It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Weekend of protests across the UK

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by thoughtsfull

Personally I fully support the Students, and the principle that we need a nation of educated people..


Do we need a nation of people who all go to university but can barely read or write and have no useful skills to offer society? And expect the govt to provide everything on a plate but not have to pay taxes?

(I accept that the rate of increase is rather high and should better have been introduced gradually - but that's not what the Union fed ignorant masses are moaning about)

And anyway, did we have a nation of uneducated people in the 80s or 70s or 60s or 50s - when only the best went to uni and most left school at 14 or 15 or 16 and got a job?
edit on 29-1-2011 by Essan because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by TedHodgson
reply to post by Catch_a_Fire
 


There would have been no need to Debate If you hadnt clearly stated a School leaver couldnt Save £1500 in a year.


But just because you did, doesnt mean they ALL can. So i simply stated that it would take them longer.


If you cant back up your points then dont make presumtions in the first place


I think that the example i gave (brother in law) was enough to show you how difficult it would be now without any government help. So i made no presumptions because i can see how hard it is for him.

As for your presumptions, youve tried to make out that im a deluded, unemployed poor person who drinks what little money i have away, all because i said it would take todays school leavers longer than a year to save £1500.
Take a long hard look at your posts and see who comes across more deluded.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
And anyway, did we have a nation of uneducated people in the 80s or 70s or 60s or 50s - when only the best went to uni and most left school at 14 or 15 or 16 and got a job?
edit on 29-1-2011 by Essan because: (no reason given)


50s and 60s had most women stay at home and raise kids.
now that half the population is no longer supressed, the dynamics change.
When it doesn't really matter when half the population gets even a little bit educated, then sure, jobs are plentiful, plenty of money in the coffers for only some of society to goto college, etc...

anyhow, point being, 2011 is not 1950s in any way...man rule, white rule, etc...all gone. time to adapt or atrophy.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by MMPI2

Originally posted by TedHodgson
reply to post by MMPI2
 


Im Agree Completely! The fact is that the Money has run out and The government cant afford to Support the students in a way which they could at One time



see, these statements make sense to me.

why would someone expect that a government anywhere should be responsible for educating them?


Maybe because it is them that have the control over where the money goes and exactly what it's spent on. Who says what is to be taught and to whom? It's not that there isn't the money for this, it's that too much money gets spent on spending it...know what I mean?

If people were directly responsible for education costs then the government wouldn't even be a factor, but "they" all want a piece of the pie to fuel the "jobsworths" and parasites that use TAXPAYERS contributions which are a legal obligation to pay.

I hate the fact that those without children HAVE to pay for the education of those that have them, and so little of those contributions actually end up benefiting those getting the education.

Quango, quango, quango!

Please correct me if I'm wrong about any of this.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Catch_a_Fire
 


Clearly, The person who was in the right was the one that didnt make a poor and presumtious comment in the first place that was essentially incorrect and very narrow minded, I merely showed you that not only was your frivalous comment that a school leaver would find it hard ro earn a amount of money was incorect but i provided a living example of someone who found it Relatively easy Just as many others also have, given they made the right decisions, just because many dont make the right desisions neither makes it hard nor unacheivable to do the same even in the Poorer part of england i lived in.

I cant be deluded because im correct

edit on 29/1/11 by TedHodgson because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by TedHodgson
 


You just concentrate at clutching for them straws, people will make their own minds up from the previous posts you made within this thread.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 



I understand the fees dont have to be paid back until earning a certain amount, but who wants to be landed with nearly 30grands worth of debt before they have even started in life.


Your claim was that it will be harder for those from a poorer background to access higher education, as far as I can see it is in fact within the means of anyone to go to university if they so wish.

IIRC under the new system graduates will pay back less as a percentage of their income as they do currently.

Aside from an inaccurate perception what is actually stopping people from accessing higher education?

reply to post by Catch_a_Fire
 


To reiterate a point from my previous post, the Open University offers generous grants (paid for by the state) depending on your household income. The issue of whether people can get a job or how much it pays doesn’t matter, if they can’t afford the courses they can apply for the costs to be paid for by the state.

So Ted’s original assertion that there are other means to a higher education is true.

reply to post by muzzleflash
 



If we can fix the system, we won't have to worry about individuals so much, because they wouldn't have the power to screw things up in the first place.


So what are you doing to bring about this change?



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by thoughtsfull

Personally I fully support the Students, and the principle that we need a nation of educated people..


Do we need a nation of people who all go to university but can barely read or write and have no useful skills to offer society? And expect the govt to provide everything on a plate but not have to pay taxes?

(I accept that the rate of increase is rather high and should better have been introduced gradually - but that's not what the Union fed ignorant masses are moaning about)

And anyway, did we have a nation of uneducated people in the 80s or 70s or 60s or 50s - when only the best went to uni and most left school at 14 or 15 or 16 and got a job?
edit on 29-1-2011 by Essan because: (no reason given)


Only to be picky, I did say educated.. and we do need a nation of educated people in these high tech times.. we don't have the industry we once did, which I think is the game changer as I believe our future wealth is being pegged against new tech..

I have no degrees, but am educated.. I have worked my way up the ladder from labourer to master craftsman, but since that has no future in this nation, I started again and worked up to deploying global systems.

But the chances of any of our youth working their way up that way I did is slim, so they do need to be educated, and I personally feel they need to be educated to degree level if that is what employers demand.

I lean towards the notion that if an employer now wants a degree for a low level role then businesses should be paying into the educational system,since it is their demands that create the need in the first place.

Since employers also control wages/wage levels in terms of their investment that covers any repayment for their investment, and rids us of the expensive process of payroll deductions we currently have to endure.

However, on the whole I think out society sucks
and would prefer to see us return to a simpler existence..

I live in a wonderfully green part of England that should be producing for our tables and yet instead we are importing much more than we should as a nation and those who should be working are left to rot..



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   
While I can understand the anger towards such a large increase in tuition fees (especially considering there was no such thing as tuition fees 6 years ago), I dont think its the worst idea in the world.

At the moment everyone and anyone seems to be going to university. With a significant number of people going because of the university lifestyle, and because they blindly believe that having a degree will automatically get them a job.
Aside from careers such as medicine, teaching etc, the majority of employers these days are more interested in on the job experience people have to offer due to the sheer number of graduates you have going for jobs. For instance Im doing a marketing degree and currently there's something silly like 60 graduates going for each job. In roughly the same amount of time I'll have spent at uni and gained work experience afterwards, I could have started at the bottom and worked my way up to a graduate level position, with zero debt.
One thing I dont understand about the Governments plan though, why offer more bursaries? The issue isnt people being able to afford to live while they're at uni, its about the ridiculous debt they'll be saddled with after.


Getting a degree isnt the be all and end all. We do still get some further education for free i.e. A-levels. And getting rid of EMA wont be the end of the world for most people. They used to give that out when I was in 6th form and not one person spent the money on books, transport or anything related to helping them with their education.

But yea, on the whole I think the tuition fee rise could have a positive effect. It'll help filter out those that just get a degree for the sake of it, and eventually a degree will become more valuable in every sense of the word.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by thoughtsfull
 


Don't disagree with you Thoughtsfull - I just don't think everyone needs to go to University, or even 6th Form. But if that's what we do want, soneone has to pay for it (something the previous govt sigularly failed to understand).



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bluebelle


But yea, on the whole I think the tuition fee rise could have a positive effect. It'll help filter out those that just get a degree for the sake of it, and eventually a degree will become more valuable in every sense of the word.



But those who tend to get a degree for the sake of it, tend to be comfortably middle class, but those who struggle tend to be working class.

The filter would just stop poorer people from trying.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
reply to post by thoughtsfull
 


Don't disagree with you Thoughtsfull - I just don't think everyone needs to go to University, or even 6th Form. But if that's what we do want, soneone has to pay for it (something the previous govt sigularly failed to understand).


I don't think everyone needs to go to university and it is a joke the way a lot of businesses are using the system to benefit themselves and drop their training budgets.

Which is a neglected discussion as it parallels this one, business are dropping their training budgets and when you marry that into a more expensive educational system I really feel we are heading for a cliff edge and the only way to maintain the skill levels businesses want will be through higher levels of skilled migrants.

I guess that is why I think business should be the ones paying for the shortfall in out educational system to attempt to shore up the prospective damage this might cause.

If all business invest X% into the educational system then they'll be the ones pegging the salaries in line with their investment.. seems sensible to me, after all their only other choice will be to push for higher levels of skilled migrants.

(if I didn't mention it, at the moment I am deploying global HRIS (Human Resources Information Systems) especially recruitment, talent management and retention.)

I personally think we should be focusing on many areas aside from graduates, being self sufficient in food and other basic services should be a priority, as should basic industry while we should also be moving away from cloned towns and the other aspects of corporatism.

So IMHO while we are reliant on imported products, food stuffs and skill workers, we will never get out of this negative spiral, and no government seems to understand that.

ETA: it is nice to see you around again


edit on 29/1/11 by thoughtsfull because: remove comment about CIPD as I could not find article to back up my assertion



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by mr-lizard
 


Not from what Ive seen, especially when you look at the financial side of things. For instance Im at the poorer end of the scale (although I did actually believe my degree would be of some use at the time I applied), and Im entitled to roughly £7500 per academic year once all the maintenance loans, grants and bursaries are added up. I also have a part time job so really Im given around £5000 more than I actually need. And even if the maintenance loan was taken out of the equation Id still have £2000 I have no real use for.
If your faced with getting a job and paying taxes or having all that money thrown at you, why wouldnt a person from a poor background go to uni?
The middle class seem to be worse off when it comes to university really. The Government assumes that most parents will help fund their child's education, but the reality is that most dont. So your stuck with a low entitlement, zero bursaries and little to no financial help from parents.

I cant see how people from poorer backgrounds will be less encouraged to go once the tuition fees are raised. In fact with the introduction of more bursaries and an increase in the maintenance grant they'll be encouraged. So unless your family is mega rich and can afford to pay your tuition fees (which most parents dont, even now) you'll be in the same boat as everyone else once you've got your degree.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 10:13 PM
link   
its about time the students accepted that they must pay for the privilege of higher learning i could not afford it and accept that and it works both ways if our economy is to subsidize these students then its only fair that they return this money wheres the problem??? they are being given a great privilege and they should accept that and not expect a free ride there are a million things we should be protesting about and these little kids are marginalizing the real big problems in the UK but hey they don't care they're not worth the news air time. sorry guys but you pick your fights and you just wasted your voice labeled as thugs.


if your aspirations are that high you will struggle through it
edit on 29-1-2011 by nonetruegod because: (no reason given)


ps bluebells cute
edit on 29-1-2011 by nonetruegod because: she is



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Catch_a_Fire
reply to post by TedHodgson
 


I can understand things from your point of view, but how is a 16 year old school leaver supposed to come up with this £1500 to further theyre education.


The answer lies right under your nose:
signature:
consilio et animis - By wisdom and courage.

It can be done, be smart, no sense in whining.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by MMPI2
reply to post by TedHodgson
 


ok...i see.

what do the students in the UK expect in terms of tuition fees?

i guess i am asking because it seems that folks in these countries with the socialist model believe that benefits, wages, etc. are always gonna be favorable, and that the government should make them favorable. these students don't seem to understand that the money for all the goodies has to come from somebody, and that sometimes money runs out.

sorta like spoiled children, maybe......




Yeah, the working classes wanting an education is just like spoiled children,

The working classes did not cause this financial situation, but we are the ones suffering, big style, and it's quickly getting worse, so please don't compare us to spoiled children.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 03:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bluebelle


But yea, on the whole I think the tuition fee rise could have a positive effect. It'll help filter out those that just get a degree for the sake of it, and eventually a degree will become more valuable in every sense of the word.




What ever happened to education for the sake of education?
Why do degrees have to be geared towards making future profits?
Why does everything have to have £'s attached to it before it's worth something?



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
reply to post by thoughtsfull
 


Don't disagree with you Thoughtsfull - I just don't think everyone needs to go to University, or even 6th Form. But if that's what we do want, soneone has to pay for it (something the previous govt sigularly failed to understand).


Yeah, why do so many want to go to university?
I mean, why don't they just get into one of the UK's vast industrial programs?
Oh yea, we don't have any industry any more.

And you're right, someone does have to pay for it, and I for one would rather my taxes were educating future generations instead of paying for their unemployment benefits, or paying off bogus debts to big banks, or illegal wars, etc etc.
Does anyone actually believe that if you stop paying for education out of our taxes we will pay less tax? Or that the money will be used in a better way that will benefit us all?



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 04:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by MMPI2

is this whole thing just a bunch of entitled brats finally having the silver government spoon yanked out of their mouth?



The few % who own 90% of the wealth of the world seem extremely entitled.

Did they scrub toilets better? No? They just owned a lot of slaves basically? Ok...

I love it when the poor class of society is labeled "entitled brats" while the elite wealthy classes are called the deserving. It makes sure that society overall is restless and conflicted. Don't ya love that. Political and economic instability for the win ?



This is exactly why people are being driven to protest. It's not because a load of 'entitiled brats' think someone else should pay for their education. For years students have been happy to borrow the money for an education and then pay it back when they are in a position to but suddenly the government are going to treble the cost. It's obvious that someone from a wealthy background is not going to be as put off by £9000 a year, whilst someone who comes from a family that live on the breadline is going to be scared off by the very serious prospect of owing least £30,000 when they start their adult life.

So how many of our politicians (such as the multi millionaire, David Cameron) will struggle to find the £9000 a year for their kids's education? Not many I suspect.

Yes it's true that you can get a cheaper degree through open university but they don't actually have a great range of degrees to choose from and what's to say they won't treble the cost too? That would mean scrimping and saving for many more years wouldn't it?


As for stating that 'all you need to do is work hard and save for an education' and 'there are plenty of jobs out there if you look hard enough', I think that's a naive assumption based on the belief that if we are good little citizens and follow all the laws and rules we'll always be rewarded. I'm afraid it's not true. Jobs are not secure and at some point even the best little citizens will find themselves being kicked in the teeth. For example a relative of mine has worked hard all her life since leaving school and is recently being rewarded by the UK council she works for by having her wages cut by 25%! You may or may not be surprised to hear that the management who are implicating these cuts are not affected by them. This is why people are feeling the need to protest.

What will the loyal hardworking citizens do when they realise they are next on the governments list? There may be no way for them to protest because they will have supported the government's harsh crackdowns on previous protesters and 'troublemakers'.







edit on 30-1-2011 by DrHammondStoat because: -



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
The problem is access to higher education is going to become harder for those from poorer back grounds, we already have 7% of privately educated pupils who will go on to take up the majority of the professions. Inequality in the uk is about to become much worse.


No it won't, but thats the myth perpetuated by Labour and the Student Unions.

How exactly is it that "the poor" can't go to Uni?

These Student fees they have to pay are not paid up front. Nor are they even paid upon completion of the course. They are to be paid back if and when the graduate get's ajob paying over £21k and then over a long period of time.

Lets look at the bigger picture. In the UK, students will be charged £9000 a year (max) for access to a top class Uni. For a similiar education in the US, one will have to pay several times more than that AND up front.

These protests are about people who have never paid tax getting shirty about having to pay a little bit more for an education that is still heavily subsidised after they have got their degree and got a well paid job. I have no sympathy for them whatsoever and they've all been led by the nose by interest groups and left-wing hippies into believing that the "poor" are being shafted, when they are not.
edit on 30/1/11 by stumason because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join