Rioting students

[Oswyntail]

The article should have been dated 1998, as that's when tuiton fees came into force. ....

Yes, the "reforms" of education at that time are at the root of this. Blair:-

1. Flooded the market with degrees, all ostensibly to the same level of qualification, thus rendering it almost impossible to distinguish capable graduates from others. This inevitably resulted in virtually every "Blue collar" and "White collar" job "requiring" a degree, effectively making "a degree" the entry level qualification.
2. Increased the overall costs of the sector by "upgrading" polytechnics to universities and encouraging them to compete in the same fields both of provision and research. As usual, New Labour ducked the issue of asking what the country needed, and ruined a system that would have worked with a little tweaking.
3. Invented the argument that "everyone has a right to a university education", rather than "everyone has a right to the level and type of education for which they are suited". Without wishing to sound too patronising, the rash of TV adverts at the time selling the university life as being three parts parties and one part work told their own stories (A bit like selling the Army by emphasising ski training!)
4. And capped it all by saying the point of a degree is to get a better paid job (it isn't, it is to study your chosen subject at degree level). Of course, he had to stress this, so that he could claim that his pet project of tuition fees was really affordable.

Remember, it was New Labour who created this mess - and their successors have the cheek to oppose it as immoral.

 

[scotsman]

I think you'll find my article makes no referrence to the past because the issue is with the present!

 

[4SRKT]

Yes, the "reforms" of education at that time are at the root of this. Blair:-

1. Flooded the market with degrees, all ostensibly to the same level of qualification, thus rendering it almost impossible to distinguish capable graduates from others. This inevitably resulted in virtually every "Blue collar" and "White collar" job "requiring" a degree, effectively making "a degree" the entry level qualification.
2. Increased the overall costs of the sector by "upgrading" polytechnics to universities and encouraging them to compete in the same fields both of provision and research. As usual, New Labour ducked the issue of asking what the country needed, and ruined a system that would have worked with a little tweaking.
3. Invented the argument that "everyone has a right to a university education", rather than "everyone has a right to the level and type of education for which they are suited". Without wishing to sound too patronising, the rash of TV adverts at the time selling the university life as being three parts parties and one part work told their own stories (A bit like selling the Army by emphasising ski training!)
4. And capped it all by saying the point of a degree is to get a better paid job (it isn't, it is to study your chosen subject at degree level). Of course, he had to stress this, so that he could claim that his pet project of tuition fees was really affordable.

Remember, it was New Labour who created this mess - and their successors have the cheek to oppose it as immoral.

Well done. Needed saying. After years of Tory misrule New Labour came in and wrecked many of the few things that the Tories has left well alone. At least under the hated Tories I was able to go to University not just with no fees, but with a full grant as well And this is hardly ancient history: I'm not quite 40. It's amazing how quickly something can be ruined not just beyond recognition, but beyond any hope of return

 

[imagination]

Votes of lib dem MPs if you are interested:

Danny Alexander, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey - AYE
Norman Baker, Lewes - AYE
Alan Beith, Berwick-upon-Tweed - AYE
Gordon Birtwistle, Burnley – AYE
Tom Brake, Carshalton and Wallington - AYE
Annette Brooke, Mid Dorset and North Poole - NO
Jeremy Browne, Taunton - AYE
Malcolm Bruce, Gordon - AYE
Paul Burstow, Sutton and Cheam - AYE
Vincent Cable, Twickenham - AYE
Menzies Campbell, North East Fife - NO
Alistair Carmichael, Orkney and Shetland - AYE
Nick Clegg, Sheffield Hallam - AYE
Michael Crockart, Edinburgh West – NO
Edward Davey, Kingston and Surbiton - AYE
Tim Farron, Westmorland and Lonsdale - NO
Lynne Featherstone, Hornsey and Wood Green - AYE
Don Foster, Bath - AYE
Andrew George, St Ives - NO
Stephen Gilbert, St Austell & Newquay – AYE
Duncan Hames, Chippenham – AYE
Mike Hancock, Portsmouth South - AYE
Nick Harvey, North Devon - AYE
David Heath, Somerton and Frome - AYE
John Hemming, Birmingham Yardley - AYE
Mark Hunter, Cheadle - TELLAYE
Julian Huppert, Cambridge – NO
Charles Kennedy, Ross, Skye and Lochaber - NO
Norman Lamb, North Norfolk - AYE
David Laws, Yeovil - AYE
John Leech, Manchester Withington - NO
Stephen Lloyd, Eastbourne – NO
Michael Moore, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale - AYE
Greg Mulholland, Leeds North West - NO
John Pugh, Southport - NO
Alan Reid, Argyll and Bute - NO
Dan Rogerson, North Cornwall - NO
Bob Russell, Colchester - NO
Adrian Sanders, Torbay - NO
Andrew Stunell, Hazel Grove - AYE
Ian Swales, Redcar – NO
Jo Swinson, East Dunbartonshire - AYE
Sarah Teather, Brent Central - AYE
David Ward, Bradford East – AYE
Steve Webb, Thornbury & Yate - AYE
Simon Wright, Norwich South – NO
Mark Williams, Ceredigion - NO
Roger Williams, Brecon and Radnorshire - NO
Jenny Willott, Cardiff Central - NO

That's 29 Ayes (including 1 tell) and 20 Nos

The following did not vote for whatever reason:
Lorely Burt, Solihull
Martin Horwood, Cheltenham
Simon Hughes, North Southwark and Bermondsey
Chris Huhne, Eastleigh (at the climate talks in Cancun)
Tessa Munt, Wells
Robert Smith, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine
John Thurso, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross
Stephen Williams, Bristol West

 

[4SRKT]

Gosh, that's 28 turds I have to send in the post to the House of Commons

<starts eating many bowls of All Bran>

 

[ainsworth74]

Glad to see my MP voted NO, he hasn't managed to lose my vote next time round yet.

 

[4SRKT]

I'd imagine my MP voted yes, but then he is a Tory.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I don't usually comment on politics on this forum, and probably won't do so much in the future, but (and I'm keeping a strong railway perspective on this) there were at least 3 of the above listed MPs, plus a Minister not mentioned, on 'my' train home tonight and I enjoyed a little conversation, as one does, on the way. Particularly with one of the "NO"s.

Gosh, that's 28 turds I have to send in the post to the House of Commons

My reponse to this post is: Well okay, you may do whatever nasty thing you wish when you wish, but, don't you think that those you support, and who are in the minority within a party which is itself a minority, need alll the help and support they can get?

Isn't practical support for those you agree with more useful than insults to those you don't agree with?

 

[yorkie]

Not content with smashing up bus stops and attacking buses in previous attacks, these yobs have now resorted to:

• Setting the Christmas tree in Trafalgar Square alight
• Smashing windows at shops in Oxford Street
• Vandalising statues in Parliament Square, including that of Winston Churchill

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ed-thousands-students-descend-Parliament.html

Some of these rich students have been unmasked, and their parents luxurious houses revealed:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...vantaged-Pull--The-rich-rioting-students.html

The people who condone the actions of the rioting students should hang their heads in shame. Shame on you!

No respect. Does it surprise me? I'd like to say yes it does. But sadly I'm not so sure any more

There are also reports that the scumbags have put graffiti on the cenotaph. Can anyone confirm this? No low is too low for them to stoop to.

They have zero credibility. None whatsoever. And neither does anyone who condones or supports or sympathises with their actions.

 

[4SRKT]

Jesus yorkie, you've really gone to town on this. What's the beef? You're a pretty liberal and reasonable guy most of the time, but you've gone a bit rogue elephant with your obsession on this subject. Linking to the Daily Mail? FFS!

My reponse to this post is: Well okay, you may do whatever nasty thing you wish when you wish, but, don't you think that those you support, and who are in the minority within a party which is itself a minority, need alll the help and support they can get?

Isn't practical support for those you agree with more useful than insults to those you don't agree with?

Yes, well, I'm not really going to put turds in the post......... :roll:

 

[yorkie]

Jesus yorkie, you've really gone to town on this. What's the beef? You're a pretty liberal and reasonable guy most of the time, but you've gone a bit rogue elephant with your obsession on this subject. Linking to the Daily Mail? FFS!

You have to admit they have good photographers.

It's not that I go looking on the DM for stories, but they have the best photos I could find.

I hardly think that it is anti-liberal and anti-reasonable to be outraged on these disgusting violent protests. Being pro-liberal does not mean being pro-anarchy or pro-violence at all.

Any comments on the antics depicted in the photographs?

 

[Greenback]

Yes! I find them irrititaing juvenile and guaranteed to achieve maximum publicity, which was probably their aim anyway.

I agree that being liberal, or pro liberal does not mean that someone is pro violence and an anarchist. However, I maintain that the majority of these people are not students as we might normalyl think of them. They are spooiled little rich kids who see it all as a game, a way to cock a snook at Mummy and Daddy if you like. There ar ealso 'professional' trouble makers and anarchists who turn up at all demos, and these people love to play up for the cameras.

I am against the rise in tuition fees in England. I am against violence, but I am realistic enough to knwo that this sort of thing is going to happen at any well attended and newsworthy demonstration.

 

[90019]

The people who condone the actions of the rioting students should hang their heads in shame.

As should those who resort to stereotyping.

They have zero credibility. None whatsoever. And neither does anyone who condones or supports or sympathises with their actions.

The two words that come to mind are tar and brush.
Your argument in this thread is getting to the point of being offensive now, the way you slander every single protester and in some cases every student in the country by pointing at the ones who were violent and using that to stereotype all others.
By the same logic, I could point out the videos of staff who have made up rules about not being allowed to film and say that this must mean all station staff are like that.

Any comments on the antics depicted in the photographs?

I don't support what is shown in the photos, but I support the protests, and the cuts that were being protested about.

Answer me this honestly;
Do you think that those who get portrayed in photographs in papers (especially the mail) are likely to be;
a) Representitive of the protesters as a whole, or
b) Representitive of those who will make the best story for the readers to be outraged at?

 

[yorkie]

90019 - You can't be reading my posts properly. I am not stereotyping at all. As I said before, when I was a student, I was fed up of the minority who spoil it for everyone else, but the problem is that this minority numbers many thousands of people. As others have said, a minority of a very large number of people, is still a large number of people! As for who or what they represent, people can make up their own minds on that. But, whatever it is they represent, I want no part of it. I am not sure you can say one particular individual 'represents' everyone else. But when you see many individuals acting in a very distasteful way and a crowd supporting them, it really doesn't look good.

I am against the rise in tuition fees in England. I am against violence, but I am realistic enough to knwo that this sort of thing is going to happen at any well attended and newsworthy demonstration.

If they hadn't been spreading propaganda, hyperbole and distasteful actions had not been carried out, then I think more people would be against the rise. But, as they are making claims about poor people losing out, but when you ask for the detail, it seems they're being pretty derisory about the salary that many of us are paid, and they are basically expecting to get £30k+ jobs and are unhappy at a small proportion of that going to repay the fees, then they lose credibility. If they'd had a realistic argument and had not had ludicrous immature placards like "F*** fees" etc, and there had been no violence, they may have won over the hearts and minds of the nation.

Instead, they have had the opposite effect. And the leaders of these protests, like you said, know full well what is likely to happen. So they can't suddenly deny all responsibility or knowledge of that.

 

[scotsman]

I haven't read anything the protestors have posted, I happen to share their viewpoint

 

[90019]

90019 - You can't be reading my posts properly. I am not stereotyping at all. As I said before, when I was a student, I was fed up of the minority who spoil it for everyone else, but the problem is that this minority numbers many thousands of people. As others have said, a minority of a very large number of people, is still a large number of people! As for who or what they represent, people can make up their own minds on that. But, whatever it is they represent, I want no part of it. I am not sure you can say one particular individual 'represents' everyone else. But when you see many individuals acting in a very distasteful way and a crowd supporting them, it really doesn't look good.

Maybe it's just me, but the way your post reads, it comes across that you believe the protest is unjustified because of the minority causing trouble.

Can you answer the question at the end of my post as well please?

 

[yorkie]

Maybe it's just me, but the way your post reads, it comes across that you believe the protest is unjustified because of the minority causing trouble.

It really would depend on what you mean by "the protest". And it's not necessarily that "a" (or "the") protest is "unjustified" you also have to consider whether such an action is wise.

For example where there have been completely peaceful protests, where there has been no threat whatsoever of violence and it has been good natured (such as happened in York) then obviously no-one is going to have a problem with that. But the organisers of those protests probably ensured it was organised in such a way to ensure that would happen.

What happened in London was unacceptable and I believe that it is reasonable to expect that, given recent protests, it was reasonable to expect that the organisers could have anticipated that some very nasty events would unfold. And they did.

Can you answer the question at the end of my post as well please?

I already did.

(Please not another thread of "can you answer this?" posts!)

 

[90019]

I already did.

You haven't.
It's a simple a) or b) answer, that's all I want.

 

[yorkie]

I'm sorry but I am not going to give you an a) or b) answer. Some things are not black or white. I am not going to get into another of these multiple choice questions and demands to select an option, sorry. I've answered your question and I don't feel I need to be pressured into giving one of two answers worded in your choice of words.

 

[4SRKT]

I hardly think that it is anti-liberal and anti-reasonable to be outraged on these disgusting violent protests. Being pro-liberal does not mean being pro-anarchy or pro-violence at all

This isn't what I meant at all. 'Liberal' encompasses a very wide range of things, as indeed it must do by definition. What I meant is that you persoanlly seem to be getting incredibly worked up by this, to a point beyond 'outrage' or whatever. Chill out a bit: we can't have you busting a blood vessel, or where would we go for quality ticketing advice?

 

[Geezertronic]

There is something a bit exhilerating about a riot though. I went to university in Northern Ireland from 1990 to 1993, and it's quite an adrenaline rush when it all kicks off

You really have to wonder about the mentality of some people when someone decides to write this on a public forum. It's no wonder it all kicked off if the minority think like this...

 

[4SRKT]

You really have to wonder about the mentality of some people when someone decides to write this on a public forum. It's no wonder it all kicked off if the minority think like this...

Are you aware of the purpose of the symbol ?

Also, it is a fact that rioting is exhilerating. It doesn't make it right, but it sweeps up those around it. I've never been in a riot (would run a mile), but I've seen it happening so have some experience (I would guess unlike most other posters on here), and it is certainly a weird atmosphere. I was unaware that posting facts was not allowed these days. So much for your precious 'democracy'.

 

[yorkie]

If anyone isn't outraged by these events, then that is their right, but it is also my right to be rather concerned about that, and no-one can make me respect people who find this sort of thing acceptable. You can of course be liberal and find this unacceptable.

 

[Geezertronic]

Are you aware of the purpose of the symbol ?

Also, it is a fact that rioting is exhilerating. It doesn't make it right, but it sweeps up those around it. I've never been in a riot (would run a mile), but I've seen it happening so have some experience (I would guess unlike most other posters on here), and it is certainly a weird atmosphere. I was unaware that posting facts was not allowed these days. So much for your precious 'democracy'.

Twisting facts for your own purpose? Who has said you cannot post what you want? Not me. I just think what you posted was idiotic.

 

[Aictos]

To me, there is a difference between protestors and rioters and what happened last night certainly wasn't protesting but rioting.

It's all well and good peacefully protesting but when it turns violent as we all saw last night, it's a riot and the police involved have my full support in what I could only see as a very difficult situation not made easy by the obvious groups of apes smashing windows and doing obscene things as can be seen in the photo above.

 

[Greenback]

If they hadn't been spreading propaganda, hyperbole and distasteful actions had not been carried out, then I think more people would be against the rise. But, as they are making claims about poor people losing out, but when you ask for the detail, it seems they're being pretty derisory about the salary that many of us are paid, and they are basically expecting to get £30k+ jobs and are unhappy at a small proportion of that going to repay the fees, then they lose credibility. If they'd had a realistic argument and had not had ludicrous immature placards like "F*** fees" etc, and there had been no violence, they may have won over the hearts and minds of the nation.

Instead, they have had the opposite effect. And the leaders of these protests, like you said, know full well what is likely to happen. So they can't suddenly deny all responsibility or knowledge of that.

There's not much to disagree with there. Although I think that whoever the leaders of these protests actually there, they are probably quite naive, as indicated by the slogans you refer to and the lack of articulate, snesible arguments against the fee increases. I must admit there have been better arguments presented in this thread than I have seen in the media!

But that brings up another question! How much of what is going on is being manipulated by the media? Research on the 1984-1985 Miners Strike by Glasgow University Media Group (GUMG) revealed how distorted the TV coverage was against the strikers. How much of the same sort of thing is going on here? We don't know unless we are there, but it may well be the case that solid arguments are being put forward, but not reported, as it is better for the journalists to focus on the admittedly far more newsworthy acts of violence and vandalism.

Again, I would it down to naivety (plus politically motivated people seeking to udnermine the protests from within?) if anyone in the protests actually believes that defacing the cenotaph and breaking windows will do anything except bring the whole campaign into disrepute.

 

[4SRKT]

Twisting facts for your own purpose? Who has said you cannot post what you want? Not me. I just think what you posted was idiotic.

What 'twisted facts'? What is my 'purpose' (only I can know that I would have said)? Are you denying that rioting is something that once started, people get swept up in? This isn't idiotic. It may be unpalatable (to me as well TBF), but it's certainly true: once the mob starts it's difficult for others not to get swept along.

 

[Geezertronic]

What 'twisted facts'? What is my 'purpose' (only I can know that I would have said)? Are you denying that rioting is something that once started, people get swept up in? This isn't idiotic. It may be unpalatable (to me as well TBF), but it's certainly true: once the mob starts it's difficult for others not to get swept along.

That statement is as ridiculous as your previous statements. Once a mob starts to riot, there are two choices: a) join in, or b) get out of the situation. If the police are in containment mode, you have the choice to stay as far away from the trouble as you can, that's not difficult at all.

The fact is that whilst a minority look to have started the trouble, there appears to have been other idiots that joined in the "fun" such as those in the photos posted previously. That was their choice and a choice I hope they pay heavily for.

 

[4SRKT]

That statement is as ridiculous as your previous statements. Once a mob starts to riot, there are two choices: a) join in, or b) get out of the situation. If the police are in containment mode, you have the choice to stay as far away from the trouble as you can, that's not difficult at all.

The fact is that whilst a minority look to have started the trouble, there appears to have been other idiots that joined in the "fun" such as those in the photos posted previously. That was their choice and a choice I hope they pay heavily for.

While I don't agree with much of what you say (on any subject), I at least have the courtesy not to call you an idiot.

 

[theblackwatch]

How did all these students afford to get to London in the first place?