Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Cambridge Uni Students Burn Money in Front of Homeless Person Watch

    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lopterton)
    They can expel him.

    Any university could do that. But you may be unaware that Cambridge University exercises a lot of power over its students within three miles of the tower of Great St Mary's church in Cambridge. For example, students are not allowed to drive cars in that area, unless they hold a licence from the University as well as an ordinary driving licence.

    There is currently a petition calling on the University to kick him out.

    His college, Pembroke College, could also kick him out, which would mean he was no longer a member of the university since it is the colleges that admit undergraduates.

    (A side note, which isn't really the point: most of central Cambridge is owned by the colleges.)
    I won't get into the legal issues here of what the university is and is not ABLE to do (I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not qualified to or knowledgeable enough without doing some extensive reading on the topic to debate or discuss that), but what I will bring up is whether the university SHOULD be able to do that.

    It seems to me to be a vast overreach for the university to have a say in a persons private life. It should not be any concern of the university if somebody is a **** in public. It would rightly be quite a different matter if say this person had been in their college, or a lecture or in the library etc. and had done something analogous to this.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    They could be existent but unrepresentative, which was my point.
    You spat sarcasm to make a point in response to me that I'd already made?


    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    I'm sure, but the likelihood is that such people wouldn't make a noise about it publicly. If you hear a group of people speaking publicly in the way the poster described, chances are they're either having a joke amongst themselves
    Rather than what? Rather than planning a support group or a repeat outing? Who was suggesting they might be doing that? They had simply heard about something that had happened, an action by one of their political party comrades in the Tory party, an action about which they thought "Yeah! Right on! Good egg!" That's obvious.

    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    or your reaction is the joke.
    For all your sarcasm and bile, you're not thinking straight. The concept of "joke" doesn't even apply. If a refugee centre has been petrol-bombed and a group of people watch a TV news report and say "Yeah! Sound!", then it's obvious what type of vile yobs they are. Same goes for the Churchill Tory "Coyne is sound" mob. They're a bunch of yobs who get off on a fellow Tory thicko's action of humiliating a beggar.

    Let me help you with your ideation. You say either it was a joke or my reaction is the joke. You are of course free to laugh at my reaction, although the usual definition of a joke is when someone intends to say something amusing, which clearly I did not. But I will allow you your egocentric usage for the moment. Now if it was "either" a joke or something else, then that something else is surely that it was serious. So you are saying that if it was serious, then my reporting it in this thread (which is the only reaction of mine that you know about) was a "joke", meaning in your mind "deserving of contempt". Thanks for your contribution.

    So many people have come out of the woodwork in response to Coyne's action, both in this thread and in other comments threads elsewhere. Sure, they are a small minority. Nobody denies that.

    Personally I think those who express such views should be expelled from any publicly funded organisation they are receiving services from, whether that's a university, a local council, or one of the armed forces. If they express such views in public, well I am not in favour of birching, satisfying though it might be to watch one of these braying sneering rich fools get birched, but...well...prison, yes. I mean many of them were brought up in private boarding schools anyway.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by glowinglight)
    .
    I see concision isn't a skill you've picked up yet.

    They're a bunch of yobs who get off on a fellow Tory thicko's action of humiliating a beggar.
    This isn't obvious however many times you say it, because the likelihood remains that this wasn't the serious view of anyone there.

    So you are saying that if it was serious, then my reporting it in this thread (which is the only reaction of mine that you know about) was a "joke"
    No, silly, my suggestion was that part of the joke might have been to wind up anyone who happened to be listening, which on this occasion happened to include you. This is usually referred to online as 'trolling'. From the looks of it they succeeded in at least one case.
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    (Original post by limetang)
    I won't get into the legal issues here of what the university is and is not ABLE to do (I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not qualified to or knowledgeable enough without doing some extensive reading on the topic to debate or discuss that), but what I will bring up is whether the university SHOULD be able to do that.

    It seems to me to be a vast overreach for the university to have a say in a persons private life. It should not be any concern of the university if somebody is a **** in public. It would rightly be quite a different matter if say this person had been in their college, or a lecture or in the library etc. and had done something analogous to this.
    Unis are private charities. As part of enrolling you agree to abide by their rules and regs. Oxbridge have comprehensive rules and regs or rather the colleges do. If you behave in a manner which reflects badly on them, then they arent going to be pleased. They didnt ask to be dragged into it. Wait and see what action they take.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    Unis are private charities.
    No - they are public charities. Their charitable purposes are required to be exclusively for the public good. Ref: sections 2-4 of the Charities Act 2011.

    The University and its colleges also recently became registered charities. The University's principal regulator is the HEFCE; the colleges' is the Charity Commission, although until recently they didn't have one.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    No, silly, my suggestion was that part of the joke might have been to wind up anyone who happened to be listening, which on this occasion happened to include you. This is usually referred to online as 'trolling'. From the looks of it they succeeded in at least one case.
    Is it actually possible for you to write without being sarcastic? "At least one case". Wow. Allusiveness. Thwack! I guess you think you've got poise too. But really you're just coming over as defending the indefensible.

    Give it up, please. Glowinglight simply reported what happened, and you didn't like it. You are the one who has got wound up. Why?

    Please don't tell us that the expression of obnoxious views became less bad when it was done partly to wind people up. Only someone who doesn't think the views are as obnoxious as most people do would believe that. Anyone can go around saying "kill the blacks" for a "joke", but all decent people know that only obnoxious scumbags would

    There are a handful of obnoxious Tory yobs at Churchill College who think Ronald Coyne is "sound". What's your problem with someone saying that? Absolutely no-one has said they are representative of Cambridge or Churchill students.

    Of course rich Tory yobs enjoy winding people up. Everyone knows that. They like to be viewed by the lower orders as obnoxious and cruel. They're dirt and they know they are.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lopterton)
    Please don't tell us that the expression of obnoxious views became less bad when it was done partly to wind people up.
    I don't need to take a position on whether they become 'less bad' or not. What they become is not necessarily a serious representation of the speaker's beliefs. Which means that this:

    There are a handful of obnoxious Tory yobs at Churchill College who think Ronald Coyne is "sound".
    Is not necessarily supported by the event described by the poster, even if it is true.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    my suggestion was that part of the joke might have been to wind up anyone who happened to be listening
    Coyne's action itself was a "wind-up": he was trying to upset the other fellow. Perhaps he even wasn't planning to destroy the £20. That doesn't make what he did any less disgusting.
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    (Original post by lopterton)
    No - they are public charities. Their charitable purposes are required to be exclusively for the public good. Ref: sections 2-4 of the Charities Act 2011.

    The University and its colleges also recently became registered charities. The University's principal regulator is the HEFCE; the colleges' is the Charity Commission, although until recently they didn't have one.
    Yes fine my error. Still doesnt change anything else. Doesnt look like the police have any interest in prosecuting and no complaint had been made the last i heard.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Given I didn't defend, and as far as I can recall have never defended, the Bullingdon Club, I'm not sure I see the relevance of this.
    Is there no connection between the Bullingdon Club and the Conservative Party.
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    As I said earlier: there are idiots everywhere:-

    https://www.theguardian.com/educatio...s-of-residence
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marers)
    Coyne's action itself was a "wind-up": he was trying to upset the other fellow. Perhaps he even wasn't planning to destroy the £20. That doesn't make what he did any less disgusting.
    Perhaps, but there's a difference between taunting a homeless man and actually winding up some precious undergraduates. Not that I've even defended their joke, if that's what it was: I've just noted that it might have been a joke. See my post 288.

    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Is there no connection between the Bullingdon Club and the Conservative Party.
    ...

    I'll just leave this here, I think.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Perhaps, but there's a difference between taunting a homeless man and actually winding up some precious undergraduates. Not that I've even defended their joke, if that's what it was: I've just noted that it might have been a joke. See my post 288.



    ...

    I'll just leave this here, I think.
    You seem to have a habit of doing this. It makes conversation with you rather tiresome. Do you have a response to post 220?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThePricklyOne)
    Why is evidence needed for the student's innocence but not his guilt? While everyone rushes to condemn the student, why shouldn't some people say 'hey, wait a minute?'
    There is evidence for his guilt. There's a bloody video of this incident plastered all over the internet.

    People are rushing to condemn the student because what he did was disgusting and nasty behaviour, especially when perpetrated by the privileged against the vulnerable, should be responded to with condemnation.

    The student couldn't have done it on his own. This is something you do with your buddies watching and cheering you on. The fact he was trying to film it - what for, if not to show someone he's done the dare? Seems like hazing to me.
    There's no reason to believe it was 'hazing', but even if it was he chose to bend to it. That peer pressure may have been involved does not mitigate his actions at all. Maybe weeing against a wall, or throwing eggs from a veranda. But taunting a man on the street with a burning £20 note - nah, sorry.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fenice)
    You seem to have a habit of doing this. It makes conversation with you rather tiresome. Do you have a response to post 220?
    Pretty sure I could have within about three clicks.

    If people don't want me to cross-reference to posts on the same page, they could always just read them before putting the same points to me.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Is there no connection between the Bullingdon Club and the Conservative Party.
    The Bullingdon's a supplier, like Ocado or Trump Gifts International. Ocado provides the wine and canapés, Trump provides gilted figures of middle aged white people crushing stuff and the Bullingdon provides the idiots.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Pretty sure I could have within about three clicks.

    If people don't want me to cross-reference to posts on the same page, they could always just read them before putting the same points to me.
    My points were original and you don't seem able to respond to them. Have a pop.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fenice)
    My points were original and you don't seem able to respond to them. Have a pop.
    There's very little to respond to. Mostly it seems to be just general assertions about the conservative party and its supporters, which I'm not particularly interested in getting into and which I would in any event deny in completely predictable terms, which I'm quite sure would in turn be met with completely predictable responses on your part. There's nothing of any interest there.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    The Bullingdon's a supplier, like Ocado or Trump Gifts International. Ocado provides the wine and canapés, Trump provides gilted figures of middle aged white people crushing stuff and the Bullingdon provides the idiots.
    I just realised that people didn't catch on, I meant that as a rhetorical question.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    I just realised that people didn't catch on, I meant that as a rhetorical question.
    I realised that you meant to be ironic, I was attempting a 'witty' riposte. :five:
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.