Student Riot in London

Status
Not open for further replies.
today makes me ashamed to be a student, but i am not surprised that it turned out how it did.

while talking to people today the general opinion was far to much in the favour of wanting it to have got violent just so that it gets remembered.

like i say it makes me ashamed to be a student, though at least i am doing a proper degree (engineering) and have an aim of what i want to do with my life post university unlike far to many people who go to uni just to get drunk and gain nothing
 
Last edited:
Firstly let me say the violence was wrong.

My daughter is at uni at the moment and had considered going down to London. She is not an activist but she can see what is likely to do to her and others future.
Of course she is doing one of those worthless degrees some of you talk about and spends all her time in the uni bar.

She is actually doing a Primary Teacher degree and worked bl@@dy hard to get there and is still working hard. Knowing that when she leaves for a job that is not the best paid with debts (at current rates) of nearly £30,000 does sometimes make me wonder if it is worth it.

These changes will hit students from low income families adversely.

Whilst no universities have actually said they will charge the whole £9000 I will be very surprised if many of them don't. Same way most charge the maximum at the moment.

I am surprised that photo plod has made the comments he has on an open forum. To me just goes to help prove how partial our police are.
 
What annoys me is that many of these students are doing pointless degrees and expect people like me to pay for them to get drunk for 3 years! I have no problem with people doing useful degrees like Medicine, Engineering, Physics etc... and they should be free, but if you want to spend time studying American Studies or Equestrian Psychology or Outdoor Adventure With Philosophy and the like!

You don't pay for students to have their education. Students pay back their tuition fees once they start working). They will also, on average, earn more than someone without a degree, and therefore pay more in taxes! Obviously, their are exceptions to this, but it's generally true.
 
You don't pay for students to have their education. Students pay back their tuition fees once they start working). They will also, on average, earn more than someone without a degree, and therefore pay more in taxes! Obviously, their are exceptions to this, but it's generally true.

:plusone:
 
These changes will hit students from low income families adversely.
sorry but that is not true at all?
student loans will pay the fees at the time and it will just mean that the students pay back for longer when they are earning money.

i am not for the rise in fees but i dont think that that is a valid reason at all!
 
These changes will hit students from low income families adversely.

I can never understand why people say that. It's going to hit everyone, what has the level of a family's income got to do with it? The percentage of students living off daddy's income is pathetically small.


I am surprised that photo plod has made the comments he has on an open forum. To me just goes to help prove how partial our police are.

I do hope that you are making a joke here. I think that PP has been amazingly reserved given the circumstances.

It's because of comments like yours that the Met decided to take a softly softly approach towards its public order control.

If a potential riot is treated with kid gloves then it will frequently back fire on the policy, as in this case. The Met's response to the May Day and Gxx demonstrations over the past few years has been controlled and has contained potential trouble, hence minimising it.

I sincerely hope that you are content in your own smugness, knowing that your approach has help create this situation.
 
You don't pay for students to have their education. Students pay back their tuition fees once they start working). They will also, on average, earn more than someone without a degree, and therefore pay more in taxes! Obviously, their are exceptions to this, but it's generally true.

In which case could you kindly explain exactly what the 11bn State funding for universities is used for?
 
I can never understand why people say that. It's going to hit everyone, what has the level of a family's income got to do with it? The percentage of students living off daddy's income is pathetically small.

you've clearly never been to exeter and seen a student get into her clk :p
 
you've clearly never been to exeter and seen a student get into her clk :p

Actually I have (well not the clk part), as well as Oxford, Cambridge, Bristol, Southampton and a few others to boot. However when you take the entire student population as a whole, the number of fully parental funded places is going to be a small percentage of the total number.

:p back at you, you pastie muncher!
 
(I have to admit I hadn't heard of a minimum charge being levied at £6k)
I do think it will be a deterrent for some people going to university. When I went, the fees/loan structure was worded in such a way that as soon as you were earning, you were expected to pay back. This stopped me from doing the PhD that I wanted to do once I had finished. I couldn't afford at the time to not start/continue earning money. I suspect that I do earn more now that I would have done had I done the PhD though, as I feel if you do a PhD, then really the field you go into should be research based. (and not just done to spend a couple more years not working)
Trying not to get too political, or sounding too much like sour grapes, with the next statement (or elitist).
It does feel like at the moment, that I am paying over more than 50% of my salary to subsidise a lot of people who are going to university for fun, rather than learning, and paying into pensions that I am never going to be able to claim, as I am likely never to reach the ever increasing age.

It seems to me that university is now thought of as being the normal, rather than the place where those with above average educational requirements go.

In that, looking at A-level and GCSE papers from someone who did similar course 6 years later, there appears to be less of a broad itinerary.
Comparing the first year of a University course notes, it is similar to what I would have done at A-Levels (or in some places, GCSE).
And it now seems that the majority of students in schools are expected to try and get a place at university. There are complaints that there are not enough places for students with 10 A* grades.
We hear about the reduction in budget per head for universities, but I don't hear of any reduction in places. Two years ago there was a reduction in the direct funding. Last year there was an increase in the income for universities. If there is an increase in income, but less per capita, there must be more population.
 
Last edited:
I am surprised that photo plod has made the comments he has on an open forum. To me just goes to help prove how partial our police are.

Actually, munch, if you read the very first thing I posted, I am actually supportive of your position towards tuition fees. Education is the most important thing of all, and I wouldn't have been able to go to university myself in the current climate.

If being outraged at watching people I actually know nearly get killed by having fire extinguishers dropped on them makes me partial, so be it.

Now I'm off to pick up the pieces.
 
Last edited:
Good luck with the investigations PP...remember GWB says water-boarding is OK, so you know what to do.:thumbs:

I'm a big fan of 'questioning with enthusiasm'...
 
I am paying over more than 50% of my salary to subsidise a lot of people who are going to university for fun, rather than learning, and paying into pensions that I am never going to be able to claim, as I am likely never to reach the ever increasing age.

Wow all of your money goes to pay students, you must be the only one, and I am sure your private pension will sort you well.

Some of the comments here are laughable. The rise in fees will put several people off. People could end up with £40'000 debt from Uni.

You say the raise put you off you Phd, well I am sure the £27k debt would have put you off going all together do you not think?

Your comment about GCSE and A level is based on what? Sorry but you are typical. Kids do well, exams are easier and the teachers do all there work. When anything bad happens and kids do bad, I am sure you will join the masses in saying ho bad we as teachers are!

So all students are idiots and protesting over something that cant be changed. What you all going to say when it is public sector workers next?

£27'000 debt, not including living costs. Why would that put anyone off? Why should anyone protest at that?

Our taxes bail out the banks, yet surely the money would be better spent towards young people getting free education.
 
i recon the police should have employed the russian way of dispersing crowds... just going bezerk with a baton and a gun...

i didnt go to university because i dont learn easialy, i knew i would have been drunk for 3 years, gained massive debt and not come out with anything, so i got a job, yes it might have been in a resteraunt for a year till i found something better (now doing very well in an IT company), but i got on with it... many of my friends have now finished uni and wont take a job becase 'your not paying enough' instead have gone back to uni for another few years to do a masters or to 'find themselfes' this is all utter tosh,

higher education isnt a right its a priveledge...

PAHHHH
 
Isn't the point of legislation that it is legislating against what a minority of people want to do, whether it is mugging, drink driving, or mindless violence againt the Police. Police should to allowed to respond in a way appropriate to the threat, the violence used yesterday against Police required an equally physical response. Warn the crowd that rubber bullets, bean bag things, tear gas, etc, will be used and in 10 minutes assume anyone who does not want to be part of the violence will have left the area. We are too bloody soft on violence and anti-social behaviour, and being soft is an encouragement for it to take place more often.

It might also help if it was illegal to have your face covered during a demonstration, a lot of the violence yesterday was possible because they could rely on not being recognised, apart from one in particualr who helped kick in the glass window and waved Police etc to 'have a go', what a ******.

We live in a place where the government cuts Policing, nurses, armed forces, social care etc, but can happily increase foreign aid and our payments to the EC. But that is a danger in having government controlled by big business, and making decisions based on what jobs they will get when out of office.

Rant over!
 
Isn't the point of legislation that it is legislating against what a minority of people want to do, whether it is mugging, drink driving, or mindless violence againt the Police. Police should to allowed to respond in a way appropriate to the threat, the violence used yesterday against Police required an equally physical response. Warn the crowd that rubber bullets, bean bag things, tear gas, etc, will be used and in 10 minutes assume anyone who does not want to be part of the violence will have left the area. We are too bloody soft on violence and anti-social behaviour, and being soft is an encouragement for it to take place more often.

It might also help if it was illegal to have your face covered during a demonstration, a lot of the violence yesterday was possible because they could rely on not being recognised, apart from one in particualr who helped kick in the glass window and waved Police etc to 'have a go', what a ******.

We live in a place where the government cuts Policing, nurses, armed forces, social care etc, but can happily increase foreign aid and our payments to the EC. But that is a danger in having government controlled by big business, and making decisions based on what jobs they will get when out of office.

Rant over!

It's called: Reading the Riot Act...after that you can use armed troops to disperse them...lol

Cavalry with sabres drawn? Never mind poofy CS gas (not approved for mainland UK use by Law Enforcement agencies in any case), a few faces hacked-off will discourage further violent protest...
 
The problem is that society expects the majority of people to go to university and that if you get a degree you are clever. Well, I know some people who have degrees and are as thick as pig ******!! You can do a degree with almost any A Level grades whereas I think there should be some standards.

Probably not the same as Uni's but a mate fo mine has recently started as a lecturer at a local college, teaching Mechanics (he used to be one for past 18 or so years) to 16-18 y.o. He has been amazed at the attitude there - no respect and when he asks what they want to achieve from the course around a quarter say that they are only there because their parents want to continue claiming the benefits and they have no interest.

We are putting people into FE for the sake of it, because it 'looks good'. Many of these people would be better off in the armed forces, getting discipline and learning a trade, and those with intelligence can then go to colleges that are not stretched with numbers and maybe even do better.
 
Can only see an escalation in violent demonstration with the policies of this administration

The housing benefits cut demo (if there were to be one) could get very ugly, here we go again tory government and civil unrest. Whilst very wrong, how do they expect people to express their disquiet at injustices like the poll tax?

Where I lived we paid over £700 a month between two of us whereas some councils charged each person £70 a year. Forcing people from their homes with a housing benefit cut will no doubt set the emotions running.

Violence is not the answer, but it tends to come out once people get desperate, must admit there will always be a lawless element that join in too

Feel sorry for the police who will again be used as pawns and the"others" that were drafted in last time to quell disturbances such as those at Wapping.
Law enforcement also have their thugs too and ironically photgraphy will no doubt help identify the offenders from both sides, can see more than one caught on a mobile phone camera as happened at Canary Wharf recently
 
Last edited:
In which case could you kindly explain exactly what the 11bn State funding for universities is used for?

Universities receive nowhere near 11bn from the government.

The figure for teaching (include widening participation funding) is around 4.7bn - which is being cut by 40%. There is a further 1.5bn for research grants.

It is estimated that the cost per student per year is around £7k, of which the student currently pays nearly half in fees.

A degree holder will earn on average well over £100k in their lifetime more than someone with A-Levels - so they end up paying much more in taxes. That will more than cover the other half of their cost to the state. So the student ultimately pays for their own degrees.
 
...So the student ultimately pays for their own degrees.

In which case, what's their problem?

Who says life is fair or that anyone is owed a free ride?
I think they're just upset that they might have to actually work for a living after lounging around at college/uni for three years (I know: I went there as well - I had to partially fund my own studies as only my fees and travel were covered by the grant as it was then. I had to pay for my own accommodation, food and materials, which meant that I too had to take out bank loans to pay for things - it's nothing new).

As PP says: a lot (100's is a lot) were apparently there to have a bit of fun and smash stuff up.
Hopefully after some one-way interviews with the Met CID they'll start to re-think their options.

If they want to smash stuff up for a living, they can join the Army and be useful to society.
 
In the good old days, a student was given an grant and could then sign on during the holidays.

then they cut back the signing on thing

then they cut back the grant

then they introduced fees and loans instead of grants

now they want to whack fees up to a stupid figure.

Who would want to take on a degree and get £40k in debt?

This will put people off going, which I think is a bad thing.

On the flip side, many courses are washy washy, pointless degrees that don't deserve to be run.. A lady Gaga degree, seriously what employer will look at that and give you a job.

They need to make a course a course - I had 8 hours of contact time per week for my degree as a maximum - 4 modules per week, 2 hours per module, with then personal study on top. I was able to work pretty much full time hours in a call centre in years 2 and 3 to fund myself. It should be much more intensive or over a shorter period.
 
In which case, what's their problem?

Their problem is they will now pay twice.

I'm not defending the behavior in London, because it was appalling, and I hope the trouble causers get the book thrown at them. I'm just trying to point out that tax payers don't pay for students to earn their degrees.
 
I can never understand why people say that. It's going to hit everyone, what has the level of a family's income got to do with it? The percentage of students living off daddy's income is pathetically small.

You're kidding me? :)

It might just the university (Surrey) I'm at and the demograph it lures in, so I might be wrong from a general UK point of view. But I can tell you it is not a pathetically small number that are funded (well bailed out every 5 mins) by daddy's income. In the 7 years I've been in Higher Education I've seen the affluence of the students coming in increase substantially, funnily enough in line with the introduction of the £3,000 top up fees.

Now I don't agree with the increase in the tuition fees but people and the media are missing the point - it's the living costs which are already massively unfair to kids from a poorer background - Rent alone even at the lowest level costs each student £3000ish grand. Leaving a small amount from the maintenance loan for a student to support themselves. Yes, getting a job is possible but for those that are doing, say, proper degrees like engineering, you're already doing 9-5 supported study (lectures) and then expected to complete several hours self study in evening, it is very difficult for a student to balance and ultimately something suffers.
 
On the flip side, many courses are washy washy, pointless degrees that don't deserve to be run.. A lady Gaga degree, seriously what employer will look at that and give you a job.

Lady Gaga as a personal assistant or something? :D
 
Wow all of your money goes to pay students, you must be the only one, and I am sure your private pension will sort you well.
That is not quite what I meant, as there are other services to which our taxes also go. I am not saying that I do not agree to our taxes going to fund universities. I do not have a private pension unfortunately, my not-so-recent pay cut three years ago at work, -15% and loss of the pension contributions completely (which means that during the last 3 years, the fees on the pension scheme that I did have, my 'pot' is currently almost negative, my statement 9 months ago said I would get £2 a week).

Some of the comments here are laughable. The rise in fees will put several people off. People could end up with £40'000 debt from Uni.

You say the raise put you off you Phd, well I am sure the £27k debt would have put you off going all together do you not think?
Yes, I was actually agreeing to that. It might put people off. However, it might also make people properly think as to whether they really need to go to university. When I left school, my father was basically in the process of loosing his business, I didn't have any savings, and I knew that I could not therefore ask my parents to subsidise my tuition. The degree I did, hopefully wouldn't fit into the category of a simple degree, in fact I chose it over and above a degree I thought would be more 'fun' purely because the fun degrees looked worthless and basic. There are some people who think that university degrees are nothing more than a chance to drink (I do not totally agree with this). As I did with my PhD, I had to consider whether doing the PhD was what I actually wanted, or whether I was just not-ready to join the working world.

Your comment about GCSE and A level is based on what? Sorry but you are typical. Kids do well, exams are easier and the teachers do all there work. When anything bad happens and kids do bad, I am sure you will join the masses in saying ho bad we as teachers are!
I base this on the fact that I was helping someone 7 years younger than I to do their A-level homework/coursework, and to get some more details, I had to go back to my early GCSE notes. Not just an issue of mis-remembering, it was there and dated.

So all students are idiots and protesting over something that cant be changed. What you all going to say when it is public sector workers next?
I think you may have taken what I and other have said the wrong way.

£27'000 debt, not including living costs. Why would that put anyone off? Why should anyone protest at that?
When I went to university, many of my friends left with almost that debt (~£22)

Our taxes bail out the banks, yet surely the money would be better spent towards young people getting free education.
Quite.

Now for what is possibly a political statement (so mods strike this bit out if you need to).
Personally, what I think would be fair(er), is if a student didn't pay up-front for fees.
However for each year of their tuition, and automatic loan is taken out, with that years tuition fees in it (and this loan is really at 0%, not the fake 0% some of them are).
Once they are earning, and over a suitable amount (I do not know what value), then almost as a PAYE scheme, the loan is repaid.
Those that do degress/FE which provides jobs in teaching or nursing/other required by low-paid jobs, would possibly never pay back the loan. (but this loan must be done in such a way that there is no stigma attached to not paying it back)
Those that have good jobs, like the situation I am in possibly, would have paid back their loan.
The money which we pay in taxes would then go into a 'buffer' and be used for the more bricks and mortar parts of universities/council/country services.


Actually this post of mine is veering off topic.
Suffice it to say, although I think that this 'riot' has managed to bring the problems to the attention of the masses, I do not think that the actions, even if they are by a few, are justified.
I don't know whether it was the same for this particular 'meeting', but when I was invited to protest against the fees when I went to university (which I couldn't attend due to lack of funds, and the fact I was actually learning things every day), a register was taken of who was going. This should have been used to ensure that the masses were in particular places, and to provide authorities with information for those that are not there to demonstrate peacefully.
We are a democratic society in theory. The violence should not be tolerated.
Emotions are running high for obvious and understandable reasons, but violence in this case is not warranted.
 
Last edited:
Can't see the increased fees putting people off all the time its get it now and pay later

My daughter is doing an Optometry degree, she works very hard and is definitely not just having three years off (she wasn't there yesterday, too hard at study)
We are just an ordinary working class family and it would be awful if youngsters like her were unable to go to university, also need the trained professionals she will hopefully become

When I left school it was only the well off that had the chance to go further and would be terrible to go back to that situation. Why not make it free for those that have the academic skills to make use of the further education, but cannot afford it.
 
I get the distinct inference that when mentioning G12 that you condoned some of those events.... The main ones we will mostly remember is an innocent man being attacked by a police officer and dying as a result ( as far as I'm aware no police officer died that day as a result of anything a protester did? ) I'll support "my" police force, but never a mass riot control system that throws all legal and moral rules out the window in the name of "public order" which seems just an excuse to arrest someone these days. There is no excuse for someone attempting to kill an officer with a fire extinguisher and I sincerely hope they catch him and send him to prison. Meanwhile I'd advise the police to stick to their duties and restraint and "reasonable force" not revenge and just plain "counter attacks"...
 
Last edited:
So the question is - was the police response muted because of the G12/G20 protest response and they got caught out? It seems a lot is driven my public/media opinion these days. Luckily there seems to be a few decent shots of people kicking in windows for them to be identified and charged. Throwing stuff from the rooftop was just unacceptable.

Did anyone see the NUS President and the lass from the London Uni on BBC Brekfast this morning (clip here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11732264). She was the complete socialist anarchist, whilst the NUS president was trying to make some valid points.

My daughters at Uni, studying teaching. She's also working one day a week teaching English to foreign students.

Realistically, she could do her degree in two years rather than three, thus cutting the costs.
 
My daughters at Uni, studying teaching. She's also working one day a week teaching English to foreign students.

Realistically, she could do her degree in two years rather than three, thus cutting the costs.

But, I assume that the day a week teaching english, is actaully a worthwhile experience for her.
I think that whatever occurs, experiences like this shouldn't suffer. I think it is worthwhile, and good on her.
 
im suggesting the press/police want to brush this over as queitly as possible. I find it hard to belive that nearly every single paper has used the same shot, 1 picture of 1 guy kicking in 1window thats it :suspect:

Dave:thumbs:
 
im suggesting the press/police want to brush this over as queitly as possible. I find it hard to belive that nearly every single paper has used the same shot, 1 picture of 1 guy kicking in 1window thats it :suspect:

Dave:thumbs:

That feeds the idea that students are workshy slackers, which means that more people agree with an unjust policy, which means the issue is no longer a problem for the government.

To those who agree with the uni fees, why not charge students for doing A Levels? Surely further education is being funded by your taxes too (much more in fact than higher education is!)
 
The problem is that society expects the majority of people to go to university and that if you get a degree you are clever. Well, I know some people who have degrees and are as thick as pig ******!! You can do a degree with almost any A Level grades whereas I think there should be some standards.

Probably not the same as Uni's but a mate fo mine has recently started as a lecturer at a local college, teaching Mechanics (he used to be one for past 18 or so years) to 16-18 y.o. He has been amazed at the attitude there - no respect and when he asks what they want to achieve from the course around a quarter say that they are only there because their parents want to continue claiming the benefits and they have no interest.

We are putting people into FE for the sake of it, because it 'looks good'. Many of these people would be better off in the armed forces, getting discipline and learning a trade, and those with intelligence can then go to colleges that are not stretched with numbers and maybe even do better.

We seem to have forgotten that University was always meant for the most intelligent (not wealthy).

Someone still has to do the more mundane jobs, street sweepers, train drivers and many more important jobs that in no way need a degree.

Many people these day just seem to see a degree as a get rich quicker scheme along with football and appearing on x idol talent factor can dance pop.

All we will end up with is a top heavy workforce with not enough people wanting to do a hard days manual labour.

As for the violence, I was listening to 5Live where a SU president refused to condemm it and kept harping on about how it was the governments fault. Even when other students rang in to say they were appalled.
 
When I went to university, many of my friends left with almost that debt (~£22)

And what fees did they pay? £27k is just tuition fees, not taking into account living costs etc. The debt of those people would be significantly more if it were to cost as much as is being proposed.

It will make universities a place where only the wealthy can afford, therefore creating a huge class divide within society.

Those who study teaching work long hours to get their degree, and have you seen the teaching pay scales! Not exactly a pot of gold at the end of the degree.
 
To those who agree with the uni fees, why not charge students for doing A Levels?

It's not exactly charging, but the withdrawl of EMAs will mean a lot of poorer students will no longer be able to afford to stay on in education after 16.
 
Universities receive nowhere near 11bn from the government.

The figure for teaching (include widening participation funding) is around 4.7bn - which is being cut by 40%. There is a further 1.5bn for research grants.

It is estimated that the cost per student per year is around £7k, of which the student currently pays nearly half in fees.

A degree holder will earn on average well over £100k in their lifetime more than someone with A-Levels - so they end up paying much more in taxes. That will more than cover the other half of their cost to the state. So the student ultimately pays for their own degrees.

I think that you might want to improve your research a bit:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-1155061

"Currently universities are given around £11bn in government grants a year - this covers undergraduate and post-graduate teaching, research funding and infrastructure." 15 October 2010
 
Everyone gets the right to a basic education which can include A levels and that's funded by the taxpayer.
University produces three basic results:-

  1. Graduate who leaves and ends up working in Tescos, McDonalds and the like.
  2. Graduate who leaves with a non-descript 'ology' and contributes no further to society, often actually costing society even more money.
  3. Graduate who goes on to get a reasonanly well paid career.


Nos 1 and 2 don't end up paying back the taxpayer loan at all because they don't go on to earn enough; no 3 starts paying back after passing the threshold, small inconvenience for those who make university pay e.g. law/science/medical (read 'useful to society').
 
It's not exactly charging, but the withdrawl of EMAs will mean a lot of poorer students will no longer be able to afford to stay on in education after 16.

Yes, that will be a problem, but what I am saying is why is it just university that say are taxes are being wasted on, when in reality much more money is being wasted on putting students through a levels etc. Do those that are OK with Uni fees agree with this or not. Just playing devils advocate and wanted to see peoples feelings, and why it focuses on higher education rather than 16-18 bracket.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top