Britain’s Gilded Youth Speaks…

In her police interview Miss Elliott, who has been vocal in trying to save Greenwich University’s threatened Philosophy course, said: ‘I am sorry, I don’t have those morals.

‘If it was mugged off somebody then that is wrong, but I don’t care about Samsung they are a billion dollar company.

Phones 4 U are also a massive company, as long as it didn’t come out of some old pensioners pocket I don’t care.’

When asked about the ethics of the looting she said: ‘I just think it is a case of Robin Hood…. I don’t feel any moral compass about a big company that evades tax.’

Well, I guess at least we now know the value of a first in philosophy from Greenwich University. Why would anyone try to save it, having seen what it can produce?

Miss Elliott, whose supporters packed the public gallery, admitted that her boyfriend, of six years, gave her the phone as a gift but she didn’t know it was stolen.

She said she did not question the origins of the phone as she has ‘101 things to do’ and needed a new mobile.

When asked what she was doing now Miss Elliot said: ‘I have deferred my MSC at Kings to study philosophy of mental disorder and I am engaged in various different voluntary activities and am employed by an agency.’

And since she was acquitted, I guess we now know the value of our justice system too.

16 comments for “Britain’s Gilded Youth Speaks…

  1. December 9, 2011 at 3:22 pm

    If they couldn’t prove she knew it was stolen that might have been the right verdict, but maybe she’ll be back. It sounds like she slandered Phones4U and/or Samsung when she accused them of tax evasion. Or doesn’t it apply when you’re in court? I forget how that works.

    • December 11, 2011 at 7:22 am

      I think it does. It’s only stuff said in the HoC that doesn’t (Parliamentary privilege), as far as I recall…

      • Maaarrghk!
        December 12, 2011 at 7:41 am

        I don’t think that you can be done for slander from the dock in some circumstances.

        I seem to remember a long running case about a nurse (Helen Smith?) who died at an illegal drinks party in Saudi. Apparently her Dad went to court for non payment of rates so that he could make accusations of a cover up from the dock, therefore avoiding prosecution for making them.

        Of couse, things may well have changed since the 80’s.

      • December 12, 2011 at 9:35 am

        I’m sure there’s something in relation to courts as well. Maaarrghk! might well be right but I couldn’t recall if it was only the briefs or the whole court or somewhere in between.

        • Maaarrghk!
          December 12, 2011 at 10:20 am

          The way I understand it AE was that at time one was immune from prosecution for anything said whilst in the dock.

          • December 12, 2011 at 1:08 pm

            Thinking about it I have a feeling this may still be so if defending oneself.

  2. December 9, 2011 at 3:34 pm

    And there was me thinking that ignorance was no defence…

    • December 9, 2011 at 3:40 pm

      Does that depend on how ignorant the defendant is? 😉

  3. Michael
    December 9, 2011 at 4:07 pm

    Her use of the English language is a bit worrying for someone with a first class from Greenwich.

    • December 9, 2011 at 4:49 pm

      Doesn’t really say much for that college, does it? Turning out such sub literate graduates.

      Whenever confronted by such patois, I’m always tempted to give the speaker a puzzled frown. When they get outraged at being ignored, I usually respond with a polite; “I’m sorry, I didn’t understand. Could you repeat that in English?”


  4. Edward Spalton
    December 9, 2011 at 4:24 pm

    This bears out C S Lewis’s dictum “I would rather play cards with a man who was brought up on the maxim “Gentlemen don’t cheat” than with a professor of ethics, however highly qualified, who was not”.

    It also shows that Greenwich is a good university to avoid – and a good one to close down, at any rate in that department.

    • December 11, 2011 at 7:23 am

      She’s not much of an advert for it, is she?

  5. December 9, 2011 at 4:51 pm

    And I’m sure Ms Elliott thinks everything’s fine which she does and should never be questioned.

  6. December 9, 2011 at 6:54 pm

    People who don’t “feel any moral compass about a big company” sooner or later don’t feel any different about their fellow man.

    No honour among thieves, and all that.

  7. Tattyfalarr
    December 10, 2011 at 2:59 pm

    Whether she knew she was handling stolen goods or not is beside the point. Her attitude towards what she had done is irrelevant and courts have shown time and again that theirs is not to correct disgusting morals but to judge whether the law has been breached as a direct result of having them.

    They goods were stolen and she handled them – end of.

    Sentencing her to something might have made her either think twice in future and ask where expensive gifts came from or keep repeating the task of doing something At Her Majesty’s Pleasure, ad infinitum. 😐

    • December 11, 2011 at 7:24 am

      “Sentencing her to something might have made her either think twice in future…”

      Greenwich University clearly never made her think, so why should the courts do a better job..? 😉

Comments are closed.