Simple answer John7420, HE'S LYING, and using ignorance as an excuse.

He's acted like a first class Berk, and now he's pooing his pants because he's been found out.

It's what the guilty always do.

I hope daddu writes him out of his Pink Floyd legacy, will

I have no issue with people protesting. We're fortunate that we live in a society where such things are allowed. However some of the vandalism and violence was outrageous; possibly the most overused word in our language but appropriate on this occasion. I have no doubt that the violence was perpretrated by a minority and that, moreover, a significant proportion of that minority weren't students. Whoever and whatever it was, it didn't work, the bill was passed.



Irrespective of whether people believe we all have a right to a free education the simple fact is that we cannot afford the system as it currently stands. So we either find another way to pay for it it or reduce the burden. I suspect both will be necessary. That doesn't mean scrapping anything which isn't a traditional subject but at the same time, it does mean removing some courses which offer very little value to anyone; before during or after their completion.



I went to University between 1997 and 2000. That meant that I didn't have to pay tuition fees. I took a year out to save for University and worked in my holidays. I left with around £4,500 in student loan debt and about £300 on credit cards. After I finished University, I took out a career development loan of about £7,000. Of a debt of around £12,000 I have paid every penny back (with interest, naturally). My job (a profession in the tradtional sense of the word) is relatively well paid and I pay a decent whack in taxes as a result. I'm hoping to pay a lot more in taxes over the next few years, if you receive my meaning. I think that is a good example of the system working.



Had I had to pay tuition fees of £9k per annum, it may well have put me off going to University*. I think we need to be very careful to strike the right balance.



*I would have become a space cowboy in those circumstances.

Again, more holes than a sieve



Apparently, I've made a mistake that, "just cause you know something the world must". Yes, I may have more qualifications than some people, I may be able to answer more questions in a pub quiz than other people, I may have a bit more common sense than others, but come on, don't give me this innocent ignorance guff. It's the Cenotaph for God's sake. HE KNEW.



You say you watched the news all night and didn't hear of any Police injuries. Well, I saw 3 bulletins (from different news media) and saw and heard of Police injuries on each occasion. You must have nipped out to put the kettle (no pun intended) on.



And yes, as you pointed out, I DO call them rioters, because that's what they were, RIOTERS. It doesn't matter wether there was 4 (a small number as you put it), or 4444, they were still rioters.



And then, your final load of "codswallop" It all began with the tactics of the police. They put them into a confined area and then used undue force. WRONG .

It actually began with the thuggish behaviour of the rioters, which the Police then had todeal with.

IF THE RIOTERS HADN'T STARTED IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE POLICE WOULDN'T HAVE HAD TO DEAL WITH IT.

I hope that helps.



I suggest you resign from your 6th form debating society, and get some work done.

Don't defend these idiots

The customer (student) will decide what offers value. If an academic (or two) has expertise in Rugby League and if 20 students a year want to read Rugby League Studies, then a University could well run that course. Students will drive the market - or so the ideology goes; I actually doubt there will be that much change.

Here's a view of the riots taken from a London newspaper that I read today during my visit to the desolate wasteland left by the rioters that is London: www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ ... pective.do

Here's a view of the riots taken from a London newspaper that I read today during my visit to the desolate wasteland left by the rioters that is London: www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ ... pective.do

On the day after the riot a Watord football fan on seeing the graffiti on Churchills Statue decided to jump on his bicycle and peddle from Watford to London armed with a scrubbing brush and detergent, he made it to the capital and got down on his hands and knees and started scrubbing...............the rioters could learn a thing or two from that lad.



Well done lad.

Quote Paul Youane="Paul Youane"Here's a view of the riots taken from a London newspaper that I read today during my visit to the desolate wasteland left by the rioters that is London: www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ ... pective.do'" bit concerned about the bit where he suggests if you want to avoid trouble go to Hull......... maybe his research isnt what it should be...?

Quote Paul Youane="Paul Youane"Here's a view of the riots taken from a London newspaper that I read today during my visit to the desolate wasteland left by the rioters that is London: www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ ... pective.do'" bit concerned about the bit where he suggests if you want to avoid trouble go to Hull......... maybe his research isnt what it should be...?

Hull is lovely!

a little bit of perspective i think



[urlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11998632[/url

quite right the greeks are £84 billion pounds in the $hit....



makes the students rioting over a £9 grand pitance look all the more disgraceful....





































.

.

.that wasnt what you meant was it....

84 billion/

11,283,293



= 7 636.36364



compared with 9*3 = 27,000



seems like a bargain to me.



27000/7636



it is 3.53588266 times smaller.



imagine if the student protests were 3.53588266 times more violent. God you got off lightly didn't you.

I'm not sure if this link will work or if its one of the ones behind the FT firewall: blogs.ft.com/economistsforum/201 ... education/ basically it points out that the policy is really driven by accounting more than economics if you have a system where the government pays up front, and the money is repaid later by the student out of the taxation system, then the PSBR (Public Sector Borrowing Requirement) - which is the 'deficit' increases by the value of the fee now. Then when the student makes repayments later, the extra taxation revenue, counts in the taxation accounts (and so reducing PSBR) later, when they pay. But that is an income stream for a future government. If you have a system where the government pays up front, but the tuition fee (plus future interest) is directly linked to the student to be repaid later, then this obligation of the student allows them to mark this off as a zero sum on the accounts, even though the repayment may not come until years later. So the PSBR does not increase this year. As the government's target is to reduce the deficit then any accounting technique like this is a useful way of departments to meet their targets. What they are doing is reducing the public subsidy to universities and then saying to universities that they can raise tuition fees to fill the gap. In the short term the money will still go from government, to universities. But now in accounting terms they have an asset (the student's repayment liability) which balances the liability (the money going to university) so it means that the governments subsidy to university counts as a value of 0, rather than as a direct subsidy which increased the value of the PSBR.

I'm not sure if this link will work or if its one of the ones behind the FT firewall: blogs.ft.com/economistsforum/201 ... education/ basically it points out that the policy is really driven by accounting more than economics if you have a system where the government pays up front, and the money is repaid later by the student out of the taxation system, then the PSBR (Public Sector Borrowing Requirement) - which is the 'deficit' increases by the value of the fee now. Then when the student makes repayments later, the extra taxation revenue, counts in the taxation accounts (and so reducing PSBR) later, when they pay. But that is an income stream for a future government. If you have a system where the government pays up front, but the tuition fee (plus future interest) is directly linked to the student to be repaid later, then this obligation of the student allows them to mark this off as a zero sum on the accounts, even though the repayment may not come until years later. So the PSBR does not increase this year. As the government's target is to reduce the deficit then any accounting technique like this is a useful way of departments to meet their targets. What they are doing is reducing the public subsidy to universities and then saying to universities that they can raise tuition fees to fill the gap. In the short term the money will still go from government, to universities. But now in accounting terms they have an asset (the student's repayment liability) which balances the liability (the money going to university) so it means that the governments subsidy to university counts as a value of 0, rather than as a direct subsidy which increased the value of the PSBR.