Student Protests

10 Jan 2011

Quote by flower411
It`s amazing that everybody arguing for tuition fees to be paid by the taxpayer brings doctors into the equation !!!

And those arguing against always bring lawyers and bankers into the equation.
You don't need do have contact with a graduate to benefit from their input.

10 Jan 2011

Quote by flower411
Imagine the next doctor I see was educated in England !!!!

English doctors, that takes me back, I remember them from my childhood :lol:

:rotflmao::rotflmao:

10 Jan 2011

I haven't seen a foreign doctor in my life.....I've seen a couple of English doctors of Asian descent but not for a while

10 Jan 2011

Quote by flower411
Imagine the next doctor I see was educated in England !!!!
It`s amazing that everybody arguing for tuition fees to be paid by the taxpayer brings doctors into the equation !!! I`ve not seen an English doctor for years ....doesn`t worry me in the least but where are all these graduates that I`ve been paying for ?
It`s one thing to be blind and another to be stupid and blind !!!

Lets take doctors out of the equation then...shall we also do away with medical researchers from the doctors to the lab technicians.
Let's talk about civil engineers...I have a good friend who is a civil engineer he spent a good few years working for our local council earning a relatively small wage, his job was (in part at least) to test local footbridges and subways to ensure they were still structurally sound...I for one am quite pleased that someone does this job,I don't want the next bridge I cross to collapse under me.

Quote by flower411
The only graduates I meet in real life are solicitors ......£150 an hour +
Architects ......fucking huge amounts of money per hour +
Bankers ....ripping me off left right and centre
It`s one thing to be blind and another to be stupid and blind !!!

Solicitors,Architects and Bankers all be paying far more tax than most of us and are therefore repaying the nation for their education ,if you don't think they're paying enough then you're arguing for a more equitable system of taxation not the removal of funding for higher education.....I've already mentioned a policy once espoused by the Lib-dems that would see them paying more.
So what point are you arguing?

10 Jan 2011

Old links, for those who were wondering about foreign GP's,

10 Jan 2011

There are a huge number of degree courses that result in the person being a graduate.
Some are almost entirely non-vocational - like history of art. Interesting but not earth-rocking and theoretical physics - earth rocking but not very useful on a daily basis.
Some are high-flying - such as medical doctor, solicitors.
Some are workaday - like engineering (my own subject) not great money but above average, archaeology - terrible pay-rates, forensics - as bad as archaeology, or brewing sciences, or library systems and document preservation, and many others that all of us meet on a daily basis have but aren't necessarily mentioned in conversation.
I don't beleive that all degrees are equally vauluable to the UK. And on that basis I don't think all should automatically get support from the state. Some should get partial support and some, frankly, are nothing but vanity or fun subjects for interest only and shold get no state support at all.
And I still stand by the idea that no-one should be accepted onto a course unless they are fully capable and willing to do the work.
I don't think we can afford to make universal rules covering all subjects.

11 Jan 2011

I hear today that the thrower of the extinguisher from Millbank roof has been sentanced to 2 years

11 Jan 2011

Reading yesterdays (or it might have been todays) Metro, his mother said he was a good boy, she hopes that the courts don't make an example of him, and that any imprisonment will damage his future prospects.
I personally would like to have seen him done for attempted murder, and really made an example of.

11 Jan 2011

Quote by essex34m
Reading yesterdays (or it might have been todays) Metro, his mother said he was a good boy, she hopes that the courts don't make an example of him, and that any imprisonment will damage his future prospects.
I personally would like to have seen him done for attempted murder, and really made an example of.

I tend to agree, a bonk on the head with a fire extinguisher would have buggered up your future as well!

12 Jan 2011

Interestingly, Jon Gaunt (remember him? Kenty's best choice for PM - he seems to becoming more of a slob every time I see him) on SkyNews Sunrise program suggested that the sentence was too harsh!
He suggested that the sentence was politically motivated.
Whether that or not, he has learnt a very valuable lesson early in life; you are responsible for your own actions and he is extremely fortunate that he did not face a more serious charge altogether.

12 Jan 2011

Quote by GnV
Interestingly, Jon Gaunt (remember him? Kenty's best choice for PM - he seems to becoming more of a slob every time I see him) on SkyNews Sunrise program suggested that the sentence was too harsh!
He suggested that the sentence was politically motivated.
Whether that or not, he has learnt a very valuable lesson early in life; you are responsible for your own actions and he is extremely fortunate that he did not face a more serious charge altogether.

Fortunate not to be facing a more serious charge and unfortunate he is the victim of a media hyped case. Its not that I think the sentence is harsh I just think when you compare it to some people who mow down children in cars drive off and dont event get a prison sentence or get about the same as this guy it just does not add up. This is what I think about British law, its old traditional and totally fucked up and in need of simplification.

12 Jan 2011

Quote by tweeky
Interestingly, Jon Gaunt (remember him? Kenty's best choice for PM - he seems to becoming more of a slob every time I see him) on SkyNews Sunrise program suggested that the sentence was too harsh!
He suggested that the sentence was politically motivated.
Whether that or not, he has learnt a very valuable lesson early in life; you are responsible for your own actions and he is extremely fortunate that he did not face a more serious charge altogether.

Fortunate not to be facing a more serious charge and unfortunate he is the victim of a media hyped case. Its not that I think the sentence is harsh I just think when you compare it to some people who mow down children in cars drive off and dont event get a prison sentence or get about the same as this guy it just does not add up. This is what I think about British law, its old traditional and totally fucked up and in need of simplification.
Absolutely, Tweeky. And whether or not he should have done what he did, or whether or not his sentence was too harsh, he at least had the guts to go out on to the streets and protest about something he thought unfair, unlike most English people who don't have the courage to do anything about anything they feel is unfair beyond grumbling about it. It was because people like him had the guts to go out onto the streets and protest that we now have free education for all, free health for all, equal rights for women etc etc and if we don't continue fighting then piecemeal they will be taken away from us.
"

12 Jan 2011

Quote by sexyslut79
It was because people like him had the guts to go out onto the streets and protest that we now have free education for all, free health for all, equal rights for women etc etc and if we don't continue fighting then piecemeal they will be taken away from us.
"

Free education? Where does the money come from to fund the eduction budget?
Free health? Where does the money come from to fund the NHS budget?
If you think those are free then you need to look at where your council tax, NI and general taxation are going.
There's no such thing as "free".

12 Jan 2011

I wonder how the people defending his actions would have reacted to a soccer hooligan doing the self-same thing dunno

12 Jan 2011

Must admit, I'm slightly troubled by his sentance.
The sentence itself is right and proper, IMO, but, when you compare it to what the recent iraqi asylum seeker got when he ran over and killed that poor little girl, it seems harsh.
I feel the hand of the goverment in the sentancing, I reckon words were had in the judges ear.

12 Jan 2011

He got what was coming to him, in my view. Why other cases have been more lenient I do not know and can not pretend to be happy about it.

12 Jan 2011

:lol2::lol2: Nice try

13 Jan 2011

Quote by browning
Must admit, I'm slightly troubled by his sentance.
The sentence itself is right and proper, IMO, but, when you compare it to what the recent iraqi asylum seeker got when he ran over and killed that poor little girl, it seems harsh.
I feel the hand of the goverment in the sentancing, I reckon words were had in the judges ear.

It is a harsh sentence in comparison - I feel that if his skin was a different colour, he would have been treated more leniently.

13 Jan 2011

Quote by swcpl2005
It was because people like him had the guts to go out onto the streets and protest that we now have free education for all, free health for all, equal rights for women etc etc and if we don't continue fighting then piecemeal they will be taken away from us.
"

Free education? Where does the money come from to fund the eduction budget?
Free health? Where does the money come from to fund the NHS budget?
If you think those are free then you need to look at where your council tax, NI and general taxation are going.
There's no such thing as "free".
I am well aware that State education for all is paid for by the tax-payer. But where would we be if this wasn't the case? If we were living in the nineteenth century when there was no State education for all paid by the tax-payer then unless you came from a rich background you would neither have been capable of reading my post nor replying to it because you wouldn't have been able to read and write.
Read your History.

13 Jan 2011

Quote by sexyslut79
It was because people like him had the guts to go out onto the streets and protest that we now have free education for all, free health for all, equal rights for women etc etc and if we don't continue fighting then piecemeal they will be taken away from us.
"

Free education? Where does the money come from to fund the eduction budget?
Free health? Where does the money come from to fund the NHS budget?
If you think those are free then you need to look at where your council tax, NI and general taxation are going.
There's no such thing as "free".
I am well aware that State education for all is paid for by the tax-payer. But where would we be if this wasn't the case? If we were living in the nineteenth century when there was no State education for all paid by the tax-payer then unless you came from a rich background you would neither have been capable of reading my post nor replying to it because you wouldn't have been able to read and write.
Read your History.
So where in history does it point to violent protests such as throwing fire extinguishers of the top of buildings at the Bow Street Runners in order to get "free" education dunno

13 Jan 2011

Quote by sexyslut79
If we were living in the nineteenth century when there was no State education for all paid by the tax-payer then unless you came from a rich background you would neither have been capable of reading my post nor replying to it because you wouldn't have been able to read and write.
Read your History.

I was a little bit confused by your post, so I went and read some history. It turns out that not just people from rich backgrounds were educated as you say. Many apprentices, soldiers and sailors, members of religious groups and guilds assistants received education. In fact, King Alfred insisted that "section leaders" (or the equivalent term of the day) of his armies who weren't all from rich backgrounds were taught reading and writing so that they could understand his written orders from Winchester, and be able to report back to him in the same way.
Perhaps you need to re-read your history?

13 Jan 2011

Quote by sexyslut79
I am well aware that State education for all is paid for by the tax-payer. But where would we be if this wasn't the case? If we were living in the nineteenth century when there was no State education for all paid by the tax-payer then unless you came from a rich background you would neither have been capable of reading my post nor replying to it because you wouldn't have been able to read and write.
Read your History.

In 1699 a charity was set up in my village to provide basic education for all the poor of the parish. This was in existence, in varying levels if effectiveness, until the early years of the 1800's when the charity was re-activated, provided with trustees and employed a school master and provided a new building to house the classes. All children were expected to attend, parents were often fined for not sending their children, very poor families could get the 'fees' covered, less poor families had to find the 1-3 pennies a week to attend. This they did. Education has been seen as important for a long time. In 1871 (I think) the Education Act made primary education compulsory and free for all children up to 12.
There may not have been state funded eductation in the first three-quarters of the 19th century - but that certainly doesn't mean there wasn't any.

13 Jan 2011

Let us not forget the 1842 mines act which prevented the employment of children under 10 but only in mines mind.

13 Jan 2011

Well that's ok then as long as SOME of the peasants could read

13 Jan 2011

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
Well that's ok then as long as SOME of the peasants could read

The point is, state funding did not begin the education of the poor - it simply expanded it.
The point was made - no need to get snippy about it.

13 Jan 2011

Quote by ForestFunsters
If we were living in the nineteenth century when there was no State education for all paid by the tax-payer then unless you came from a rich background you would neither have been capable of reading my post nor replying to it because you wouldn't have been able to read and write.
Read your History.

I was a little bit confused by your post, so I went and read some history. It turns out that not just people from rich backgrounds were educated as you say. Many apprentices, soldiers and sailors, members of religious groups and guilds assistants received education. In fact, King Alfred insisted that "section leaders" (or the equivalent term of the day) of his armies who weren't all from rich backgrounds were taught reading and writing so that they could understand his written orders from Winchester, and be able to report back to him in the same way.
Perhaps you need to re-read your history?
Well I am an Historian and teach it at University. I would happily sit down and discuss with you the points you have raised, but that is not possible, and I do not have the time for a full written reply as I am just about to depart for warmer climes. However, if you contact me after March 5th when we return, I would be happy to write to you in full, citing my sources . In the meantime,may I suggest, for KIng Alfred, that you read "Anglo-Saxon England" by F.M. Stenton ?

13 Jan 2011

Quote by Max777
I wonder how the people defending his actions would have reacted to a soccer hooligan doing the self-same thing

Interesting point cus if you go google football hooligans you can see exactly what goes on. Its also easy to see that chairs tables and all that kind of stuff gets chucked in bars around the country on a weekly basis and people get arrested. I bet though in the most part they dont get custodial sentences even in cases of deliberate violence with associated injury.
Like I said before I am not saying I dont agree with the Students sentence but things do need more balance.

27 Jan 2011

'Number Crunching
32months for which Edward Woolard was jailed for throwing a fire extinguisher, which could have killed (but didn't) a police officer at a protest.
0 charges brought against a police officer for striking and pushing Ian Tomlinson which could have killed him at a protest ( and one pathologist says probably did) '
Private Eye
Justice ??

27 Jan 2011

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
'Number Crunching
32 months for which Edward Woolard was jailed for throwing a fire extinguisher, which could have killed (but didn't) a police officer at a protest.
0 charges brought against a police officer for striking and pushing Ian Tomlinson which could have killed him at a protest ( and on pathologist says probably did) '
Private Eye
Justice ??

I could not agree more, its completely mad.
I see nothing wrong with Woolards sentence, however, in my humble opinion, the police officer responsible should have been strung up!

8 Mar 2011