Slashdot Mirror
Prison Inmate Emails His Own Release Instructions To the Prison
Bruce66423 writes: A fraudster used a mobile phone while inside a UK prison to email the prison a notice for him to be released. The prison staff then released him. The domain was registered in the name of the police officer investigating him, and its address was the court building. The inmate was in prison for fraud — he was originally convicted after calling several banks and getting them to send him upwards of £1.8 million.
Not to mention that defrauding banksters isn't the crime it is made out to be
Actually, even if you've managed to delude yourself into thinking that it's OK to steal from people you don't like, defrauding bankers hurts us all here. Here's why: 1) It costs the bank's customers through higher credit interest and lower debit interested 2) If the bank fails customers are likely to lose out (although most individual customers will have their deposits guaranteed by the state) 3) The state guarantees deposits of individual customers (up to a certain limit) so, if the state has to bail out those customers, we all pay.
Not to mention that defrauding banksters isn't the crime it is made out to be
Actually, even if you've managed to delude yourself into thinking that it's OK to steal from people you don't like, defrauding bankers hurts us all here. Here's why: 1) It costs the bank's customers through higher credit interest and lower debit interested 2) If the bank fails customers are likely to lose out (although most individual customers will have their deposits guaranteed by the state) 3) The state guarantees deposits of individual customers (up to a certain limit) so, if the state has to bail out those customers, we all pay.
banks don't fail over $1.8m if they weren't going to fail already.
The banks can't just raise rates to make up for it, either, then customers will go elsewhere. If anything this just encourages banks to operate with more efficiency.
Some people who run banks have committed crimes and gotten away with them. That does not make banks "criminal organizations," equivalent to drug mafias. Also, stealing from a bank has harmful consequences to plenty of innocent people which stealing from a drug cartel does not.
Your rationalization of "well if you get hurt when I steal from them that is your fault and I am innocent" only applies to actual criminal organizations, not to ones that you have personally decided to label "criminal" even though they are not.
What you propose is both illegal and morally wrong, and you can't weasel out of that with your bullshit semantic game.
"he was originally convicted after calling several banks and getting them to send him upwards of £1.8 million."
I want to know what you say to a bank to get them to release that kind (quantity) of money!
A mobster is not a mobster for believing she is above the law. A mobster is a mobster for running a mob, which is an organization that breaks the law (and uses violence) as a routine part of their business. Banks do not do this...their routine business is perfectly legal. Therefore banks are not mobs, and those who run banks are not mobsters.
One who believes one's self to be above the law, but still acts within the law's boundaries, is neither a mobster nor a criminal.
One who does break the law is a criminal, but that does not automatically make that person's business criminal. The business itself is criminal only when its routine operations are criminal...not when individual employees independently break the law.
Of course, the laws may be bad laws. And the special exemptions given to banks and the wealthy people who run them might be evil and harmful. But that doesn't make them criminal. If you don't like the laws, you should do what you can to change them.
And it is ok for you to refuse to participate as much as you can. But once you start breaking the law yourself, you are walking on a very fine line. Breaking a truly unjust law is noble, but breaking a maybe-unjust-maybe-not law, and harming innocent people by doing it, is not noble.
... which will boost inflation and reduce the value of everyone's money.
which will boost inflation and reduce the value of everyone's money so little that you wouldn't even notice. FTFY. Rich people might have enough money affected that it might be a minor inconvenience to them, which is why they, their news organizations, and their useful idiots in politics think this needs to be such a worry for all of us.
That is all.
I can assure you that pretty much everyone* has access to investment vehicles with a larger return than 2%.
By definition it's not possible for everyone to be able to beat inflation.
Having worked in finance
Understandable. Daniel Kahneman has some amusing anecdotes who people who work in finance really don't seem to figure out what it is they're really doing.
it's in my head
Oh look, a broken record.
Tell me, if my fiat currency isn't worth anything, how come I'm able to use it to acquire land, a house on that land, the contents of that house and a nice car that lets me travel to and from it?
Might not have value to you, but it's been pretty fucking useful to me.