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

311–320 of 426 posts

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

#311

Post by harry8 »

Aerroon wrote: post #248
harry8 wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why? Then there would be someone else stuck in that situation. The CEO was the right person to to replace him immediately until they could make it a sufficiently attractive proposition that someone else would want to do it. You know by the usual means. Pay, supply drops, fuel for power etc. The shipping company's CEO is 100% responsible for not dealing with the situation properly because they absolutely did not do t…

> The shipping company's CEO is 100% responsible for not dealing with the situation properly because they absolutely did not do that in any way, shape or form. And if the company went bankrupt or the CEO suddenly died/disappeared? Then what? There could be any number of reasons why a company might be unable to do what they need to do. The guy is still stuck there then, because it all rests on the shipping company rat…

Running and hiding when insolvency hits is illegal in most places. But sure, it's certainly possible that this has happened to his employer while that company who employ him is still providing quotes about it being impossible to find anyone who would take his place but not paying him either.

So in insolvency that is deemed bankruptcy the assets of the company are traditionally used to deal with as much of the liabilities of the company as they can in rank order of those liabilities. You know secured debt ranks ahead of unsecured etc.

This guy's claim on the assets of the company to get him out of that hell, for me, rank number 1, and alone. Next comes the wages due all employees not deprived of their liberty. And that's the usual way it is done too.

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

#312

Post by Black101 »

mrb wrote: post #106

His ship has been sitting still for so long that you can see it on Google Maps: https://www.google.com/maps/place/%D8%B3%D9%81%D9%8A%D9%86%D... Edit: a few more story details here: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/19/ever-giv... When he rows to shore to get supplies he can only stay for two hours at most as the area is a restricted military zone. Other crew members were repatriated in September 2019,…

so he had a free home at the beach for 4 years?

what is this circle, anyways: https://www.google.com/maps/place/%D8%B3%D9%81%D9%8A%D9%86%D...

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

#313

Post by unishark »

worldsayshi wrote: post #231
jollybean wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Countries mostly become rich by being highly socially organized, and having a high standard for individual contribution. For example, 'gold' imported by ill-gotten means from some far off land actually provides 0 value in terms of material value creation. Of course 'oil' does, but remember the 'House of Saud' is kept in power by the US not with the promise of US access to 'cheap oil', rather, with the promise it will…

This feels slightly more true than the comment you responded to. But I feel that important aspects are left out. I don't feel like I can make much justice for those aspects but here's my two cents: Selling oil on the free market disproportionately benefits those that own the means to process and resell it further. Or rather, those that ultimately coordinate global oil logistics. The global fossil fuel market doesn't…

> Selling oil on the free market disproportionately benefits those that own the means to process and resell it further.

What is the basis for this comparison? Compare the profit margins of a gas station (tiny) versus the profit margin of a company that needs to purchase fuel to operate a factory (could be anything). Or for that matter a company that needs products produced at one of those factories (the rest of us). The benefit is widespread and it's not at all obvious who benefits most, commodity or not.

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

#314

Post by zp33 »

lolinder wrote: post #193
novok wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fault here is ultimately with egypt. They were not letting him leave, they took his passport and not even letting him get 'deported' back to his home country. This is not from outsourcing, this is Kafkaesque bureaucracy created by Egypt itself.

Egypt definitely has fault here, but the company that owns the ship could have gotten the ship out of there if they cared about him at all. Yes, it might have been expensive, but I would expect a US based company to have rescued him within weeks of this situation starting, not years.

the article says it's a middle eastern company that owns the ship: Tylos Shipping and Marine Service

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

#315

Post by Ansil849 »

This story is so appalling that I genuinely have a hard time understanding it.

> He was legally obliged to stay aboard

What the actual fuck?

So Egypt has some sort of law, that allows the government to imprison people who have committed no crime indefinitely?

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

#316

Post by throwaway2037 »

fallingknife wrote: post #257
lolinder wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Egypt definitely has fault here, but the company that owns the ship could have gotten the ship out of there if they cared about him at all. Yes, it might have been expensive, but I would expect a US based company to have rescued him within weeks of this situation starting, not years.

Given the excessive "compensation" demand that Egypt is making for the ship that blocked the canal, I'm going to assume the fault lies with Egypt.

Let's get more specific. What is reasonable compensation that should Egypt demand?

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

#317

Post by rhengles »

quickthrowman wrote: post #218
justinator wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Downvote me all you want it's not not true. Rich people don't exist without exploiting the poor; so too with countries. I'm not sorry if you're wealthy and this is hurting too close to home, better live with it if you also want to be so wealthy.

People with more resources have been exploiting people with less resources since probably the domestication of animals and plants created sedentary living and the idea of money/credit, perhaps before that even. Not just under capitalism, mind you, but every form of economic system. I believe resource inequality will exist until free or near-free energy sources are developed, and even then, you still need ever expandi…

As Mark Twain said, "Buy land, they're not making it anymore". Nothing can make land "free". The planet's resources are vast but finite. If people continue reproducing with no limits they're reducing everyone's share of the pie. This is the actual reason why "the poor gets poorer", there's more of them but the resources stay the same.

This is the same logic that explain why building more roads does not reduce traffic congestion, because new demand is created to use the new roads and the traffic stays bad.

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

#318

Post by estaseuropano »

fallingknife wrote: post #257
lolinder wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Egypt definitely has fault here, but the company that owns the ship could have gotten the ship out of there if they cared about him at all. Yes, it might have been expensive, but I would expect a US based company to have rescued him within weeks of this situation starting, not years.

Given the excessive "compensation" demand that Egypt is making for the ship that blocked the canal, I'm going to assume the fault lies with Egypt.

No, the ship owner abandoned their ship and Egypt wants the trashing to be paid. That's not their fault. The methods to get there are not ideal but given the matroshka method of hiding responsibility I don't see what else they could have done.

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

#319

Post by throwaway2037 »

csomar wrote: post #270
novok wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fault here is ultimately with egypt. They were not letting him leave, they took his passport and not even letting him get 'deported' back to his home country. This is not from outsourcing, this is Kafkaesque bureaucracy created by Egypt itself.

Someone is always going to bear responsibility. This is why, when you are incorporating an off-shore company, you need some kind of "representative" in the country itself. These people might be making "free" money but if things turn sour they might find themselves in trouble. The court did not do some random detention (they did let the rest of the crew) but they declared him the responsible party. In that case, he di…

You wrote: > Absolutely not. All kinds of shell corporations are setup with nothing more than a letterbox. Look at the Carribean (incl. Bermuda), Gibraltar, Isle of Man, Langkawi, Singapore, Hongkong (the list goes on and on!). Literally, they have huge numbers of off-shore corporations registered with no one on-shore.

In places with stronger regulation and rule of law, these letterbox shell corporations are not allowed or strictly regulated.

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

#320

Post by Hnrobert42 »

pyuser583 wrote: post #298
worldsayshi wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems to me that corporations owning ships having financial difficulties would be a natural consequence of outsourcing behaviour. You want to outsource risk and responsibilities. So the big companies get rid of their ships and hire small companies on the edge of profitability. I assume it's not always the most sound way to do business but some should get away with it.

How? I mean there are shady American transport firms. This isn’t the result of big massive conglomerates. It’s mom and pop small firms. People to small and broke to sue.

The mom and pops are the puppets of large companies. Large companies transfer risk and plausible deniability to small companies all the time.
Post reply on HN