• C1pher@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    18 hours ago

    Interesting that the owners want to punish you for “stealing” their bananas, but let me guess… they aren’t going to fucking clean them up themselves, are they?

  • Sgt_choke_n_stroke@lemmy.worldEnglish
    76·
    6 days ago

    “The guards were on the river bank to make sure the poor didn’t take the fruit from the river, when that was too expensive it was collected in a pile and doused in kerosene. The hogs were burned as well all for the sake of profit” -grapes of wrath

    I honestly think about it to this day. We didn’t give milk to the homeless during covid. Farmers dumped it all for profit. We don’t grow food to feed We gro food to make profit.

  • BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.todayEnglish
    74·
    7 days ago

    I don’t know anything about British courts, but I doubt that any court is going to find anybody guilty of any major crime for collecting bananas washing up on the beach, for which the corporation that lost them got an insurance settlement to cover the loss. That’s salvage, and salvage rights are long established.

    • titanicx@lemmy.zipEnglish
      16·
      7 days ago

      I’ve seen Oliver twist, they are ready to sentence people to jail for this crime.

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
        2·
        7 days ago

        I mean, that was slightly fictional, although that’s the maybe the joke. And set a sesquicentury ago.

          • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
            3·
            6 days ago

            Yeah, I futzed with it a bit. At first I did sesquicentennial, but that’s purely an adjective which isn’t great. Sesquicentenary refers to the day, so that wouldn’t work. So, I made a nonce word which, if you know these other two, is clear.

            I’ll just ignore the insulting tone.

    • BossDj@piefed.socialEnglish
      2·
      6 days ago

      While the coastguard was clear that they didn’t mean the bananas

      this does not include perishable goods like foodstuffs.

      everyone here IS following maritime salvage law.

      The “long established” rule is: the owner has all rights to the cargo and wreck, but must compensate those who assist in recovery only if the owner agrees to assistance

      The British maritime law that keeps getting referenced here was put into place initially to ensure that people would be compensated completely when assisting.

      Previously, when it was a raw ‘handshake’ agreement, there would be negotiations before helping which delayed assistance, or Party A would screw over Party B with a low-ball reward, or Party B would just nope out of the situation for fear of not getting reimbursed and risk of damaging their own property.

      The shipping company in this situation asked for assistance and sent a list of missing stuff, especially since they were threatened with penalties for creating a hazardous waterway. If you find missing stuff, you report it, and the government knows already how much you should be compensated and makes sure you get it. In this case, the company wants their expensive refrigeration equipment.

      I have no idea if they offer a reasonable amount, but this was the intent.

  • OBJECTION!@lemmy.mlEnglish
    48·
    7 days ago

    The works of the roots of the vines, of the trees, must be destroyed to keep up the price, and this is the saddest, bitterest thing of all. Carloads of oranges dumped on the ground. The people came for miles to take the fruit, but this could not be. How would they buy oranges at twenty cents a dozen if they could drive out and pick them up? And men with hoses squirt kerosene on the oranges, and they are angry at the crime, angry at the people who have come to take the fruit. A million people hungry, needing the fruit- and kerosene sprayed over the golden mountains. And the smell of rot fills the country. Burn coffee for fuel in the ships. Burn corn to keep warm, it makes a hot fire. Dump potatoes in the rivers and place guards along the banks to keep the hungry people from fishing them out. Slaughter the pigs and bury them, and let the putrescence drip down into the earth.

    There is a crime here that goes beyond denunciation. There is a sorrow here that weeping cannot symbolize. There is a failure here that topples all our success. The fertile earth, the straight tree rows, the sturdy trunks, and the ripe fruit. And children dying of pellagra must die because a profit cannot be taken from an orange. And coroners must fill in the certificate- died of malnutrition- because the food must rot, must be forced to rot. The people come with nets to fish for potatoes in the river, and the guards hold them back; they come in rattling cars to get the dumped oranges, but the kerosene is sprayed. And they stand still and watch the potatoes float by, listen to the screaming pigs being killed in a ditch and covered with quick-lime, watch the mountains of oranges slop down to a putrefying ooze; and in the eyes of the people there is the failure; and in the eyes of the hungry there is a growing wrath. In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage.

  • False@lemmy.worldEnglish
    567·
    7 days ago

    Eating beach bananas sounds like a great way to get some kind of weird illness. It’s not like there’s a nearby banana tree that they could have come from. But maybe I’m just too accustomed to grocery stores

  • Duamerthrax@lemmy.worldEnglish
    29·
    7 days ago

    In their defense, the warning could just be a CYA thing if someone eats one, gets sick and wants to sue for food poisoning.

    • VitoRobles@lemmy.todayEnglish
      15·
      6 days ago

      Excuse me. There’s a sign at Ramsett Park that says “Do not drink the sprinkler water,” so I made sun tea with it, and now I have an infection. Sir? Sir, are… are… are… are you listening to me, sir? Sir, I’m talking to you! Sir! Sir, are you aware that there is waste in your water system?

      • Duamerthrax@lemmy.worldEnglish
        6·
        6 days ago

        Because they have lawyers in retainer. They only speak one language. From their perspective, putting out a threading notice is the cheapest, easiest thing to do.

    • zaperberryEnglish
      6·
      6 days ago

      That’s probably the case, or at least a part of it, but it’s crazy that it’s gotten to that point. If somebody finds a food item in the wild and decides to eat it, the consequences should be 100% on them. It doesn’t even have to apply to food, either.

      If I find a block heater on the ground, install it into my car, and then my car catches fire; I’m not going to go after the manufacturer of the block heater. I’m the idiot who decided to do something stupid.

      That being said there’s real life cases which indicate that yes, people are stupid and will sue over their own stupidity, so I’m not surprised at all.

  • MonkderVierte@lemmy.zipEnglish
    45·
    7 days ago

    Police, customs authorities, and the Receiver of Wrecks have warned beachcombers not to eat the bananas or to take them home.

    This is the only mention in the linked article.

    • Devial@discuss.onlineEnglish
      37·
      7 days ago

      But the daily mail said it, it must be correct if the daily mail said it, they’re such a reputable and neutral news organisation, they would never just make up wildly misleading, fear mongering click bait headlines.

      Honestly, how anyone who can string more than two thoughts together would ever think the DM is a reputable source for a claim is a mystery to me.

      • JadenSmith@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        24·
        7 days ago

        People online don’t always seem to realise that the Daily Mail is considered THE worst newspaper publication, in the entire UK. It’s the sort of thing you wouldn’t pick up to line your floor for a new dog.

          • Echo Dot@feddit.ukEnglish
            3·
            6 days ago

            I feel like the daily mail is worse. People know the star is full of shit, so don’t take it seriously. Whereas some people seem to have a perception of the daily mail that it’s somewhat reputable newspaper.

      • BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.ukEnglish
        1·
        7 days ago

        I mean at a fundamental level, it probably is illegal. I don’t imagine the original owner stops owning a thing because it fell off the side of a boat, so I’d imagine it’s theft or some seafaring equivalent.

        Is anyone going to get punished for picking up a banana that’s fallen off the side of a boat? I fucking doubt it.

    • stickly@lemmy.worldEnglish
      6·
      7 days ago

      Receiver of Wrecks is a pretty metal title tho. If he’s telling me to do something I might listen

  • Digit@lemmy.wtfEnglish
    21·
    7 days ago

    But…

    The Charter of the Forest declared that people are free to sustain themselves from the land.

  • nexguy@lemmy.worldEnglish
    13·
    7 days ago

    You need to leave alone the earthly process of food falling off container ships. It’s nature’s way.