Turn on thread page Beta

Cambridge Uni Students Burn Money in Front of Homeless Person watch

Announcements
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    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:
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by lopterton)
    The University's principal regulator is the HEFCE; the colleges' is the Charity Commission, although until recently they didn't have one.
    HEFCE isn't a regulator it is a funding body - it only regulates issues directly related to the details of what it funds (teaching and research).

    The regulator for universities is currently made up of http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en, https://www.offa.org.uk/ and http://www.oiahe.org.uk/ (plus CMA, http://www.ecu.ac.uk/ and a bunch of other bodies) <= the last is the body that would have jurisdiction over this matter.

    This will be slimmed down soon with the introduction of https://www.gov.uk/government/public...-business-case

    However universities are independent bodies and set their own regulations which can include rules about the conduct of staff and students beyond their work/studies.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    I realised that you meant to be ironic, I was attempting a 'witty' riposte. :five:
    Haha, true, thanks for underplaying my density. :five:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PQ)
    HEFCE isn't a regulator it is a funding body - it only regulates issues directly related to the details of what it funds (teaching and research).

    The regulator for universities is currently made up of http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en, https://www.offa.org.uk/ and http://www.oiahe.org.uk/ (plus CMA, http://www.ecu.ac.uk/ and a bunch of other bodies) <= the last is the body that would have jurisdiction over this matter.

    This will be slimmed down soon with the introduction of https://www.gov.uk/government/public...-business-case

    However universities are independent bodies and set their own regulations which can include rules about the conduct of staff and students beyond their work/studies.
    I don't know why you posted this, starting with directly contradicting my statement that the HEFCE regulates Cambridge University.

    All registered and exempt charities have a "principal regulator". As I said, for Cambridge University (which is exempt) this is the HEFCE and for its colleges (which are registered) it's the Charity Commission. The HEFCE's role in regulating Cambridge University is broader than covering only what its payments are for. A charity's principal regulator oversees the charity's compliance with its obligations as a charity.

    The ECU is not a regulator, and says so. I don't think the OIAHE is a regulator either. A charity only has one principal regulator.

    In practice, I am sure Cambridge University and even one of its glorified halls of residence called a "college" could tell any of these bodies to eff off if they tried to give it orders in respect of a view they reached of a matter such as this.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Extracts from an excellent article by Joe Goodman in the Independent, December 2015 (originally in the Huffington Post):

    "If you can't afford a ticket for the May Ball, you can work there instead - while a student who sat two seats away from you in an exam last week can now demand of you to 'come straight to me when the next tray of sushi arrives'"

    "While by no means the majority of students enter Oxford and Cambridge as entitled little brats, the dominant culture normalises a particular attitude which means many of them may leave changed."

    "At its root it is a form of socialisation. For the Old Etonians this is all already well within their stride. May Balls are simply a continuation of any 16th birthday party they've ever been to. While that May Ball may not have been as good as their cousin's 21st bash in Dubai, it was fun nevertheless. The troubling part is what it does to the rest of us, those who came from a background where that level of decadence and debauchery isn't normal, even on very, very, very special occasions. Those of us for whom throwing rubbish on the floor and expecting someone to pick it up is reserved for toddlers, and spending £160 on a night out the result of having your card stolen."

    "At St John's May Ball this year, some half-on half-off workers paid £80 for the privilege of picking up guests' litter for 5 hours. In a gesture of excess, the committee had adopted a 'no bins policy', encouraging guests to drop their litter on the floor rather than renting bins for the night."

    "The Marie-Antoinette prize went to one sensitive guest who took the time to ask one lucky litter-picker, 'Don't you find this work demeaning, why didn't you just buy a ticket?'"

    "Dance of the Knights - the score synonymous with the capitalist TV saga The Apprentice - blared out over a thousand golden fireworks built by a hundred crying children as Peregrine and Cornelius cracked open another bottle of Bollinger and discussed what their third MPhils should be in."

    "I saw how extreme privilege becomes normalised. For these people, Cambridge is socialising them into entitled sociopaths (...)"

    I reckon someone will reply to this saying it's all lies and even if it's not then if you're really clever you'd know that while a "no bins" policy may encourage chucking litter on the ground, and although workers were employed to pick up said litter from the ground, actually the policy is all about the service of the common good - as anyone other than a filthy oik, a lefty social worker, or a person weighed down with chips on both their shoulders wouldn't even question.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lopterton)
    I don't know why you posted this, starting with directly contradicting my statement that the HEFCE regulates Cambridge University.

    All registered and exempt charities have a "principal regulator". As I said, for Cambridge University (which is exempt) this is the HEFCE and for its colleges (which are registered) it's the Charity Commission. The HEFCE's role in regulating Cambridge University is broader than covering only what its payments are for. A charity's principal regulator oversees the charity's compliance with its obligations as a charity.

    The ECU is not a regulator, and says so. I don't think the OIAHE is a regulator either. A charity only has one principal regulator.

    In practice, I am sure Cambridge University and even one of its glorified halls of residence called a "college" could tell any of these bodies to eff off if they tried to give it orders in respect of a view they reached of a matter such as this.
    I am sorry, you misunderstand the position.

    The responsibility of a Principal Regulator are to enforce those bits of charity law that apply to an exempt charity. Charity law in this context is a very narrowly defined term. It doesn't mean all the law that applies to a charity. Principal Regulators for exempt charities were selected precisely because they were regulators for the purpose of other legislation. It does not mean that they have any overarching regulatory role in relation to the exempt charity. The Principal Regulator only has its core regulatory role under its primary legislation plus its regulatory role in respect of that part of charity law that applies to an exempt charity. It has no responsibility in relation to other regulatory functions. Other regulators have a direct relationship with the exempt charity in which the Principal Regulator cannot interfere.

    Furthermore, the powers of a Principal Regulator under charity law are limited to asking the Charity Commission to investigate. The assumption is that the core regulatory powers of the Principal Regulator will be sufficient to compel compliance with those parts of charity law that apply to exempt charities (which mostly relate to the fitness for office of those people who are legally charity trustees and protection of charitable funds) without the need to use powers under charity law.

    The position is explained here.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/public...empt-charities

    In practical terms the regulatory oversight of the HEFCE is very light unless the defaults are so serious as to warrant the threat of cutting off funding. For most purposes it is the courts who act as regulators either by way of judicial review or under specific legislation. The regulatory function of the HEFCE is set out here

    http://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/HEFCE,2...FCE2016_12.pdf
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marers)
    Extracts from an excellent article by Joe Goodman in the Independent, December 2015 (originally in the Huffington Post):

    "If you can't afford a ticket for the May Ball, you can work there instead - while a student who sat two seats away from you in an exam last week can now demand of you to 'come straight to me when the next tray of sushi arrives'"

    "While by no means the majority of students enter Oxford and Cambridge as entitled little brats, the dominant culture normalises a particular attitude which means many of them may leave changed."

    "At its root it is a form of socialisation. For the Old Etonians this is all already well within their stride. May Balls are simply a continuation of any 16th birthday party they've ever been to. While that May Ball may not have been as good as their cousin's 21st bash in Dubai, it was fun nevertheless. The troubling part is what it does to the rest of us, those who came from a background where that level of decadence and debauchery isn't normal, even on very, very, very special occasions. Those of us for whom throwing rubbish on the floor and expecting someone to pick it up is reserved for toddlers, and spending £160 on a night out the result of having your card stolen."

    "At St John's May Ball this year, some half-on half-off workers paid £80 for the privilege of picking up guests' litter for 5 hours. In a gesture of excess, the committee had adopted a 'no bins policy', encouraging guests to drop their litter on the floor rather than renting bins for the night."

    "The Marie-Antoinette prize went to one sensitive guest who took the time to ask one lucky litter-picker, 'Don't you find this work demeaning, why didn't you just buy a ticket?'"

    "Dance of the Knights - the score synonymous with the capitalist TV saga The Apprentice - blared out over a thousand golden fireworks built by a hundred crying children as Peregrine and Cornelius cracked open another bottle of Bollinger and discussed what their third MPhils should be in."

    "I saw how extreme privilege becomes normalised. For these people, Cambridge is socialising them into entitled sociopaths (...)"

    I reckon someone will reply to this saying it's all lies and even if it's not then if you're really clever you'd know that while a "no bins" policy may encourage chucking litter on the ground, and although workers were employed to pick up said litter from the ground, actually the policy is all about the service of the common good - as anyone other than a filthy oik, a lefty social worker, or a person weighed down with chips on both their shoulders wouldn't even question.
    As someone who many years ago worked for an Oxford Commem Ball, the reason was very simple; I didn't have a girl to take and I wasn't sufficient of a saddo to split a ticket with a male pal. I could well have afforded it.

    I am afraid this is the sort of article written by young right-on wannabe journalists down the ages. According to his blog, he currently lives in Okayama, Japan. The ability to take oneself off as a writer to Japan shows he is as disconnected from the mainstream of society as the toffs he criticises in his article. The youth of Grimsby or Skelmersdale in fact might find it easier to identify with young people getting rat-arsed in their finery having a good time, because that is what they do in the pubs and clubs on a Friday and Saturday night rather than being able to swan off to the far east like some latterday Somerset Maugham.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    As someone who many years ago worked for an Oxford Commem Ball, the reason was very simple; I didn't have a girl to take and I wasn't sufficient of a saddo to split a ticket with a male pal. I could well have afforded it.

    I am afraid this is the sort of article written by young right-on wannabe journalists down the ages. According to his blog, he currently lives in Okayama, Japan. The ability to take oneself off as a writer to Japan shows he is as disconnected from the mainstream of society as the toffs he criticises in his article. The youth of Grimsby or Skelmersdale in fact might find it easier to identify with young people getting rat-arsed in their finery having a good time, because that is what they do in the pubs and clubs on a Friday and Saturday night rather than being able to swan off to the far east like some latterday Somerset Maugham.
    His LinkedIn says he's an intern with a media company in London now, so he landed back on earth apparently. I thought he overdid the humble servants toiling in the trash angle in that article, but heh, that's journalism.

    There's often criticism of excess around various balls and some of it is justified, they don't exactly set a role model for moving towards a better and more compassionate society. On the other hand, they can be a lot of fun. :teehee:
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marers)
    "I saw how extreme privilege becomes normalised. For these people, Cambridge is socialising them into entitled sociopaths (...)"
    Yeah having long-planned events once a year where you dress slightly more fancily than usual and party all night is 'sociopathic'.

    The Independent is complete trash.

    Btw nobody works at their own college's may ball (except the committee I guess). People who work at may balls are those who try to do one every night without really being able to afford it.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Yeah having long-planned events once a year where you dress slightly more fancily than usual and party all night is 'sociopathic'.

    The Independent is complete trash
    Calm down "Slightly more fancily than usual". Lol! Who cares whether they are long-planned? That wasn't part of the author's argument for the sociopathy.


    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Btw nobody works at their own college's may ball (except the committee I guess).
    I'm sure the committee members slog like navvies, but are you sure this statement is correct? It would imply that if a student who can't afford to buy a full ticket to their college's May Ball applies to get in by the work route, by doing some paid skivvying, they're told "No, sorry, we'll employ students from other colleges but not members of this one".

    As a result, a student who couldn't afford to buy a full ticket but could pay a proportion of the price, and who only wanted to go to ONE May Ball, would have no option but to apply to work at a ball another college.

    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    People who work at may balls are those who try to do one every night without really being able to afford it.
    How common of them. I knew there was something that distinguished them from those who try to do one every night who can afford it.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    His LinkedIn says he's an intern with a media company in London now, so he landed back on earth apparently. I thought he overdid the humble servants toiling in the trash angle in that article, but heh, that's journalism.

    There's often criticism of excess around various balls and some of it is justified, they don't exactly set a role model for moving towards a better and more compassionate society. On the other hand, they can be a lot of fun. :teehee:
    Practically all colleges write to their student members at that time of year to say don't damage the university and college brands by abusing alcohol until you vomit in the street, and don't otherwise behave as if you and your mates own the world where commoners can see you - because a journo might put you in the papers if you do.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

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

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