Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stranded sailor allowed to leave abandoned ship after four years

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 426 posts

Re: Stranded sailor allowed to leave abandoned ship after four years

#71

Post by duxup »

eastbayjake wrote: post #38

The Egyptian legal system is not known for its fairness... the World Justice Project ranks it 125 of 128 surveyed countries, in last place out of 8 countries in the Middle East[1] Similarly (and tragically) the Syrian government is not known for its compassion towards its distressed citizens. [1] https://worldjusticeproject.org/rule-of-law-index/country/Eg...

>World Justice Project ranks it 125 of 128 surveyed countries

Man considering the scale here that's horrific.

But I guess that would explain a process here where they seem to punish someone... 'just because', and with no value coming from the process at all.

It's just injustice for no reason at all.... I can understand corruption to some extent. They get something, but punish this guy for no value, I don't get it.

Re: Stranded sailor allowed to leave abandoned ship after four years

#72

Post by [deleted] »

patentatt wrote: post #39
modeless wrote: post #9

Why would you write an article like this without a word describing the legal consequences of leaving the ship? What consequence would be worth four years of your life? Edit: a more useful video linked below explains that the authorities confiscated his passport. That would make it difficult to leave. Though I'd probably try anyway after a year of that.

But that alone doesn’t prohibit him from going to live on land somewhere, right?

[deleted]

Re: Stranded sailor allowed to leave abandoned ship after four years

#73

Post by jandrese »

tracedddd wrote: post #50

So could anyone have saved this guy by delivering enough fuel to get to port? I wonder what the costs would have been.

The original problem wasn't lack of fuel, it was inspection issues. They only ran out of fuel after being trapped and running the generators for electricity. In fact the ship probably still has a usable supply of bunker fuel on board so it wouldn't be that hard to get it to port, except that it is still trapped in the original legal limbo.

After 4 years of deferred maintenance the engines are going to need some TLC before they can be fired up again. The longer the ship sits idle the worse the situation becomes. Left long enough and some fitting somewhere will corrode through or be damaged in a storm and without power to run the pumps the ship will start slowly sinking.

Re: Stranded sailor allowed to leave abandoned ship after four years

#74

Post by qz_ »

sdenton4 wrote: post #52
neaden wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They had his passport, so it would have been difficult for him to leave and risking arrest by either the Egyptian or Syrian police.

Seems like a good reason to get in touch with your home country's embassy/consulate...

Not if you're from Syria.

Re: Stranded sailor allowed to leave abandoned ship after four years

#75

Post by aasasd »

Not to compare bad vs worse, but when I get bored for ten minutes I tend to remember that at least I'm not in Otokichi's crew:

> The ship, without a mast or a rudder, was carried across the northern Pacific Ocean by currents. It drifted for 14 months, during which the crew lived on desalinated seawater and on the rice of their cargo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otokichi (from a recent-ish HN thread).

Re: Stranded sailor allowed to leave abandoned ship after four years

#76

Post by ectopod »

patentatt wrote: post #39
modeless wrote: post #9

Why would you write an article like this without a word describing the legal consequences of leaving the ship? What consequence would be worth four years of your life? Edit: a more useful video linked below explains that the authorities confiscated his passport. That would make it difficult to leave. Though I'd probably try anyway after a year of that.

But that alone doesn’t prohibit him from going to live on land somewhere, right?

If they've got his passport and he can't leave the only option is Egypt. I expect he thought of that and they refused.

ETA: I've read a few of these articles over the last year. There have been many similar cases because of covid. It seems to be completely normal practice for countries to refuse visas to ships' crew.

Re: Stranded sailor allowed to leave abandoned ship after four years

#77

Post by drak0n1c »

Magi604 wrote: post #27
FridayoLeary wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

according to news articles he SWAM to shore to pick up basic supplies. Not even a small rowing boat or something was made available to him.

In the article it states that he started swimming to shore only after the ship had run aground a few hundred meters from the shore. So the question remains, how did he sustain himself beforehand? Did the ship have years worth of supplies for him on board?

The article names 2019 as when he totally ran out of fuel. I assume there were previously enough rations on board (it was stocked for an entire crew before being abandoned), and perhaps he made a deal with the visiting guard to bring food.

Re: Stranded sailor allowed to leave abandoned ship after four years

#78

Post by hcurtiss »

FredPret wrote: post #62
user3939382 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people may think I’m being pessimistic and jaded. But I think these rankings are hilarious (in a bad sense). Just like the corruption rankings that come out. The US gets a green square and a high rank, smaller countries are corrupt and unfair. I could fill up paragraphs about how corrupt and dysfunctional our (US) legal and political systems are. Meanwhile I spent a long time in Central Africa (a red square coun…

You think Central Africa is less corrupt and more just than the USA? Jeez, that takes the cake hey. I’m from Africa, have left now, and this is pure nonsense. The USA doesn’t have to be literally perfect for it to be a good place.

Same. I help put deals together with some experience in SE Asia. The ability to enforce contract and property rights in the US, with ready access to the courts and relatively clear rules, sets the US apart in terms of business efficiency and predictability. In my assessment, it's a large part of what's made the US so prosperous. In contrast, dealing with corrupt officials in smaller countries in SE Asia is just wild.

Re: Stranded sailor allowed to leave abandoned ship after four years

#79

Post by akarma »

user3939382 wrote: post #53
eastbayjake wrote: post #38

The Egyptian legal system is not known for its fairness... the World Justice Project ranks it 125 of 128 surveyed countries, in last place out of 8 countries in the Middle East[1] Similarly (and tragically) the Syrian government is not known for its compassion towards its distressed citizens. [1] https://worldjusticeproject.org/rule-of-law-index/country/Eg...

Most people may think I’m being pessimistic and jaded. But I think these rankings are hilarious (in a bad sense). Just like the corruption rankings that come out. The US gets a green square and a high rank, smaller countries are corrupt and unfair. I could fill up paragraphs about how corrupt and dysfunctional our (US) legal and political systems are. Meanwhile I spent a long time in Central Africa (a red square coun…

Looking at the WJP Rule of Law Index linked above, it's considering factors like constraints on government powers, absence of corruption, and fundamental rights.

As someone involved in law in the US, the US is really good at these types of things. People, including Americans who have lived here their entire lives, are consistently amazed when they learn the power of the court and how functional it all has managed to be.

Re: Stranded sailor allowed to leave abandoned ship after four years

#80

Post by shadowgovt »

sizzzzlerz wrote: post #41

I'm not clear what Egypt's goal was by forcing this man to stay aboard the ship. Simply declaring him the guardian never made it so. He was never going to be able to resolve the issues himself and it appears the owners have simply abandoned it and written it off. If Egypt can't get money from the owners, then, as owners of the canal, deny other of their ships passage through it.

It's real hard to tell as a non-Egyptian trying to Google enough case law to understand it, but the best I can figure is that the precedent is based upon the assumption that the ship's owner has interest in how the ship fares while the ship is arrested. Ostensibly, the requirement of custodianship should be protecting the interests of the owner... But since the owner could sue Egypt if their ship is damaged while it is kept in the country's care, Egypt mandates someone the owner designates stand watch.

... but, of course, that whole arrangement is predicated on the assumption the owner cares, at all, about the fate of the ship or its crew. Which is, perhaps, a philosophical throwback to a time when ships were the entire livelihood of a town and not assets that multinational corporations own hundreds of.

Post reply on HN