Anyone else fed up with the protests??

So we are thick for having a fear of exactly what caused the recession? (ie debt).
I'm sorry, try going to someone who comes from a family who has grown up on £10,000 a year and then telling them if they want to go to uni to better themselves, they have to spend that much on tuition fees alone. You'll get no where. I'm not saying its right, but people in that position do not want to think about that much debt. In any case, there was a report out a few days back saying that the majority of people will pay MORE than what they do now, not less.

And you can blame the police for being pre-emptive. Because it is arguably illegal.

Yeah exactly - and if we continue to let over 50% of young people to study bull**** degrees at bull**** universitys who will then spend a year 'finding themselves' before ending up working in a resturant as a waiter what will we get? Even more debt. The new way fees will be paid will mean you only ever pay it back once you are earning a certain amount of money. What part of this do you morons not understand?

The person growing up on a small amount of money will ONLY REPAY THE FEES ONCE HE'S EARNING AT LEAST £25,000.

And being pre-emptive is illegal is it? Thats news to me and I'm actually a Police Officer. What section is this new law under? Section 78 of the ignorant hippy student act?

It's a poor excuse. I grew up in a poor family and the uni debt never bothered me, simply because it doesn't have to be paid back until I'm earning over £15k a year. I would think twice about going to uni if it cost me £9k a year in tuition fees but that's regardless of parental income. I guess it's because I grew up having to buy my own things, spend my own money on what I want etc. without getting constant hand outs from parents.

Family income had no factor on my decision to go to university and why the hell should it? I'm an adult, it was my choice to go to university, therefore it should be my money paying for it. Not my parent's money, not your tax and not donations from rich graduates.

I don't see why students expect so much for free, it's probably the students from rich families whining the loudest because they've grown up getting constant large sums of money from their parents and expensive gifts all through the year rather than just Christmas.

I don't agree with the target of 50% going to uni. However if you look into it, there never was that target. It actually was an aim of getting 50% to go into some kind of high education or training. Not specifically uni.

Plus, who are you to say what degrees or unis are rubbish? You'd be surprised at the employment figures of some courses at some unis.

People do understand how it will be paid back. They just don't want a £50,000 debt over them that may not even be paid back (in which case what is the point of the higher fees if most people won't pay them). And its actually £21,000 not £25,000. And that figure doesn't increase with inflation.

As for the illegal bit, the police have to have reason the believe violence is going to occur before reacting to it. Kettling and the like cannot be used as a preventative measure, only as a reaction. Go to the 1.54pm update here
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/blog/2010/nov/30/student-protests-live-coverage

Why would having a £50,000 pound debt that you don't have to pay back bother anyone? To be honest if you are university educated then you owe it to yourself and everyone else to be a success.. IE if they can't get a job that pays over whatever the cut off is they frankly deserve it.

And once again don't preach your muddled interpretation of the law to a proffesional thanks - The police have a duty to prevent a breach of the peace and if an officer or officers believe a breach of the peace may be about to occur they can use whatever force they deem required to prevent that breach of the peace be it 'kettling', tear gas, horses, releasing wild honey badgers.. etc.

And once again don't preach your muddled interpretation of the law to a proffesional thanks - The police have a duty to prevent a breach of the peace and if an officer or officers believe a breach of the peace may be about to occur they can use whatever force they deem required to prevent that breach of the peace be it 'kettling', tear gas, horses, releasing wild honey badgers.. etc.

The police have a duty to protect human rights, and that includes those of the protestors in addition to the public. They need a very good reason to imprison children without water for hours or to use a cavalry charge on a largely peaceful protest, and they didn't have it.

As for the illegal bit, the police have to have reason the believe violence is going to occur before reacting to it.

But you've already started / been to uni. So you are talking about a third of the debt that the new proposals are about.

And I'm not saying family income specifically has a factor, but peoples backgrounds. People from a family on a low income will see £50,000 as an awful lot more than someone who comes from a family on a high income. It means a lot more to them.

And with your argument about you deciding to go to uni. What about the NHS, or public transport and other public services etc. People choose to use those services, so do you take the same opinion that they should pay for them and they shouldn't be funded through taxes?

Students don't expect stuff for free. They expect to not have huge amount of debts once they graduate.

Except there was no reason to believe there would have been a breach of the peace. It was a properly organised protest that the police had initially agreed to. If they thought it would be violent, then why did they agree to it in the first place?

People turning up to a violent demonstration know what to expect. The police didn't force anyone to run up and start smashing windows.

Do you not think the huge amount of violence in the first protest where the police trusted them to have a peaceful protect was enough to give reason to believe violence will occur again? At the end of the day I rather see the police do all in the power to prevent a repeat of the first protest. You guys brought it on yourselves by acting like spoilt children the first time.


I don't know where you're getting this £50000 from or 1/3 of what debt will be. We're talking about a MAXIMUM of £9k per year (many universities will charge less for some courses), and current fees are around £3300. Even in worse case scenario that's an increase of around 16-17k debt. Considering I came out of uni with 19-20k that's hardly a tripling of debt or the 50k you're talking about.

The difference is meaningless to me, and I'd feel better with a 37k debt knowing I don't have to pay it back until I'm earning £21k than I would with a £19k debt having to pay it back as soon as I get a job worth barely more than minimum wage (£15k).

You are exaggerating your figures and saying a lot of things that are not true. This is the problem with a lot of protesters.

Are you kidding me? Are you denying that the 'student' protests have been characterized by extreme violence on the part of the 'students'?

You don't think smashing up Millbank could be considered a breach of the peace? Or wrecking a police van? The Police have a duty to PREVENT crime and protect the Queens Peace - The protesters have proven that they cannot be trusted and will be treated accordingly.

What do you expect the cops to do? Ask you all politley to stop chucking stuff at them?

It wasn't a violent demo for the most part.

Well why did they agree to the protest route then? If they thought there would be trouble based on the previous ones, why agree to this one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVNMKyxEwrc



Because people have a right to protest and they have to do it somewhere. If they wouldn't act up we wouldn't have to deal with them.

Because clearly one video is representative of a thousands-strong protest, and Sky News a fair and unbiased source

The vast majority of the protests were not violent.
And if the police had reason to believe the protest would be violent then they could refuse to agree to it. Simple. The protest would have then be illegal. Any protest needs the cooperation of the police in its organisation.

Imagine the government/police said ''No you can't protest''.

Then what would happen?

If you like I can post tons of videos of tons of different people commiting dozens of offences. I'm going to assume you arn't denying that more than a few students acted shamefully and enough that they needed to be dealt with.

No I don't think the first two protests were reason to believe there would be violence. If the police thought there would be violence, then they could have simpley refused to agree to the protest.

I am not exaggerating figures. Why do you think most unis will charge less than £9000. On what grounds do you believe that? I don't. I think most unis WILL charge £9000. So on that basis, £9000x3 years = £27,000. Plus maintance loan for three years (around £10,000) so you get a total of £37,000. Plus Interest that will be added to the debt you are easily at £40,000. Then you have to consider many people do 4, 5 or 6 year courses which will mean they will owe an awful lot more. I think £50,000 average is around right.

You're right, it would be stupid to deny that no students/protestors were in the wrong, i'm not defending those who actually WERE violent. What i'm trying to argue is that the police used heavy-handed tactics against non-violent protestors. I can equally post videos of peaceful protestors being the victims of police brutality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgxwTF-qeAo&feature=player_embedded