I wouldn't wish death on anyone. I just think it's disgusting that people on here are basically advocating the use of violence against students who have a very valid right to protest against unfair fees.
I find it odd that you ignore the fact that FEW if any FM's have disagreed with the right of the students to protest, as anyone else has a right to do so IF SAID PROTEST IS PEACEFUL, which plainly wasnt the case last week.
As to FM's "advocating" violence, frankly it was the so called students who decided that they had a right to destroy and deface property, and throw missiles at the police.
As the students, (well those amongst the assorted thugs who WERE students) had a valid right to protest, the police had the right, in fact they had the DUTY, to ensure the streets of London were not taken over by a bunch of thugs.
It's only a matter of time until the police end up killing a student. Then again i expect the mob on here to be well pleased when it does. It might "put them off protesting".
and how long will it be before a "rioter" kills a police officer or a member of the public "accidentally" - it nearly happened when that idiot dropped the fire extinguisher from the top of Milbank Tower
I'm one of those low paid workers, and I support free education. Up to the age of 18 years, after which I believe you make you own choices and pay for further education if you want it.
Is it fair for someone to have free education up to their late twenties, then get a highly paid job, retire early. At the same time as someone who started work years before them, paid for the other's education through income tax, then has to work years after the graduate retired? No is the answer.
I don't think it's unfair to ask them to pay for their own higher education. They're choosing to go to university, why should others fund it?
I support free education. Up to the age of 16 (or 18, I guess). That's the only education that should be free.
Because it's good for the country to educate it's population. Do I agree with making it a bit harder, academically, to get into uni in order to make it more affordable to make university education free? Sure. I don't agree with making people pay fees.
The last generation had their uni education paid for by the generation before. That generation had theirs paid for by the one before that. This generation has decided to not take it's turn, and rather than simply raise the academic bar for university entry in order to continue providing full incentive for even the poorest students to go to university, it's decided to dissuade people by going by putting a hefty debt around their necks before they even start their careers.
And to think, the government has been criticising people taking on lots of debt...
The vast majority are not breaking the law though. As I've said previously, troublemakers should be arrested on an individual basis. If that means the police actually have to do some work rather than just kettling the entire crowd, then tough.
A large number are though, and the safety of police officers has to be considered too.
It seems like there was quite a lot who refused the instruction to follow the agreed route of the demonstation.
Keeping the crowd tightly contained seems to be the best way of keeping potential trouble contained too, if they were allowed anywhere, how much life and property would be at risk all over central London?
Unless we actually get tougher by using water cannons, tear gas, rubber bullets etc then I think we're doing as much as we can. No other country would be as soft as us in these situations, would they?
The vast majority are not breaking the law though. As I've said previously, troublemakers should be arrested on an individual basis. If that means the police actually have to do some work rather than just kettling the entire crowd, then tough.
They would need more police to do that and there are not enough resources.
It's not fair though, is it, to ask others to work longer to pay for others choices?
When often it is a lifestyle choice to go to university. If Uni was restricited to say the top 10% most intelligent of students, who wanted to go and study worthwhile subjects, I'd happily say let us pay for them.
But while we have uni's in every other town and enourage kids basically to waste a few years of their life doing worthless subjects while the rest of us subsidise them, no. The only reason Labour wanted all of that was to keep 1000s of them off the dole for a few years.
A large number are though, and the safety of police officers has to be considered too.
It seems like there was quite a lot who refused the instruction to follow the agreed route of the demonstation.
Keeping the crowd tightly contained seems to be the best way of keeping potential trouble contained too, if they were allowed anywhere, how much life and property would be at risk all over central London?
Unless we actually get tougher by using water cannons, tear gas, rubber bullets etc then I think we're doing as much as we can. No other country would be as soft as us in these situations, would they?
Agree that we're lucky to live in such a tolerant country. However, if i was an innocent protester, and was kettled for 10+ hours without access to food, water or toilets, I'd be pissed off as well. Police need to stand off and stop being so confrontational.
Agree that we're to lucky to live in such a tolerant country. However, if i was an innocent protester, and was kettled for 10+ hours without access to food, water or toilets, I'd be pissed off as well. Police need to stand off and stop being so confrontational.
They did stand off! The protesters were going to protest at government plans, not the police weren't they?
The police were only there to observe and keep the peace.
If the large numbers of idiots didnt damage property/threaten/commit violence etc, then the police would have been happily standing around out of the way of them.
It's not fair though, is it, to ask others to work longer to pay for others choices?
When often it is a lifestyle choice to go to university. If Uni was restricited to say the top 10% most intelligent of students, who wanted to go and study worthwhile subjects, I'd happily say let us pay for them.
But while we have uni's in every other town and enourage kids basically to waste a few years of their life doing worthless subjects while the rest of us subsidise them, no. The only reason Labour wanted all of that was to keep 1000s of them off the dole for a few years.
I've already said I support raising the academic bar (though 10% may be more restrictive than I'd like - but 50% is unrealistic).
If you look at it in 1-on-1 terms in the way you've portrayed, sure, it can look unfair - just as unfair as an MP getting their train-tickets paid for by the low-paid workers - but when you look at the impact on the country as a whole, (which then also improves the potential chances for that lower paid worker and their children), it's a good thing. More education means more expertise, which means better services, more competitive companies, more innovation. Just as those train-tickets the MPs claim on expenses help by allowing them to represent their constituency in Parliament while allowing them to also serve in their constituency.
Putting people off going by putting a debt around their necks is nothing to do with academia. The poorer people are going to look at the size of the debt and be very cautious about taking it on.
I've already said I support raising the academic bar (though 10% may be more restrictive than I'd like - but 50% is unrealistic).
If you look at it in 1-on-1 terms in the way you've portrayed, sure, it can look unfair - just as unfair as an MP getting their train-tickets paid for by the low-paid workers - but when you look at the impact on the country as a whole, (which then also improves the potential chances for that lower paid worker and their children), it's a good thing. More education means more expertise, which means better services, more competitive companies, more innovation. Just as those train-tickets the MPs claim on expenses help by allowing them to represent their constituency in Parliament while allowing them to also serve in their constituency.
Putting people off going by putting a debt around their necks is nothing to do with academia. The poorer people are going to look at the size of the debt and be very cautious about taking it on.
If we restricted the amount of people that attended Uni, how would the unis make up the xtra money? Or am I being stupid.
Surely they would be half empty as there are so many of them.
If we restricted the amount of people that attended Uni, how would the unis make up the xtra money? Or am I being stupid.
Surely they would be half empty as there are so many of them.
They would be half as empty, which from a public-purse point-of-view wouldn't be a bad thing. Basically what I'm saying is that instead of charging fees, universities should be publicly funded, but that the entry level should be raised to restrict the number going, thus restricting the cost to the public purse.
I truly think that education is of vital importance to this country, and that ANYTHING that stands as a barrier for those with the ability to learn is a bad thing.
To those on a low income, these fees are a hugely daunting prospect - almost as daunting as having to pay it up-front.
Agree that we're lucky to live in such a tolerant country. However, if i was an innocent protester, and was kettled for 10+ hours without access to food, water or toilets, I'd be pissed off as well. Police need to stand off and stop being so confrontational.
They weren't being confrontational, they were maintaining public order. The protester's chose to be their, it's their own fault if they were inconvenienced.
I've already said I support raising the academic bar (though 10% may be more restrictive than I'd like - but 50% is unrealistic).
If you look at it in 1-on-1 terms in the way you've portrayed, sure, it can look unfair - just as unfair as an MP getting their train-tickets paid for by the low-paid workers - but when you look at the impact on the country as a whole, (which then also improves the potential chances for that lower paid worker and their children), it's a good thing. More education means more expertise, which means better services, more competitive companies, more innovation. Just as those train-tickets the MPs claim on expenses help by allowing them to represent their constituency in Parliament while allowing them to also serve in their constituency.
Putting people off going by putting a debt around their necks is nothing to do with academia. The poorer people are going to look at the size of the debt and be very cautious about taking it on.
Does it?
When you read a student poster on here referring to "domestics" having to clear up the mess of the protests (broken glass ect.) as if they were some kind of lower life form, then you have to ask whether having such a large percentage considering higher education is a good thing.
Look at what has been said over the years about foreign workers. About their work ethic ect.
The country needs lower paid workers. It needs Brit people to get a much more realistic grasp on what they have to do to earn money. This whole myth that anybody British need never work as a cleaner was Nu Labour spin. And they allowed immigration to support that myth.
It needs people who have the potential to be far more than "cleaners" to be cleaners TBH. Half the problems with public services are because we have people who are bloody useless doing the jobs that those who aren't bloody useless think are beneath them.
When you read a student poster on here referring to "domestics" having to clear up the mess of the protests (broken glass ect.) as if they were some kind of lower life form, then you have to ask whether having such a large percentage considering higher education is a good thing.
Surely discouraging the poor with ability will merely increase the number of students with such "privileged" social stature that you decry?
Look at what has been said over the years about foreign workers. About their work ethic ect.
The country needs lower paid workers. It needs Brit people to get a much more realistic grasp on what they have to do to earn money. This whole myth that anybody British need never work as a cleaner was Nu Labour spin. And they allowed immigration to support that myth.
It needs people who have the potential to be far more than "cleaners" to be cleaners TBH. Half the problems with public services are because we have people who are bloody useless doing the jobs that those who aren't bloody useless think are beneath them.
Ok, and what I've said prevents that, how? Given that I've said I support tightening the academic entry criteria, it'd reduce intake based on ability rather than the imposing nature of a massive debt.
One picks people by ability and doesn't charge them, thus not discouraging the poor. The other picks people by the basis of their willingness to take-on a large debt...
To those on a low income, these fees are a hugely daunting prospect - almost as daunting as having to pay it up-front.
How? Paying up-front would be impossible on a low income, while having a loan that only becomes payable if you get a degree and a highly paid job isn't impossible at all.
Imagine other situations where you could go to a bank and ask for a million pounds and say 'If I can turn this into £100m, I'll pay it back - but otherwise, thanks very much'.
Students will never get such a good deal ever again. They certainly won't on their credit card, overdraft, mobile phone contract and all the other things that will be a far bigger drain on their monthly income than a loan.
How? Paying up-front would be impossible on a low income, while having a loan that only becomes payable if you get a degree and a highly paid job isn't impossible at all.
Imagine other situations where you could go to a bank and ask for a million pounds and say 'If I can turn this into £100m, I'll pay it back - but otherwise, thanks very much'.
Students will never get such a good deal ever again. They certainly won't on their credit card, overdraft, mobile phone contract and all the other things that will be a far bigger drain on their monthly income than a loan.
It's simple - they both feel nearly impossible. It's why I said it was "almost" not "as", because the debt is possible. However it's a huge debt to hang on someone's neck before they even start a career, and when you're low on money you're averse to large debt, for obvious reasons.
It's simple - they both feel nearly impossible. It's why I said it was "almost" not "as", because the debt is possible. However it's a huge debt to hang on someone's neck before they even start a career, and when you're low on money you're averse to large debt, for obvious reasons.
Poor people aren't stupid. Anyone wishing to go to University presumably has to be quite smart, or they won't get in - fees or no fees.
So, if they stop to do the maths, and realise the only commitment is to pay a small percentage of earnings later on (and if the earnings stop, the payments stop) then it quickly turns out to be the best loan you'll EVER get.
There's no reason for people to 'feel' anything; the rules are in black and white.
Rest assured, most students will go out and get at least one credit card, an overdraft and maybe even take out private loans. We all did (and irresponsible lending and borrowing got us to where we are today).
They'll be paying much more to other people than paying off a student loan. Yet nobody seems to worry about that, or how the lenders rip off the public (and students).
Poor people aren't stupid. Anyone wishing to go to University presumably has to be quite smart, or they won't get in - fees or no fees.
So, if they stop to do the maths, and realise the only commitment is to pay a small percentage of earnings later on (and if the earnings stop, the payments stop) then it quickly turns out to be the best loan you'll EVER get.
There's no reason for people to 'feel' anything; the rules are in black and white.
Rest assured, most students will go out and get at least one credit card, an overdraft and maybe even take out private loans. We all did (and irresponsible lending and borrowing got us to where we are today).
They'll be paying much more to other people than paying off a student loan. Yet nobody seems to worry about that, or how the lenders rip off the public (and students).
I think you misunderstand the ability of debt to add stress. Let's not forget the potential for these debts to be recalled either. It's not impossible that a future government would seek to immediately collect as many fees as possible by passing legislation to allow it. What's to say they won't? Their word? We all know how much THAT would mean.
When you get a loan, you generally sign a contract that shows the requirements on both sides. So, any future Government (and who would that be, Labour I presume?) is not going to be able to call in the loan and ask for one big lump sum payment.
You might as well ask what would happen if the Government takes over ownership of your house and kicks you out onto the street. It isn't going to happen, but would certainly strike some fear into anyone that thinks it might. Perhaps it's a good idea not to start scaremongering in the first place?
A debt is only a debt when you fail to pay it, so if you have a loan and pay it back then there's no problem. Everyone keeps forgetting that the terms are extremely favourable (it's the one loan where you won't be hassled if you stop earning and can't pay) - and I beg to ask again, how many people will ONLY have a student loan to pay back?
What about the other credit and finance people will almost certainly get? This will be more of a problem for the poorer people, who will rely much more on loans and credit cards - especially those who begin to live in a materialistic world where they'll 'need' an iPhone, MacBook Pro, a nice car (with hefty insurance attached) and so on.
I don't have a problem with anyone wanting and getting any of those things by the way, but there's a cost to everything in life - and people need to accept their own responsibilities. Taking the step to go on to further education to get a respectable and worthy degree, to ultimately secure a good job that will help you and your family, shows commitment - and not being handed everything on a plate.
What's more, the people that do will look back and have a sense of pride and achievement, and realise it was for the best.
Sorry Tories. But you can't shit all over a group in society and not expect them to complain.
It happened in the 80's and it shall rightly happen again.
Why should we be handed anything on a plate? We choose to go on into further education after college/sixth form, why shouldn't we pay for it? After all, it's our choice. Don't want to pay to learn? Get a job and work your way up from there. I'm grateful that the Welsh Assembly are covering any extra charges we would have had to face for university otherwise, but you don't see me campaigning now for free university education.
The protesting students seem to think they're the ones who are worst off in the country, when it's completely false. There are so many who are much much more worse off than they are, and far more deserving of the government's money than a bunch of violent thugs who think that smashing up buildings, cars and being violent to police is the way to get something. Why reward bad behaviour? It's simple operant conditioning, if you give someone positive reinforcement for behaviour, they will carry it on again and again because they've come to learn that that is how they will get the reward they want.
With respect Jane i don't know that i have ever come across even a politician that avoided addressing a (repeated) point and also practice misinformation and disinformation to such a degree in a discussion.
I'm not sure how one gets to quote a quote in the structure of the forums, so i'll do a 'he said' 'she said' format. Because if i select reply to your response to my earlier post it doesn't show what you were replying to. So he is me and she is thee
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HE SAID "??? You've gone off at a tangent to the actual subject of what i took to task.
When i made my post i reported that the police had dragged someone out of his wheelchair and along the ground. The poster who replied to my input categorically said that was a LIE
I bided my time until, as i knew would happen, the footage of someone being dragged from their wheelchair and along the ground has been aired across the world.
Therefore, i did NOT LIE! Therefore, the poster who claimed i lied was well and truly WRONG and the phrase left with egg on his face was perfectly fitting. "
SHE SAID "Your claim regarding the disabled guy, Jody, was not true." & "He wasn't a peaceful protester. He wasn't a student. The disabled chap, I mean.
So no egg on the poster's face at all."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
First of all i've just gone back to my original post and have seen a typo caused by editing (moving and pasting the text) at the time. At no time did i particulary conclude he was a student but i've just seen i said 'disabled student'.
However, let's make clear again (and as you well know) that that is of little relevance to my main reason for posting, which was the police pulled/tipped out a disabled person from a wheelchair and dragged them across the road. Whilst you seem to think it's of prime importance to the topic to address his status as a student or non-student, the original person i was responding to was clearly saying that the INCIDENT itself never happened and that i had lied or invented it up.
I'm amused at your wording of "your claim REGARDING....." Whilst i apologise for the typo incurred by cutting and pasting you know full well i was moved to post because of the horror of what i saw and not because the subject of the incident was a student. I don't care if he was a professor, student, unemployed or a millionaire......they pulled a person with Cerebral Palsy out of a wheelchair and dragged him across the road. That is why i posted in the forum and the incident happened i did not lie as was claimed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HE SAID "You may well be observing the government in their first attack on the people targetting the students and think you're not a student so that's ok. You look the other way it doesn't affect you.
Next up is the disabled and poorest sections of society, so you may not be disabled or poor and look the other way because it doesn't affect you personally.
But there will come a day when they target their cuts towards something that does affect you. "
SHE SAID "Being both poor and disabled, this does not apply to me." & "Again being disabled and poor, the cuts do affect me and my daughter.
"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Did you not notice the word 'may' ? Plus i was speaking of people in the country generally and not directly at yourself.
Incidentally, someone asked why i linked poor with bieng disabled when i said that the poor and disabled are the next targets. I was referring to the social security system being the next target which will mainly hit the poor and disabled as two groups.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HE SAID "Got to admit i would never have imagined that a flak jacketed, NATO helmeted, robocop clad police line would have to be protected from a person with Cerebral Palsy trundling towards them in a wheelchair.
Do you seriously think a person with Cerebral Palsy in a wheelchair can pose a threat to a police officer even if they are, shock and horror at the fearful thought of it, shouting!? "
SHE SAID "Shouting? No.
Throwing things? Yes.
Having CP does not prevent him being a threat. He is not paralysed and is as capable of physical violence as the next man."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If it wasn't yourself, a previous poster had tried to justify the abhorrent attack on the grounds that the Cerebral Palsy ridden chap in a wheelchair was shouting. Somehow i don't think the force of anything he was able to throw would have had much effect upon impact. It certainly couldn't ever match the force that police used, more often than not, on those doing nothing wrong or illegal.
My how we are playing with semantics and/or deliberately being obtuse as you say he "was as capable of physical violence as the next man"....errrrrrm no he wasn't!. I suggest you look at the hundreds of men (and women) around him and every single one of them would have far greater strength to inflict violence than he could.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HE SAID "A disabled student who was dragged from his wheelchair by four policemen and was also a peaceful protester."
SHE SAID "This bit was not true. Therefore my post still stands."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Again i point out that was a typo and MORE IMPORTANTLY how sick, cruel and harsh of heart for you to not feel and express disgust at what WAS TRUE, namely, he was dragged from his wheelchair.
As for him not being 'peaceful' two points on that, at the time i was relaying reports coming in and hadn't seen footage of him shouting etc. However, having subsequently seen he was shouting (it's too funny to use throwing things as a factor due to the strength of propulsion of any objects being thrown) i point out police are bound by law to use only necessary force. Talk about excessive force!
A person suffering from cerebral palsy trundling along in a wheelchair towards a flak jacketed, NATO helmeted, robocop clad police line did not need to be so forcibly intercepted by a group of police officers in order to protect the aforementioned robocops. Quite simply they were NOT under threat from him. The use of such force was greatly disproportionate and hopefully wil be taken to task. Amusing to see the police hastily grab hold off and speedily drag the officer who was the main assailant out of sight in an attempt to remove him away from the scene of the 'crime'.
With respect Jane i don't know that i have ever come across even a politician that avoided addressing a (repeated) point and also practice misinformation and disinformation to such a degree in a discussion.
No you just don't understand what I'm saying. Perhaps I'm making my point poorly.
I'm not sure how one gets to quote a quote in the structure of the forums, so i'll do a 'he said' 'she said' format. Because if i select reply to your response to my earlier post it doesn't show what you were replying to. So he is me and she is thee
Use the multi quote function at the bottom right of the post you want to quote.
(snipping some for space)
First of all i've just gone back to my original post and have seen a typo caused by editing (moving and pasting the text) at the time. At no time did i particulary conclude he was a student but i've just seen i said 'disabled student'.
Precisely, and that was my point. He was not a student. That was the point I wanted to make. As did a couple of other people if I recall.
However, let's make clear again (and as you well know) that that is of little relevance to my main reason for posting, which was the police pulled/tipped out a disabled person from a wheelchair and dragged them across the road. Whilst you seem to think it's of prime importance to the topic to address his status as a student or non-student, the original person i was responding to was clearly saying that the INCIDENT itself never happened and that i had lied or invented it up.
No, I don't think it is of prime importance. However, I do think it sufficiently important that it should be corrected. That was my only point.
HE SAID "Got to admit i would never have imagined that a flak jacketed, NATO helmeted, robocop clad police line would have to be protected from a person with Cerebral Palsy trundling towards them in a wheelchair.
Do you seriously think a person with Cerebral Palsy in a wheelchair can pose a threat to a police officer even if they are, shock and horror at the fearful thought of it, shouting!? "
SHE SAID "Shouting? No.
Throwing things? Yes.
Having CP does not prevent him being a threat. He is not paralysed and is as capable of physical violence as the next man."
If it wasn't yourself, a previous poster had tried to justify the abhorrent attack on the grounds that the Cerebral Palsy ridden chap in a wheelchair was shouting. Somehow i don't think the force of anything he was able to throw would have had much effect upon impact. It certainly couldn't ever match the force that police used, more often than not, on those doing nothing wrong or illegal.
This person, despite his cp, is not paralysed. He can stand. He can climb stairs. He can pick things up and throw them. He is not paralysed. He is not incapable of inflicting injury. He is not incapable of violence.
My how we are playing with semantics and/or deliberately being obtuse as you say he "was as capable of physical violence as the next man"....errrrrrm no he wasn't!. I suggest you look at the hundreds of men (and women) around him and every single one of them would have far greater strength to inflict violence than he could.
It's a figure of speech! Please tell me you are not so ill-informed as to never have heard it? I am in no way suggesting he is as physically strong as the average man at the protest.
What I am saying, is that he is just as capable of throwing an object and causing an injury as anyone else who was there. The man can stand so wouldn't have the disadvantage of being forced to throw from a sitting position.
HE SAID "A disabled student who was dragged from his wheelchair by four policemen and was also a peaceful protester."
SHE SAID "This bit was not true. Therefore my post still stands."
Again i point out that was a typo and MORE IMPORTANTLY how sick, cruel and harsh of heart for you to not feel and express disgust at what WAS TRUE, namely, he was dragged from his wheelchair.
He is a troublemaker, not a victim, so no, I do not feel disgust at the way he was removed from his wheelchair for his own safety as the polite request he was given had been refused.
A person suffering from cerebral palsy trundling along in a wheelchair towards a flak jacketed, NATO helmeted, robocop clad police line did not need to be so forcibly intercepted by a group of police officers in order to protect the aforementioned robocops. Quite simply they were NOT under threat from him. The use of such force was greatly disproportionate and hopefully wil be taken to task. Amusing to see the police hastily grab hold off and speedily drag the officer who was the main assailant out of sight in an attempt to remove him away from the scene of the 'crime'.
The mention of robocop is distracting from your argument, btw.
If Jody was physically capable of taking part in this, and many other demonstrations, then he is physically capable of receiving the same treatment as an able-bodied person also.
He plays on his disability to get sympathy and special treatment and does a disservice to other disabled people.
He was removed for his own safety. He was asked to move, he refused, therefore the police were left with no choice.
I could pick up on a few points but i think we've both pretty much established our views on the various aspects and clarified things we thought were taken wrongly to an extent etc.
Thanks for being civilised and, like me, taking the time to clarify.
Take care and, wherever it is and whatever it is in protest of, see you at the next demo
What!!! you mean i haven't converted you into a rabid anarchist lol.
Comments
I find it odd that you ignore the fact that FEW if any FM's have disagreed with the right of the students to protest, as anyone else has a right to do so IF SAID PROTEST IS PEACEFUL, which plainly wasnt the case last week.
As to FM's "advocating" violence, frankly it was the so called students who decided that they had a right to destroy and deface property, and throw missiles at the police.
As the students, (well those amongst the assorted thugs who WERE students) had a valid right to protest, the police had the right, in fact they had the DUTY, to ensure the streets of London were not taken over by a bunch of thugs.
and how long will it be before a "rioter" kills a police officer or a member of the public "accidentally" - it nearly happened when that idiot dropped the fire extinguisher from the top of Milbank Tower
The last generation had their uni education paid for by the generation before. That generation had theirs paid for by the one before that. This generation has decided to not take it's turn, and rather than simply raise the academic bar for university entry in order to continue providing full incentive for even the poorest students to go to university, it's decided to dissuade people by going by putting a hefty debt around their necks before they even start their careers.
And to think, the government has been criticising people taking on lots of debt...
A large number are though, and the safety of police officers has to be considered too.
It seems like there was quite a lot who refused the instruction to follow the agreed route of the demonstation.
Keeping the crowd tightly contained seems to be the best way of keeping potential trouble contained too, if they were allowed anywhere, how much life and property would be at risk all over central London?
Unless we actually get tougher by using water cannons, tear gas, rubber bullets etc then I think we're doing as much as we can. No other country would be as soft as us in these situations, would they?
That reminds me of some of the more interesting signs at the protests - saying that they'd protest with the officers when the police forces get cut.
When often it is a lifestyle choice to go to university. If Uni was restricited to say the top 10% most intelligent of students, who wanted to go and study worthwhile subjects, I'd happily say let us pay for them.
But while we have uni's in every other town and enourage kids basically to waste a few years of their life doing worthless subjects while the rest of us subsidise them, no. The only reason Labour wanted all of that was to keep 1000s of them off the dole for a few years.
Agree that we're lucky to live in such a tolerant country. However, if i was an innocent protester, and was kettled for 10+ hours without access to food, water or toilets, I'd be pissed off as well. Police need to stand off and stop being so confrontational.
They did stand off! The protesters were going to protest at government plans, not the police weren't they?
The police were only there to observe and keep the peace.
If the large numbers of idiots didnt damage property/threaten/commit violence etc, then the police would have been happily standing around out of the way of them.
If you look at it in 1-on-1 terms in the way you've portrayed, sure, it can look unfair - just as unfair as an MP getting their train-tickets paid for by the low-paid workers - but when you look at the impact on the country as a whole, (which then also improves the potential chances for that lower paid worker and their children), it's a good thing. More education means more expertise, which means better services, more competitive companies, more innovation. Just as those train-tickets the MPs claim on expenses help by allowing them to represent their constituency in Parliament while allowing them to also serve in their constituency.
Putting people off going by putting a debt around their necks is nothing to do with academia. The poorer people are going to look at the size of the debt and be very cautious about taking it on.
If we restricted the amount of people that attended Uni, how would the unis make up the xtra money? Or am I being stupid.
Surely they would be half empty as there are so many of them.
They would be half as empty, which from a public-purse point-of-view wouldn't be a bad thing. Basically what I'm saying is that instead of charging fees, universities should be publicly funded, but that the entry level should be raised to restrict the number going, thus restricting the cost to the public purse.
I truly think that education is of vital importance to this country, and that ANYTHING that stands as a barrier for those with the ability to learn is a bad thing.
To those on a low income, these fees are a hugely daunting prospect - almost as daunting as having to pay it up-front.
They weren't being confrontational, they were maintaining public order. The protester's chose to be their, it's their own fault if they were inconvenienced.
Does it?
When you read a student poster on here referring to "domestics" having to clear up the mess of the protests (broken glass ect.) as if they were some kind of lower life form, then you have to ask whether having such a large percentage considering higher education is a good thing.
Look at what has been said over the years about foreign workers. About their work ethic ect.
The country needs lower paid workers. It needs Brit people to get a much more realistic grasp on what they have to do to earn money. This whole myth that anybody British need never work as a cleaner was Nu Labour spin. And they allowed immigration to support that myth.
It needs people who have the potential to be far more than "cleaners" to be cleaners TBH. Half the problems with public services are because we have people who are bloody useless doing the jobs that those who aren't bloody useless think are beneath them.
Ok, and what I've said prevents that, how? Given that I've said I support tightening the academic entry criteria, it'd reduce intake based on ability rather than the imposing nature of a massive debt.
One picks people by ability and doesn't charge them, thus not discouraging the poor. The other picks people by the basis of their willingness to take-on a large debt...
How? Paying up-front would be impossible on a low income, while having a loan that only becomes payable if you get a degree and a highly paid job isn't impossible at all.
Imagine other situations where you could go to a bank and ask for a million pounds and say 'If I can turn this into £100m, I'll pay it back - but otherwise, thanks very much'.
Students will never get such a good deal ever again. They certainly won't on their credit card, overdraft, mobile phone contract and all the other things that will be a far bigger drain on their monthly income than a loan.
Poor people aren't stupid. Anyone wishing to go to University presumably has to be quite smart, or they won't get in - fees or no fees.
So, if they stop to do the maths, and realise the only commitment is to pay a small percentage of earnings later on (and if the earnings stop, the payments stop) then it quickly turns out to be the best loan you'll EVER get.
There's no reason for people to 'feel' anything; the rules are in black and white.
Rest assured, most students will go out and get at least one credit card, an overdraft and maybe even take out private loans. We all did (and irresponsible lending and borrowing got us to where we are today).
They'll be paying much more to other people than paying off a student loan. Yet nobody seems to worry about that, or how the lenders rip off the public (and students).
You might as well ask what would happen if the Government takes over ownership of your house and kicks you out onto the street. It isn't going to happen, but would certainly strike some fear into anyone that thinks it might. Perhaps it's a good idea not to start scaremongering in the first place?
A debt is only a debt when you fail to pay it, so if you have a loan and pay it back then there's no problem. Everyone keeps forgetting that the terms are extremely favourable (it's the one loan where you won't be hassled if you stop earning and can't pay) - and I beg to ask again, how many people will ONLY have a student loan to pay back?
What about the other credit and finance people will almost certainly get? This will be more of a problem for the poorer people, who will rely much more on loans and credit cards - especially those who begin to live in a materialistic world where they'll 'need' an iPhone, MacBook Pro, a nice car (with hefty insurance attached) and so on.
I don't have a problem with anyone wanting and getting any of those things by the way, but there's a cost to everything in life - and people need to accept their own responsibilities. Taking the step to go on to further education to get a respectable and worthy degree, to ultimately secure a good job that will help you and your family, shows commitment - and not being handed everything on a plate.
What's more, the people that do will look back and have a sense of pride and achievement, and realise it was for the best.
It happened in the 80's and it shall rightly happen again.
The protesting students seem to think they're the ones who are worst off in the country, when it's completely false. There are so many who are much much more worse off than they are, and far more deserving of the government's money than a bunch of violent thugs who think that smashing up buildings, cars and being violent to police is the way to get something. Why reward bad behaviour? It's simple operant conditioning, if you give someone positive reinforcement for behaviour, they will carry it on again and again because they've come to learn that that is how they will get the reward they want.
With respect Jane i don't know that i have ever come across even a politician that avoided addressing a (repeated) point and also practice misinformation and disinformation to such a degree in a discussion.
I'm not sure how one gets to quote a quote in the structure of the forums, so i'll do a 'he said' 'she said' format. Because if i select reply to your response to my earlier post it doesn't show what you were replying to. So he is me and she is thee
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HE SAID "??? You've gone off at a tangent to the actual subject of what i took to task.
When i made my post i reported that the police had dragged someone out of his wheelchair and along the ground. The poster who replied to my input categorically said that was a LIE
I bided my time until, as i knew would happen, the footage of someone being dragged from their wheelchair and along the ground has been aired across the world.
Therefore, i did NOT LIE! Therefore, the poster who claimed i lied was well and truly WRONG and the phrase left with egg on his face was perfectly fitting. "
SHE SAID "Your claim regarding the disabled guy, Jody, was not true." & "He wasn't a peaceful protester. He wasn't a student. The disabled chap, I mean.
So no egg on the poster's face at all."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
First of all i've just gone back to my original post and have seen a typo caused by editing (moving and pasting the text) at the time. At no time did i particulary conclude he was a student but i've just seen i said 'disabled student'.
However, let's make clear again (and as you well know) that that is of little relevance to my main reason for posting, which was the police pulled/tipped out a disabled person from a wheelchair and dragged them across the road. Whilst you seem to think it's of prime importance to the topic to address his status as a student or non-student, the original person i was responding to was clearly saying that the INCIDENT itself never happened and that i had lied or invented it up.
I'm amused at your wording of "your claim REGARDING....." Whilst i apologise for the typo incurred by cutting and pasting you know full well i was moved to post because of the horror of what i saw and not because the subject of the incident was a student. I don't care if he was a professor, student, unemployed or a millionaire......they pulled a person with Cerebral Palsy out of a wheelchair and dragged him across the road. That is why i posted in the forum and the incident happened i did not lie as was claimed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HE SAID "You may well be observing the government in their first attack on the people targetting the students and think you're not a student so that's ok. You look the other way it doesn't affect you.
Next up is the disabled and poorest sections of society, so you may not be disabled or poor and look the other way because it doesn't affect you personally.
But there will come a day when they target their cuts towards something that does affect you. "
SHE SAID "Being both poor and disabled, this does not apply to me." & "Again being disabled and poor, the cuts do affect me and my daughter.
"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Did you not notice the word 'may' ? Plus i was speaking of people in the country generally and not directly at yourself.
Incidentally, someone asked why i linked poor with bieng disabled when i said that the poor and disabled are the next targets. I was referring to the social security system being the next target which will mainly hit the poor and disabled as two groups.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HE SAID "Got to admit i would never have imagined that a flak jacketed, NATO helmeted, robocop clad police line would have to be protected from a person with Cerebral Palsy trundling towards them in a wheelchair.
Do you seriously think a person with Cerebral Palsy in a wheelchair can pose a threat to a police officer even if they are, shock and horror at the fearful thought of it, shouting!? "
SHE SAID "Shouting? No.
Throwing things? Yes.
Having CP does not prevent him being a threat. He is not paralysed and is as capable of physical violence as the next man."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If it wasn't yourself, a previous poster had tried to justify the abhorrent attack on the grounds that the Cerebral Palsy ridden chap in a wheelchair was shouting. Somehow i don't think the force of anything he was able to throw would have had much effect upon impact. It certainly couldn't ever match the force that police used, more often than not, on those doing nothing wrong or illegal.
My how we are playing with semantics and/or deliberately being obtuse as you say he "was as capable of physical violence as the next man"....errrrrrm no he wasn't!. I suggest you look at the hundreds of men (and women) around him and every single one of them would have far greater strength to inflict violence than he could.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HE SAID "A disabled student who was dragged from his wheelchair by four policemen and was also a peaceful protester."
SHE SAID "This bit was not true. Therefore my post still stands."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Again i point out that was a typo and MORE IMPORTANTLY how sick, cruel and harsh of heart for you to not feel and express disgust at what WAS TRUE, namely, he was dragged from his wheelchair.
As for him not being 'peaceful' two points on that, at the time i was relaying reports coming in and hadn't seen footage of him shouting etc. However, having subsequently seen he was shouting (it's too funny to use throwing things as a factor due to the strength of propulsion of any objects being thrown) i point out police are bound by law to use only necessary force. Talk about excessive force!
A person suffering from cerebral palsy trundling along in a wheelchair towards a flak jacketed, NATO helmeted, robocop clad police line did not need to be so forcibly intercepted by a group of police officers in order to protect the aforementioned robocops. Quite simply they were NOT under threat from him. The use of such force was greatly disproportionate and hopefully wil be taken to task. Amusing to see the police hastily grab hold off and speedily drag the officer who was the main assailant out of sight in an attempt to remove him away from the scene of the 'crime'.
(snipping some for space)
Precisely, and that was my point. He was not a student. That was the point I wanted to make. As did a couple of other people if I recall.
No, I don't think it is of prime importance. However, I do think it sufficiently important that it should be corrected. That was my only point. This person, despite his cp, is not paralysed. He can stand. He can climb stairs. He can pick things up and throw them. He is not paralysed. He is not incapable of inflicting injury. He is not incapable of violence.
It's a figure of speech! Please tell me you are not so ill-informed as to never have heard it? I am in no way suggesting he is as physically strong as the average man at the protest.
What I am saying, is that he is just as capable of throwing an object and causing an injury as anyone else who was there. The man can stand so wouldn't have the disadvantage of being forced to throw from a sitting position. He is a troublemaker, not a victim, so no, I do not feel disgust at the way he was removed from his wheelchair for his own safety as the polite request he was given had been refused.
The mention of robocop is distracting from your argument, btw.
If Jody was physically capable of taking part in this, and many other demonstrations, then he is physically capable of receiving the same treatment as an able-bodied person also.
He plays on his disability to get sympathy and special treatment and does a disservice to other disabled people.
He was removed for his own safety. He was asked to move, he refused, therefore the police were left with no choice.
I could pick up on a few points but i think we've both pretty much established our views on the various aspects and clarified things we thought were taken wrongly to an extent etc.
Thanks for being civilised and, like me, taking the time to clarify.
Take care and, wherever it is and whatever it is in protest of, see you at the next demo
What!!! you mean i haven't converted you into a rabid anarchist lol.