Buses attacked by rioting students

[jd]

Ah, I see. I would be quite surprised if there weren't strings attached to the training. Although I don't have any details at all for the police, I do know of people who have gone on training courses paid by their (public sector) employer who had to sign an agreement that if they left their job within a certain period they would have to repay the cost of the course. The longer they stayed in the job, the less they'd have to repay, until a time when it was deemed that the employer had got their moneys worth.

I think the reference is to police officers who become security consultants when they RETIRE, and there are a great many of these who earn substantial wages from this - I know personally of at least two. And I only know of, erm, two retired police officers. Not a scientific level of sampling, true, but more than mere coincidence I should think.

Yep, and some nutters are students. Some students are nutters.


Was this person not a student?

Yes, he was. As I already stated, I have no doubt a small number of students did cross the line between peaceful protest and criminal acts, but by no means the majority. It's not right to paint them all with the same brush.

The organisers knew that the first protest caused violence. They then organised another protest, knowing that there would be further violence. Will they go for a third, knowing that, again there will be violence? I suspect they will!:roll:

The NUS supposedly put in place a plan to stop people intent on violence from joining their protests. It seems it didn't work. But the point is, they didn't just ignore it, they did try, which demonstrates they're not complacent to the risk of violence at their protests, which is what you seem to be implying.

But that's not enough.

Says who? You? And I say it is. That doesn't mean either of us are right.

But why would it? What difference does it make how poor someone is at the start ? If that person remains in a poorly paid job they will not repay the money! The new system is actually better for people who end up in jobs that are not particularly well paid but still a reasonable wage, in the £15-21k bracket. Yet the students ignore that and make excuses that hold no water.

The new threshold for repayment is better, I agree. But a small change like that doesn't make up for quadrupling the tuition fee.

Well, it's a 'risk' you take, and what happens if you are wrong and you end up in a job paying £21k? You repay... nothing!

It's a risk that poor students won't think is worth taking. So it will exclude poor students. So the poor students will miss out on the opportunity to go to HE. That's exactly my point. Simple enough...

Staking shelves in a supermarket pays in excess of £21k? Where is this so I can advise people to apply for a job there? I know people who are well qualified to stack shelves who'd love that sort of wage and would appreciate it more than some of the moaners would.

That's why I edited it, because that doesn't work.

Ah, so the argument completely falls down and you admit it


A station ticket office clerk would probably earn £21k I'd have thought, in which case they are better off in the new system. Point proven I think.

No it doesn't, £21k is still a relatively low wage to be on if you're saddled with a £60k plus debt. As others have said, you'd have zero chance of getting a mortgage till you'd paid it off. I know there are plenty of people earning less than £21k, but very few of these have decided to take on a £60k debt, because they know they wouldn't be able to afford the repayments.

LM ticket office staff earn around £17k before tax.

 

[yorkie]

Why do we have two threads debating exactly the same thing?

Why do we have a post asking why we have two threads?

Anyway the answer is: this one was meant to be about buses being attacked (which is despicable) and unfortunately some people are defending the position of the students, this is disappointing.

Would the people who are defending the indefensible still have the same views if trains were being attacked? and what if rail lines were closed in order to maintain university subsidies? Or do they want this country to go bust? (Of course the anarchists want that as they don't like us to have a society)

However I applaud students like jimmyowl1992, who has posted some very sensible comments. His concerns and experiences are familiar to me from when I was a student.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

and what if rail lines were closed in order to maintain university subsidies? Or do they want this country to go bust? (Of course the anarchists want that as they don't like us to have a society)

If society is to get a social or economical benefit from the degree (e.g. qualifying as a doctor), should they subsidise the education?
Personally, I would be quite happy to pay the tax that currently is being spent on an illegal war to support potential doctors and the like through university, knowing that sometime I may need their services urgently.

 

[yorkie]

No it doesn't, £21k is still a relatively low wage to be on if you're saddled with a £60k plus debt.

Ludicrous. If you are "saddled with" (this is more evidence that the moaners are anti-working class people who don't earn a whopping big wage) a 'mere' £21k wage (oh, how awful), then you will never pay a penny of your debt. This concept seems too difficult for some students to grasp, despite being quite simple (again, more evidence that too many people are at Uni)

As others have said, you'd have zero chance of getting a mortgage till you'd paid it off.

Totally and utterly wrong. Where on earth do you get this idea from?!

If you want a mortgage based on a £21k wage, then there are going to be zero student loan repayments, so it will not affect your ability to repay the mortgage. The amount you earn each month is the same as someone who did not go to University, therefore the amount you can repay toward a mortgage each month is the same. If you stop working, then the loan isn't a hindrance as you only have to pay it while you are working and earning above £21k.

LM ticket office staff earn around £17k before tax.

So wouldn't be repaying a penny under the new system. This would be quite a major thing for them, despite being dismissed as minor by the moaners with a quite different agenda.

There are many millions of people earning less than £21k who would be quite offended at the moaners going on about how bad such wages are.

If society is to get a social or economical benefit from the degree (e.g. qualifying as a doctor), should they subsidise the education?
Personally, I would be quite happy to pay the tax that currently is being spent on an illegal war to support potential doctors and the like through university, knowing that sometime I may need their services urgently.

But we can't subsidise to the extent we are at present.

Do you want us to go bust or do you have other budgets where you'd take the money from?

And yes we shouldn't go starting any more wars, but you can't blame the current Government for Iraq/Afghanistan. It was Labour who made the decision to go to war in 2003.

 

[theblackwatch]

It's a harsh reality that most people are suffering in some form as a result of the current economic situation - pay freezes, reductions in hours, job cuts and changes to working conditions/pension schemes, etc. I think students have to face the fact that they are going to have to as well for the long term good of the economy.As for EMA, well some of us got through our entire education without it at all - how on earth did we manage!

Would they prefer all the libraries where they do their research to be closed, in order to fund their fees, or rail subsidies to be reduced thereby increasing their fare to get home? Or an increase in their parents taxes to fund universities? Or a cut in state pensions?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

But we can't subsidise to the extent we are at present.

Do you want us to go bust or do you have other budgets where you'd take the money from?

And yes we shouldn't go starting any more wars, but you can't blame the current Government for Iraq/Afghanistan. It was Labour who made the decision to go to war in 2003.

I would tax alcohol and tobacco heavily (not popular with students though), and ban these 'tax havens'. People who work in Britain should pay tax in Britain. This wouldn't bring in a great deal of money, but would certainly help.

 

[jd]

The point is, it's not so much the money as the effect it will have on social mobility - it seems wrong to consign a generation to staying in the class they were born into to fix a relatively short-term financial problem. It also kinda smacks of traditional Tory values of keeping the poor in their place.

It's also somewhat offensive that the Lib Dems went around targetting student seats with these promises, then not only failing to fulfil them, but actively going in the exact opposite direction. It's dishonest.

I think the money could be made up, at least to a degree, by getting rid of all these stupid university courses in things like fashion and retail and tourism. *They* are wastes of money. We do *need* doctors, lawyers, chemists, physicists, linguists, etc, but I don't think we really need people with degrees in retail science and tourism management - these are jobs you learn 'on the job' traditionally, and there's nothing wrong with doing it that way...

 

[theblackwatch]

I would tax alcohol and tobacco heavily (not popular with students though), and ban these 'tax havens'. People who work in Britain should pay tax in Britain. This wouldn't bring in a great deal of money, but would certainly help.

Judging by the amount I see some students drinking on a Saturday night, I suspect they may be better off paying the £9000 a year than paying your proposed increase in taxes!

 

[yorkie]

I don't think that the poor are "kept in the place" as someone who is poor can still go on to Uni and only has to repay the costs when they earn a wage that is large enough that they can afford to repay it. I really think that this is just a made-up issue dress up the whole thing in order to attempt to justify riots and protests.

The Lib Dems could have gone against it, but the Tories would have probably pushed it through anyway and under less favourable terms. Would you have preferred that? The terms are actually pretty favourable you have to say, and mean that millions of people who earn £15-21k don't have to repay (who do under the existing system!)

And we agree on the useless courses

 

[jd]

I don't think that the poor are "kept in the place" as someone who is poor can still go on to Uni and only has to repay the costs when they earn a wage that is large enough that they can afford to repay it. I really think that this is just a made-up issue dress up the whole thing in order to attempt to justify riots and protests.

The Lib Dems could have gone against it, but the Tories would have probably pushed it through anyway and under less favourable terms. Would you have preferred that? The terms are actually pretty favourable you have to say, and mean that millions of people who earn £15-21k don't have to repay (who do under the existing system!)

And we agree on the useless courses

The increase in the threshold is the one good thing to come out of it. I still don't agree that the increases won't put off poorer students - while everybody knows they don't have to pay it back if they don't earn at least £21k, the mere idea of such a debt is very uncomfortable for somebody who's been brought up in a household with low income - it goes against the instincts they've been brought up with.

Do you really think the entire student body and NUS leadership are all 'in on it' because everybody is secretly desparate for an excuse to smash some bus windows?

The Tories wouldn't be able to push it through on their own, they don't have a majority and (in this hypothetical scenario) they wouldn't gain the support of the Lib Dems or Labour.

 

[Deerfold]

The increase in the threshold is the one good thing to come out of it. I still don't agree that the increases won't put off poorer students - while everybody knows they don't have to pay it back if they don't earn at least £21k, the mere idea of such a debt is very uncomfortable for somebody who's been brought up in a household with low income - it goes against the instincts they've been brought up with.

Hear, hear. I was horrified to owe £2000 when I left Uni - I doubt I'd have gone if I'd thought of the amounts students now face owing - and stayed living at home on a low-paid job.

 

[jd]

Hear, hear. I was horrified to owe £2000 when I left Uni - I doubt I'd have gone if I'd thought of the amounts students now face owing - and stayed living at home on a low-paid job.

I'm owing £9000, and that's merely my tuition fees - I have deliberately stayed local and worked through some of my time at uni to minimise the debt I owe. I still think £9000 is a lot though, but it would be waaay more if I'd gone away from home and/or not worked.

 

[ainsworth74]

I think jd has hit the nail on the head. I agree that not starting to repay until you earn 21k is a good improvement but that's not the point, the point is the scale of the debt that will be owed. I'm going to be owing all in around 23k I'm not happy about having that scale of debt as it is. If that was going to be even more than that then I would seriously have considered not coming to uni.

 

[yorkie]

Do you really think the entire student body and NUS leadership are all 'in on it' because everybody is secretly desparate for an excuse to smash some bus windows?

No, but they know that more violence and damage will happen if they arrange a third. So if they do, then they have to accept some responsibility.

Hear, hear. I was horrified to owe £2000 when I left Uni - I doubt I'd have gone if I'd thought of the amounts students now face owing - and stayed living at home on a low-paid job.

If some people accept low-paid jobs, is there a risk that these people may fill the jobs that at present we struggle to fill? The sort of jobs that only people from overseas are prepared to do? If so, is that really such an awful thing to happen?

I'm owing £9000, and that's merely my tuition fees - I have deliberately stayed local and worked through some of my time at uni to minimise the debt I owe. I still think £9000 is a lot though, but it would be waaay more if I'd gone away from home and/or not worked.

Is there a risk that other students who can't be bothered to work hard like you did, feel they may have to? They won't like that

I think jd has hit the nail on the head. I agree that not starting to repay until you earn 21k is a good improvement but that's not the point, the point is the scale of the debt that will be owed. I'm going to be owing all in around 23k I'm not happy about having that scale of debt as it is. If that was going to be even more than that then I would seriously have considered not coming to uni.

How much do you reckon you would earn if you didn't go to uni compared to having gone to uni? The chances are, you will still be better off for having gone to Uni. Also if you end up in a job that pays £15-21k then under the new system if you would not have to pay a penny, yet under the old system you would. So if people feel that they may end up in this bracket, the new system is a bonus.

 

[jd]

Is there a risk that other students who can't be bothered to work hard like you did, feel they may have to? They won't like that

The point is, students SHOULDN'T work while at uni - they should study. My department advises against ANY work during term time, because students need the time to study.

Also, I am fortunate in that I had the option to stay local. Some people don't have a decent uni within commuting distance, and they will either end up getting into huge debt (which as we've previously discussed they may well be instinctively opposed to) or settling for a poor quality university when they have the ability to get into a top uni.

 

[Oswyntail]

The increase in the threshold is the one good thing to come out of it. I still don't agree that the increases won't put off poorer students - while everybody knows they don't have to pay it back if they don't earn at least £21k, the mere idea of such a debt is very uncomfortable for somebody who's been brought up in a household with low income - it goes against the instincts they've been brought up with.....

I do wish people would stop trying to make this a "class" issue. Everyone feels uneasy at how to deal with a large debt. Do you really think that families with more than "low income" do not have instincts to save? Anyway, what has income to do with class. Absolutely nothing - class is to do with attitudes to a vast number of social factors. So please cut out the "Class Warrior" propaganda.

 

[yorkie]

The point is, students SHOULDN'T work while at uni - they should study. My department advises against ANY work during term time, because students need the time to study.

Yet have plenty of time to go boozing, in many cases. Hmm..!

I think that some work while at Uni is good for students, obviously not too much, but a little bit is fine.

Look at the Admins of this forum for example - they all work/worked while at Uni and have the time to run this forum, which is most commendable. OK, so they lead very busy lives, but it can be done. Yet some students (the ones who are holding the placards with f*** this and f*** that) who are the ones who shout the loudest and go rioting are the ones most likely to refuse to do work, they think they are 'above' the positions that are going spare which have to be filled by immigrants. The reality is, they blinking well aren't.

Also if someone does no work at all until they finish their degree, they will most likely not slot into a decent job and do well at it, as they will be woefully unprepared.

 

[jd]

Yet have plenty of time to go boozing, in many cases. Hmm..!

I can honestly tell you I've been out twice during this term so far - that's like 8 or 9 weeks now. I hardly think two nights out, maybe 12 hours of my time, over the course of 8 or 9 weeks, is that big a deal.

 

[yorkie]

I can honestly tell you I've been out twice during this term so far - that's like 8 or 9 weeks now. I hardly think two nights out, maybe 12 hours of my time, over the course of 8 or 9 weeks, is that big a deal.

I certainly wasn't commenting on you!! Apologies for any confusion!

I was continuing your sentence "students need the time to study." and yes I know that my continuation does not apply to all students, obviously! (and, as I said before, I was one!) but I think it does apply to many of them. How many I do not know, but you see loads of them drinking on a regular basis. If there is any chance they feel they can't afford to continue to do that, they may well riot, sadly.

Hope that clarifies!

 

[Oswyntail]

I currently have two daughters at University, and they both paint the same picture: there is a firm core of students (say about a third) who are there primarily to study, who get on with the work and meet deadlines; another third who have gone to university because it was expected that they would, and feel that the social life is perhaps slightly more important than the work, so their work is slipping; the final third who went to avoid having to get a job and feel that "Uni" is for three years of drunkenness. This applies to all the subjects, hard or soft.

 

[Wolfie]

I think, to be fair to the LibDems (and the Conservatives) the financial situation they found themselves in when they took over was much, much worse than they had been led to believe in pre-election briefings (assuming the situation at Health was typical). Though I do not agree with tuition fees themselves, or the extent of the rise, I also believe not enough is being made of the changes to repayment terms. Basically, the tuition fee debt is going to prevent anyone from getting a mortgage until it is paid off (unless the lenders go doolally again), but that problem was created by the idea of student loans, rather than the rise.

No sympathy with vandals (though as many have said most of the damage was not done by genuine students) - unfortunately working in Whitehall I had a ringside view.....

BUT why are these excessive new fees only affecting ENGLISH students? Meanwhile English taxes will continue to fund better treatment for Scottish, Wwlsh, Northern Irish and, even better, non-Brit EU students in those countries also! I had the delight of listening to a Scottish Lib Dem politician (Malcolm Bruce) defend this yesterday!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Or, to rephrase it a little more realistically:

The vandals students are unhappy because, if they get a job that pays more than £21,000 per year, they'll have to pay a small amount of money each month to repay the cost of their education. the government want to increase tuition fees to a level that would significantly affect the liklihood of students from poorer backgrounds to go to university - indeed the descendants of the sort of people you refer to travelling on the bus in question. However these vandals fail to realise Meanwhile, a separate group of nutters hellbent on causing trouble don't give a damn that many people who use the buses they have attacked get paid less than £21,000 per year (in some cases considerably less than that) and would absolutely love to swap positions with someone who earns £22,000 per year who is very unhappy at having to pay £20 a month toward their fee costs.

There is indeed an argument for saying that people who get good jobs after uni should pay something back, and arguably they do through higher taxation on higher earners in this society. The issue at hand here is, in my opinion, more one of social mobility, than it is purely of the funding of HE.

JD

Spot on.

30-odd years ago I was the first member of my family to go to university. Faced with debts of £27k+ on graduation would I have gone - hell, no!

Multi-millionaires like Cammers and Cleggers (neither of who were charged any tuition fees for their own Oxbridge eductaion) have no problems finding the funds to pay for their children's fees themselves!

 

[Greenback]

30-odd years ago I was the first member of my family to go to university. Faced with debts of £27k+ on graduation would I have gone - hell, no!

Multi-millionaires like Cammers and Cleggers (neither of who were charged any tuition fees for their own Oxbridge eductaion) have no problems finding the funds to pay for their children's fees themselves!

I was in exactly the same position and if I was faced with being £000's of pounds in debt I doubt I would be considering going to Uni today.

This is exactly what I mean when I say I have concerns that some of the brightest minds may end up not going on into higher education. Too many peopel are going now, but if places are to be restricted it should be done on an academic basis rather than abiltiy to pay or willingness to build up large levels of debt.

Don;t forget, upon graduation, these students will also be expected to start a pension fund, buy or rent a home, or even go on to do further postgraduate studies.