Buses attacked by rioting students

[yorkie]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11829102

Buses attacked

Transport for London (TfL) also reported that protesters had thrown missiles at buses in central London, smashing windows and causing many routes to be diverted away from the Whitehall and Trafalgar Square area.

Broken windows were reported on two routes, although no injuries were sustained.

A spokeswoman for TfL said: "We're still trying to assess the full extent of the damage from today's demonstrations.

"We know that bus shelters and ticket machines along Whitehall have been severely damaged and we're checking to see what other damage has been caused. As the protest moved on during the day we had to put in place rolling diversions to keep buses away from it."

The prime minister's spokesman said: "People have a right to engage in lawful and peaceful protest, but there is no place for violence or intimidation."

Rioting students, appear to have launched an attack that directly affects working people, many of whom are not particularly well paid, who rely on public transport to get around to get to their workplaces, and also other students (but, as a former student myself, I know that some of them are quite inconsiderate toward their fellow students), the disabled and other vulnerable people who rely on public transport. Also, the many people who could afford to use cars but sensibly choose not to.

It is appalling that public transport has been targeted by these mindless vandals.

The vandals 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. However these vandals fail to realise 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.

It is ridiculous that they are targeting public transport users in this way, and completely undermines their (ludicrous) position.

As someone who relies on public transport myself (I do not own a car and never will do) I cannot find words to describe what I think of these people that would be acceptable on this forum.

 

[Chapeltom]

Absolutely disgraceful actions and this is coming from someone going to university in 2011. Many students have forgotten that global recession, World financial crisis we had. It is not the fault of the current govt, it is the business cycle, how capitalism works, boom and bust. Everyone has to suffer a little unfortunately and this violence does nothing for students. We should be thankful were not in America where fees are ten fold higher! As for EMA i don't get it and my mate's spending it in the pub while I have work Sundays for my money. Most students think they can have something for nothing and frankly it's never going to happen.
I'm more concerned about train fares rising, because all my choices would have me on a train every single day, adult fares aren't cheap as it is. i've a railcard but that can't be used before 10am so its useless anyway

 

[Aictos]

Yorkie, I completely agree with the post you made above as I don't agree with the actions taken by the rioting morons, I have to use public transport to get about and certainly don't appreciate the fact that fellow users of public transport have to be put at risk especially when a number of them earn much less then the rioters.

In short, the rioters ought to be ashamed of themselves as they are effectively bullies who also put the staff who operate the various public transports at risk which is uncalled for as they have a right to work without being threatened.

 

[Deerfold]

The demonstrations I have no problem with. The rioters are just idiots. And quite possibly not there for demonstration purposes.

 

[Oswyntail]

As Deerfold says, no problem with demos. But they always attract those who think it is in some way productive to have violence. Given that those who are interviewed and support violence are often articulate and intelligent (and so presumably understand that violence at these things is counter-productive), one can only assume that the end they are trying to achieve with violence is not the same as that of the demo itself. If only there were some way to keep them out.

 

[Greenback]

The agitators seem to be trying to live up to soem romanticised notion of the student riots of the past - Paris in 1968 for example. Indeed, when I was at Uni, quite a few years ago now, one of the lecturers bemoaned the fat that students did not protest any more, and asked us where our principles had gone!

It seems to me that, as is usually the case, anarchists and other trouble makers are inciting usually calm and peaceful individuals into violence. I am not making excuses for those who are involved, just trying to point out that young people in a demonstartion can easily be manipulated.

Attacking buses, hardly a symbol of capitalist excess, being fileld up with ordinary people, is the height of stupidity, and will not win these people any friends.

 

[jon0844]

There has been an incident near me recently where the police were ultimately called, as students renting a flat had told local residents to **** off and move as students owned the town, and why would anyone choose to live in a home near a university! They then caused damage to local properties. Charming.

A bus driver for a bus operator owned/run by the University has told me of two students attacking a bus driver, but the University ignored CCTV footage and allowed the students to stay - such that the bus driver resigned for having been left totally unsupported.

It's pretty bad when we have students in the community that can't get on with local residents and even attack the drivers of the buses employed to take them to/from campus/university.

It sort of proves the point that too many people are going to University, and many for the wrong reason - i.e. just to delay having to get a job for another 3-4 years. I am not sure how any of the above mentioned students will ever go on to be successful unless they show a major change in attitude.

 

[ainsworth74]

I'm more concerned about train fares rising, because all my choices would have me on a train every single day, adult fares aren't cheap as it is.

Have you looked into a season ticket? Will save you alot over buying returns everyday and is very flexible over the specified route.

As for this lot I echo those above who say no problem with demos indeed if demonstrations were banned or curtailed I would be more concerned over the what the government is doing! However rioting is almost never acceptable.

 

[YorkshireBear]

i dont tend to voice my opinion on the students riots as a university of leeds student i usually get my head bit off, they jus say you need to make a scene,

usually my response is sit down shut the **** up and come back when youve developed a brain
Tend to have stopped that now though created a few too many enemies

There a disgrace cos we all know people will be thinking all students are like this which leaves me in a position where i get accused fo being a thug just for kowing 1 student who threw a brick....

*sigh*

 

[Greenback]

There has been an incident near me recently where the police were ultimately called, as students renting a flat had told local residents to **** off and move as students owned the town, and why would anyone choose to live in a home near a university! They then caused damage to local properties. Charming.

A bus driver for a bus operator owned/run by the University has told me of two students attacking a bus driver, but the University ignored CCTV footage and allowed the students to stay - such that the bus driver resigned for having been left totally unsupported.

It's pretty bad when we have students in the community that can't get on with local residents and even attack the drivers of the buses employed to take them to/from campus/university.

It sort of proves the point that too many people are going to University, and many for the wrong reason - i.e. just to delay having to get a job for another 3-4 years. I am not sure how any of the above mentioned students will ever go on to be successful unless they show a major change in attitude.

I get the feeling that students are not the same types of individuals that theyw ere when I went to University! In those days, students were more likely to be the victims of crime than the instigators.

I wouldn;t like to tar them all with the same brush, but the expansion of higher education does seem likely to have caused an increase in the numbers of anti social types being there (along with the general fall in behaviourial standards by everyone that I keep harping on about!!!)

 

[YorkshireBear]

I get the feeling that students are not the same types of individuals that theyw ere when I went to University! In those days, students were more likely to be the victims of crime than the instigators.

I wouldn;t like to tar them all with the same brush, but the expansion of higher education does seem likely to have caused an increase in the numbers of anti social types being there (along with the general fall in behaviourial standards by everyone that I keep harping on about!!!)

they arnt most just go for the party life and no care for the degree, some admit to picking degrees on least time in uni so they can party scrape a pass

drugs etc

kinda disgraceful

 

[Greenback]

Yes. I'm pleased to say that everyone on the degree course that I did was very committed to it. Apart from a few spliffs there were no drugs, and very few even drank much! I think I'm glad I went when I did!

 

[jd]

I think you'll find 99% of the students attending want a peaceful protest - there are people who are not in higher education turning up with balaclavas on looking for a fight and starting riots. All the students I know are disgusted at the way peaceful protests are being infiltrated by anarchistic nutters.

Students are protesting because they tried the *proper* means of expressing opposition for a policy - voting for the party that opposed the tuition fees - and actually got them in power (at least partly). But it turns out, that doesn't work, because that party then goes and not only fails to do as it promised, but does the exact opposite. So they're understandably angry, and they have a right to democratic protest - but nobody is happy with the nutters that have turned up and used the protest as cover for criminal acts.

 

[YorkshireBear]

do feel sorry for clegg hes just a puppet for the tories to use and dispense with

 

[Greenback]

I think you'll find 99% of the students attending want a peaceful protest - there are people who are not in higher education turning up with balaclavas on looking for a fight and starting riots. All the students I know are disgusted at the way peaceful protests are being infiltrated by anarchistic nutters.

Students are protesting because they tried the *proper* means of expressing opposition for a policy - voting for the party that opposed the tuition fees - and actually got them in power (at least partly). But it turns out, that doesn't work, because that party then goes and not only fails to do as it promised, but does the exact opposite. So they're understandably angry, and they have a right to democratic protest - but nobody is happy with the nutters that have turned up and used the protest as cover for criminal acts.

I agree that the majority are there to protest peacefully and, like all marches, a small number of troublemakers not necessarily conencted with the organisers incite violence.

do feel sorry for clegg hes just a puppet for the tories to use and dispense with

I think that the Lib Dems will suffer a huge loss of support through being involved with this coalition. Many of the people who voted for them last time will never trust them again. Then again, the other parties break their promises too!

 

[jd]

I think that the Lib Dems will suffer a huge loss of support through being involved with this coalition. Many of the people who voted for them last time will never trust them again. Then again, the other parties break their promises too!

Of course all parties are the same - personally, I naively thought maybe the Lib Dems were different, but apparently, no, they're not - they just say anything to get into power then go ahead and do whatever they want once they're there, just like the others...

Well, maybe shouldn't get ahead of ourselves - obviously this is true of the party leadership, but maybe the MPs will rebel, only time will tell.

 

[cainebj]

A lot of the violence at recent demonstrations hasn't actually been students. I have to also say that a lot of it is media exaggeration.
Demonstrations up and down the country have been joined by work-shy benefit claimants, who are violently demonstrating their disagreement to the benefit changes.

Some of you may have read comments on MSN and BBC News pages, left by readers, saying that students are just wanting things for nothing, and if they want the University education, we should pay for it (yes, I am a student, but I was in my lecture at the time of the recent actions).
While University fee's do need to rise, we as students are opposed to it mainly on the grounds of the quality of education. Presently, I have 9 hours of lectures/tutorials per week. Yes, that is correct, I am paying £3290 for tuition this year, for 9 hours per week. We work on the basis of 2 semesters, each 12 weeks long. So that is 24 weeks, of 9 hours per week, totalling 216 hours. That works out at £15.23 per hour. There are 15 of us on the course (BA Hons Accounting & Finance, 2nd year), so the University is gaining £228.45 per tutored hour, just for my course. If the fee's were £9000 per year, the University would be gaining £41.67 per hour, totalling £625.05 per hour from the group. I happen to know that the use of the lecture theatre costs the course leader £100 per hour, Lecturers are paid approx. £35 per hour, so that is approx. £135 per hour costs for my course.
In most lectures, you just sit there for 3 hours, having a Powerpoint presentation READ out to you, of which could be done anywhere in your own time.
would you pay £9000 per year to have a Powerpoint presentation read out to you? That is what most students are protesting about!

Another member posted on here about the rise in rail fares. I for one am totally on your side! I travel to university on the train, approximately 1 hour each direction, on a scruffy, smelly Northern Fail 156. My 9 hours of lecutres are currently split over 3 days (they will change to 2 after Christmas). It costs me £8.20 return per day, and most of the time, due to overcrowding on some runs (especially on the 1727 departure from Carlisle, of which is ALWAYS a 153, I'm having to stand. The weekly ticket costs the same as 4 return fares, but when you are only travelling to Uni 3 days a week, its not worth going for the saver ticket at all! The only other transport option available, is the Stagecoach bus. it costs £8.55 per day for a return ticket, or £24 for a 7 day ticket (works out better value than the train on the saver ticket), but the times don't work out for University students! for a 10am lecture, I'd have to get the 0720 bus, getting to Carlisle at approx. 0900. The bus after the 0720 is the 0835, which always runs up to 10 minutes late, so not arriving to Carlisle until approx. 1010, which makes me late! (the university is 10 minutes walk from the Bus Station, and approx. the same distance from the train station, there isn't a suitable bus service to the uni). So I'm really forced onto the train (if Northern Fail actually run to time, it should get me to Carlisle at approx 0925. Rather coincidental that a railcard cannot be used until after 10am, when your lectures could be starting at 10am! makes the concept rather useless for a student! even to purchase a single ticket in the morning, and come home on a single with railcard, it is more expensive! £8.20 return per day, but it is £7.40 single. take a third off your £7.40 single to come home, and it leaves you stumping up £12.35, rather than the £8.20!

 

[Greenback]

You deliver a strong argument about tuition fees. I was opposed to these when they came in, (I went to Uni before theyw ere introduced) and I haven't changed my mind on that!

I am sickened by the rise in these fees, and I support the right of peaceful protest and demonstartions against them. That is no excuse for attacking public transport, or truning violent at all, and the students need to disassociate themselves from those who are seeking to provoke a violent reaction.

 

[jd]

The other point is, wealthier middle class families can absorb a rise in tuition fees - the people that will really suffer will be the working-class young people who can barely afford to go to uni as it is. Even with a loan from the goverment, for some people the mere spectre of owing such a huge amount of money - maybe two or three times their entire family's annual income - will be hugely offputting. If you've been brought up in a household that has little spare money, you'll have been brought up with a frugal mindset, which will mean you'll be naturally inclined to avoid £60k or so of debt.

 

[Greenback]

I think I;ve said elsewhere that it;s no godo for the country if brilliant doctors or scientists decide not to pursue an education because they ar eput off by the costs, or the idea of starting their working life with a huge pile of debt. At the same time, less academically brilliant but welathier students will be able to go.

But all this needs to be discussed and debated. Demos and protests are a godo way to bring issues to the attention of the masses, but attacking buses merely serves to undermine the argument and provoke the sort of reaction that you emntioend earlier!

 

[Oswyntail]

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.

 

[90019]

The vandals 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. However these vandals fail to realise 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.

Simple question; should anyone who is trained with public money who then goes on to get a well paid job pay back the money it cost to train them?

(I should make it clear that I'm not against having to pay back money once people earn more than a certain amount, but I am against the increase in fees in general, even though this doesn't affect me directly)

 

[jd]

The vandals 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. However these vandals fail to realise 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.

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.

 

[yorkie]

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.

Why will students from poorer backgrounds be adversely affected? There is nothing to make people from poorer backgrounds worse off! Nothing needs to be repaid until they earn in excess of £21k per year. People who earn more than £15k per year at present have to repay the loan. So people who end up "poor" earning 'only' around £18k or so are better off in the new system. It's people who end up better off who will pay more. That's fair.

Meanwhile, a separate group of nutters hellbent on causing trouble don't give a damn

Separate to who? are you saying the people causing problems are not students? That is not credible nor plausible!

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.

The issue is that some students don't like the idea of repaying the money, which they will only do if they earn more than £21k pa.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Simple question; should anyone who is trained with public money who then goes on to get a well paid job pay back the money it cost to train them?

(I should make it clear that I'm not against having to pay back money once people earn more than a certain amount, but I am against the increase in fees in general, even though this doesn't affect me directly)

I'm not quite sure what the question is asking, is there a particular scenario you had in mind?

I think education should, of course, be free until 18.

After that, they can't really complain if they are given a loan on very favourable terms to do courses that will get them a good job, and if - and only if - they do get a job paying more than £21k pa then they have to start paying that loan back (and even then only a small amount each month, taken from their earnings).

 

[90019]

I'm not quite sure what the question is asking, is there a particular scenario you had in mind?

If someone gets trained as a police officer using public money and then goes on to get a high paid job as a private security guard, should they pay back the money that was used to train them?

 

[jd]

See my previous post:

...wealthier middle class families can absorb a rise in tuition fees - the people that will really suffer will be the working-class young people who can barely afford to go to uni as it is. Even with a loan from the goverment, for some people the mere spectre of owing such a huge amount of money - maybe two or three times their entire family's annual income - will be hugely offputting. If you've been brought up in a household that has little spare money, you'll have been brought up with a frugal mindset, which will mean you'll be naturally inclined to avoid £60k or so of debt.

The people causing problems are largely nutters who hijack the student protest as a cover to cause trouble - this has been stateed by the students, the media and the police. I don't doubt there are a minority of students who did break away from peaceful protest and join the nutters, but I'd expect this to be a very small minority.

I think people who do degrees, and who go on to earn good wages, pay back more by default because they incur greater taxation than the less well-off people. I think maybe £3k per year is a good level to set the tuition fee at, there is evidence that it hasn't really put off the able poor people, but I think a much higher fee definitely would.

 

[yorkie]

I think I;ve said elsewhere that it;s no godo for the country if brilliant doctors or scientists decide not to pursue an education because they ar eput off by the costs, or the idea of starting their working life with a huge pile of debt. At the same time, less academically brilliant but welathier students will be able to go.

If you're clever enough to become a Doctor, then will you really decide to accept a much lower paid job because you don't want to repay the cost of educating you? I doubt it.

If someone becomes a Doctor earning a wage of say £70k per year (a wage most people could never dream of) that would be approx £5830 per month, of which approx £367 is then paid out in loan repayments. That still leaves them with a salary of 'only' () £5463 per month. Is that really going to put people off becoming Doctors?!

Someone who earns £21k per year currently repays £45 a month in loan repayments. Under the new system that person would repay £0 per month. The reaction of some students to this is to be outraged and go and damage public property. :roll: They really seem to dislike taxpayers, wanting us to subsidise them at unsustainable levels and damage our property. Words (that I can use on here) can't describe what they are!:-x

 

[jd]

If you're clever enough to become a Doctor, then will you really decide to accept a much lower paid job because you don't want to repay the cost of educating you? I doubt it.

How can you determine if you are 'clever enough to become a doctor' at age 17?

The issue is, you might be worried that you won't get the £70k waged job, but will still be saddled with the debt of £60k or so when you fail to get into medicine and wind up stacking shelves in a supermarket or whatever?

Okay, maybe not stacking shelves, because that wouldn't get you over the £15k (or whatever it is) threshold for loan repayments, but something that pays about £17k - say, station ticket office clerk.

 

[yorkie]

If someone gets trained as a police officer using public money and then goes on to get a high paid job as a private security guard, should they pay back the money that was used to train them?

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. This seems fair and the employees agreed (and the employees didn't riot and make placards saying f**k <insert employee name> either )

See my previous post:



The people causing problems are largely nutters

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

who hijack the student protest as a cover to cause trouble - this has been stated by the students, the media and the police. I don't doubt there are a minority of students who did break away from peaceful protest and join the nutters, but I'd expect this to be a very small minority.

Was this person not a student?

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:

I think people who do degrees, and who go on to earn good wages, pay back more by default because they incur greater taxation than the less well-off people.

But that's not enough.

I think maybe £3k per year is a good level to set the tuition fee at, there is evidence that it hasn't really put off the able poor people, but I think a much higher fee definitely would.

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.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

How can you determine if you are 'clever enough to become a doctor' at age 17?

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!

The issue is, you might be worried that you won't get the £70k waged job, but will still be saddled with the debt of £60k or so when you fail to get into medicine and wind up stacking shelves in a supermarket or whatever?

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.

Okay, maybe not stacking shelves, because that wouldn't get you over the £15k (or whatever it is) threshold for loan repayments, but something that pays about £17k - say, station ticket office clerk.

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.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

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