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.

 

'Bullingdon Club Member' DID Burn £50 In Front Of A Tramp, Student Alleges

page: 7
26
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by dmsuse
 


Then why don't you give up your day job and beg for £1,000 a day on the street? I seriously doubt a very busy whore going 24/7 could earn this? What type of world do you inhabit? Don't tell me, Tory or UKIP voter and a member of the Taxpayers Alliance and the local Exclusive Golf Club? I hope your stocks and shares go up in smoke. Asswipe.

Stephen.




posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Knobby
 


As disgusting as this information is - thank you for posting it. I have a few select thoughts to share with everyone.

1. It is a shame that there is not a licence necessary to become a parent. The parents associated with this article have inflicted society with their heartless offspring. (I originally wrote parasitic offspring.)

2. It is my understanding that in Australia it is a criminal offence to deface/destroy currency - is it the same in other countries? Should it be the same then the parents are breeding criminal offspring and while the University is educating them as such they are aiding and abetting the 'societies' that partake in criminal behaviour.

3. It is my understanding that the People who are homeless are really Angels in disguise - they suffer so that the rest of us might practice our compassion and sense of humility.

I will not waste any more time on these shameful people.

Much Peace...to all the homeless People everywhere...



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 11:28 PM
link   
Let us think about this for a moment. First of all, I know in America destroying currency is illegal, although I am not sure about the laws in other countries. So this may or may not have been illegal, but even if it was not, this is a great example to illustrate a point I have constantly made on ATS...Those who are in politics, those who are rich, and/or those who basically make up the top percentage of a country are the worst people to be in charge of government. It also goes to show that they have no moral compass, and I think that many of these people become rich, if they were not born that way like the majority, because they have no compassion for others.

They do not mind screwing someone over to make a buck, and that is how they achieve their wealth. The act we are discussing in this thread is proof positive. I mean what kind of person do you have to be to not only consider doing something like this, but to actually go through with it? Sure, it was their money to begin with, but that means absolutely nothing considering the point of the action was obviously to be cruel to someone who is less fortunate. So everyone just remember what the elite think about regular people, because this illustrates it perfectly, no matter what country you are in.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 12:16 AM
link   
If wouldn’t hurt half as much if that guy who murdered all those kids at sandy hook, took out these egotistic brats instead!

If people are going to kill, than let it be the elite s.o.b. bankers and their devil spawn children, who are destroying everything that is good in this world!



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Propulsion
 


Oh right, so now we've turned it into "don't murder those children...murder those children"

There are so many self-righteous people on this thread...most of whom (note the most, not all) would doubtless walk right past a homeless person and do nothing...you've only got your panties in a bunch because it is a club for the wealthy at Oxford, a few of whom will go into politics with their chosen party being the Conservatives (though there are a fair few of the Oxford crowd make it into the Labour and Lib Dem's as well...

Would the outcry have been the same if it was an establishment that produced joiners and electricians..probably not, you would all accept that they did something very stupid as a result of youth

The things I'm being accused of in this thread is outrageous because clearly very few people have read any of my posts and to the person that suggested I was a member of the royals..duh, what a stupid thing to say, not many of the royal family have had to claim ESA because they were ill as I did!

And to Muckster of course I know that living on the streets is not a good position to be in, but my point is that there are many people who with a few lifestyle changes don't have to be, but they make a choice, drugs and alcohol, that is their choice and I don't see why I should be responsible for their decisions, no one is responsible for mine.

But hey ho, I'll leave you all to your faux indignation in forum land, while I go back and live in the real world

And I still think that this doesn't exactly meet the "Alternative Breaking News" section, not saying it should not be discussed but it's hardly important headline stuff.


edit on 25-2-2013 by destination now because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Knobby
 


And apart from your rather crude remark about watersports (when out of the dozen or so posts I made on this thread, I said twice I would be far more outraged if they had urinated on the person, so it's hardly every other post) why do you keep referring to the homeless as tramps? That's a very derogatory description, but that's okay because you hate rich people, and you think you're better than them and you obviously believe you're above the homeless because you keep calling them tramps...they're not tramps, they're homeless.

Yet no one else sees the irony in this...oh well...



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
...Those who are in politics, those who are rich, and/or those who basically make up the top percentage of a country are the worst people to be in charge of government. It also goes to show that they have no moral compass, and I think that many of these people become rich, if they were not born that way like the majority, because they have no compassion for others.

They do not mind screwing someone over to make a buck, and that is how they achieve their wealth. The act we are discussing in this thread is proof positive. I mean what kind of person do you have to be to not only consider doing something like this, but to actually go through with it? Sure, it was their money to begin with, but that means absolutely nothing considering the point of the action was obviously to be cruel to someone who is less fortunate. So everyone just remember what the elite think about regular people, because this illustrates it perfectly, no matter what country you are in.


Well said.
This reminds me of a documentary you may have seen; fisheads. Narrated by Peter Coyote.


ABOUT "I am



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 06:31 AM
link   
Oh FGS grow up...It was Gordon Brown's LABOUR government who contracted ATOS way before David Cameron got into power...and have you read my previous replies to TrueBrit yet or are you just going to remain in an ignorant fogyes n





I know how Blair and Brown got in .. you are patronizing and obviously think you know everything.I think you just like to argue..

YOur tone and your way pf speaking tells me you like to be top dog.. WEl I don't play comtetitive games with people who don'y have a clue



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by jonnywhite
reply to post by TrueBrit
 

And a homeless person sitting on the street (paid for by the taxpayers) can hold a sign up asking for money all day and/or fall asleep behind the bushes and/or pass out from drinking too much in full view of everyone else? You're giving a free pass for homeless people, but not to those who have money.

Burning some money in front of a homeless person is not the same thing as throwing malaria vaccine in a tub filled with acid. Most of us already know that homeless people spend the money mostly on alcohol. And even if they don't get any money they can still survive. That's not so with someone who has malaria and will die if there's no vaccine. $25 or $50 or $100 is not going to save a homeless person from themselves. At the end of the day, they're their own worst enemy.

Want to help a homeless person? Show them how to get a job. Show them how to clean up and find good clothes. Show them how to be presentable to an employer. Show them how to not beg. Give them a place to live where they have to do small jobs and train them to adopt good habits. If they stop cooperating and do not look for work then kick them out and find people who will.
edit on 24-2-2013 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



you are a victim of the MURDOCH lies ... I feel sorry for you.. all homeless spend it on alchohol.. so you are p[rivy to every single one and therefore have the right to judge the,>I expected smarter people than that one



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueBrit
reply to post by jonnywhite
 


I have been homeless, and I wasnt on hard drugs and heavy drink! I was just down on my luck, had no where to go, and not enough money to aquire somewhere to live, of even the most meagre sort.

Do not judge people based on thier circumstances. Things are not as simple as people find it so easy to claim.



best post ever.. Me too I was homeless during my pregnancy 20 years ago because I wouldn't put up with being beaten.. I was not a druggie nor an alchoholic..I at once I got her recognized that for many folks this site is how they prevent themselves from real thought especially crtical thought.. the ones who speak in a patronizing manner giive themselves away.. if someone doesn't care about all human life..I want NOTHING to do with their life.. so if you are a mean person.. you will be ignored by me



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 06:46 AM
link   
the fact that anyone would wave money in front of a homeless person tells me they ar SADISTIC by nature.. good to see some here have hearts. as I said on another post..I won't be dealing with anyone who defends the TOries, puts down the homeless , disabled and poor.. if you are that kind of peson.. you don't get my time.. IF you are kind and CIVIL .. fine...

Too many folks on here have too much ego... but then the net is rife with bullies behind screens.. allwe'd need do to render the ineffectual is ignore their posts..



" but for the Grace of God go I"



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 


well said .Isn't it odd that so many countries are blaming the poor whenin fact it is the big guys with their hands in some pockets who are the issue in the first place



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Explanation: S&F!

@EVERYBODY ... Uhmmmm?


1stly the huffpost article was updated to ...


Clarification
Posted: 23/02/2013 14:02 GMT | Updated: 25/02/2013 13:38 GMT
In an article which previously existed on this link we published an unfounded allegation about Orme Alexander Clarke.

We would like to apologise.


Make of that occurance what you will ok.


However I am sorely disappointed because I had hoped that everyone realizes that burning the 50quid note would actually increased the worth of all the other money in circulation within the UK economy!


Yes that is CORRECT ... as it reduced the supply of 50 pound notes by a single note and therefor increased all the remaining money in the UK ecoonomy by a mere fraction due to the supply and demand factors that control any economy.

Burning Money ... FIGHTS INFLATION OK!


Here is why ...

Money Burning [wiki]


Money burning or burning money is the purposeful act of destroying money. In the prototypical example, banknotes are destroyed by literally setting them on fire. Burning money decreases the wealth of the owner without directly enriching any particular party. However, according to the quantity theory of money, because it reduces the supply of money it increases the value of the remaining money, increasing (by roughly the same amount as the money burnt) the collective wealth of everyone else who holds money.

Money is usually burned to communicate a message, either for artistic effect, as a form of protest, or as a signal. In some games, a player can sometimes benefit from the ability to burn money (Battle of the sexes). Burning money is illegal in some jurisdictions.



Macroeconomic effect
For the purposes of macroeconomics, burning money is equivalent to removing the money from circulation, and locking it away forever; the salient feature is that no one may ever use the money again. Burning money shrinks the money supply, and is therefore a special case of contractionary monetary policy that can be implemented by anyone. In the usual case, the central bank withdraws money from circulation by selling government bonds or foreign currency. The difference with money burning is that the central bank does not have to exchange any assets of value for the money burnt. Money burning is thus equivalent to gifting the money back to the central bank (or other money issuing authority). If the economy is at full employment equilibrium, shrinking the money supply causes deflation (or decreases the rate of inflation), increasing the real value of the money left in circulation.

Assuming that the burned money is paper money with negligible intrinsic value, no real goods are destroyed, so the overall wealth of the world is unaffected. Instead, all surviving money slightly increases in value; everyone gains wealth in proportion to the amount of money they already hold. Economist Steven Landsburg proposes in The Armchair Economist that burning one's fortune (in paper money) is a form of philanthropy more egalitarian than deeding it to the United States Treasury. In 1920, Thomas Nixon Carver wrote that dumping money into the sea is better for society than spending it wastefully, as the latter wastes the labor that it hires.


Personal Disclosure: None of you, ... realized this ^^^ FACT! :shk:


So some upperclass young tosser ... burns 50quid of their OWN money in front of some tramp [who may wish to remain homeless] and thereby fights inflation and ever so slightly increases the worth of any money the tramp may have possessed [plus everyone elses money as well] with the expectation that the tramp will become offended by such an action ... just like everyone to this thread has become!


Well I am NOT SORRY for TRAMPLING on such shortsightedness by my fellow members!


Deflate all your ego's ok!



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by OmegaLogos
 


Trust you to find a completely random angle to come at this from OL!


Awesome originality



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by OmegaLogos
 


Looks like the Lawyers have been dispatched, and big style.

And it looks like a few of the websites who ran with the story have now taken it down as well.

I wonder what the site owners views on this will be, seeing that a search on google leads to ATS as well as other sites who ran with the story.

At the moment, it looks like I've been duped, but it has been an interesting and entertaining thread.

I wonder if someone will spare a poor tramp some pennies after the Lawyers are finished with me






posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by mykingdomforthetruth
that 50 pound note is suppose to be exchangable for 50 pounds in weight in sterling silver like 35 dollars is suppose to be worth 1 full ounce of gold...

the time will come when that tramp and the toff will be on the same page






Not true. At one point in history it was, but that was changed long ago. Just sayin'...it would be like saying $5,000 is supposed to get you a 3-flat brownstone in a nice neighborhood in Chicago. Or that a 3-cent stamp is supposed to grant one the ability to mail a letter from Dallas to Hoboken.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 05:18 AM
link   
er... burning or destroying money.. or anything with the queens head on it is illegal. These mofos should be prosecuted... what happened to the rule of law?



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by jonnywhite
 


You know Oxford is turning away kids from working class backgrounds, not because they didn't work hard enough, but because they wouldn't be able to afford the living standards. So that pretty much rules out the chances of poorer people being able to study at Oxford. A place the reserve of the rich only.


No, lets keep our feet on the ground here, they turned away one person because they could not demonstrate how they could support themselves while at University and that person went running to the rags. They had no job and no savings, so exactly how they could have afforded food, bed, board and the books needed wasn't shown.

Let's not start blowing things out of proportion for the sake of a quick point, hey?



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigdohbeatdown
er... burning or destroying money.. or anything with the queens head on it is illegal. These mofos should be prosecuted... what happened to the rule of law?


It's not a crime to burn notes. In fact, you can burn your notes, send the remainder to the BoE and they will kindly replace it for you.

It is a crime to deface notes though, which includes writing slogans or drawing pictures but this is to prevent people getting notes with obscene messages.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Knobby
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


Also, who from a working class background will be able to pay the £9000 per year tuition fees for just about any course in England and Wales. And that's without living expenses on top of that.

If you are staying away from home then I would dread to think what the final bill would be.

I wonder when the boys formulated that particular plan to keep the poor uneducated.



I'm sorry, this constant misunderstanding of Tuition fees and it's (deliberate) misrepresentation annoys the crap out of me.

It doesn't cost anyone £9000 to go to Uni. They get a loan which pays it for them.

After they Graduate, they then have to pay the money back once they earn over £21k (or thereabouts) and even then, the payments are on a gradient in relation to your pay, so at the lowest end it works out as £31 a month. Even then, the debt is written off after a certain period anyway, no matter if you pay it off or not.

Do you honestly expect people to believe that someone on £21k a year cannot afford £30 a month? That's less than most TV, phone or internet subscriptions and I bet they could afford them....

To then peddle the nonsense that "people from working class backgrounds" can't go to Uni based on the above, is totally wrong. If someone has the aptitude, they can go to Uni and they don't have to worry about finding £9k a year.to pay for it.

If you want to rant against the "Elites" at least do it from a logical standpoint, not paranoid, tabloid trash nonsense.



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
26
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join