A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it • Hacker News Board

Re: A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

#281

Post by DanBC » Sun, Jun 03, 2018, 2:30 PM UTC

lopmotr wrote: post #235

orf wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean the vile idiot who potentially ruined an ongoing trial by broadcasting sensitive details all over facebook directly outside the court , which was widely and thoroughly reported by the UK press? I would check where you are getting your facts from.

What sensitive details did he broadcast? The entire video is on YouTube if you need to refer to it. As far as I know, he read information already published in newspapers. Did I mention that his entire video is still on Youtube? Still sitting their "jeopardizing" the case and it hasn't been taken down. Not only that, but anybody else outside the UK could repeat the same things and publish them anywhere on the internet…

> What sensitive details did he broadcast

He threatened witnesses; he called defendants before they were convicted "muslim child rapists"; his actions nearly caused the collapse of the trial.

Re: A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

#282

Post by DanBC » Sun, Jun 03, 2018, 2:34 PM UTC

galieos_ghost wrote: post #58

orf wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A thousand times this. I'm not saying the UK is some shining beacon of how to run a country but I do think overall our governmental systems are pretty sensible . I think being sensible might be a stereotypical English trait, but it's true. For example you have to comply with the spirit of a law, not the exact text. Also our QC's are pretty level headed and the same goes for our police force. Nobody is overly nitpicky…

>UK Your government currently arrests people for criticizing the government online, covers up child-rape gangs, arrests people for reporting on those cover ups, and mandates whether citizens should receive health care or die, regardless of whether they have the money to pay for it in a foreign country. Your government took 1984 and used it as a blueprint. Your government see you as an actual human, they see you as th…

>> mandates whether citizens should receive health care or die, regardless of whether they have the money to pay for it in a foreign country.

No, this is incorrect.

Alfie Evans was going to die. There was no treatment available for him. No-one, not even foreign doctors, were offering treatment other than end of life care.

Alfie is a human, and has human rights, and the paramountcy principle used in English courts mean that his rights are more important to the courts than the parents' rights. Everything has to be done in his best interest, and it wasn't in his best interest to take him abroad to die.

The parents had excellent top tier legal advice provided for free. They went through seven legal firms because they weren't being told what they wanted. They eventually got sucked into the Christian Legal Center - an organisation whose advice was so piss-poor they face regulation.

https://nearlylegal.co.uk/2018/04/on-the-naughty-step-the-qu...

Here's a useful blog post about what actually happened: http://www.transparencyproject.org.uk/alfie-evans-best-inter...

(This is written by a mix of people, some of them represent children and families against the state.)

Note that an important difference between the US and UK law is that in the UK the doctors propose a plan, and if the parents disagree the doctors need to go to court to get permission. This is reversed in the US. The doctors propose a plan, and if the parents disagree it is they who need to go to court to stop the doctors.

Re: A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

#283

Post by stefek99 » Sun, Jun 03, 2018, 8:24 PM UTC

You fill the form, you declare the cash.

It says in Terms & Conditions "if you don't register BLAH BLAH BLAH"

Choose a country that promotes freedom - Liberland, Blue Frontiers anyone?

Re: A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

#284

Post by manicdee » Mon, Jun 04, 2018, 1:31 AM UTC

JackCh wrote: post #260

manicdee wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The soap box has already been used. People don't care. The ballot box has already been used. Both sides either take no action or work to extend the practise. People still don't care. The jury box has already been used, the supreme court has ruled this legal. People still don't care. If you think it's too soon to resort to the ammo box, you need to reevaluate your perspective on the government in the USA. Remember, "a…

The soap box has not been exhausted. It's not something you use once or twice and then give up on. And because the soap box has not been exhausted, the ballot box has necessarily not been employed to the full extent. The ammo box is for truly extreme situations such as when the results of the ballot box are being disregarded and the courts choose not to intervene or are incapable of meaningfully intervening. Ironical…

At what point do you consider the soap box exhausted?

Re: A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

#285

Post by nrmitchi » Tue, Jun 05, 2018, 4:53 PM UTC

jbob2000 wrote: post #233

nrmitchi wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Besides the points already mentioned by others (as well as in the article), writing a cheque in this situation has the problem of being able to cash it on the other side. I cannot think of a single bank (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that would allow a client, especially a new, previously unknown client, to walk in and cash a $60k international check. Without special circumstances, you'd likely be looking at an…

15 days is not an egregious amount of time to wait to verify that $58,000 is being moved honestly.

You are correct, it is not, and I completely understand why most banks and financial institutions have this policy. My point was that if you are going on a vacation, or a trip, or business of some kind for 4 weeks with the need to take a relatively large sum of money with you, the 3 week delay would make this option less than ideal.

Re: A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

#286

Post by lopmotr » Wed, Jun 06, 2018, 5:09 AM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #281

lopmotr wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What sensitive details did he broadcast? The entire video is on YouTube if you need to refer to it. As far as I know, he read information already published in newspapers. Did I mention that his entire video is still on Youtube? Still sitting their "jeopardizing" the case and it hasn't been taken down. Not only that, but anybody else outside the UK could repeat the same things and publish them anywhere on the internet…

> What sensitive details did he broadcast He threatened witnesses; he called defendants before they were convicted "muslim child rapists"; his actions nearly caused the collapse of the trial.

What threat did he make? The closest I saw was asking some questions of two people entering the court.

He used "alleged" as all media does for people who haven't been convicted.

Here are public details of the trials already published in the UK. It includes the names, charges, and effectively the description "child rapists". How does this not risk collapsing the trial but when Tommy Robinson said it, it did? Is it simply because he said they were Muslim while the newspaper only listed their obviously Muslim-sounding names?

https://www.examiner.co.uk/news/trial-dates-set-29-people-13...