Even without this tool, they have many more at their disposal to accomplish their goals. Practically anyone who possesses a cell phone, or communicates with anyone who does, can be quickly located. They have aircraft and plenty of physical surveillance equipment as well.
I had a stalker in the past. I feel more comfortable without him knowing where i live.
In general i have a strong need for privacy. Not having privacy is generally unsettling, in the same way that i close the door when using a toilet or having a shower. I am disturbed by people that don't seem to have an understanding of that concept.
He did not cause a serious hazmat situation. The authorities decided to evacuate a street, and are responsible for the seriousness of their over-reaction.
The packages were labelled correctly, and blocked at the border, and USPS delivered them anyway. He offered to send them back as soon as he was made aware they weren’t permitted.
The real failure here is at the border, where they were flagged and then let through, followed by the absurd over reaction of the authorities to a situation they’d enabled
USPS is United States Postal Service. They didn't deliver the package once it was received in Australia.
Or does Australia's postal service have the initials USPS too? Not being a pedant, just don't know. (Aside: UK entirely privatized their postal service which is sad given history and doesn't seem to be working out so well.)
If you read more it was border control making a security theater (2months after they were aware of the situation), instead of calling appropriate government agency that are actually qualified to deal with radioactive material.
If there was a real threat why did they wait so long before evacuation, why didn't they call the appropriate government agency whose job is dealing with radioactive stuff?
> However, The Guardian reported that Lidden’s solicitor, John Sutton, had criticised the Border Force for how it had handled the incident, describing it as a ‘massive over-reaction’ because the quantities of material were so small they were safe to eat. He reportedly said that he had been contacted by scientists all around the world saying that the case was ‘ridiculous’.
> the quantities and material properties of the elements in question should have never, ever resulted in the response or charges that occurred.
This even though “The delivery of the materials – which included a quantity of plutonium, depleted uranium, lutetium, thorium and radium – led to a major hazmat incident in August 2023. The entire street that Lidden lived on was closed off and homes were evacuated” ?
It’s not like his activities had zero impact in his community. You don’t mess around with radioactive materials; even small amounts can be extremely hazardous to life and the environment. There’s a reason they’re not easy to obtain.
To be clear this was initially stopped at the border as the old smoke detector he ordered was clearly labelled "contains radioactive material".
The authorities decided they wanted to build a case rather than stop it there though so they allowed the delivery to proceed. So it was delivered by a courier without protection because they knew it was harmless. They then subsequently sent in a full hazmat crew to close off the street. Not because they had to, they just had the courier deliver it after all. They closed off the street because the drama would apparently help the prosecution build a case of how dangerous this is.
They knew, or should have known. They knew exactly what he had bought and in what quantity, and anyone who knew anything about radioactive material would have concluded it was safe, or if they had doubts, they would have sent maybe two people to go knock on his door and ask to look around.
This was someone or a small group inside the border force who didn't have a clue what they were doing, cocked up, tried to make a big showy scene of things, and then scrambled to save face after the actual experts clued them in that a) what he had was safe and b) was 100% legal to own. (note that he was prosecuted for something that the border force allowed through years before the sample they erroneously thought was a problem, and that was not illegal to own, only illegal under a very twisted interpretation of an obscure law to import).
Also, the question shouldn't be "Did they know it was harmless?" It should be "Did they know it was harmful?" You don't initiate a huge hazmat incident, close off homes and evacuate people just because "you're not sure it was harmless." You do that when you know it's harmful.
The hazmat crew was literally manufactured drama for a prosecutor (who somehow continues not to be named in this ridiculous case) to build a better case.
The impact of the Australian Border Force overreacting after they (seemingly deliberately) bungled the situation when they were first made aware of the situation?
None of the elements this man was in possession of were either in a quantity or quality to facilitate any kind of hazard to anyone. The response by government was unjustified, and should have ocurred before the materials ever reached the purchaser.
I urge you to learn about and understand the properties of radioactive materials before making judgement on this situation. The quantities and properties (particularly the encasing) of the materials in question largely render them inert. These specimens are not at all abnormal in the scope of element collection, and the response triggered by the ABF (complete evacuation of an entire street (note, not an entire radius???)) is unwarranted given the quantitites and properties of the elements (both pieces of information they knew beforehand).
That math doesn’t add up. If I buy a $100,000 car for $80,000, and I sell it to someone for $60,000, the recipient still gets a $40,000 discount.
And if you pretend that there is no subsidy, and the original owner paid $80,000 just because it cost that much unsubsidized, the second buyer still gets the same discount off the original purchase price.
So the fact that the car was originally subsidized isn’t relevant.
The context is about when cars reach the poor - your example of someone spending $60k is irrelevant.
A poorer person in NZ spends at most a few thousand on their car. The original retail price is nearly irrelevant by the time it gets to someone poorish (however maintenance/parts costs do matter for old cars).
The financial benefit of a discount mostly goes to the people that own the car while it depreciates as it trickles down.
Context: In New Zealand, the vast majority of people drive second hand cars (mostly imported second hand from Japan). A 20 year old car is regarded as newish in New Zealand. I am well off, so I have two second hand cars, my daily driver is 2006 I think, and I have a 1996 4WD for other stuff. New cars are only bought by the well off.
I thought about it some more but it is hard to explain.
I wonder if your mental model is that a $20k discount applies at all future prices - so that when the car is sold for $5k that it's "actual" worth is $25k.
My mental model is that when the car is sold at $5k it is worth $5k and the $20k discount has disappeared (the value captured by the early owners).
Background: I'm a top 5% earner but I have friends who are struggling financially.
My opinion is that the discounts is money paid for by our taxpayers into overseas pockets, that benefits a few well off people. Strangely enough the discounts were introduced by our more socialist party, and removed by the incoming less socialist party. I don't believe the discounts are an equitable use of government funds.
I am also extremely sceptical that there is enough environmental benefits: the policy appears green but perhaps it is not (greenwashed).
Thousands of people are being detained and questioned for sending messages that cause “annoyance”, “inconvenience” or “anxiety” to others via the internet, telephone or mail.
Nope; they aren't. They arrested a grandmother for praying silently outside an abortion clinic. They arrested a high schooler for saying a cop looked a bit like a lesbian. There are no shortage of stupid examples of their tyranny; even Keir Starmer was squirming a bit when Vance called him out on it.
Regarding the abortion clinic case, those aren't content restrictions. Even time/place/manner restrictions that apply to speech are routinely upheld in the U.S.
That's quite a sensationalist piece. You're allowed to object to abortions and protest against them, the point of that law is just that you can't do it around an extant abortion clinic, distressing and putting people off using it, since they are currently legal.
Yeah, that looks like a time/place/manner restriction, not a content-based restriction. In the U.S., at least, the latter is heavily scrutinized as a potential First Amendment violation, while the former tend to be treated with greater deference to the state.
"a couple were arrested over complaints they made about their daughter's primary school, which included comments on WhatsApp.
Maxie Allen and his partner Rosalind Levine, from Borehamwood, told The Times they were held for 11 hours on suspicion of harassment, malicious communications, and causing a nuisance on school property."
Got any evidence to support why you disregard what people say? If you need a place where everyone agrees with you, there are plenty of echo chambers for you.
This story doesn't support the claim that "speaking your mind is illegal in the UK." The couple in question were investigated, not charged. There's nothing wrong with investigating a possible crime (harassment in this case), finding there's no evidence, and dropping it.
> Got any evidence to support why you disregard what people say?
Uh, what? Supporting the things you claim is the burden of the claimant. It's not the other's burden to dispute an unsupported claim. These are the ordinary ground rules of debate that you should have learned in school.
> Data from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), obtained by The Telegraph under a Freedom of Information request, reveals that 292 people have been charged with communications offences under the new regime.
This includes 23 prosecutions for sending a “false communication”…
> The offence replaces a lesser-known provision in the Communications Act 2003, Section 127(2), which criminalised “false messages” that caused “needless anxiety”. Unlike its predecessor, however, the new offence carries a potential prison sentence of up to 51 weeks, a fine, or both – a significant increase on the previous six-month maximum sentence.…
> In one high-profile case, Dimitrie Stoica was jailed for three months for falsely claiming in a TikTok livestream that he was “running for his life” from rioters in Derby. Stoica, who had 700 followers, later admitted his claim was a joke, but was convicted under the Act and fined £154.
reply