If anyone found ?100 at the hsbc cashpoint

[mockney piers]

Oops sorry, toatally misread a previous post. Apologies.

[Moos]

Shurrp, I think Brendan was referring to thieving rather than grammar when he said some people are scum. And well done on your scholarship.

I agree a lot of people would keep money at a cashpoint, my personal view is that it doesn't make it right.

I can't remember whether it was you or Starmix that brought up the question of finding 1p vs finding ?100 but I think it's an interesting one. My take is that just because you can reduce a moral point to the absurd that it doesn't invalidate it. So, you find a penny on the street and keep it, because realistically you cannot find its owner. Most people would do that, and I think most would not call it theft. It's not really about the rigidity of the morals, but about their practical application in the world, and a realistic and proportionate effort to do the right thing. In this example, for me if you find ?100 on the street, you should make an effort to return it to its owner because it will make a real difference to that person.

[shurrrp]

but you wstill wouldnt be a theif if you took it, because you FOUND it..

[Tony.London Suburbs]

Remember Guys that there are always consolations in life.

If you find five ?20 notes with the same seial number then one of them will be valid...

Love Life, Love Culture, Love East Dulwich Forum

[shurrrp]

if i took it from someone then im a theif

[mockney piers]

Semantics. I think you'd know inside that what you had done was morally unjustifiable.

Hand it in totbe police, and if they can't find the owner it will go to you (as I understand). You would have at least tried though.

[Moos]

shurrrp Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> but you wstill wouldnt be a theif if you took it,

> because you FOUND it..

No, perhaps not technically, but I thought we were talking about a situation when someone could have looked around and seen the person who withdrew the cash walk off without it. So if you pick up the money and quietly pocket it without making the effort, then you're deliberately choosing not to give it back and to my mind that's theft.

Actually, I might even go one further and say it should be returned to the bank regardless.

[shurrrp]

no i wouldnt feel morally unjustifiable,

the feeling inside would be happiness, i just found ?100.

[Tony.London Suburbs]

In life its all about "the amount"....

Man to Young Lady "If I made an offer of ?1,000,000 would you sleep with me?"

YL: "Yes".....

Man: "If I made an offer of ?1 would you sleep with me?"

YL-Most offended "NO! What do you think I am?":X

Man: "We now know what you are Madam, we are just haggling over the price"...B)

Love Life, Love Culture, Love East Dulwich Forum

[Moos]

And someone else would be equally unhappy for having lost ?100.

[shurrrp]

hahaah that was pretty funny

[Moos]

Man = Winston Churchill.

[Starmix]

>Haven't bro.

I would probably be regarded as extremely lower class by most of these people, public school taught, work at 15 onward, but I'm sure as shit not going to let anyone look down on me. Everyone preaches equality, yet how often does it ever get set into motion? I'm seeing here that most of the users have a very narrow minded stereotyping view on subjects, and reasoning won't help. Hell, seen as we're quoting people, I chose to quote Hugh Laurie, playing House. "If religious people could be reasoned with, there would be no religious people" Same applies here. If you could reason, we'd have none of this caste system effect. However there are some decent, contributing posters that have some interesting things to talk about though, it's just sifting through the filler posts to find them.

You seem pretty straight kid, just because you're 15 don't let these pretentious assholes tell you that you can't stick to your morals. If you believe something and you have a structured reason as to why, being called scum should only serve to strengthen your case.

/rant.

+added to Ctrl+C

[macroban]

It's an interesting emotion to be happy when someone has lost ?100.

Is there a clinical name for this?

[Tony.London Suburbs]

Young Lady= NOT Bessie Braddock...

[shurrrp]

dont get me wrong, i found a purse or a wallet, id definatly go through it to find a drivers license or something

so i can find he person and give it back, but if i found a roll 5 ?20 notes, id take it

[Horsebox]

Perhaps at 15 years old many of the people claiming that they would do the right thing would have kept the money? Your beliefs/morals/sense of what's right and wrong can develop as you do, surely?

Of course, an education worth ?15k per year would, one hopes, help to steer an angry, confused young man down the right path.

Perhaps Shuurrrpppp needs to be held back a year?

[Tony.London Suburbs]

shurrrp Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> dont get me wrong, i found a purse or a wallet, id

> definatly go through it to find a drivers license

> or something

> so i can find he person and give it back, but if i

> found a roll 5 ?20 notes, id take it

Thats exactly what everyone I know would do ( including me ) , if I found a purse/wallet in the middle of nowhere with the extra stipulation that I would make a silent prayer that there was no I.D...

Love Life, Love Culture, Love East Dulwich Forum

[Moos]

I don't think you could find many people who truly behave to the utmost of their moral beliefs every moment of every day. But it's worth the effort to overall make what contribution you can.

I'd like to think that if I found ?100 on the street and there was absolutely no way to find its owner that I'd give to to charity. But I can't say for sure. And personal circumstance comes into it too, truth is ?100 wouldn't make or break my week, and maybe I'd behave differently if it would. But I hope not.

Starmix, reason and faith are definitively contradictory things. Faith or religion and ethics don't have to be combined (although they are in my case) and generally speaking good ethics can be backed by good reason - you could go with a simple 'greatest good to the greatest number' argument, for example.

[Starmix]

Moos Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I can't remember whether it was you or Starmix

> that brought up the question of finding 1p vs

> finding ?100 but I think it's an interesting one.

> My take is that just because you can reduce a

> moral point to the absurd that it doesn't

> invalidate it.

Sure does. Let's throw another hypothetical scenario. You're parking your car in a Pay and Display, and someone's forgotten to take the change out of the meter. There's nobody around, and you quickly realise that the sum of the change will get you free parking.

Congratulations, You've just profited off someone's misfortune, sugar-coat it all you like.

[Tony.London Suburbs]

I've known several people take money into various Police Stations and, miraculously, the money ( with no I.D.) has been claimed on every occassion, usually at the last possible moment.....

Not that I'm implying anything....

Love Life, Love Culture, Love East Dulwich Forum

[mockney piers]

I don't think happiness at such good fortune necessarily precludes anyone from knowing what they've done is wrong (whether or not plenty of people would so it quids). If they don't feel it's wrong then santerme is correct about the state of their moral compass.

[????]

My point MP, was that this post was throwing up the sort of moral idignation that was considered very 'Daily Mail' at the time of the expenses furore, that's all...

[Moos]

Starmix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Moos Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

Let's throw another hypothetical scenario. You're parking your car in a Pay and Display, and someone's forgotten to take the change out of the meter. There's nobody around, and you quickly realise that the sum of the change will get you free parking. Congratulations, You've just profited off someone's misfortune, sugar-coat it all you like.

Er, well thank you for the congratulations and the proffer of the sugar-coat, but remember this is a hypothetical scenario, so I haven't actually done that.

But let's say I'm standing there with this unearned ?3.50 in my hand. I look around, there's no-one walking off. Again, I hope I'd put the money in a change box in the next shop I go into. But let's say I shrug and say life's too short, and get my free parking. I've done wrong, no question, but it's a small and relatively unimportant wrong. It doesn't mean that it isn't worse to steal someone's pension, or their life savings. Just because you can rationalise away a small wrong, doesn't mean it isn't wrong, and it doesn't mean that therefore all morality is irrelevant. Subtlety, application to the context, scale and just pure 'feel' come into ethics; they have to, because life isn't black and white, and choices aren't easy.

[sophiesofa]

Sorry to paste such a long bit of text but I did put the link in on the first page somewhere.

"However, if finders want to abide by the law, they need to think carefully about who owns lost property - including cash, says Robert Chambers, professor of property law at University College London.

While losers may no longer have physical possession of an item, they still retain legal entitlement to it.

Therefore, in England and Wales, as well as in most other countries across the world, the onus is on the finder to take what the law describes as "reasonable steps" to track down the loser.

"And that depends on where it has been found," says Professor Chambers. "In the airport you should go to the authorities, if it is in the street you should go to the police."

In the same way, those claiming ship-wrecked goods are obliged to notify the Maritime and Coastguard Agency's Receiver of Wrecks, and those finding buried treasure must notify the local coroner.

And in the case of winning lottery tickets, finders should advise organisers Camelot.

But what action is required often depends on what's found, says John Spencer, professor of law at the University of Cambridge.

"If you pick up a ?1 coin, you can keep it unless you saw someone drop it, as you would not be able to find the owner by taking reasonable steps.

"But if you found four or five ?20 notes in a gutter - as I once did - you probably will find the owner as they are likely to contact the police, as they did in my case."

Yet, despite these legal requirements, there are certain circumstances in which a finder can legally become a keeper.

For example, someone can retain something if it has been abandoned, says Professor Spencer.

"You are only guilty of theft if you appropriate the property of another. If someone has abandoned it, the property is yours," he says.

"For example, if I throw something away in the street and someone else picks up the litter, that is not theft."

Furthermore, a finder may eventually earn the right to keep discovered property if they take the correct steps to find whoever lost it, says Professor Chambers.

"If you find something in the street, the law says you have more right to it than everyone else - except the owner. If the true owner doesn't turn up, you can take ownership."

In this sense, he says, "finders keepers" does have some legal foundation, but only if "something has no owner any more".

So rather than "finders keepers, losers weepers", a more legally accurate adage might be the rather less succinct "finders may become keepers if they try to find the owner, but losers still have the best claim unless they have abandoned the item".

I would (in theory could be different in practice) pop into the bank (if it is one rather than just a cashpoint) and enquire what would happen. If they'd look at cameras or have some way of identifying who's money it is then I'd hand it over. If they couldn't do anything useful I'd go to the police station and hope no-one claimed it so I could keep half give half to charity.