not give a platform to make the perpetrator a martyr.

 

[Hvr]

And the judicial process commences albeit slowly:

Perth pie thrower fronts court over assault, trespass charges

The Perth man who shoved a pie in Qantas boss Alan Joyce's face last month has made his first appearance in court.


Anthony David Overheu, 67, made a very brief appearance in Perth Magistrates Court on Wednesday morning.


Charges of common assault, trespassing on the Grand Ballroom of the Hyatt Regency Hotel, damage to a microphone and giving false details to police were read to him by the magistrate, but he did not enter a plea.


His lawyer requested a four week adjournment, which was granted. He will reappear in court on July 7 and his bail was renewed.

 

[theblank]

Good on Anthony Overheu, at worst he will get a slap on the wrist, but cant put a price on shoving the pie in Joyces face, then getting charged for it, keeping it in the news for ever.


Cant wait for the trial , Joyce: "i was offended :cry"

 

[clazman]

Anyone comment on trespassing at the grand ballroom, how does that work?

Damage to a microphone .... gees what about damage to a white shirt as well...