Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles Attacked Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Fact is Charles has nothing to do with univesity policy or the vote on it.

    It doesn't matter whether he was a random driver passing through or the heir to the throne, they attacked what was essentially a bystander. If they catch whoever did they should be charged with assault and criminal damage.

    I'd say the same no matter who was in the car.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The attack on Charles achieved two things:

    1. It proved beyond ANY doubt the true mindset of the protestors.

    2. It proved beyond ANY doubt the astonishing scale of their ignorance.

    “They’re government ******” one academic scholar shouted as they attacked the car!

    Oh dear, where can you begin to explain how farcically wrong that assertion was… But hey, just like the policy everyone is so conveniently misunderstanding and so heroically protesting against, don’t let something like the fundamental facts get in the way.

    OK, so you’ve smashed a lot of sh** up, and clearly after making such an commendable, no INSPIRATIONAL appeal the government will now scrap all of their plans. So what about PLAN B? Well here’s an idea, maybe they could just make a couple of simple changes:

    1. All bul**** filler courses could be scrapped.

    2. All funding and placements could be based strictly upon of attendance and performance.

    Hey, just like in the REAL world! Wow, imagine that!!! No really, imagine that.

    I’m not old, I’m not posh, I’m not well off, I don’t read the daily mail and I’m not against the odd bit of revolution. BUT, I AM severely disgusted by all of this self absorbed whinging and the incongruous pretence that this was anything more than a exciting jolly for most of the protestors. You know it, we know it, so let’s get it out there.

    And just to clarify, like so many have tried to explain beforehand (until blue in the face), ELECTION pledges are for parties that WIN ELECTIONS, not parties that come 3rd. (If you missed that simple point just read it again until it finally sinks in).

    So even with a heavy sprinkling of negative spin and selective misunderstanding, the rest really is just inconsequential. But again, why should the simple facts get in the way of such profound LOUD SHOUTY NOISES. Indeed as everyone knows, if you shout loud enough the facts will no longer matter.

    Ultimately I wonder how many actually read and digested these policy changes; including the various generous increases in benefits, extended free placement opportunities and fee capping safety measures? Cleary none, or they might have grasped that rich OR POOR, no one has ANYTHING to moan about. No really, just read and digest all the facts and this will become very apparent. Too much effort, don’t really care?

    Today’s attack on Prince Charles was nothing more than a culmination of breathtaking arrogance and comatosed crowd following. What a sad indictment on a generation.

    Never have so many, shown so much ignorance, whilst achieving so very little.

    Thanks for listening, have a great day wathing TV and make sure you roll a phat one.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by realitycheck)
    Thanks for listening, have a great day wathing TV and make sure you roll a phat one.
    GTFO
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Why on God's earth did they drive through THAT WAY?!?!

    :lolwut:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    to be fair what the hell were they doing going down there anyways.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jb9191)
    Maybe they'll act against these stupid Politicians then.

    I would much rather the Royal Family in charge than some house of commons bigots anyway.

    Harry is a right laugh and would be great as a proper leader for this country, even Prince William.
    People like you should not be allowed to vote or reproduce.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 4TSR)
    People like you should not be allowed to vote or reproduce.
    Yes because that is a very clever statement to make.

    The fact is Royal Security are the ones massively at fault and they should have never taken Prince Charles & Camilla down that route.

    They were clearly taken that way to provoke students and make them out to look bad.

    Well done politicians and media for being successful at portraying all students to be thugs.

    I hope all of you who have branded students thugs never ever need a life saving operation because it will be a past student (graduate) carrying out the procedure to save your life - but then again why should you deserve help from people you branded as thugs?

    The police are the legalised thugs in all this and they make me absolutely sick.
    I hope the Army kettle and beat the hell out of police officers when they are rioting about being laid off and cuts are being made to the police budget. Lets see how they react when the tables are turned and they are putting in strikes which are far more damaging and cost the taxpayer more.

    Whole country and system is a joke. Can't wait to get my degree and get out of this **** hole to pay tax where people respect students for trying to learn. I won't be paying tax to help those moaning about today's students. Save your own pension because I won't be paying for it and I hope other students don't pay for it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jb9191)
    Yes because that is a very clever statement to make.

    The fact is Royal Security are the ones massively at fault and they should have never taken Prince Charles & Camilla down that route.

    They were clearly taken that way to provoke students and make them out to look bad.

    Well done politicians and media for being successful at portraying all students to be thugs.

    I hope all of you who have branded students thugs never ever need a life saving operation because it will be a past student (graduate) carrying out the procedure to save your life - but then again why should you deserve help from people you branded as thugs?

    The police are the legalised thugs in all this and they make me absolutely sick.
    I hope the Army kettle and beat the hell out of police officers when they are rioting about being laid off and cuts are being made to the police budget. Lets see how they react when the tables are turned and they are putting in strikes which are far more damaging and cost the taxpayer more.

    Whole country and system is a joke. Can't wait to get my degree and get out of this **** hole to pay tax where people respect students for trying to learn. I won't be paying tax to help those moaning about today's students. Save your own pension because I won't be paying for it and I hope other students don't pay for it.
    What was Camilla doing with her window wound down. Was she trying to kidnap a protester?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RNBen)
    Think you just about got your point across.
    Oh god. That was when tsr went really weird and had an error message.

    Sorry everyone....
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    They had someone on the news today pointing out that they had armed guards in there, and had things really kicked off he said AND I QUOTE: "It could have ended in tragedy, if they had been using petrol instead of paint, those armed guards might have been within their rights to shoot them"

    Beyond that, I think students need to go about their means a different way. When the idiots who don't represent the protestors start kicking off, protestors should just sit down... Or avoid the whole situation altogether by doing something really positive. Like getting all those who oppose the tuition fee rises to give blood on the same day. One of the reasons students are supposed to be so great is because they are innovative. Channel all of that to a modern way of protesting which means that the cause can not be hijacked and I believe that they will be much more succesful (although I completely disagree with them)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NeoNerd)
    Nobody deserves to be have their car attacked
    This is so true, attacking a car is just over the top!!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It is disgraceful, but I must admit I couldn't suppress a giggle when I saw the photo of them on the cover of the Metro this morning.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    So the consensus seems to be that it is okay for a mob to dictate what roads we can and cannot go down? Interesting but I don't agree with that.
    They were clearly taken that way to provoke students and make them out to look bad.
    Wow! I mean... Wow! Possibly the dumbest assumption on this subject I have seen, and there have been so many. Believe me, the students don't need to be made to look bad - their behaviour is doing that already.

    My one piece of advice to anyone interested in the discussion on University fees is... READ THE FACTS FIRST. The vast majority of students seem to be getting their information from idiot friends, Facebook postings, Labour party propaganda or just plain making it up. Here is my top 10 important FACTS you should all be aware of:

    1. The £9000 figure being quoted is the MAXIMUM that a University will be able to charge per year. Obviously they can charge a lot less if they want/can. Previously the maximum fee was £3290 but then they had lots of government (i.e. tax payer) subsidy then.
    2. If Universities charge £6000 or more they need to abide by strict access agreements with the 'Office for Fair Access' to allow lower income students to attend. If they don't stick to the agreements then OFFA can fine them up to £500,000.
    3. For low income students there is the newly set up £150m National Scholarship Programme which will pay for the first year of their course.
    4. If Universities charge £6000 or more for a course then any student who would have been eligible for free school meals (if they were at school) would have their second year tuition fees paid for by the University. This can actually mean that for a three year course they only pay for one year!
    5. Maintenance grants for households earning less than £25,000 raises from £2906 to £3250 a year. Households earning up to £42,000 can still get a partial grant.
    6. The reason for the increase to the cap is because the Universities will get less money in subsidies and have to be more independent. If the fees aren't increased then the Uni's will have to provide either less courses or lower the quality of courses which is not good for anyone and would make UK qualifications less valuable in the world job market. Plus, foreign students who pay the FULL fees (much more than UK students) will go elsewhere for more valuable qualifications meaning even less money for UK Uni's.
    7. The students will not have to pay back these student loans until they earn £21,000 a year or more (increased from £15,000 previously).
    8. Even if the students earn £21,000 these are INTEREST FREE loans. If they earn more then they will have to pay a small amount of interest up to 3% (plus inflation) for incomes of £41,000 a year or more.
    9. If they have not cleared the debt 30 years after graduating then the loan is wiped clean.
    10. The Institute for Fiscal Studies says that only about 10% of graduates will end up paying back more than they borrowed. The rest will pay back either what they owed (interest free) or less because they reach the 30 year cut off.

    Suddenly it doesn't seem quite so bad.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by frankyboy123)
    So the consensus seems to be that it is okay for a mob to dictate what roads we can and cannot go down? Interesting but I don't agree with that.

    Wow! I mean... Wow! Possibly the dumbest assumption on this subject I have seen, and there have been so many. Believe me, the students don't need to be made to look bad - their behaviour is doing that already.

    My one piece of advice to anyone interested in the discussion on University fees is... READ THE FACTS FIRST. The vast majority of students seem to be getting their information from idiot friends, Facebook postings, Labour party propaganda or just plain making it up. Here is my top 10 important FACTS you should all be aware of:

    1. The £9000 figure being quoted is the MAXIMUM that a University will be able to charge per year. Obviously they can charge a lot less if they want/can. Previously the maximum fee was £3290 but then they had lots of government (i.e. tax payer) subsidy then.
    2. If Universities charge £6000 or more they need to abide by strict access agreements with the 'Office for Fair Access' to allow lower income students to attend. If they don't stick to the agreements then OFFA can fine them up to £500,000.
    3. For low income students there is the newly set up £150m National Scholarship Programme which will pay for the first year of their course.
    4. If Universities charge £6000 or more for a course then any student who would have been eligible for free school meals (if they were at school) would have their second year tuition fees paid for by the University. This can actually mean that for a three year course they only pay for one year!
    5. Maintenance grants for households earning less than £25,000 raises from £2906 to £3250 a year. Households earning up to £42,000 can still get a partial grant.
    6. The reason for the increase to the cap is because the Universities will get less money in subsidies and have to be more independent. If the fees aren't increased then the Uni's will have to provide either less courses or lower the quality of courses which is not good for anyone and would make UK qualifications less valuable in the world job market. Plus, foreign students who pay the FULL fees (much more than UK students) will go elsewhere for more valuable qualifications meaning even less money for UK Uni's.
    7. The students will not have to pay back these student loans until they earn £21,000 a year or more (increased from £15,000 previously).
    8. Even if the students earn £21,000 these are INTEREST FREE loans. If they earn more then they will have to pay a small amount of interest up to 3% (plus inflation) for incomes of £41,000 a year or more.
    9. If they have not cleared the debt 30 years after graduating then the loan is wiped clean.
    10. The Institute for Fiscal Studies says that only about 10% of graduates will end up paying back more than they borrowed. The rest will pay back either what they owed (interest free) or less because they reach the 30 year cut off.

    Suddenly it doesn't seem quite so bad.
    Agree with everything above, but try telling that to the sh*t for brain idiots who believe everything they come across they are entitled to, and whenever they want it.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meenu89)
    They have nothing to do with the fees increasing. How would you like it if someone hit you for no reason...?
    There wasn't a single part of my post that implied they were responsible for the fees increasing.

    They didn't get hit, they got a smashed window and paint on their car.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ed46)
    This is so true, attacking a car is just over the top!!
    If you're going to quote me, I'd appreciate it if you didn't alter what I say to suit you. Or at least make it more clear where the alterations begin, and where my actual comments end.

    In any case, I assume that you would be angry if a group of people surrounded your car and smashed the windows while shouting threats. I might suggest that you would think it was, "just over the top."
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by frankyboy123)
    So the consensus seems to be that it is okay for a mob to dictate what roads we can and cannot go down? Interesting but I don't agree with that.

    Wow! I mean... Wow! Possibly the dumbest assumption on this subject I have seen, and there have been so many. Believe me, the students don't need to be made to look bad - their behaviour is doing that already.

    How is it dumb?

    The Royals use millions in taxpayers money for security and then they decide to go down a street getting vandalised by protesters and get involved with clashes between protesters & police. The person who planned that route is either

    1) dumb as you can ****ing get in today's world
    2) has been told to take that route for media reasons knowing the students would be provoked.

    I think the latter is more acceptable.


    My one piece of advice to anyone interested in the discussion on University fees is... READ THE FACTS FIRST. The vast majority of students seem to be getting their information from idiot friends, Facebook postings, Labour party propaganda or just plain making it up. Here is my top 10 important FACTS you should all be aware of:

    Yes we have read the facts provided by the BBC education website which are the most accurate you can get as they are put forward based on what was said in Parliament. The issue is the compounding levels of debt interest which will annually build up and leave students crippled with debt as interest compounding on a larger debt builds up much quicker than it does on a smaller initial sum. You must be really gullible if you think that The Tories are going to stop at that. They haven't even voted on interest rates yet so its quite possible that part of the review will change at the last minute back to what The Tories wanted. So far all that has been set is the maximum fee of £9000 and the minimum fee of £6000. Before anyone says that £6000 is not the minimum then think again. Any university can now charge £6000 without question so therefore they will do because in effect they will want to get more funding. Why charge £4,500 when you can get an extra £1,500 per year of tuition from each student without question?

    1. The £9000 figure being quoted is the MAXIMUM that a University will be able to charge per year. Obviously they can charge a lot less if they want/can. Previously the maximum fee was £3290 but then they had lots of government (i.e. tax payer) subsidy then.

      That is obvious. The lowest any university will charge is £6000.
    2. If Universities charge £6000 or more they need to abide by strict access agreements with the 'Office for Fair Access' to allow lower income students to attend. If they don't stick to the agreements then OFFA can fine them up to £500,000.

      This law hasn't even passed yet and can easily be changed before voting takes place. I would expect it to do so as The Tories now know they have a 21 person advantage so therefore can allowing slight adjustments to their review. Also a £500,000 fine is nothing to them. That is like telling a footballer he is being fined for a red or yellow card. He usually responds by laughing in your face as their pockets pack far more than enough to deal with the fine and more. Do not expect them to stick to their promises. Especially Clegg, remember that promise of no fee rises Why do you think he will stick to this promise when he couldn't even stick to his pre election pledge?

    3. For low income students there is the newly set up £150m National Scholarship Programme which will pay for the first year of their course.
    4. If Universities charge £6000 or more for a course then any student who would have been eligible for free school meals (if they were at school) would have their second year tuition fees paid for by the University. This can actually mean that for a three year course they only pay for one year!

      You have to extremely poor to have this paid for you and again this hasn't been passed yet so is not guaranteed. It could have easily been a ploy to win the main votes in yesterdays decision. There are still more issues to vote on.
    5. Maintenance grants for households earning less than £25,000 raises from £2906 to £3250 a year. Households earning up to £42,000 can still get a partial grant.

      Wow! Lets add a substantial amount extra to the total debt yet add approx £350 extra per year in the grant. That sounds like a deal too good to be true.
    6. The reason for the increase to the cap is because the Universities will get less money in subsidies and have to be more independent. If the fees aren't increased then the Uni's will have to provide either less courses or lower the quality of courses which is not good for anyone and would make UK qualifications less valuable in the world job market. Plus, foreign students who pay the FULL fees (much more than UK students) will go elsewhere for more valuable qualifications meaning even less money for UK Uni's.

      The money the universities make in tuition fees will be more than enough in most cases to cover the cut in the education budget. This has been stated several times by the BBC. So therefore the universities will get more funding whilst putting additional strain on the taxpayer.

      Foreign students won't go elsewhere as UK universities are still highly regarded and will be for years to come.

    7. The students will not have to pay back these student loans until they earn £21,000 a year or more (increased from £15,000 previously).

      £15,000 with financial growth will be worth approx £21,000 in April 2016, when the first batch of 2012 graduates start paying back. Please don't let the figures fool you into thinking you have had a good deal as the cost of living will increase by then as well as the salaries etc..
    8. Even if the students earn £21,000 these are INTEREST FREE loans. If they earn more then they will have to pay a small amount of interest up to 3% (plus inflation) for incomes of £41,000 a year or more.

      Seeing as the average graduate salary is around £24,000 then the majority will not get interest free loans at all. The interest rate for the new loans hasn't been set yet and the vote has still not been voted on in parliament meaning the Tories & Liberal Democrats can easily change or alter anything they have previously said as they have a 21 vote majority to fall back on. Even if they lose 4 or 5 of those votes due to altering their plans they can still push their changes through. Not everything is done and dusted yet. The only thing that has been voted on is the maximum tuition fee and the lower end fee.
    9. If they have not cleared the debt 30 years after graduating then the loan is wiped clean.

      Yes I can't see how a loan being wiped after 30 years is better than a loan being wiped after 25 years, which is under the current system.
    10. The Institute for Fiscal Studies says that only about 10% of graduates will end up paying back more than they borrowed. The rest will pay back either what they owed (interest free) or less because they reach the 30 year cut off.

      The Institute for Fiscal Studies is a biased company known for years to have provided manipulated statistics and data on behalf of the government. The most noticeable time was when they claimed crime had decreased under Labour reign yet under Official Police Statistics taken it showed crime had risen dramatically. It later emerged that IFS had removed rape charges, drug charges such as cautions and petty crimes from their statistics in order to present statistics that showed crime had decreased. Petty crime makes up most of the crime in the UK so removing that from statistical evidence would massively alter any outcome. I will never trust them.

    Suddenly it doesn't seem quite so bad.
    Yes it does as not all the voting has been done. Just you wait when Cameron & Clegg stick the knife right in by altering what they have already said. None of what has been said in the run up to the vote has been an actual verbal promise or pledge so therefore it has no official meaning so they can easily alter anything they had said previously to win votes.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NeoNerd)
    If you're going to quote me, I'd appreciate it if you didn't alter what I say to suit you. Or at least make it more clear where the alterations begin, and where my actual comments end.

    In any case, I assume that you would be angry if a group of people surrounded your car and smashed the windows while shouting threats. I might suggest that you would think it was, "just over the top."
    I was correcting your statement as it was the car that got attacked. And honestly im not that fussed. Now be quiet or i'll kick your car!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    lol
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by laurenl93)
    There wasn't a single part of my post that implied they were responsible for the fees increasing.

    They didn't get hit, they got a smashed window and paint on their car.
    I know they didn't get hit. You said in your post that you would laugh at Camilla if she got hit.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 5, 2011
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.