Really are we this bewildered by what is right and what is wrong.
Cant believe this news, well I can but, I just didn't think "they" would be so
bloody thick with arrogance to presume this will not cause even more revolt.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new ... -to-prevent-disorder.html

Maybe this story is a test of public reaction, I really dont know.

Quote :

Asked at the press conference if the Met would consider banning future marches, Sir Paul replied: “That’s one of the options we have got. Banning is a very difficult step to take, these are very balanced judgments.
“We can’t ban a demonstration but we can ban a march, subject to approval by the Home Secretary.”
But he went on: “When you have got people willing to break the law in this way, what is the likelihood of them obeying an order not to march or complying with conditions on a demonstration?
“Sometimes putting that power in could just be inflaming the situation further.”

To me it sounds as though he just answered a question, he offered the options and then went on to point out that it would be futile and only make matters worse.

I doubt it will happen tbh. The protesters have a right to protest so the law cant stop groups of people gathering on mass to do so. Yes a few are vandalising the place, so risk being arrested. but as long as you stay on the right side of the law there is nothing they can do, right?

Banning protests/marches simply wouldn't work. Everyone would ignore it and the police would have even more work to do than they would of had to do if they let protesters hold marches and protests.

?When you have got people willing to break the law in this way, what is the likelihood of them obeying an order not to march or complying with conditions on a demonstration?"

Also, with their budget being cut to an extreme extent. "planned cuts to the Metropolitan Police budget ? which will see it lose £330 million over the next four years".
It's not the protesters they should be clamping down on it's whoever is approving of these budget cuts. Without sufficient funds the police force is, as he said, getting strained beyond their capabilities. So in a way the goverment are screwing over our police force.

Quote from 91mason91 :

It's not the protesters they should be clamping down on it's whoever is approving of these budget cuts. Without sufficient funds the police force is, as he said, getting strained beyond their capabilities. So in a way the goverment are screwing over our police force.

With UK debt around £4.1 trillion what do you suppose they do? There is not just no money to 'spend', it wasn't even there in the first place.

Quote from Intrepid :

With UK debt around £4.1 trillion what do you suppose they do? There is not just no money to 'spend', it wasn't even there in the first place.

Agreed. With 40% of the workforce in the public sector, and around 25%-75% of them being got rid of (exact amount depending upon department) it's quite likely we could end up in another recession before we're even out of the last depression.

Things are not good, so a bunch of students saying that their hand outs aren't big enough is not something that gets any sympathy from me at all.

The problem is more the potential for a 300% increase in fees, essentially the debt is not being reduced, just shifted onto people who had no part in creating it in the first place, and it wont dissapear just because you don't have to pay it back below £20,000 income. If anything, the handouts will only get bigger.

The solution should include a smaller increase of up to 50-75%, but if a government wants to start cutting its spending on education it should begin by demanding raised required grades, at least that way potential students are sorted by their intelligence rather than by the depth of their family pockets or what the government can afford to give them. No one can deny that government spending on education needs to be decreased, but it could be done in a fairer and less excessive way, but thats the conservatives for you.

As for banning marches, its pretty much impossible to hold a march as it is because theres always a bunch of idiots in every movement that can't be trusted not to ruin it for everyone else and police tactics are uneccessarily heavy handed and humiliating on the wrong people.

I wish they would ban these friggin protests, they do NOTHING, they cost the country millions and are just an excuse for the great unwashed to cause agro.

Think I might move to Russia or China........

I wish students would see that by increasing fees it means that less people will go to uni which puts the value of degrees up and enables the ones who really wanted the degree in the first place (not the unsure of what to do so I'll just go to uni for a bit to put off getting a real job and getting pissed 4 nights a week people) to get the high paid job they wanted at the end and then easily pay back the increased fee costs.

At the moment we have far too many people with pointless degrees all fighting for the same jobs. Lots of my friends have degrees but can't get the job they want so are in massive debt and working at places like mcdonalds.

Work based apprenticeships are the way forward. Get paid while you learn, good chance of a secure position and get a skill & job at the end rather than a piece of paper that half of the country has aswell.

Trouble is you can't blanket apply that view to every degree course available. Some degrees are already very valuable, while others (psycology) are pretty saturated. Wealth dosen't necessarily = intelligence though and thats where the problem lies. The system about to be introduced is one where wealth will have too much of an influence on who gets to take education further, those less fortunate will be deterred by the huge debts placed upon them. Surely a better way of cutting down on saturation of degree courses would be to raise required grades, at least then the smaller number of students will be a fairer representation of the population.

I disagree, remember with the increased fees it still means your going to get the money whether your rich or poor it just means your going to have to pay more back. This means the 'Risk' is higher and will put some people off but those that really are determined to make a go of it and work hard will have more of a chance to get the job they want at the end and be able to pay the debt off. Lets also remember there are a lot of students that agree with the new policy that arn't in the spotlight because they arn't parading around London half pissed with crap signs.

Found on another forum...

Quote :

MYTH 1
I don’t have £9000 so now I can’t go to uni

Fact
No one going to uni will have to pay anything up front with the new plans. You’ll only have to pay money back after you graduate - and then only if you earn over £21,000 a year.


MYTH 2
I won’t be able to repay the debt

Fact
You don’t have to pay anything back until you start to make over £21,000 a year – and even then, the monthly payments will be linked to how much you’re earning to ensure they’re affordable. If you lose your job, or your earnings drop below £21,000, you won’t have to make any repayments until you start earning over £21,000 again.

Your monthly repayments will also be less under the new plans.


MYTH 3
I’d be better off under the old system

Fact
Under the old system, you started paying back money as soon as you earned over £15,000 a year – but with the new plans, you won’t pay anything at all unless you earn more than £21,000. In addition, everyone will have to pay back less a month, with most graduates being £45 better off a month, £540 better off a year.


MYTH 4
I’ll be paying off the debt forever

Fact
Any outstanding debt will be written off after thirty years, regardless of how much you’ve paid back by that point. The new system is designed so that graduates on lower wages will have at least some of their debt written off, with the poorest quarter actually paying back less in total than they do currently.


MYTH 5
Tuition fees aren’t fair

Fact
Graduates earn, on average, at least £100,000 more over their lifetimes than non-graduates, so it’s fair that you contribute towards your education.


MYTH 6
The poor won’t be able to go to uni

Fact
With no upfront fees, no-one should be put off going to university on financial grounds. The new system will also give more assistance to poorer students:
Maintenance grants will be increased from £2,906 to £3,250
Universities charging more than £6,000 will have to prove they are taking more students from disadvantaged backgrounds.
£150 million will be invested in a National Scholarships Programme to get students from disadvantaged backgrounds into top universities


MYTH 7
Parents will have to foot the bill

Fact
Parents will not pay any of their children’s tuition fees. The new plans mean that only the student pays for their tuition, and only once they have graduated and are earning enough to be able to afford it.


MYTH 8
Teaching will get worse

Fact
The new plans will enable universities to spend more resources on teaching - not less. The Government will continue to pay 40% of the cost of higher education – and the changes will benefit universities by putting them on a more financially sustainable footing and making them more responsive to the needs of students.


MYTH 9
Universities will suffer

Fact
The old system of university finance is unsustainable, which is why the Browne review was established in the first place. The new plans will give universities a sustainable funding stream and higher levels of income in some circumstances. They’ll also put in place a mechanism that rewards universities that respond to the needs of students, for example by encouraging teaching.


MYTH 10
Labour’s graduate tax would be fairer

Fact
A graduate tax would mean poorer graduates paying more and richer graduates paying less - which is neither fair nor progressive. With the Coalition plans, you don’t pay anything until you start earning over £21,000; but under a graduate tax, you would start paying when you earn just £6,475 – so even those earning minimum wage would have to pay. At the other end of the scale, a graduate making say £60,000 a year would pay £3,500 with our plans, compared to just £1,000 with a graduate tax of 2 per cent.

I don't see what they are moaning about

Don't you think there may be quite a few who would be prepared to work hard but will be put off by the financial risk anyway? At least by raising entry requirements you're taking in those who have already proven themselves to be hard working, while at the same time reducing the cost of education for the government/taxpayer. Some potential students are going to have to lose out, but at least under that kind of plan they would lose out because they failed to take the intiative and get the grades.

Must admit it did make me laugh to see friends waving 'Socialist worker' banners; friends who were neither socialists or workers.

Although from what I've seen here, those students who are in favour of the current plans tend to be the ones who have everything covered by mummy and daddy and have never hard to worry about financial strain in their life.

Bean0's post explains exactly the points I'm trying to make. If students stopped jumping on the bandwagon of moaning and actually looked at the new policy then they would realise it's better for nearly all of them and the Country. But England wouldn't be England without people moaning about change for the better.

I still don't think it has anything to do with if your parents are rich or not. Remember students have to pay nothing until they earn over 21k a year. It just does my head in to have gone to different friends uni's around the Country to see most of them slack it off spending every penny they have on getting pissed, going into uni for 2 hours a week and doing hardly any course work. Friends or not I wish those places had been for people who wanted to actually work hard and get the degree and job at the end. It seems like everyone leaves school, goes to college then HAS to go to uni because it's just what everyone does for a laugh. I remember after college I was sat down and asked "if i was ok?" because I was the only one in my class that had chosen to not go to uni.

Why people don't want real skills anymore is beyond me. It seems like everyone has a physcology or photography degree that they can't use and are in massive debt yet I can't get a plumber or joiner to come to my house to do work for anything. I would pay through my front teeth for one to come quickly and do a good job but it seems by learning a trade like this means the individual will miss out on uni and the whole social side so meaningless in debt physcology degree it is for them!

Quote from Alric :

Bean0's post explains exactly the points I'm trying to make. If students stopped jumping on the bandwagon of moaning and actually looked at the new policy then they would realise it's better for nearly all of them and the Country. But England wouldn't be England without people moaning about change for the better.

Oh theres been plenty of jumping on a bandwagon for sure, theres those that just can't accept that the current system can't be kept up forever and those who aren't happy about the fact they won't be able to afford so much cheap cider and pizza anymore.

But personally I've looked at the plans and I don't see anything better about being saddled with even more debt. The changes move the higher education system in the right direction (helping the reduce the government defecit and reducing the inflation of some degree courses), but they go about it in the wrong way.

Also, it'd help if certain figures and organisations outside education actually paid the tax they owe, that would help balance the governments income vs spending. I'm sure theres plenty of money to be saved and found outside of education.

EDIT: Just because you may not have to pay the debt off dosen't mean it just magically goes away, the government could choose to just ignore their debt but theyre not for the same reasons why students can't ignore the debt they're going to end up with. Debt makes you a financial pariah.

I see something better, how about not cutting the teaching budget by 80% and increasing the tax on alcohol by 80% instead? Just an idea.

But lets look at the outcome if a student had gone to uni and got the degree at the end with both policies.

Old policy - They have smaller debt but less chance of getting a job due to saturation.

New policy - They have a larger debt but more chance of getting a job due to degree value going up.


I know I'd rather have the better odds of getting the job I spent the last 3 or 4 years building up for and then have to pay back a bit more than be sat fed up, not being able to get the job because somebody else out of the 700 applicants with the same degree got it instead of me.

"Earning more and owing more is better than owing less and earning nothing!"

I also agree with you that standards should be higher for people to even be accepted into uni but this new policy is a good way of getting rid of goverment spending and getting rid of people who arn't that serious at the same time.

Quote from Alric :

New policy - They have a larger debt but more chance of getting a job due to degree value going up.

Come again? How so?

"Oh. You paid 9K to learn this stuff. You absolutely must know it and be good at it then."

Thats plain stupid. And if that is the case, then it would explain for all the idiots working jobs they have little to no interest in, nor the skills required.

Here was me thinking money wont buy you a job... "Come on sweetie. Learn. You will need this in life". 10 years down the road I turn up to my new job and find my classmate who has been dicking around all the time also working there. Joy oh joy. Anyway, off topic now...

Quote from DevilDare :

Come again? How so?

"Oh. You paid 9K to learn this stuff. You absolutely must know it and be good at it then."

Thats plain stupid.

And if that is the case, then it would explain for all the idiots working jobs they have little to no interest in, nor the skills required.

It's simple maths....(nothing about knowing your degree)

Imagine if there's 400 people all with the same degree all going for the same job. Now imagine if theres 200 people all with the same degree going for the same job. They will have twice the odds of getting the job.

Well, more fool them for chosing a saturated degree and then not working hard enough to stand out amongst all the other graduates.

At least in that case they have more control over their own progress, if they lose out its their fault.

In a system where increased entry grades and smaller cuts and fee increases were introduced, hard working but less fortunate students would still have a chance while the cost of education on the government would drop and the value of currently overpopulated degrees would rise. In short, everyone would gain something, apart from the lazy of course.

In a system where spending cuts and fee rises take centre stage, some very intelligent but financially restricted people will lose out while some wealthy but not academically minded people will get places they don't deserve.

Again, the issue is education and students being the easy target for cuts, it doesn't make sense to cut education funding but the government knew they could get away with it. They should have increased the tax on harmful things that also cost the tax payer millions, such as alcohol. They only did this because they know that as a country we don't like students.

By the way my sister left Bath University with a Masters Degree in Molecular Biology, her first job after university was in McDonalds as a supervisor, eventually she got a research job with a £22,000 salary, but not doing anything meaningful. Now she is in the American education system doing a PHD in Cancer Research, being payed for by the university on a scholarship, something we don't really do here.

The reason a lot of people don't like students is probably the reasons like this: Most of my friends are students or have been and finished uni who have also come from totally different backgrounds (rich and poor). Yet none of them have made anything out of their degree and are all worse off for going to uni financially. However all of them said they love it or would go back tomorrow just for the getting pissed and pulling girls. I love them to bits but surely from a government point of view it's not right that a good 10-15 of my college friends have gone to uni for the sole reason of getting a big 'free' student loan and getting wasted wayyyyy! So this new policy in my eyes is a great start.

A lot of people don't like students because of ignorance and ill informed stereotypes. Its just another case of the general public being too stupid to realise that just because some students who don't deserve a place make the newspapers, dosen't necessarily mean that the same image can be applied to all students.

Quote from 5haz :

A lot of people don't like students because of ignorance and ill informed stereotypes.

Bingo.

Media is mostly to blame for. Like for everything these days.

Quote from 5haz :

A lot of people don't like students because of ignorance and ill informed stereotypes.

I'm sure theres many reasons but for me and my student friends it just annoys me that they only wanted to go to uni to get pissed and so basically be a burden on the average tax payer.