Violent Protests As Mps Vote To Raise Tuition Fees

[jimbms]

The main thing is no matter what the circumstances and who the person is, using violence against them for no other reason than they happened to be there is wrong and the attacker should expect a severe punishment for what is an unprovoked attack. On a foot note you can shove the "his royal highness" crap up your royal arse, he is not royalty to me.

[spook]

I’ve tried to cut out superfluous detail, it’s all there in my previous post if reference is required.

 

I have no problem with kettling rioters. It is the kettling of the majority of law abiding citizens that I object to.

 

If people become involved in what was in actuality a riot then they will have to face whatever measures are required to quell the riot and it is only proper that interrogation of those “kettled” should take place in order to sieve out the innocent. They are simply unfortunate victims of the rioters.

 

As for the Car of HRH but sorry it was a failure in the routing that saw it caught up. It should have gone noowhere near the route

 

If you read the reports from several separate sources it is clear that the intention was to do just that. The question should be raised how and why the rioters managed to intercept the vehicle in which His Royal Highness Prince Charles and his wife were traveling.

 

So you now want the mass arrest and detention of people who have committed no offense.

 

When a riot is taking place and under the circumstances that were prevalent at the time, YES. It serves three purposes. First it is the first stage in quelling the riot, secondly it enables rioters to be singled out, and t5hirdly knowing what is likely to happen should subdue any potential rioters from allowing themselves to engage in riotous behaviour when roused by literal rabble rousers in the future out of fear of the consequences. Those who will not learn must be trained.

 

No problem with politicians being impartial but the government and officials and functionaries should be.

 

When riots take place the first responsibility must be defence of the realm, defence of property, and the quelling of rioting.

 

In fact the whole “student protest” is in itself offensive. People are provided with free education in the UK up to the age of 18. In many cases families have kids who while at school are subsidised with free meals during this time.

 

I agree that to many now now go to further education but do not blame the students. Rather it was a political decision made years ago mainly to keep the unemployment figures down.

 

The reason why is unimportant, I believe that the decision was actually a bit of Blair nonsense, the fact is that what now exists should be destroyed and education should revert to what worked.

 

Reading tabloid headlines does not necesarrily give you a true picture. Yes there was an element who were very unlawful and need to be brought to book but the majority were not. You talk as if the vast majority were rioting which blatantly not true.

 

The very protest is offensive in itself. What’s more they so called innocents were doing precious little to extricate themselves from the riots or attempting to stop the supposed minority from rioting. They were laying with dogs, no one should complain if they got fleas as a result.

 

I actually partly agree with the Students. I disagree with charging and believe that they are hopefully repaying for their education by getting better jobs and paying more tax later in life. If the Govt need more money to balance the books then they should recover it from general taxation. If they want to finance education then the additional revenue raised as previously should go to education, the problem I have again with the new rises is that that the funds raised are going to reduce the government deficit and not education.

 

Limit the number of university places to around 3% of the number of sixth formers leaving school each year, introduce competitive entrance examinations, and then university education will be accessible to those best suited to benefit from it and affordable to be paid for from general taxation. Additionally the numbskull cources could be dropped and standards raised to where they used to be and should be once again.

 

I also believe that if they are going to charge all those who have received further education they should apply a graduate tax or equivalent so that those of us who received such education free and have good jobs now contribute rather than just those who are due to go to college in the future. However again I believe this should be part of an increase in general taxation

 

I disagree. Focus tertiary education on those best fitted to it determined by competitive entrance examination and limited by number of affordable places and then provide it free of charge.

 

Why try to provide tertiary education courses to people unable to meet what should be the requirements and then dumb down the demands to qualify? After all it’s well said that one can not polish a cow pat.

 

One tax that is not yet in place and in my opinion should be is a criminal tax whereby those who have been jailed should be presented with a bill for their incarceration that on release would be repaid by an increase to their tax code until paid in full.

[VinnieK]

Why try to provide tertiary education courses to people unable to meet what should be the requirements and then dumb down the demands to qualify?

 

Except university entry requirements aren't solely dictated by the demands of the course. Popularity also plays an massive part, hence Manchester and UCL (which are very popular universities), demand the same or higher entry requirements as less popular universities for what are actually fairly unexceptional maths degrees, and less popular universities with actually very good departments (such as Queen Mary and Aberdeen) typically make lower offers for the simple reason that they have to appeal to the largest number of students possible.

 

It's also worth noting that a lower entry requirement doesn't automatically mean a lesser degree, as those institutions that make lower offers often put in a great deal of effort into improving their students in the first couple of years. Citing Queen Mary again, in places their maths degree covers some deeper and trickier material than does a lot of higher offer institutions. Although many may scoff, partly this is because A-Levels aren't and never have been the most efficient means of determining whether or not people can do a certain degree - for this very same reason it's not as uncommon as some people might, or may want to think to find postgraduate degree couses at what are traditionally regarded as 'good' universities have students who did their undergraduate degree at one of the much and often unfairly maligned 'ex-polys'.

 

You keep saying "let's go back to the way that worked", but I'm not convinced you can say why or how it worked other than there were less people going into university and who did a narrower range of courses. That's a pretty superficial approach to the situation that neglects so much about how the previous and current situations actually work that I can't see how useful a position it actually is.

[Merkin]

that one who threw the fire extinguisher off the roof top should be charged with attempted murder....

[spook]

Why try to provide tertiary education courses to people unable to meet what should be the requirements and then dumb down the demands to qualify?

 

Except university entry requirements aren't solely dictated by the demands of the course. Popularity also plays an massive part, hence Manchester and UCL (which are very popular universities), demand the same or higher entry requirements as less popular universities for what are actually fairly unexceptional maths degrees, and less popular universities with actually very good departments (such as Queen Mary and Aberdeen) typically make lower offers for the simple reason that they have to appeal to the largest number of students possible.

 

It's also worth noting that a lower entry requirement doesn't automatically mean a lesser degree, as those institutions that make lower offers often put in a great deal of effort into improving their students in the first couple of years. Citing Queen Mary again, in places their maths degree covers some deeper and trickier material than does a lot of higher offer institutions.

 

You keep saying "let's go back to the way that worked", but I'm not convinced you can say why or how it worked other than there were less people going into university and who did a narrower range of courses. That's a pretty superficial approach to the situation that neglects so much about how the previous and current situations actually work that I can't see how useful a position it actually is.

 

In the past, i.e. before New Labour came along and destroyed the UK, a university degree still meant something.

[Alias]

that one who threw the fire extinguisher off the roof top should be charged with attempted murder....

He originally was, and then negotiated a guilty plea of 'violent misconduct' with prosecutors (with a max term of 5 years in prison).

[Lost Login]

In the past, i.e. before New Labour came along and destroyed the UK, a university degree still meant something.

 

I think you will find it was long before New Labour that the numbers increased and Polytechnics became Universities. The latter I think was around 1992

[VinnieK]

In the past, i.e. before New Labour came along and destroyed the UK, a university degree still meant something.

 

It really didn't mean as much as you think it did. New Labour have indeed done a lot to harm UK higher education, but the rot set in a lot earlier than that. In fact, before the introduction of four year undergraduate masters degrees in the sciences and engineering, the unfavourable disparity between UK and a lot of European Degrees like the Italian Laurea was even greater than it is today (especially since the Bologna process has forced a lot of European countries to soften some of its degrees), and our postgraduate Masters degrees have aways been viewed as a little iffy by European counterparts due to them only lasting for one year rather than the more common two.

 

Harking back to the past establishes a faulty comparison. Before the mid-80's social mobility between Europe, the UK and even the states was much more restricted than it is today, so it was easy for insular Britain to sit on its laurels and happily assume that its degrees were the best in the world (much as it still does about so very many things).

 

Back then there was less contact with graduates from other countries, and most people didn't have much of an insight into the world of research, so there was really no frame of reference in which a comparison could be made. Yes, the degrees during that time were more rigorously assessed, but much of the more fundamental failings of the UK system were already well established. Although a special case, even since the very beginning of the 20th century there have been prominant critics of Cambridge's Tripos which is supposed to be the pinnacle of our education system. I can't speak for other disciplines, but I think it's no coincidence that apart from some early luminaries like Newton, the entire UK has produced only a tiny number of truly brilliant mathematicians compared with the likes of Gottingen and Paris. This is in no small part because the UK's higher education has always been a bit ramshackle and unambitious in settling for 'good' and focusing entirely on passing exams rather than 'exceptional' and catering those exams towards encouraging proper understanding, with teaching taking a subordinate role to research and sometimes being of a dubious quality.

 

You can make the existing system easier or harder, you can raise or lower the grade boundaries on entry requirements as much as you like, but still the basic problem remains: UK higher education, and indeed education in general, is by and large about assimilating enough knowledge to 'get by' rather than to understand and master that knowledge and be able to put it to good use. In other words: the UK education system is geared primarily towards producing a nation of well informed blaggers! It was exactly the same twenty, thirty or even a hundred years ago. The only thing that's really changed is the amount of knowledge we expect our students to take on board.

[Lost Login]

 

If people become involved in what was in actuality a riot then they will have to face whatever measures are required to quell the riot and it is only proper that interrogation of those “kettled” should take place in order to sieve out the innocent. They are simply unfortunate victims of the rioters.

 

Most were not involved in a riot. The majority were standing around in a very orderly fashion doing a perfectly lawful activity. If you wish to maintain the respect of the public and their cooperation you do not treat the majority who are doing nothing illegal as criminals. If they were sieving out the innocent I might agree but that is not what they do and it is part of the problem of kettling. If having rounded them up they started to allow those obvious peaceful and law abiding citizens out you might have a point but they do not. They deliberatly detain everybody for hours with apparent no intention of releasing anybody. Basically they seem more intent on inflaming the situation.

 

There were people standing around with there hand in the air almost as if in surrender do they deserve to be beaten. Tourists got caught up leaving museums, did they deserve to be kettled.

 

To me law and order is not just about finding and punishing the guilty, it is about justice across the board. Yes punish offenders but not at the expense of the innocent or vice versa. If those enforcing law and order are allowed to take matters into there own hands then that is the quickest way for respect for upholders of the law to be lost and for a break down in law and order. Do you really think that kettling will have done anything to raise respect for the police and law and order.

 

If you read the reports from several separate sources it is clear that the intention was to do just that. The question should be raised how and why the rioters managed to intercept the vehicle in which His Royal Highness Prince Charles and his wife were traveling.

 

But it still does not alter the fact the car took a route that went fairly close to the protestors were. Yes the reaction that resulted was wrong and those that were involved should be punished but the situation should never have been allowed to happen.

[bellyup]

 

If people become involved in what was in actuality a riot then they will have to face whatever measures are required to quell the riot and it is only proper that interrogation of those “kettled” should take place in order to sieve out the innocent. They are simply unfortunate victims of the rioters.

 

Most were not involved in a riot. The majority were standing around in a very orderly fashion doing a perfectly lawful activity. If you wish to maintain the respect of the public and their cooperation you do not treat the majority who are doing nothing illegal as criminals.

 

 

 

Thats just what the KSFIOM depositors were doing - nothing illegal - but it didnt stop them from getting hit over the head with a bank failure and being treated nastily.

 

 

To me law and order is not just about finding and punishing the guilty,

it is about justice across the board. Yes punish offenders but not at the expense of the innocent or vice versa.

[Lost Login]

Thats just what the KSFIOM depositors were doing - nothing illegal - but it didnt stop them from getting hit over the head with a bank failure and being treated nastily.

 

 

To me law and order is not just about finding and punishing the guilty,

it is about justice across the board. Yes punish offenders but not at the expense of the innocent or vice versa.

Tortuous in the extreme. Anyway you want other innocents to recompense you for your loss not the guilty!

[bellyup]

Thats just what the KSFIOM depositors were doing - nothing illegal - but it didnt stop them from getting hit over the head with a bank failure and being treated nastily.

 

 

To me law and order is not just about finding and punishing the guilty,

it is about justice across the board. Yes punish offenders but not at the expense of the innocent or vice versa.

Tortuous in the extreme. Anyway you want other innocents to recompense you for your loss not the guilty!

 

.

http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/letters/ksf_suffering_continues_1_2808140

[Terse]

Another thread derailed by a fucking whinger who is determined to lose any support he ever had!

[bellyup]

Lets put it on track again then here we are!

 

Anything to stop seeing your silly and offensive avatar which is however very apt being neither amusing or clever.

 

 

 

 

To me law and order is not just about finding and punishing the guilty,

it is about justice across the board.

[Alias]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11987395

 

The interviewer must have felt a bit awkward when he said he can't move the wheelchair himself, ouch.