Bloody Students!

[lobthewedge]

When are the police gonna unleash the water cannons on these muppets?

From my experience of being a student back in the day and from what ive seen on the news, half of them could do with a good wash!

 

[surefire]

I'm not convinced all the damage is done by students, I think some of it is caused by 'professional demonstrators'. These are the people who turn up to protest and cause trouble at any excuse, the fact they have no clue about it or interest in it is not a problem for them.

Add to this the fact that many students just turn up for the sake of it and swell the crowds, it is a recipe for disaster.

I understand they might not be happy with the situation, but why are they so against paying for a service they use?
Yes, I realise I may be called a hypocrite because I got a better deal than them, but I still went to uni after the days of grants, yet I managed to avoid smashing up London because someone before me got a better deal.

I also don't understand how the new system will stop the poor going to uni. The fees are higher, but they are paid after you graduate. It makes no difference if you are from a poor background you will still be able to go.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Couldn't agree more. Sadly though I fear it was the usual rent a mob that seems to come out of the woodwork at these sort of events intent on causing chaos for other agendas. A lot of the students I know from Reading Uni were quite keen to get their point across today in a non-violent way to gather public support. Fat chance now

 

[In_The_Rough]

Totally agree with the rent a mob theory. However it the amount of debt that people are going to be saddled with when finishing. I know it does not kick in until you earn £21,000 or something like that but in reality if I had been studying for god knows how many years I would be expecting to earn that anyway so I can see why there is some unhappy bunnies around but it won't make any difference because what the Tories want they get and I vote Conservative before anybody labels me a Red!!! Doesn't excuse rioting though in any form.

 

[Basher]

Agreed. Degenerate protesters always turn up at these events and mar the whole point of them.
One thing you generally notice at demos is the near compulsory inclusion of the "ever ready for a demo" Socialist Worker Party placards.
Why does this nigh on ultra left, let's all be commie di*kh*ad party get involved?
On the news footage tonight, couldn't help but notice the hordes of masked hooligans/scumbag let's pretend to be student thugs stirring it up with the police.

Of course we are a very civil and restrained country (if you're a policeman) however, the scrotes have free reign to run riot, smash windows, deface memorials and generally create mayhem.

Why don't the top brass just tell the police foot soldiers to "get stuck into em!"

 

[HomerJSimpson]

They dissolved off and went into full riot mode in Oxford Street. Clearly nothing whatsoever to do with a legitimate process and everything to do with civil disobedience. Not the students fault as these left wingers get into all sorts of protests these days. The police must know who they are. Get them out as soon as they arrive. As for terrorising innocent shoppers including kids - SCUM

 

[Ethan]

I think the students have every right to protest. The fees are a disgrace. Many people, including myself, would not have been able to go to Uni without grants and it would be hypocritical in the extreme to deny others the same. If people truly earn more because they have a degree, then they pay more tax too. Labour drove an expansion of university places to include a load of useless degrees and courses, to satisfy their vacuous target of 50% of people going to Uni.

 

[In_The_Rough]

Even the Royal car got attacked:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11954333

Not a royalist by any means but how was that allowed to happen. Security seems very flimsy to me there!!

 

[lobthewedge]

Police are probably terrified to get stuck in and crack some heads in case they get filmed, flashed all over youtube and hauled in front of a disciplinary review.

So they are allowed to run riot, "expressing themselves and their right to protest" and we the taxpayers will foot the bill for cleaning the place up - bloody nonsense!

 

[HomerJSimpson]

I think the students have every right to protest. The fees are a disgrace. Many people, including myself, would not have been able to go to Uni without grants and it would be hypocritical in the extreme to deny others the same.

Totally agree and I happen to support the students on this and in particular the capitulation of the Lib Dems from their manifesto promise. However there is a world of difference between protesting lawfully and willful destruction of property and intimidation.

Sadly the police are trying to do the job with one hand behind their back with civil liberties taking precedent over firm policing. I'm all for the police being given the power to use "reasonable force" and the tools available (water cannon, riot sticks) etc to get amongst the real trouble makers and weed them out especially when they target Oxford Street for nothing but an excuse to riot with little fear of arrest

 

[RichardC]

Where do you draw the line. We now have more people living in this country, having more children, and a lot of those will want to go to Uni in the hope that the Media Studies degree will get them the fortune they crave.

In 5-10 years time, the amount it will cost to keep (some) students that can't be bothered to work, in full time education, will be enormous.

 

[colint]

Every right to protest but the violence is unacceptable, hoepfully those responsible will be identified and prosecuted.

Personally I'm in favour of the funding change. There had to be a change, everyone said that before the election with the exception of the Lib Dems, who could basically say anything because they didn't expect to be in government.

Labour commissioned the report and campaigned on it. Now they oppose the finding without coming up with an alternative.

Under the current system you pay when your income reaches £15k, under the new system you don't pay until it reaches £21k, so everybody will pay less per month, nobody pays anything up front, and nobody pays anything until they're on a decent wage. Someone earning £25k pays back at £7 per week. If I hear one more student say they won;t be able to afford to go to uni now I'll get the water cannon out myself. YOU WILL PAY LESS PER MONTH AND POTENTIALLY NOTHING AT ALL. You'll be in debt longer, that's the only downside. If it means people will have to think more carefully about whether it's worthwhile going to uni then that's a good thing. There are too many students doing pointless, irrelevant degrees, mainly driven by Labours random target of 50%.

The argument about other generations not paying for their degrees so this one shouldn't is bollox. Should every tax and funding proposal be based on what the last generation had ? Better that they're set to suit the times we live in.

I had to do my degree part time which meant paying up front, 3 grand a year when I was earning 12k. Under the new proposals part time students don't pay up front either, shall I start bleating about "it's not fair".

 

[RGDave]

I think the students have every right to protest. The fees are a disgrace. Many people, including myself, would not have been able to go to Uni without grants and it would be hypocritical in the extreme to deny others the same.

I agree.

 

[medwayjon]

I agree with the fee increases.

Why should those who leave school and go straight into employment effectively subsidise their peers who decide to go onto higher education?

I hate the whole graduate-bias that exists. I know someone in the police who had zero work experience and zero life experience when he joined the Police off the back of a history degree. 5 years on and he is now an inspector who has been fast-tracked for the sole reason that he did a degree, a degree which is of no correlation to his job.

Its so common that firms are hugely preocupied with employing people into senior positions solely on the basis that they have a degree of some sorts and to me this is wrong. Why should existing employees be overlooked when they have the skills and experience? Why should someone who studied classics and didnt wash for 3 years all of a sudden get a management job at Lloyds TSB?

Let them pay their fees, its not as if they have to pay them upfront and it is hardly as if they have to pay back hundreds of pounds per month once qualified.

Also these degrees are hardly full-time are they? Most people I know had 6 hours or so of lectures per week with a bit of written work. They spent the rest of their time dodging soap, purchasing pot noodles and dossing about in wetherspoons.

Oh, and for the rioters, I favour draconian action from the police, tear-gas, rubber-bullets, water-cannons, baton-charges, the lot. Destroy property & terrorise innocent people, assault police officers, then in my eyes be prepared for swift and brutal counteractions. I wish.

 

[CliveW]

The problem as far as I see it is there are far too many universities. Before labour decided that everone had a right to university education, there were only four universities in Scotland. Since then every further education college has been given university status. There are now fourteen in Scotland and 113 in the whole of the UK.
I would rather we go back to the two tier system whereby universities were responsible for degrees in such areas as Medicine, Law, Science,Classics etc. and Colleges were responsible for the "Mickey Mouse" degrees which so many students now "study". There are too many over qualified people in the market place with degrees in subjects that bear no resemblance to the job they have. Bring back the apprenticeship and let people attend college or night school to get diplomas in what the actually do.
When will these protesters also realise that although they voted for a Liberal Democratic government we do not have that. We have a coalition government.

 

[USER1999]

Reading yesterday that 60% of these graduates will never earn over 21k, so they will never pay anything back. This surely is going to cost the tax payer even more.

I also would not like leaving university owing 27k. Not the best start to life.

Certain qualifications are needed. Doctors, lawyers, engineers, teachers, vets, etc. These should be free. The recipients will pay tax for 40 years, on a decent salary. Does this not pay for their education?

Sadly, we don't need any more sports scientists working for minimum wage at David Lloyds. These are the mickey mouse degrees which need to be stopped. Under the new rules, these are the 'free' degrees, as they will never be paid for.

This is up side down.

 

[surefire]

Certain qualifications are needed. Doctors, lawyers, engineers, teachers, vets, etc. These should be free. The recipients will pay tax for 40 years, on a decent salary. Does this not pay for their education?

Unless they get a decent degree here, and then go an work somewhere else with a fairer tax system.

Germany introduced a similar graduate tax for first year doctors. The result was that nearly all first year doctors went and worked in France untill they no longer qualified for the tax.

Like I mentioned before, I didn't get a grant to do my degree, but I managed to avoid smashing up London and crying to everyone about it.
I was in the in-between stage where I could get a loan, but it was only £3 grand a year. However I actually only took a quarter of the money available to me, as I made up the rest by working, both in the long holidays you get and some nights. I also did a sandwich year, which allowed me to save up for my final year.

Everyone seems to agree that something needs to be done as the current situation is unsustainable, so why is putting a student in debt any different from taxing them after they graduate?
The only difference with the debt is you can see how much you have left to pay in extra tax, before you can stop and you can't avoid it by leaving the country.
If there is just a fixed graduate tax it would be like an infinite debt, apart from the loophole of leaving the country and never paying it back.

Plus from the universities side, the institution gets the extra money it charges, and so can spend to provide an even better service.
If a graduate tax was introduced, the money would just end up in the governments hands.

 

[mjsw13]

The problem as far as I see it is there are far too many universities. Before labour decided that everone had a right to university education, there were only four universities in Scotland. Since then every further education college has been given university status. There are now fourteen in Scotland and 113 in the whole of the UK.
I would rather we go back to the two tier system whereby universities were responsible for degrees in such areas as Medicine, Law, Science,Classics etc. and Colleges were responsible for the "Mickey Mouse" degrees which so many students now "study". There are too many over qualified people in the market place with degrees in subjects that bear no resemblance to the job they have. Bring back the apprenticeship and let people attend college or night school to get diplomas in what the actually do.
When will these protesters also realise that although they voted for a Liberal Democratic government we do not have that. We have a coalition government.

Only 4 unis in Scotland before labour???? Have a word...

1. St Andrews
2. Aberdeen
3. Dundee
4. Edinburgh
5. Glasgow
6. Strathclyde
7. Stirling
8. Heriot Watt

 

[Ethan]

I agree with the fee increases.

Why should those who leave school and go straight into employment effectively subsidise their peers who decide to go onto higher education?

I hate the whole graduate-bias that exists. I know someone in the police who had zero work experience and zero life experience when he joined the Police off the back of a history degree. 5 years on and he is now an inspector who has been fast-tracked for the sole reason that he did a degree, a degree which is of no correlation to his job.

Its so common that firms are hugely preocupied with employing people into senior positions solely on the basis that they have a degree of some sorts and to me this is wrong. Why should existing employees be overlooked when they have the skills and experience? Why should someone who studied classics and didnt wash for 3 years all of a sudden get a management job at Lloyds TSB?

Let them pay their fees, its not as if they have to pay them upfront and it is hardly as if they have to pay back hundreds of pounds per month once qualified.

Also these degrees are hardly full-time are they? Most people I know had 6 hours or so of lectures per week with a bit of written work. They spent the rest of their time dodging soap, purchasing pot noodles and dossing about in wetherspoons.

Oh, and for the rioters, I favour draconian action from the police, tear-gas, rubber-bullets, water-cannons, baton-charges, the lot. Destroy property & terrorise innocent people, assault police officers, then in my eyes be prepared for swift and brutal counteractions. I wish.

Oh dear, a lot of reverse intellectual snobbery, and a bit of jealousy, perhaps?

So this one example had no life experience. You mean he had been hermetically sealed for all his life, or he was a newborn? Because of he had lived, he had life experience. Perhaps not with the geezers you know, but perhaps your life experience is a poor example. And you think national policy should be based on (one side of the story of) one cop you dislike?

If most of the students you know just do 6 hours a week, then you only know a very biased sample doing some rubbish degrees, probably at a dodgy institution. Most of the students that I knew, medical, dental and law, did a damn site more work, and effectively were full time in classes and had additional work in the evenings.

The same medical students then went on to work 80-100 hours a week for years maintaining the hospitals at night and weekends, getting paid less than half the standard hourly rate for most of those hours, and the NHS depends on them. Then when they start to earn decent money, they pay disproportionate amounts of tax into the public purse to fund services that all of us, including you, enjoy.

I once spent a New Years Eve night in a busy hospital, and at 11.55pm was in Casualty seeing a guy with a heart attack. I admitted him, and the porter who came down to bring him to the coronary care unit complained about being on duty, but said that at least he was getting 3 and a half times his usual hourly rate. I was getting 38% of my usual hourly rate at the same time. So I was paying back my grant and have continued to do so with tax.

If fees rise, it starts to makes sense for the best prospects to consider US universities. Why not go to Harvard or Princeton if you are good enough? They will offer scholarships and bursaries and make it just as financially attractive as going to Bristol or Birmingham.

And as for 'draconian action', Jawohl, mein Fuhrer!! I assume you also think that Arbeit macht frei.

 

[USER1999]

It would not be difficult to insist on a minimum service time (the Army do this, so it can't be difficult), to ensure the state get their pay back on essential degrees. If they want to buy their way out, and go and work abroad, they have to pay.

As for graduate tax, they will alrerady be paying this as income tax anyway.

Proper degrees should be free. It is for the good of the country. Rubbish degrees should be abolished, or paid for.

How will you get a mortgage when you are £27k in debt before you start borrowing more? I don't think it is a good idea to encourage debt in young people.

Back in the day, 10% of people got degrees. This lead to higher graduate salaries. Now %50 of people have degrees, it has devalued the degree. %10 was a more sensible and sustainable number.