Students Rioting in London.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Sirius

Careful Punky or you will be classified an hysterical anti unionist

No need for a label there Sirius. The libellous description of Howells does away with that.

[Pierre]

I know you've being having a good ding dong with ignitionnet, but allow me to jump back in.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

I think an important and oft overlooked part of the student position is that they have seen that a banking system was let run riot and bring the UK to the point of bankruptcy.

The reality is that as a result and consequence of those actions they, and indeed many others whom I have no doubt will follow suit in the coming months, are angry that they are having to pay for those mistakes whilst the banks continue, largely unpunished and true to form, refusing to lend to increase the buoyancy of the market and blackmailing the "Government" with odious threats of taking their business elsewhere if they are not allowed to continue to speculate and gamble, at a whim, the future of the entire UK economy, education, and employment.

I don't think it's overlooked, and I agree it's important, however, what make students more aggrieved than anyone else.

The fact regarding the banking crises are there for all to see, the effects of the resultant recession are felt by us all.

I haven't picked up my pitch fork and marched on parliament.

The financial meltdown happened over two years ago. The financial markets were allowed to run riot on Browns watch.

Don't forget Brown had "eliminated" bust, from the Boom and Bust days of the Major government.

Had the Brown government managed the economy better whilst we're riding the crest of the wave, our deficit would have been much lower, and we'd have come out of this recession much sooner and these rise in fees may not have been necessary.

However, the coalition have to play the hand they've been dealt.

As I have posted earlier, the 9,000 figure is not a flat figure across the board, and many students from poor backgrounds will get the first 1 to 2 years free.

Nothing can be said to defend the actions of the rioting students.

As I have stated previously, if the future academia of the UK are prepared to protest and risk a criminal conviction in an effort to stand up to austerity cuts what might we expect from those who themselves think they have nothing to lose - like the disabled and the unemployed who are in the crosshairs?

One could ask them to do some real research into why the country is in its current state, and although the financial meltdown was the major catalyst, they would be suprised at:

A) How it was allowed to happen
B) Government spending before and during

The reality is that not all students are as short sighted / stupid as many posters in this thread would like to believe.

Don't be emotive, as you know no one is directing this at "all" students.

But as you and I both know (being once a student, and I'm assuming you were one too), that there are militant groups out there that love a good ruck and they whip up others around them.

What they did is indefensible, no matter what.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Pierre

But as you and I both know (being once a student, and I'm assuming you were one too), that there are militant groups out there that love a good ruck and they whip up others around them.

Cheers Pierre, This is indeed the crux of the current malaise.

We are where we are.

[nomadking]

Wasn't it Labour who kept going on about that it was almost a right(as opposed to an aspiration) to own a house regardless of income, in order to get on the 'property ladder'. They even introduced schemes which were meant to enable those with lower incomes to do so. There were news reports etc with people who were on low incomes complaining about missing the opportunity. The banks just fulfilled that demand believing that they were insured in a way, by rising house prices.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Wasn't it Labour who kept going on about that it was almost a right(as opposed to an aspiration) to own a house regardless of income, in order to get on the 'property ladder'. They even introduced schemes which were meant to enable those with lower incomes to do so.

I've a suspicion that much of that attitude came from Margaret Thatcher's government and the sale of Council houses.

The Labour contribution was more the raiding of pensions leading to people using property as an investment and stretching themselves perilously thin to get as many properties as possible.

Buy to let increased massively under Labour, pumping housing demand up which in turn had the effect of pumping house prices up.

[nomadking]

The 'Right to Buy' scheme was a method of giving the current tenants retrospective credit for rent paid in the way of a discount. They still had to be able to afford the mortgage on the discounted price on the same basis as everybody else. Home ownership was still seen as an aspiration(ie something that had to be aimed for and earned) and not an automatic right. They were bought to live in, not to sell for profit.

I remember living on a large council estate when it was first brought in. The first thing people changed was the estates standard front door to one of their own choice.

[Ignitionnet]

This is a nice story.

'Story' being the operative word.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

This is a nice story.

Now that is an excellent demonstration of the art of story telling.

It's how the Left operates - telling and re-telling of stories that become unchallengeable myth. That's why childish phrases like 'Thatcher the Milk Snatcher' remain fashionable among true Lefties. It has no context and only a passing acquaintance with the truth, but it fits their beloved heroes and villains narrative quite nicely.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Chris

'Story' being the operative word.

They really could be doing with a bit of fact checking there.

For example, Blair Peach was killed after being assaulted, allegedly by a policeman, at an anti nazi league march, not an "anti vietnam" march.

It rather demeans the whole thrust of their coverage that they can't get historical facts and references right.

[alferret]

I havnt read all 400 post's, dont really intend to either. But from what I have seen, heard been told the students are miffed at having to pay "UP TO" £9k a year in tuition fees, and that this will see them in debt after uni. But if they earn less than £21k they dont have to pay it back and then there is a sliding scale for repayments as their wages increase above that.

So what is the problem? I dont get it.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by alferret

I havnt read all 400 post's, dont really intend to either. But from what I have seen, heard been told the students are miffed at having to pay "UP TO" £9k a year in tuition fees, and that this will see them in debt after uni. But if they earn less than £21k they dont have to pay it back and then there is a sliding scale for repayments as their wages increase above that.

So what is the problem? I dont get it.

A bad boy telled the stoodents pomizez that he wouldn't never ever - swears to godz - put up the prices of them learnin' an stuff. He telled them this 4 2 get them to vote him into Buckingham Palaces to rool the werld and when they did and he did he went and gone and changed his mind to a liar.

That is "the problem" per se.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by alferret

I havnt read all 400 post's, dont really intend to either. But from what I have seen, heard been told the students are miffed at having to pay "UP TO" £9k a year in tuition fees, and that this will see them in debt after uni. But if they earn less than £21k they dont have to pay it back and then there is a sliding scale for repayments as their wages increase above that.

So what is the problem? I dont get it.

its all explained in posts 1- 401- enjoy

[alferret]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

A bad boy telled the stoodents pomizez that he wouldn't never ever swears to godz put up the prices of them learnin' an stuff. He telled them this 4 2 get them to vote him into Buckingham Palaces to rool the werld and when they did and he did he went and gone and changed his mind to a liar.

That is "the problem" per se.

Clear as mud, I take it uni wasn't on your list of things to do before you got old, especially with spelling like that Or was that a C&P of a txt from a 2 yr old?

---------- Post added at 19:23 ---------- Previous post was at 19:08 ----------

Originally Posted by papa smurf

its all explained in posts 1- 401- enjoy

I have trouble making sense out of sound bites and tid bits of information Oh and arguments between members, makes for a messy thread.


But I still dont get it.
If I was getting ready to go to uni and that I would have to pay more for my education I would make sure that my time at uni was well spent learning my chosen courses, striving to do my best, making sure that I made every effort to get a good job. Not ****ing it up the wall and shagging everything that had a heartbeat or moved.
Obviously these students want a free ride where expenses are concerned and are bitching for the sake of bitching.
I suppose next, that when they leave uni they will want 10 yrs without paying any stamp or tax!

So I still dont get it.