Violent Protests As Mps Vote To Raise Tuition Fees

[asitis]

So if I understand correctly London was laid siege to because these poor darlings will have to repay £360.00 per year after they earn £25,000 ! and if they struggle to find work they will never have to pay back anything with the debt written off after 30yrs !

 

Where are you getting these figures? £360 per year for an assumed working life of 40 years doesn't even cover two years of university at £9000 per year, and that's assuming no interest.

 

Even without interest, it would take around £900 pounds per year to pay off a four year science or engineering course over 40 years, then stick a mortgage on top of that, council tax and all the other costs of living. Hell, assuming inflation stays constant and the interest on the loans for tuition fees is pegged to that it would take about a £1000 a year just to pay off the interest from year to year.

 

Another inaccuracy is your figure for when students will begin to pay back the debt. Under current proposals they start repayments at £21,000 (currently, it's £15,000).

 

BBC News Website

[VinnieK]

BBC News Website

 

Which one? Everywhere on the BBC seems to say repayments start at £21,000, with interest tied to inflation (increasing to that plus 3% extra if you go above £41,000), and I can't find anywhere that gives this figure of £360 per year repayments. I'm pretty sure you've got this wrong: £360 wouldn't even pay the interest on a three year degree at the lower, £6000 per annum end of the fees.

 

Could you have read an old webpage relating to the previous fee structure (where the amount cited would have been a viable plan of repayment, and the repayment threshold was £15,000 - easily confused with £25,000)?

[asitis]

BBC News Website

 

Which one? Everywhere on the BBC seems to say repayments start at £21,000, with interest tied to inflation (increasing to that plus 3% extra if you go above £41,000), and I can't find anywhere that gives this figure of £360 per year repayments. I'm pretty sure you've got this wrong: £360 wouldn't even pay the interest on a three year degree at the lower, £6000 per annum end of the fees.

 

Could you have read an old webpage relating to the previous fee structure (where the amount cited would have been a viable plan of repayment, and the repayment threshold was £15,000 - easily confused with £25,000)?

 

I cant find the actual page now but it was on BBC with those figures quoted, I have just been back to BBC site and found they have revised the figures to read as below I quoted what they had misquoted ! apologies.

 

The government would continue to loan students the money for fees. The threshold at which graduates have to start paying their loans back would be raised from £15,000 to £21,000. On 8 December, the goverment announced this threshold would rise annually with inflation - not just every five years, as had been planned.

 

Each month graduates would pay back 9% of their income above that threshold.

 

The subsidised interest rate at which the repayments are made - currently 1.5% - will be raised. Under a "progressive tapering" system, the interest rate will rise from 0 for incomes of £21,000, to 3% plus inflation (RPI) for incomes above £41,000.

[VinnieK]

Each month graduates would pay back 9% of their income above that threshold.

 

The subsidised interest rate at which the repayments are made - currently 1.5% - will be raised. Under a "progressive tapering" system, the interest rate will rise from 0 for incomes of £21,000, to 3% plus inflation (RPI) for incomes above £41,000.

 

No worries, I was just a bit confused about the figures!

 

I might just be overly jaded, but I do think Higher Education has turned into something of a scam.

 

An awful lot of jobs which stipulate a degree as a prerequisite probably don't actually require graduates: having a degree has just become another artificial method of filtering out applications - a contived bit of voodoo that stops recruitment people from being swamped and allows them to fool themselves into thinking they're making an informed decision on candidates. The students themselves are often conditioned into thinking that higher education is the only real option, often by schools (which a cynic would say stand to benefit in marketing terms from having a high rate of university entrance), only to find themselves facing a significant amount of debt when they leave and relatively high levels of graduate unemployment. The universities don't really benefit either (except for perhaps the Vice Chancellors, a lot of whom put paid by example to the delusion that high wages ensure the job attracts the best candidates), since most operate on a shoestring and are expected/have to deal with ever increasing student numbers at the same time as churning out endless research.

 

Overall the UK has ended up with a large but inefficient higher education sector that is, quite frankly, a bit of a mess. One that faces declining standards (caused, in no small part, by the same phenomena in secondary schools) and one that's ever more bound up in bureaucracy, wasteful and dubious assesment procedures and a myriad of other problems.

 

If I had my time again I can safely say that I would think twice about doing a degree, and that's even before taking into account the current state of affairs. I can understand why students are angry. If anything, more people should be angry for how horribly mismanaged the system has been since at least the mid 1970's.

[spook]

To begin with re-establish a one bite of the cherry A level exam with results based wholly on the exam.

 

Then limit the number of university places to around 3% of the sixth form students each year, introduce competitive entrance exams, cream off the top achievers to fill the available places, and so restore free education to the best of the crop.

 

That way the best suited will get the best education and the tax payer will get the best return for the cost.

 

In short, go back to what worked, and worked well.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Sadly the Police are always the tool of any government of whatever politics and are always in the firing line. I am sure there are many decent officers who were there yesterday doing the job for which they are paid and trying to preserve order, not because they were acting for the coalition but because it is a disciplined service and they were doing the job which was asked of them.

 

Next time you have occasion to seek help from the Police force I suggest you ask if they are sending a thug or an ordinary woman or man doing their job !

 

If one student has been wronged and hurt unjustifiably then that is regrettable, but the mob who the Police were trying and failing to control must bear some of the responsibility !

It isn't regrettable, it is outrageous. And I don't go along with your whole 'ordinary woman or man' perspective. These are the sort of tasks that form their role and this is a the sort of behaviour that ought to be expected from a instituion that uses coercion to quell popular movements and protests, so there is no feeling sorry for the police and absolutely no restraint required were the police to become violent.

[spook]

It isn't regrettable, it is outrageous. And I don't go along with your whole 'ordinary woman or man' perspective. These are the sort of tasks that form their role and this is a the sort of behaviour that ought to be expected from a instituion that uses coercion to quell popular movements and protests, so there is no feeling sorry for the police and absolutely no restraint required were the police to become violent.

 

Based on the behaviour of the "protesters" I agree that the action taken by the police was outrageous and incommensurate with what was taking place around them.

 

The police should have gone in mob handed cracked many more skulls than they did, made mass arrests, identified as many of the “protesters” as they could and ensure that when it comes to university education any presently in receipt should be rusticated, and any not should be precluded from ever being accepted.

 

We live in a civilised society that survives on the basis of law …. and ORDER. People who break the law really should be hit hard in every way and from every direction.

 

For one thing those who attacked His Royal Highness’s car should have been shot on site simply on the basis that for a while it was unclear what their intentions were, and the security guard should have played it safe by protecting our future monarch at ALL costs.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I am finding it hard to think you are serious.

[jimbms]

Sadly the Police are always the tool of any government of whatever politics and are always in the firing line. I am sure there are many decent officers who were there yesterday doing the job for which they are paid and trying to preserve order, not because they were acting for the coalition but because it is a disciplined service and they were doing the job which was asked of them.

 

Next time you have occasion to seek help from the Police force I suggest you ask if they are sending a thug or an ordinary woman or man doing their job !

 

If one student has been wronged and hurt unjustifiably then that is regrettable, but the mob who the Police were trying and failing to control must bear some of the responsibility !

It isn't regrettable, it is outrageous. And I don't go along with your whole 'ordinary woman or man' perspective. These are the sort of tasks that form their role and this is a the sort of behaviour that ought to be expected from a instituion that uses coercion to quell popular movements and protests, so there is no feeling sorry for the police and absolutely no restraint required were the police to become violent.

 

Are you also prepared to say that the protester had no excuse to be violent and therfore there is no reason to feel sorry for them if they get hurt due to using violence or is your view once sided and biased towards the side you favour rather than being logical and neutral.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Logical? What is the logical perspective here then? I think if the students were violent against other citizens then it is a different matter indeed. But my understanding was that this was not the case.

[bellyup]

 

For one thing those who attacked His Royal Highness’s car should have been shot on site simply on the basis that for a while it was unclear what their intentions were, and the security guard should have played it safe by protecting our future monarch at ALL costs.

 

 

A bit hard isnt it to murder some young people for protesting against tution fees when a couple who have everything for no effort whatsoever undiplomatically drive past in their rolls?

[spook]

I am finding it hard to think you are serious.

 

Hard as it may be for you, I am.

[spook]

 

For one thing those who attacked His Royal Highness’s car should have been shot on site simply on the basis that for a while it was unclear what their intentions were, and the security guard should have played it safe by protecting our future monarch at ALL costs.

 

 

A bit hard isnt it to murder some young people for protesting against tution fees when a couple who have everything for no effort whatsoever undiplomatically drive past in their rolls?

 

If it was simply a protest then I would agree, but what was taking place was a riot, and our future monarch was not only threatened, he was attacked.

 

Did you not hear the crowd shouting “off with your heads” at them in the broadcasts? With that sort of emotionally charged mob anything could have happened and if the Royal couple had not been able to get away most probably would have.

 

It would not have been murder, it would have been defending the realm.

[Lost Login]

We live in a civilised society that survives on the basis of law …. and ORDER. People who break the law really should be hit hard in every way and from every direction.

 

That is a fair point, but what about the vast majority who were not breaking the law. Is it right that they should be herded together in a confined space for hours with no loos, access to drinking water etc?

 

There are a minority in most rallies who latch on and what to cause a disturbance just for the sake of it and because they are anti authority. The police need to come up with a better tactic of controlling or arresting those people whilst at the same time allowing the remaining to protest peacefully. "Kettling" does not appear to work, all it does is antagonise and enrage those who are behaving in a peaceful and lawful manner.

 

Generally I might see myself a bit of a wimp but one thing that would probably enrage me is being kettled for hours on end with thousands of others who have done absolutly wrong. In those circumstances I can see me joing the ranks trying to break through the police cordon. Not because I wanted to riot to cause trouble just because I would want to be on my way and I may well take offence at effectily being inprisoned despite commiting no offence

[bellyup]

 

For one thing those who attacked His Royal Highness’s car should have been shot on site simply on the basis that for a while it was unclear what their intentions were, and the security guard should have played it safe by protecting our future monarch at ALL costs.

 

 

A bit hard isnt it to murder some young people for protesting against tuition fees when a couple who have everything for no effort whatsoever undiplomatically drive past in their rolls?

 

If it was simply a protest then I would agree, but what was taking place was a riot, and our future monarch was not only threatened, he was attacked.

 

Did you not hear the crowd shouting “off with your heads” at them in the broadcasts? With that sort of emotionally charged mob anything could have happened and if the Royal couple had not been able to get away most probably would have.

 

It would not have been murder, it would have been defending the realm.

 

From who?

Charles is not the realm he is a moderately intelligent bloke who has won lifes birth lottery.

The days of forlock pulling are long gone and besides there are plenty more where he comes from unfortunately.

I dont wish him or her any harm but they are not essential to the realm whereas an educated population is -however having said that there is no need for thuggery.

A simple flogging or a day in the stocks would have been quite enough.