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

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Musty_Elbow)
    However, if one believes in banning private schools, why not ban private healthcare? Is it not the same principle - equality of opportunity. Many young people won't have the same opportunities as they have to wait longer for their healthcare than their richer counterparts.
    Erm because as I was implying, if you ban healthcare entirely you don't have the opportunity to remove nonsense like boobjobs to the private sector where it belongs. THere is scope, however, from removing primary care from the hands of the private sector but if people wish to recover in a private hospital then is that really any different from recovering from an operation in a hotel room?

    It does demonstrate that the Right tends to think of the Left in terms of stereotypes when they can't break apart the reasons why private education is bad entirely but why private healthcare might have certain avenues that are useful.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    Erm because as I was implying, if you ban healthcare entirely you don't have the opportunity to remove nonsense like boobjobs to the private sector where it belongs. THere is scope, however, from removing primary care from the hands of the private sector but if people wish to recover in a private hospital then is that really any different from recovering from an operation in a hotel room?

    It does demonstrate that the Right tends to think of the Left in terms of stereotypes when they can't break apart the reasons why private education is bad entirely but why private healthcare might have certain avenues that are useful.
    I guess it is a bit of a stereotype, but I just wanted to see what the justification was for the difference.

    Most of my questions are not ideologically antagonistic posts (at least not deliberately), I'm usually just interested to see another point of views justification - otherwise how can I have any confidence in my own views?
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by paperclip)
    The top one, though my main girl will always be



    Gingers :coma:


    :love:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Musty_Elbow)
    I agree completely - and I've actually been drafting a Bill withdrawing cosmetic surgery from the NHS.

    However, if one believes in banning private schools, why not ban private healthcare? Is it not the same principle - equality of opportunity. Many young people won't have the same opportunities as they have to wait longer for their healthcare than their richer counterparts.
    I think a significant difference is that in the case of education, people are placed in competition for jobs, university, and so forth. For private healthcare, so long as the person pays their taxes (so State healthcare standards would remain the same) then there's nothing which strikes me as immediately wrong with them seeking private healthcare to help cure their illness and restore their health (it just reduces the burden on the NHS).

    I'm merely saying that this is one view as to why there may be a difference.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Musty_Elbow)
    I agree completely - and I've actually been drafting a Bill withdrawing cosmetic surgery from the NHS.

    However, if one believes in banning private schools, why not ban private healthcare? Is it not the same principle - equality of opportunity. Many young people won't have the same opportunities as they have to wait longer for their healthcare than their richer counterparts.
    How is private healthcare a barrier to equality of opportunity? In my view, education is a special case of a good because it provides opportunity, and thus a better education through wealth implies that money is buying opportunity undeserved purely on merit. With healthcare, something that is needed predominantly towards the end of your life (indeed hugeluy skewed that way), this isn't the case.

    Someone having private healthcare doesn't adversely affect someone else who has public healthcare. With education, when it comes to competition for uni or jobs, it does.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drogue)
    How is private healthcare a barrier to equality of opportunity? In my view, education is a special case of a good because it provides opportunity, and thus a better education through wealth implies that money is buying opportunity undeserved purely on merit. With healthcare, something that is needed predominantly towards the end of your life (indeed hugeluy skewed that way), this isn't the case.

    Someone having private healthcare doesn't adversely affect someone else who has public healthcare. With education, when it comes to competition for uni or jobs, it does.
    (Original post by Melancholy)
    I think a significant difference is that in the case of education, people are placed in competition for jobs, university, and so forth. For private healthcare, so long as the person pays their taxes (so State healthcare standards would remain the same) then there's nothing which strikes me as immediately wrong with them seeking private healthcare to help cure their illness and restore their health (it just reduces the burden on the NHS).
    Opportunity isn't simply focussed at the start of life. Indeed, 2 middle aged people who have equal qualifications, and equal experience both fall ill with a breast cancer. One is much more wealthy than the other, can therefore afford expensive drugs and recover quicker and therefore apply for the job. The other is left on the cheaper and less effective drug and therefore is too ill to apply for the job. Now, people may attack the hypothetical given, but it certainly happens in one form or another.

    Indeed it is one of the 4 explanations for the inequalities in health. The "selection" theory, that it is because of untreated illness that some people are in poverty.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Musty_Elbow)
    Opportunity isn't simply focussed at the start of life. Indeed, 2 middle aged people who have equal qualifications, and equal experience both fall ill with a breast cancer. One is much more wealthy than the other, can therefore afford expensive drugs and recover quicker and therefore apply for the job. The other is left on the cheaper and less effective drug and therefore is too ill to apply for the job. Now, people may attack the hypothetical given, but it certainly happens in one form or another.
    The hypothetical seems to be pretty rare (I can't think of a decent example) - but I accept that I must engage with the hypothetical example because it is at least possible to occur.

    Disability discrimination acts and such things partly deal with this, but I think you've missed the point of what I'm saying. It's best to look at it in this way. In education, if somebody has a better education (because they can afford it or whatever) then that gives them a much better chance to go to university and enjoy a comfortable career, being able to earn a lot more money and enjoy more of property, resources and such things. In that sense, education acts almost as a zero sum game - there are a finite number of good job opportunities, and education is a means through which people can get into those slots. It seems unfair to let somebody's comfortable financial background to be a way in which these slots can be filled - you'll continue a cycle of people buying their way into a comfortable standard of living. In health, this problem is less evident. When a person pays for their own healthcare, they unburden the waiting times on the NHS, they're helping the poor (so long as they still pay their taxes and contribute additionally towards the healthcare of others). I don't mind inequality so long as its inequality to which the poorest and disadvantaged would consent - and when it comes to people's lives, they just want to get healthier much more quickly. I don't want to gamble with people's health. With education, it is different; it has a much more noticeable and direct effect on social mobility, and allowing the richest to, realistically, buy their good grades, doesn't really benefit the least-well off in society who can't afford a good education. Heathcare, generally used towards the end of one's life for serious illnesses, isn't primarily a tool for promoting social mobility in the same way that education serves as a massive tool for promoting equality of opportunity.

    Indeed it is one of the 4 explanations for the inequalities in health. The "selection" theory, that it is because of untreated illness that some people are in poverty.
    I don't get what you mean by the "4 explanations for the inequalities in health". What are they? They key thing to remember is that it's precisely because of a State system that we can guarantee that the poorest can get treated for free, and allowing richer members of society to go private (and still pay for the NHS), then they're not significantly harming the poorest who are poor who will get their treatment paid for and enjoy reduced waiting times because people opting for the competing private sector.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Melancholy)
    The hypothetical seems to be pretty rare (I can't think of a decent example) - but I accept that I must engage with the hypothetical example because it is at least possible to occur.

    Disability discrimination acts and such things partly deal with this, but I think you've missed the point of what I'm saying. It's best to look at it in this way. In education, if somebody has a better education (because they can afford it or whatever) then that gives them a much better chance to go to university and enjoy a comfortable career, being able to earn a lot more money and enjoy more of property, resources and such things. In that sense, education acts almost as a zero sum game - there are a finite number of good job opportunities, and education is a means through which people can get into those slots. It seems unfair to let somebody's comfortable financial background to be a way in which these slots can be filled - you'll continue a cycle of people buying their way into a comfortable standard of living. In health, this problem is less evident. When a person pays for their own healthcare, they unburden the waiting times on the NHS, they're helping the poor (so long as they still pay their taxes and contribute additionally towards the healthcare of others). I don't mind inequality so long as its inequality to which the poorest and disadvantaged would consent - and when it comes to people's lives, they just want to get healthier much more quickly. I don't want to gamble with people's health. With education, it is different; it has a much more noticeable and direct effect on social mobility, and allowing the richest to, realistically, buy their good grades, doesn't really benefit the least-well off in society who can't afford a good education. Heathcare, generally used towards the end of one's life for serious illnesses, isn't primarily a tool for promoting social mobility in the same way that education serves as a massive tool for promoting equality of opportunity.


    I don't get what you mean by the "4 explanations for the inequalities in health". What are they? They key thing to remember is that it's precisely because of a State system that we can guarantee that the poorest can get treated for free, and allowing richer members of society to go private (and still pay for the NHS), then they're not significantly harming the poorest who are poor who will get their treatment paid for and enjoy reduced waiting times because people opting for the competing private sector.
    For your first points I would have to concede and agree that with education it is much more noticeable the difference it makes. However, I think you are missing the point that differences in healthcare standards surely still has some effects on equality of opportunity. Would you not agree? Partially the opportunity to live! But sometimes the opportunity to get healthier quicker and therefore pursue a career, apply for jobs and make a living for yourself.

    You make the assertion that private healthcare also helps those who use the NHS. I would say the same about private education - it keeps classes smaller in state schools. You may say that it gives those who use private schools an advantage, but does private healthcare not do the same thing? (I concede not to the same extent, but it definitely happens sometimes)

    4 explanations for inequality in health: Behavioural, Material, Selection and Artefact.

    Behavioural: Poorer people have worse lifestyles, due to their upbringing - smoke more, poorer diet ect.

    Material: Poorer housing and lack of material possessions has health effects on people making them more likely to be ill.

    Selection: Its not people's socioeconomic status which makes them ill, but instead their illness which makes them poor.

    Artefact: Socioeconomic status and healthiness are 2 social constructs and so any significant differences when measuring them are purely out of chance and lack reliability.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Musty_Elbow)
    For your first points I would have to concede and agree that with education it is much more noticeable the difference it makes. However, I think you are missing the point that differences in healthcare standards surely still has some effects on equality of opportunity. Would you not agree? Partially the opportunity to live! But sometimes the opportunity to get healthier quicker and therefore pursue a career, apply for jobs and make a living for yourself.
    I don't think that I'm missing that point. Yes, people don't have equality of opportunity to purchase healthcare, but we make the acceptability of inequality a function of the extent to which it benefits the worst-off. As I stated before, I don't mind any inequality to which the worst-off would consent. Since education operates almost like a zero sum game (there are a limited number of places at university) then it seems only fair to allow everybody equality of opportunity - the chance to succeed regardless of your parent's financial background. Education is a massive way in which we can promote equality of opportunity. With health, inequality of opportunity is permissible because people have paid their taxes (NHS standards will not decrease), but instead the rich are using their money (which they'd otherwise spend, presumably, on useless luxuries) to lessen the burden on the NHS waiting lists. So somebody's purchase of private healthcare will help the poorest get healthier (it benefits the poorest). Okay, sure, it may help in some circumstances by making them get better significantly earlier such that they can find a job more quickly, but remember that we also have to take into account equality of opportunity between people who get sick and people who don't get sick. From the outset, we have a vested interest in allowing people (rich or poor) get healthier as fast as possible (and, like I said, it's in the poorest's interest to allow private healthcare so long as the rich individual still pays their taxes towards the NHS).

    My central maxim is that we should do anything which makes the worst-off better-off in the interests of justice and fairness. Now of course equality of opportunity is a key consideration in this; but frankly, not everybody has equal opportunity to own a Mercedes. Clearly there are limits to the equality principle. I'm not happy with making the poorest poorer so long as the rich are less rich (to quote Maggie Thatcher). I'm interested in giving everybody an equal opportunity to succeed (and in education you can do this more appropriately without interfering with the competing maxim of making the worst-off better-off). Incidentally, by ensuring that everybody can have a healthcare, we DO ensure equality of opportunity to have a basic level healthcare in the first place. Allowing the richest to use their money on healthcare (instead of flashy cars) has no effect on the poorest who are still receiving the money that the richest pay under a progressive tax system.

    So yes, I accept that we need to see what we really mean by equality of opportunity; but I have highlighted a significant difference and why pursuing an 'equality of opportunity' agenda in education is more important than doing so in health, imo. The agenda of making the worst-off better-off overrides the principle of equality of outcome or equality of opportunity (and this maxim itself is overridden by a maxim to protect everybody's basic liberties).

    But again, what cases are you referring to? I don't think there are many cases in which having private or public healthcare would significantly damage your career prospects (you might have to wait slightly longer, perhaps - but even longer if the richest couldn't opt for a private system). The poorest would rather be healed faster than be healed much more slowly when it comes to something like health. In education, it is not in the poor's interests to allow the rich to have more opportunities to get better grades.

    Furthermore, there is another VERY convincing argument for why there ought to be a difference. In education, we can affect the whole system - we can put everybody on a level playing field and make it fair by totally eradicating the factor of parental income. When it comes to healthcare, it's simply out of our control. There are brute luck factors at stake - even if everybody had State healthcare (and longer waiting lists), what about the healthy population? You actually damage equality of opportunity if you make the sickest in our society wait longer for their healthcare. Is this persuasive? Disability discrimination acts, making our NHS free but more efficient... these are ways of safeguarding equality of opportunity for the poorest and the sickest. State education just has a role of ensuring that the poorest receive the same opportunity to get a university place and receive a decent income (with which they may eventually want to purchase healthcare to alleviate the stress on the NHS).

    Furthermore, if everybody has had a chance to get good grades and have a decent career, and if we want a healthy economy in which a degree of economic freedom is granted - then I see nothing wrong with people using their liberty to purchase healthcare when they would otherwise, perhaps, purchase a car - a car which would enable them to apply to more jobs, presumably, because they could travel further, and thus would also damage equality of opportunity to some extent. Bad example, perhaps, but nevertheless possible.

    You make the assertion that private healthcare also helps those who use the NHS. I would say the same about private education - it keeps classes smaller in state schools.
    Again, I don't accept this argument. The massive benefit given to somebody who pays for their education hugely outweighs the small difference that the reduced number of pupils in class sizes will give, and thus income still becomes a massive factor in deciding who gets good grades, university placements, and better job prospects.

    You may say that it gives those who use private schools an advantage, but does private healthcare not do the same thing? (I concede not to the same extent, but it definitely happens sometimes)
    Yes, I don't deny that people who use their own money to pay for private healthcare are receiving a massive advantage in their task of curing their health; but as I've already explained, promoting equality of opportunity (for the poorest) in education is a lot different to promoting equality of opportunity (for the poorest) in health.

    4 explanations for inequality in health: Behavioural, Material, Selection and Artefact.

    Behavioural: Poorer people have worse lifestyles, due to their upbringing - smoke more, poorer diet ect.

    Material: Poorer housing and lack of material possessions has health effects on people making them more likely to be ill.

    Selection: Its not people's socioeconomic status which makes them ill, but instead their illness which makes them poor.

    Artefact: Socioeconomic status and healthiness are 2 social constructs and so any significant differences when measuring them are purely out of chance.
    Oh, hmmm. Is this from a textbook of some sort? Interesting distinctions; I don't disagree.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Melancholy)
    I don't think that I'm missing that point. Yes, people don't have equality of opportunity to purchase healthcare, but we make the acceptability of inequality a function of the extent to which it benefits the worst-off. As I stated before, I don't mind any inequality to which the worst-off would consent. Since education operates almost like a zero sum game (there are a limited number of places at university) then it seems only fair to allow everybody equality of opportunity - the chance to succeed regardless of your parent's financial background. Education is a massive way in which we can promote equality of opportunity. With health, inequality of opportunity is permissible because people have paid their taxes (NHS standards will not decrease), but instead the rich are using their money (which they'd otherwise spend, presumably, on useless luxuries) to lessen the burden on the NHS waiting lists. So somebody's purchase of private healthcare will help the poorest get healthier (it benefits the poorest). Okay, sure, it may help in some circumstances by making them get better significantly earlier such that they can find a job more quickly, but remember that we also have to take into account equality of opportunity between people who get sick and people who don't get sick. From the outset, we have a vested interest in allowing people (rich or poor) get healthier as fast as possible (and, like I said, it's in the poorest's interest to allow private healthcare so long as the rich individual still pays their taxes towards the NHS).

    My central maxim is that we should do anything which makes the worst-off better-off in the interests of justice and fairness. Now of course equality of opportunity is a key consideration in this; but frankly, not everybody has equal opportunity to own a Mercedes. Clearly there are limits to the equality principle. I'm not happy with making the poorest poorer so long as the rich are less rich (to quote Maggie Thatcher). I'm interested in giving everybody an equal opportunity to succeed (and in education you can do this more appropriately without interfering with the competing maxim of making the worst-off better-off). Incidentally, by ensuring that everybody can have a healthcare, we DO ensure equality of opportunity to have a basic level healthcare in the first place. Allowing the richest to use their money on healthcare (instead of flashy cars) has no effect on the poorest who are still receiving the money that the richest pay under a progressive tax system.

    So yes, I accept that we need to see what we really mean by equality of opportunity; but I have highlighted a significant difference and why pursuing an 'equality of opportunity' agenda in education is more important than doing so in health, imo. The agenda of making the worst-off better-off overrides the principle of equality of outcome or equality of opportunity (and this maxim itself is overridden by a maxim to protect everybody's basic liberties).

    But again, what cases are you referring to? I don't think there are many cases in which having private or public healthcare would significantly damage your career prospects (you might have to wait slightly longer, perhaps - but even longer if the richest couldn't opt for a private system). The poorest would rather be healed faster than be healed much more slowly when it comes to something like health. In education, it is not in the poor's interests to allow the rich to have more opportunities to get better grades.

    Furthermore, there is another VERY convincing argument for why there ought to be a difference. In education, we can affect the whole system - we can put everybody on a level playing field and make it fair by totally eradicating the factor of parental income. When it comes to healthcare, it's simply out of our control. There are brute luck factors at stake - even if everybody had State healthcare (and longer waiting lists), what about the healthy population? You actually damage equality of opportunity if you make the sickest in our society wait longer for their healthcare. Is this persuasive? Disability discrimination acts, making our NHS free but more efficient... these are ways of safeguarding equality of opportunity for the poorest and the sickest. State education just has a role of ensuring that the poorest receive the same opportunity to get a university place and receive a decent income (with which they may eventually want to purchase healthcare to alleviate the stress on the NHS).

    Furthermore, if everybody has had a chance to get good grades and have a decent career, and if we want a healthy economy in which a degree of economic freedom is granted - then I see nothing wrong with people using their liberty to purchase healthcare when they would otherwise, perhaps, purchase a car - a car which would enable them to apply to more jobs, presumably, because they could travel further, and thus would also damage equality of opportunity to some extent. Bad example, perhaps, but nevertheless possible.


    Again, I don't accept this argument. The massive benefit given to somebody who pays for their education hugely outweighs the small difference that the reduced number of pupils in class sizes will give, and thus income still becomes a massive factor in deciding who gets good grades, university placements, and better job prospects.


    Yes, I don't deny that people who use their own money to pay for private healthcare are receiving a massive advantage in their task of curing their health; but as I've already explained, promoting equality of opportunity (for the poorest) in education is a lot different to promoting equality of opportunity (for the poorest) in health.


    Oh, hmmm. Is this from a textbook of some sort? Interesting distinctions; I don't disagree.
    Yeah, I read it in a textbook, but I can't remember which one!

    Ok, to the rest of your post. I have to admit, very convincing, and I accept why you make the distinction. It was interesting to debate from "the other side" so to speak. I would never advocate such a system but it was interesting to try and use someone else's logic to debate something, even though it turned out that I wasn't actually using your logic!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Do you guys identify more with the centrist wing of the labour party or with the democratic socialist wing?

    And do you accept members who belong to the other wing? (if you're dem socialists, do you accept centrists or if you're centrists do you accept dem socialists)

    Also what are your views on immigration, drug laws (I found the answer at the Newbie FAQ to be unsatisfactory so can you please be more precise?), globalisation (not neccessarily economic integration - you can answer this jointly with the immigration question), free trade Vs fair trade, strategies for helping the world's poor (this too can be answered jointly with the globalisation and immigration questions), equality (are you strict egalitarians? by which I mean do you think equality is an absolute value or are you more flexible and you'd therefore allow for certain inequalities as long as they benefit the worst-off? - a kind of more Rawlsian outlook) and nationalisation of industry (do you think government ownership is the way to go or do you think perhaps private ownership combined with regulation and taxation is a better approach?)

    Holy **** that's a lot of questions, so thank you in advance for taking the time to answer!

    Ah, also, how many of you (Labourites) are religious? (I ask this question to both Conservatives and Labourites IRL and not surprisingly you guys are more likely to be atheist although I'm glad to see at least some Labourites are religious! )
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Schweiz)
    Also what are your views on immigration, drug laws (I found the answer at the Newbie FAQ to be unsatisfactory so can you please be more precise?), globalisation (not neccessarily economic integration - you can answer this jointly with the immigration question), free trade Vs fair trade, strategies for helping the world's poor (this too can be answered jointly with the globalisation and immigration questions), equality (are you strict egalitarians? by which I mean do you think equality is an absolute value or are you more flexible and you'd therefore allow for certain inequalities as long as they benefit the worst-off? - a kind of more Rawlsian outlook) and nationalisation of industry (do you think government ownership is the way to go or do you think perhaps private ownership combined with regulation and taxation is a better approach?)

    Holy **** that's a lot of questions, so thank you in advance for taking the time to answer!

    Ah, also, how many of you (Labourites) are religious? (I ask this question to both Conservatives and Labourites IRL and not surprisingly you guys are more likely to be atheist although I'm glad to see at least some Labourites are religious! )
    i'll give some askers, but i'm not speaking for the party, just my own personal views on things

    immigration
    it is need for the country to gain more skilled people, i don't like the idea of this annual quota or a cap, but the idea of the this points system like Australian, as much as the press and people bang on about they are taking our jobs, must people don't want to be working as a clearer or in fast food they think its below them, as well as filling gaps in the work place in areas within health care, after what i heard the local PCT man say shocking about how some are poorly trained, there is the issue with befits that come into play as well for both people from this country and those they come in, EU immigration it works both ways, and no matter how many people feel upset that people from poland come over, i wonder how people of spain feel about us doing the same

    drug laws
    drugs laws in this country are crazy, there are drugs that are less harmful than smoking or drinking, its been pointed out but its not taken up, personal if not legalising drugs than drug decriminalization, works for Portugal, i think the number of drugs users has fallen, take the money away from the gangs and tax it for better uses

    i'm not a religious person to say, i believe that not one religion has the right answer, but people are free to choice, but at the same time due to having you can call it a bit if a scince background i know something are just unexplainable until we find a way :p:

    well 2 views off mine, not the parties, someone else who knows more than me will give better answers :o:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robinson999)
    x
    Lol yeah thanks. I am interested in both the personal views of party members (which is why I asked about religious belief :p:) and the official party line (if indeed such a thing exists).
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    If you were to become the RL Prime Minister one day, what would be in your Letters of Last Resort?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    which Pokemon would the TSR Labour Party pick as a starter in the original games? (Charmander, Squirttle or Bulbasaur)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SciFiBoy)
    which Pokemon would the TSR Labour Party pick as a starter in the original games? (Charmander, Squirttle or Bulbasaur)
    "Squirt Squirt"
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aaran-j)
    If you were to become the RL Prime Minister one day, what would be in your Letters of Last Resort?
    I dunno, but I've always wondered what was in them to be honest.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    What would you say your party's 5 main policy priorities are?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    for who have the members of the TSR Labour Party voted for in the real elections?

    I've cast my votes.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddy__power)
    What would you say your party's 5 main policy priorities are?
    let me guess, we cover and talk about alot
    healthcare, the NHS is very important to me, education, fairness :p: think of what you may, social care

    (Original post by PJ991)
    for who have the members of the TSR Labour Party voted for in the real elections?

    I've cast my votes.
    ed but than David, its too early for Andy Burnham, ed balls his good for the party, personal i don't like Diane Abbott she has some ok views but what she comes out with not a massive fan
 
 
 
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 18, 2018
  • 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
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • 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

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