It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Boat race protester gets six months prison for upsetting the elite.

page: 2
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by RoScoLaz

Originally posted by Crakeur
no, he got six months for being a public nuisance. he jumped into the water, disrupting a boat race, putting himself and the folks in the boats at risk.



nonsense. he got six months for upsetting the toffs. didn't 'know his place'. the only person he put at risk was himself. i cheered his actions. the boat race is an antiquated elitist jolly that has zero relevance to anyone but those chinless f##ks. boo hoo for them.


Olympic sports are just "elitist jollies" now?

Good to know.

I will be sure not to enrol my children into olympic sports, just so I can stick it to the man...




posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 



So we are assuming that everyone that goes to Oxford and Cambridge is elite in some way?


Yes we know there are a certain percentange of students that go to Oxbridge who are from outside the 'Rich List', but to be fair the plebs do not give a damn about the Boat Race!! It has no relevance to our lives and is mainly supported by the 'Elite'.

His protest was aginst 'The Elite' and these are the people that the Boat Race is aimed at.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


Was a Rothschild there . He might have gotten mad because of the delay . I'm sure he has a tight schedule working hard to destroy economies and foreclose on the old widow . Then to he may have been responsible for the poor guys grief to start with .



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Cobaltic1978
 


Okay, so I know there are a bunch of pedophiles online. You must be one too right?

Really bad logic you're using. I happen to know a few boat racers, some in my family as well, and they paid their way through school, came from nothing and had no support from any 'elite'.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimonPeter
reply to post by boncho
 


Was a Rothschild there . He might have gotten mad because of the delay . I'm sure he has a tight schedule working hard to destroy economies and foreclose on the old widow . Then to he may have been responsible for the poor guys grief to start with .


So if a Rothschild eats at a nice restaurant, you should burn it down yeah?




posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


Are you from the U.K? I appreciate the Boat Race may have more significance in the U.S than it does over here. I mean there isn't even a class system in the U.S is there?


I do not know anyone who has gone to Oxbridge, let alone raced in the Boat Race.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


Boat races of this kind in Britain are ran by and for the wealthy upper class.

Yes you can get into Oxford etc., on a scholarship. But to get a scholarship to schools like that you have to have extremely high grades, be involved in community services, and be good at some kind of sports. It also helps to have parents of some importance.

The chances of a commoner fitting their requirements is extremely thin.

Boat races like this have always had their protests. Ian Bone and Class War 1985...




edit on 10/19/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by RoScoLaz

Originally posted by Crakeur
no, he got six months for being a public nuisance. he jumped into the water, disrupting a boat race, putting himself and the folks in the boats at risk.



nonsense. he got six months for upsetting the toffs. didn't 'know his place'. the only person he put at risk was himself. i cheered his actions. the boat race is an antiquated elitist jolly that has zero relevance to anyone but those chinless f##ks. boo hoo for them.


Olympic sports are just "elitist jollies" now?

Good to know.

I will be sure not to enrol my children into olympic sports, just so I can stick it to the man...





The boat race isn't an Olympic sport.

The boat race is held once a year between Oxford and Cambridge universities .
It had nothing to do with the Olympics.

The majority of people in Britain haven't a clue what it's all about but the tv and papers seem to think its a big thing.

Obviously the judge feels the same way too.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK


Yes you can get into Oxford etc., on a scholarship. But to get a scholarship to schools like that you have to have extremely high grades, be involved in community services, and be good at some kind of sports. It also helps to have parents of some importance.

The chances of a commoner fitting their requirements is extremely thin.

 


Commoners are stupid people are they now? This is ludicrous, some of the excuses and examples some of you have been using in this thread.

God forbid I have a child that does well in school, sports and is active in their community and they end up at cambridge via scholarship.

They certainly would deserve your disdain then wouldn't they?



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by lambros56


The boat race isn't an Olympic sport.

The boat race is held once a year between Oxford and Cambridge universities .
It had nothing to do with the Olympics.

 


Boat racing is an olympic event and the people rowing those boats are on the rowing teams for the schools. Many of those people compete when the olympics rolls around.

Just because you don't like, understand, appreciate a sport doesn't mean you have to be prejudice against the people that participate in it. I'm not a fan of basketball but I still respect the sport and the people in it for their athleticism.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by SimonPeter
 


Next time you could be that idiot protesting something that is important to you like eating .
There are means of protesting which make sense. Jumping in a river is idiotic and demonstrates absolutely nothing. In particular since no one had any idea what the fool was doing.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 06:48 PM
link   
The basic issue here is nothing more than envy and class warfare. It's happening in the US as well, but in the UK it probabl;y is a little more long standing. The envy is so deep in the UK that the country has basically torn itself into pieces. It's kind of like Emanuel (Chief of Staff for Obama) saying to never let a good crisis go to waste. It started during WW II when London was bombed by the Germans. TPTB decided it would be a humanitarian thing to do to get all children out of the city, so they commandeered the huge houses of the rich and turned them into dormitories. Who could resist such a humanitarian effort? Nobody, of course, because it was "the right thing to do."

After the war the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated he was going to tax the rich "until their pips squeak." This referred to the diamond-shaped pieces on a coat of arms. And he did. He implemented an estate tax that was so steep that few rich could pay it, so they began dumping their stately homes. The country set up a "National Trust" so that the families coild give them away, allwed the next generation to remain living in their family homes, then kicked them out.

The ironic thing is that the "estate tax" was supposed to be for soaking the rich, but now middle class Brits are also facing it because of inflation. But what else has this assault on the rich done to the UK? It's made them into a second rate power. To look at the overall decay in Great Britain today is a sorrowful thing to witness. It's just sad.

So what does the UK thrive on? The tourist trade. People visit England to tour the large houses and watch the pomp of Royalty. If thos ethings weren't there, no one would visit. So the commoners are still dependent on the rich, even after they ran them through with a sword.

Thomas Sowell expresses this best in a September column called The fallacy of redistribution


Those who talk glibly about redistribution often act as if people are just inert objects that can be placed here and there, like pieces on a chess board, to carry out some grand design. But if human beings have their own responses to government policies, then we cannot blithely assume that government policies will have the effect intended.

The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty. The communist nations were a classic example, but by no means the only example.

In theory, confiscating the wealth of the more successful people ought to make the rest of the society more prosperous. But when the Soviet Union confiscated the wealth of successful farmers, food became scarce. As many people died of starvation under Stalin in the 1930s as died in Hitler's Holocaust in the 1940s.


How can that be? It is not complicated. You can only confiscate the wealth that exists at a given moment. You cannot confiscate future wealth — and that future wealth is less likely to be produced when people see that it is going to be confiscated. Farmers in the Soviet Union cut back on how much time and effort they invested in growing their crops, when they realized that the government was going to take a big part of the harvest. They slaughtered and ate young farm animals that they would normally keep tending and feeding while raising them to maturity.

People in industry are not inert objects either. Moreover, unlike farmers, industrialists are not tied to the land in a particular country.

Russian aviation pioneer Igor Sikorsky could take his expertise to America and produce his planes and helicopters thousands of miles away from his native land. Financiers are even less tied down, especially today, when vast sums of money can be dispatched electronically to any part of the world.

If confiscatory policies can produce counterproductive repercussions in a dictatorship, they are even harder to carry out in a democracy. A dictatorship can suddenly swoop down and grab whatever it wants. But a democracy must first have public discussions and debates. Those who are targeted for confiscation can see the handwriting on the wall, and act accordingly.

Among the most valuable assets in any nation are the knowledge, skills and productive experience that economists call "human capital." When successful people with much human capital leave the country, either voluntarily or because of hostile governments or hostile mobs whipped up by demagogues exploiting envy, lasting damage can be done to the economy they leave behind.

Fidel Castro's confiscatory policies drove successful Cubans to flee to Florida, often leaving much of their physical wealth behind. But poverty-stricken refugees rose to prosperity again in Florida, while the wealth they left behind in Cuba did not prevent the people there from being poverty stricken under Castro. The lasting wealth the refugees took with them was their human capital.


The UK screwed itself with envy.

edit on 10/19/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 



Commoners are stupid people are they now?


Nobody is suggesting this and you are just twisting words.

In the U.K, if you are from the lower classes, regardless if you do well academically, it is more likely that you will be offered a place at Oxbridge if you are from a priviledged background, FACT!!!

The chances of someone from a lower class becoming involved in Rowing is very slim. Not that people shouldn't aim to become rowers, why the heck not. It's just that at the moment there really isn't a law to protect people from class discrimination and this is prevalent in these establishments.

I appreciate it may not be like this in the U.S, but the reality in the U.K is very different!!


edit on 19/10/12 by Cobaltic1978 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 06:52 PM
link   
But this is ok....No smilies required
www.youtube.com...



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
Commoners are stupid people are they now? This is ludicrous, some of the excuses and examples some of you have been using in this thread.


What? How did you come to that conclusion from what I said?


God forbid I have a child that does well in school, sports and is active in their community and they end up at cambridge via scholarship.

They certainly would deserve your disdain then wouldn't they?


But the chance of that happening is extremely slim. Do you know anything about the British education system?

The chance that you can get good enough grades, get good enough at a sport etc., in a poor neighbourhood school is extremely thin. But on top of that you have the snobbery, wealthy people will always be accepted first.
It isn't about intelligence, it is about wealth.


In wealthier parts of the country like Reading and Hammersmith, students in *public schools* are 50 times more likely to gain acceptance to Oxford or Cambridge than their counterparts in Hackney. They also face fierce competition from students armed with the best education money can buy: in 2010, Oxford offered 44% of its places to students from private schools, despite the fact that only 7% of British students attend them. The scales are weighted so heavily, in fact, that five British private schools sent more students to Oxford and Cambridge between 2007 and '09 than 2,000 public schools combined, according to the Sutton Trust, an educational charity in the U.K.


*Public schools in Britain are private elite schools.


A public school, in common English usage, is a (usually) prestigious school which charges fees and is not financed by the state.


Public school (UK) - Definition

Can Oxford and Cambridge Shed Their Elitist Images by Admitting More Poor Students?

This isn't America. If you go to state school chances are you will leave at 16. To go to uni you have to stay till you're 18 to get your 'A' levels.


edit on 10/19/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Bilky
 


all they had to do was lift their oars

Why should they have to do that? Just because a fool jumps in the river?


Judge Anne Molyneux said Oldfield had acted dangerously, disproportionately, had not shown what he was actually protesting against, and displayed prejudice in sabotaging the event which he regarded as elitist.

www.bbc.co.uk...

edit on 10/19/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)


elitist much?
from the op's link:

following the sentencing, outside court, his wife, Deepa Naik, 35, defended his actions.

"Trenton has spent his adult life working on these issues and his direct action protest was a natural extension of his everyday work," she said.

"Trenton's protest was a reaction to an increasingly brutal business, media and political elite." "Great Britain has convinced many it is the home of democracy and the gauge of civilisation," she added. "Anyone living here today knows Britain is a brutal, deeply divided, class-driven place."
***

Oldfield, who admitted swimming in front of the crews, said he decided to demonstrate after hearing about the government's public spending cuts, which he said were "worse than in Dickens's time".

On targeting the race, he said: "It's a symbol of a lot of issues in Britain around class. Seventy per cent of government pushing through very significant cuts are Oxford or Cambridge graduates.

"It was a symbolic gesture to these kind of issues."


why should those, who unaffected by the cut's, due to their economic and privileged class status get to have fun?

standing on a corner would have gotten him nowhere.

sounds as if to you and others defending the upper crust's privileged existence, Oldfield's Non-Violent protest, is unacceptable*
Memo to the Victims: You Yourselves Will Pay for the Crimes of the Ruling Class
*

Focus on the critical sentence: "Yet, when a victim explodes or acts out in unacceptable ways, these same officials are shocked and indignant."

What exactly are these "unacceptable ways" of exploding or acting out? Who decided they were "unacceptable"? Why is it that "reluctant school officials" will not "take definitive action" against the bullies -- thus tacitly conceding that the bullying itself is not all that "unacceptable" -- while the same officials are "shocked and indignant" when the victim protests too strongly?

This pattern, and certain of its origins, will be found throughout history, in every culture around the world. The pattern is a simple and deadly one: the oppressor -- that is, those who are in the superior position, whether they are parents, school officials, or the government, or in a superior position merely by virtue of physical strength -- may inflict bodily harm and/or grievous, lifelong emotional and psychological injury, but the victim may only protest within the limits set by the oppressor himself. The oppressor will determine those forms of protest by the victim that are "acceptable."

You see this pattern with regard to many helpless, lonely children in addition to Billy Wolfe...
...

Think about this very carefully for a moment. The oppressor may inflict unimaginable cruelties on innocent victims -- but the victims may only protest in ways which the oppressor deems "acceptable." The profound injustice is obvious, but not in itself remarkable or unexpected: this is how oppression operates. But ask yourself about the deeper reason for the prohibition. This is of the greatest importance: the victims may only protest within a constricted range of "permissible" behavior because, when they exceed the prescribed limits, they make the oppressors too uncomfortable. They force the oppressors to confront the nature of what they, the oppressors, have done in ways that the oppressors do not choose to face.
***
Take some time to appreciate the unfathomable cruelty of this pattern. You may be grievously harmed and even permanently damaged by the actions of those who hold unanswerable power -- but you may only speak about this evil and its effects within the very narrow limits set by those who would destroy you. If you are killed, the identical prohibitions apply to those who still manage to survive and who would protest the unforgivable crime committed against you. In this manner, the complacency and comfort of those who possess immense power and wealth are underwritten by the silence forced upon their victims. The victims may speak and even protest, but only within severely circumscribed limits, and only so long as their rulers are not made to feel too uncomfortable, or too guilty. Anything which approaches too close to the truth is strictly forbidden.

This is the system of government carefully erected and fortified in the United States over the last century. In the last several decades, it has been made impregnable and unassailable. If you tell the full truth or even approach it, you are consigned to the void beyond the most distant borders of permissible debate.

but hey keep demonizing people for coming up with non-violent forms of protest
then act all shocked and indignant when, non-violence is cast aside, and more violent solutions are set in motion



posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 03:37 AM
link   
Another thing worth mentioning for our American friends is that the attitude towards sports, other than football, in Britain is not the same as in America.

Rowing has always been an upper class sport, like polo. I can't think of anybody I ever knew who would have had the slightest interest in being a rower. Football, snooker, darts. Rowing, nah.

Events like the Henley Royal Regatta, a rowing event on the Thames held every year, is an event for the upper crust. It's part of what is known as the 'social season', a collection of events where there is a private area set aside for [toffy accent]"special" guests who are required to dress for the occasion.[/toffy accent]

It is the Henley Regatta after all, not to be confused with the Hackney regatta...

crumblelondon.wordpress.com...



Henley-on-Thames

You have to be wealthy to live there.



edit on 10/20/2012 by ANOK because: to add the drama



posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 03:48 AM
link   
My best friend went to Oxford university for about a month. He is from a working class family from Boston in Lincolnshire. Certainly no toff. He left Oxford as he didn't feel he fitted in with the culture there. It doesn't matter how clever you are, it's all about the connections and background you come from. Rowing is an elitist sport. So for someone protesting elitism, it's a legitimate target.

I'm sure he expected to get arrested for his protests, so a custodial sentence although harsh in my opinion, is just one of the risks you take when taking these actions. Yet by the harshness of the sentence it actually highlights the very elitism he was protesting. So all in all he managed to gain a lot of attention from this small protest.



posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 05:50 AM
link   
Quite a good documentary on the British class system and how it is still prevalent in todays society, particularly in the realm of politics. With nearly all members of the house from both benches, being Oxbridge educated.

The documentary starts at the 3 min point in this video .



posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 06:07 AM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


This is why I am always yapping on about there being no one in government representing anyone but the upper social classes. Even the BBC (the British Bastar....) commented on this...


...The gap between state and private schools is wide and possibly getting wider. Almost one third of private school pupils get at least three A-grade A-levels versus 7.5% of comprehensive pupils. It is a gap that has doubled since 1998, even though Labour doubled spending on schools....


Does a narrow social elite run the country?



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join