Cambridge Student Denounced After Taunting Homeless Man By Burning £20 Note

A Cambridge University student with Pembroke College has become persona non grata after a disgusting display in front of a homeless man.  When unemployed crane operator Ryan Davies asked for money, Ronald Coyne burned a  £20 note in front of him as a taunt.  The video was posted on YouTube and Coyne is now internationally despised.

Coyne was dressed in formal clothing when Davies asked him and his friends for any change.  Coyne responded by burning the money and saying “How’s that for change, I’ve changed it into flames.”

Cambridge University Conservative Association (CUCA) committee told The Independent: “CUCA unequivocally condemns the actions of Ronald Coyne and revoked his membership once the committee was made aware of the incident.”


Coyne later apologized and said that he “abused his privilege.”

Even when drunk, it is hard to imagine why anyone would think that such a gross display is funny or clever.  What young Coyne will find out is that the Internet has a long memory.  His own mother publicly chastised him.

For someone who claims to be related to Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, he may now eclipse his relative in sheer infamy.

96 thoughts on “Cambridge Student Denounced After Taunting Homeless Man By Burning £20 Note”

  1. Don’t take your pleasure from someone else’s pain is a lesson that Ronald Coyne failed to learn in grammar school.

    He may fancy himself a gentlemen, but his behavior was unbecoming of one.

  2. The point made was not as to the present. But, from the time of the alleged repayment by the “too big to fail banks,” which was 2010.
    The numbers and comments were from 2010.
    The point of the professor’s point is how can people act as they do.
    The Chosen few, the oligarchy and its members or wanna be members, such as the young man at Cambridge, who is merely an effect, are the cause.
    The Chosen few have no perception, understanding and, least of all, empathy for non-oligarchic members, especially proles.
    When the oligarchy is above the law, the Republic is dead. Restore the rule of law … to say nothing of the Principles of Capitalism. End the monopolistic kleptocracy, restore the rule of law and common decency, at least, has a chance to return.
    dennis hanna

    1. Dennis Hanna,..
      Thanks for the clarification
      …the way that the quotation marks were placed, I couldn’t tell what statements were yours, and what came from the 2010 article.
      It’s true that the Fed’s balance sheet has exploded since 2008….It is currently at $4.5 Trillion.
      Of that, $2.5 Trillion is U.S. Treasuries that the Fed has purchased.
      About $1.8 Trillion of the $4.5 Trillion is in the form,of mortgaged-back securities.
      The Capital Purchase Program was a part of TARP that involved loans to banks…a regional bank I tracked carried a $120 Million CPP loan ( in the form of preferred stock) at 6% interest.
      Most of the loans to banks under the CPP have been repaid.
      I’d have to check to be sure, but I think about $500 Billion was loaned out under the CPP, and ( counting interest earned) the government has recouped about $500 Billion.
      The $20 Trillion in U.S. federal debt will likely continue to motivate the Fed to keep rates low.
      Supposedly, the Fed wants to “unwind” ( pare down) its balance sheet, but I think that they’ll be very careful about taking aggressive action to do so.
      There was a relatively brief period where banks could borrow at a very low Fed Discount Rate, and profitably buy 10 year Treasuries.
      With the current Discount Rate at 1.75% and the 10 year Treasury at c. 2.13%, there is no longer the same incentive to play that spread.
      Obviously, a bank paying 6% on a TARP/ Capital Purchase Loan couldn’t profitably reinvest that loan even at a long-gone 3.7% 10 year T-rate.
      If they borrowed funds ( non-Tarp) at the extremely low Fed Discount Rate of 2010-2011, there were periods when that spread paid off.
      I’ve seen the actual costs of the TARP program vastly overstated; and occasionally see the “government made a profit from TARP” claims.
      In looking at the details/ intracacies of the TARP and related programs, I think that the government “shelled out” about $700 Billion upfront, and eventually recouped most if not all of that money.

  3. No, The Big Banks Have Not “Paid Back” Government Bailouts and Subsidies

    Before the taxpayer bailout of the “too big to fail banks” the Federal Reserve Bank’s balance sheet had about 390 billion of debt on its books ( unaudited ).
    During and after the taxpayer bailout the Federal Reserve Bank’s bail sheet has about 5.7 trillion to 5.9 trillion on its balance sheet.
    The government (taxpayers) Federal Reserve ( private corporate whose shareholders are other banks ) loaned the “too big to fail banks” money at “zero interest rate policy ( Z.I.R.P. ).

    Yes!, it was and is a Ponzi scheme.

    Moreover, as of May 2010, the “too big to fail banks” banks had received enormous windfall profits from guaranteed spreads on interest rates:

    Bloomberg noted:

    “The trading profits of the Street is just another way of measuring the subsidy the Fed is giving to the banks,” said Christopher Whalen, managing director of Torrance, California-based Institutional Risk Analytics. “It’s a transfer from savers to banks.”
    The trading results, which helped the banks report higher quarterly profit than analysts estimated even as unemployment stagnated at a
27-year high, came with a big assist from the Federal Reserve. The U.S. central bank helped lenders by holding short-term borrowing costs near zero, giving them a chance to profit by carrying even 10-year government notes that yielded an average of 3.70 percent last quarter.
    The gap between short-term interest rates, such as what banks may pay to borrow in interbank markets or on savings accounts, and longer-term rates, known as the yield curve, has been at record levels. The difference between yields on 2- and 10-year Treasuries yesterday
touched 2.71 percentage points, near the all-time high of 2.94 percentage points set Feb. 18, 2010.

    Harry Blodget explained:

    The latest quarterly reports from the big Wall Street banks revealed a startling fact: None of the big four banks had a single day in the quarter in which they lost money trading.
    For the 63 straight trading days in Q1, in other words, Goldman Sachs (GS), JP Morgan (JPM), Bank of America (BAC), and Citigroup (C) made money trading for
their own accounts.
    Trading, of course, is supposed to be a
risky business: You win some, you lose some. That’s how traders justify their gargantuan bonuses–their jobs are so risky that they
deserve to be paid millions for protecting their firms’ precious capital. (Of course, the only thing that happens if traders fail to
protect that capital is that taxpayers bail out the bank and the traders are paid huge “retention” bonuses to prevent them from leaving
to trade somewhere else, but that’s a different story).
    But these days, trading isn’t risky at all. In fact, it’s safer than walking down the street.
the US government is lending money to the big banks at near-zero interest rates. And the banks are then turning around and lending that
money back to the US government at 3%-4% interest rates, making 3%+
on the spread. What’s more, the banks are leveraging this trade, borrowing at least $10 for every $1 of equity capital they have, to increase the size of their bets. Which means the banks can turn
relatively small amounts of equity into huge profits–by borrowing from
the taxpayer and then lending back to the taxpayer.
    The government’s zero-interest-rate policy, in other words, is the
biggest Wall Street subsidy yet. So far, it has done little to increase
the supply of credit in the real economy. But it has hosed
responsible people who lived within their means and are now earning
next-to-nothing on their savings. It has also allowed the big Wall
Street banks to print money to offset all the dumb bets that brought
the financial system to the brink of collapse two years ago. And it
has fattened Wall Street bonus pools to record levels again.

    Paul Abrams opined:

    To get a clear picture of what is going on here, ignore the intermediate
steps (borrowing money from the fed, investing in Treasuries), as
they are riskless, and it immediately becomes clear that this is
merely a direct payment from the Fed to the banking executives…for
nothing. No nifty new tech product has been created. No illness has
been treated. No teacher has figured out how to get a third-grader to
understand fractions. No singer’s voice has entertained a packed
stadium. No batter has hit a walk-off double. No “risk”has even been
”managed”, the current mantra for what big banks do that is so
goddamned important that it is doing “god’s work”.
    Nor has any
credit been extended to allow the real value-producers to meet
payroll, to reserve a stadium, to purchase capital equipment, to hire
employees. Nothing.
    Congress should put an immediate halt to
this practice. Banks should have to show that the money they are
borrowing from the Fed is to provide credit to businesses, or
consumers, or homeowners. Not a penny should be allowed to be used to
purchase Treasuries. Otherwise, the Fed window should be slammed
shut on their manicured fingers.
    And, stiff criminal
penalties should be enacted for those banks that mislead the Fed about
the destination of the money they are borrowing. Bernie Madoff needs
    There is another type of guaranteed spread that allows the giant banks to make money hand over fist. Specifically, the Fed pays the
big banks interest to borrow money at no interest and then keep money
parked at the Fed itself. (The Fed is intentionally doing this for
the express purpose of preventing too much money from being lent out to Main Street.)

    dennis hanna

    1. Dennis Hanna,…
      The yield on the 10 year T-Bond is now about 2.15%.
      There is no way that the 10 year T-Bond yield averaged 3.7% last quarter.
      It has not even been close to a 3.7% yield for years, let alone averaging a yield that high.
      The spread between the 2 year Treasury and the 10 year is about .8 of 1% ( 80 basis points).
      It is not the 271 basis points (2.71%) spread that you claim.
      I do follow those markets, and those two statements stand out as wildly inaccurate.
      You can easily google “10 year Treasury yield”, and/or the “2 year Treasury Note yield”.
      Historical charts showing past rates on these Treasuries are also easy to find.

  4. This little pale faced ‘mamma’s boy’ should have to sweep a street and clean toilets so he can learn what it’s like to do some real work. I’ll bt this spoiled BRAT has never worked a day in his life!! Not only SHAME on him, but SHAME on his parents that raises such a low life piece of shit. TRULY! Some day he’ll have to answer to a MUCH HIGHER POWER about his hatefullness.

  5. Correction:
    President Bush “gave” the banksters less than a billion.
    President Bush “gave” the banksters less than a “trillion.”
    Apparently, the most accurately available accounting admits to approximately 790 billion.
    I apologize for my failure to proof read my note.
    I regret any wrong or false understanding formed by slovenly and hastely scribbled note.
    dennis hanna

  6. Fruit loop.
    Call him Fruit Loop!
    What kind of people call him Fruit Loop?
    Fat kids, skinny kids, kids who climb on rocks..


  7. ‪”I’ve abandoned free market principles to save the free market system” – George W. Bush ‬
    ‪December 16, 2008‬

    President Bush taunted the American people and everyone holding Federal Reserve Notes.
    (taunt, verb, provoke or challenge (someone) with insulting remarks.)

    President Bush “gave” the banksters less than a billion. President Obama “gave” the banksters from 3 to 5 trillion.

    Who is taunting whom?

    This human being is merely an “effect.” The “cause” is the oligarchy, whom this man is simply a more concrete embodiment of than Presidents Bush and Obama.

    Ignore the man behind the curtain! Or, is he hiding in plain sight.

    dennis hanna

    1. Neither of them gave the banks much of anything. The banks received bridge-loans, which they paid back with interest. The three sets of parties which proved to be money pits were, in descending order, the secondary mortgage maws, the auto industry components, and AIG. If I’m not mistaken, their collective losses were in the range of $330 bn, so you’re off by a factor of 12.

  8. He should have waited for the homeless man to commit a crime. Then he could have featured the mug shot in a blog post with the title “Can You Guess What This Person Was Charged With?” That’s the refined and acceptable way to mock the disadvantaged.

    1. “Disadvantaged” LOL. Having worked in the penal and justice system for 4 decades I can assure you, most are not “disadvantaged.” Having worked w/ homeless I can say most, but certainly not all, are disadvantaged. Like yyy, I was a bleeding heart when I became a Vista volunteer coming out of college. But, I got my mind right quickly. Never devolved into the pessimistic person, but anyone w/ a brain evolves from yyy’s pathetically naive mindset.

      1. LOL, OMG, a little acerbic, feathers ruffled?? Not to worry, Wapner’s on.

Comments are closed.