Cambridge Uni Students Burn Money in Front of Homeless Person

Original post by Mordecai on High

... what do you want, blood?

My contention is simply that the public recriminations and abuse against him will have far greater consequences than his act merited.

the comments section on here:

http://evolvepolitics.com/shameless-tory-student-films-burning-20-note-front-freezing-homeless-person/

are advocating extreme violence for this young man

Reply 101

Mimikyu

3

Original post by TimmonaPortella

You can consider more than one thing at the same time.

This kid has (quite rightly) suffered an extreme social penalty for this, and will be punished by his college too.

People who seem to think it is desirable that this information will follow him around for the rest of time in addition are getting a little carried away.

I believe a criminal record, and according to a lot of people in this thread what this young man has done is a crime, is what you are describing in your last sentence. Yes the crime would eventually be expunged from his record, but in the same way I believe society will forget his name.

I do hope, however cruel it may be, that his name never becomes a household name though... Thankfully I don't think anyone in the public eye and in a position of real relevance would outlive a public act as horrendous as this.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 102

Mordecai on High

Original post by the bear

the comments section on here:

http://evolvepolitics.com/shameless-tory-student-films-burning-20-note-front-freezing-homeless-person/

are advocating extreme violence for this young man

Let's make Britain Great again! Shoot this ******* now!!!!!

Nah drag him through the streets slowly by his neck as ever ****er gets a chance to pelt the *******. Death is to good for him.

This is the dangerous kind of vigilante justice that is inevitable from the public campaign of hatred and abuse against the individual in question.

Reply 103

lopterton

2

Original post by Mordecai on High

There is no scope for civil discourse once emotion prevails over logic.

I can help you with logic once we've agreed some true premises. You said the act didn't "really" harm anyone.

It is a fact, not an opinion, that s4a of the Public Order Act 1986 makes it a crime punishable by a maximum of six months' imprisonment to behave abusively towards someone as Coyne did, with intent of causing them harassment, distress or alarm.

Reply 104

Doones

21

Original post by Mordecai on High

Do I know that has not happened, "instead of public humiliation and destruction of his name"? Yes, that seems clear...

You said "A better approach, instead of public humiliation and destruction of his name, might have been for his director of studies or tutor to induce him into partaking in some community work - which would at least actually help someone.."

That implies it should already have happened. Again, do you know it hasn't?

Reply 105

bj_945

18

Original post by lopterton

As far as I am aware, no British "quality" newspaper has yet covered this story. Why not? It has only been the tabloids and the local Cambridge press.

Because it's not really national news, is it?

Reply 106

Mordecai on High

Original post by lopterton

I can help you with logic once we've agreed some true premises. You said the act didn't "really" harm anyone.

It is a fact, not an opinion, that s4a of the Public Order Act 1986 makes it a crime punishable by a maximum of six months' imprisonment to behave abusively towards someone as Coyne did, with intent of causing them harassment, distress or alarm.

I stand by that, the limited information available does not imply that any crime was committed - included the one you quoted.

I guess we will have to wait and see if he is prosecuted for it to see for sure.

Reply 107

username917703

17

Original post by cbreef

I would just love to punch this guy straight in his smug face.

It's wrong but I know the feeling :biggrin:

Reply 108

Mordecai on High

Original post by jneill

You said "A better approach, instead of public humiliation and destruction of his name, might have been for his director of studies or tutor to induce him into partaking in some community work - which would at least actually help someone.."

That implies it should already have happened. Again, do you know it hasn't?

It is one possible permutation of events that might have taken place, instead of the permutation which has taken place.

If not X - then Y

But if X has occurred then Y is irrelevant.

Reply 109

username2971108

13

Original post by jneill

To Oxford.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Where he can burn money to all of the homeless people over there

Reply 110

Doones

21

Original post by astutehirstute

It certainly is.

The Daily Mail is the most influential newspaper in Fleet Street, with the most read online news site on the planet, and this story is a perfect example of why.

They have covered it excellently, with great quotes from the mother and telling pictures to demonstrate his awfulness.

Great journalism. The Guardian and the Times have been left trailing behind in the dust.

I'll just leave this here:
"Wikipedia editors have said they will no longer accept links to Daily Mail stories to support citations because it is too unreliable."
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/wikipedia-editors-ban-daily-mail-source-citation-unreliable-mail-online-a7570856.html

Reply 111

astutehirstute

11

Original post by jneill

I'll just leave this here:
"Wikipedia editors have said they will no longer accept links to Daily Mail stories to support citations because it is too unreliable."
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/wikipedia-editors-ban-daily-mail-source-citation-unreliable-mail-online-a7570856.html

Yeah I saw that.

A political decision that shames Wikipedia.

They source Russia Today and say the DM is unreliable? Laughable.

Reply 112

bj_945

18

Original post by Mimikyu

IT DID HARM SOMEONE.

Or do you not consider the emotional trauma of the homeless person worth a man's career and future prospects? Because I sure as hell do. I think the emotional trauma of this man and the homeless community he is a part of is worth that and more!

I don't intend in any way to defend this bloke (who is clearly a ****, or who at the very least has been influenced by the arrogant attitudes and culture that pervade in some circles at the top unis). But I have no doubt whatsoever that the student will suffer disproportionately now that his name has been made public. And he will suffer more than the homeless guy as a result of this action.

He will be totally socially ostracised, his parents are clearly furious (as they should be), everyone he knows will know about this, he won't be able to get employment in a large number of fields. The story will probably hound him for his entire life. It's quite bad enough without throwing him out of uni, imho. Better to do something more positive, like force him to work at a homeless shelter for the duration of his undergrad or something.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 113

TimmonaPortella

21

Original post by Mimikyu

I believe a criminal record, and according to a lot of people in this thread what this young man has done is a crime, is what you are describing in your last sentence. Yes the crime would eventually be expunged from his record, but in the same way I believe society will forget his name.

The ludicrously and offensively broad provisions of the Public Order Act notwithstanding, he hasn't been charged with a crime. What we are dealing with here is a severe case of being a dick whilst intoxicated.

I will concede that it is possible that his actions reflect long-standing attitudes of contempt for those without the same level of advantage as he has, but it is possible that he just got carried away in the moment, and given the consequences he's already suffering at university he should surely be given the benefit of the doubt.

That doesn't mean he should be let off the hook, just that maybe we needn't cheer the fact that a giddy, presumably intoxicated first year student has done something that will follow him around forever, thanks to google.

Reply 114

bj_945

18

Original post by astutehirstute

Yeah I saw that.

A political decision that shames Wikipedia.

They source Russia Today and say the DM is unreliable? Laughable.

I'd probs take RT over DM tbf.

Reply 115

Doones

21

Original post by astutehirstute

Yeah I saw that.

A political decision that shames Wikipedia.

They source Russia Today and say the DM is unreliable? Laughable.

"State-associated news organisations, especially state media in countries with low press freedom, such as the Chinese press agency Xinhua, the North Korean Korean Central News Agency, SPH news such as The Straits Times and Press TV in Iran. They may be propaganda organisations. RT, formerly known as Russia Today, and other Russian government-funded sources like Sputnik News may also be questioned."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Potentially_unreliable_sources

Reply 116

Reality Check

22

Original post by Mordecai on High

He is an 18 year old student who made a stupid mistake deemed contrary to social standards whilst drunk,

How is his being drunk relevant? Dismissing the behaviour as 'contrary to social standards' is disingenuous, as well you know. Pissing up against a wall is 'contrary to social standards'. Humiliating and taunting a homeless man in the manner he did whilst filming it is an order of magnitude greater. Yes, it belongs to the 'set' of 'contrary to social standards'. But it also belongs to the set of 'unacceptable to the majority of the population'. This is why it is worthy of greater censure.

Original post by Mordecai on High

My contention is simply that the public recriminations and abuse against him will have far greater consequences than his act merited.

Merited according to whom? You? Public opinion in this case will decided what consequences are merited. And it's not looking too rosy for him. Actions have consequences - as a (previously) aspiring lawyer, there is really no reason for him not to have known that. The consequences of his action were entirely foreseeable. Volenti, non fit injuria.

Reply 117

astutehirstute

11

Original post by jneill

"State-associated news organisations, especially state media in countries with low press freedom, such as the Chinese press agency Xinhua, the North Korean Korean Central News Agency, SPH news such as The Straits Times and Press TV in Iran. They may be propaganda organisations. RT, formerly known as Russia Today, and other Russian government-funded sources like Sputnik News may also be questioned."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Potentially_unreliable_sources

What is your point? RT is "to be questioned", but the DM not used.

Like I said, a laughable political act.

Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. An edit filter should be put in place going forward to warn editors attempting to use the Daily Mail as a reference.