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

Should abortions be free? Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    The average abortion costs just under £700. Are you telling me that bringing a court case, providing legal aid and imprisoning the mother can be done for under £700?

    And what if neither them or the father can pay for child maintenance? The tax payer pays, and it costs us more. And does this baby not get access to the NHS? Do they not get vaccinations or birthing treatment. Do they not get a school place? Again the tax payer pays.

    It ends up costing us far more than we would save.



    How is it a better system? It ends up costing the tax payer far more through birthing costs, legal aid, prison funding, school fees, vaccinations, child care etc etc.






    Then it goes entirely against the point of the NHS. The NHS is there for those who need it. We are not America, we don't have a system where you only get treated if you are wealthy. We don't just let our poor die on the streets.

    It's one of the things I am most patriotic and proud to be British about. The fact that we treat all our citizens to free at the point of use healthcare.

    If we start going 'ah but he was playing football so doesn't deserve treatment' or 'he was looking at his phone when he fell so he shouldn't be treated' etc then we will end up with no one being treated. In almost any accident there will be something that the person affected could have done differently to avoid it. With your system, almost no one would be able to use the NHS.
    yes but if they *are* guilty then the evidence will be *overwhelmingly* clear, and then there will be an indemnity against them and they will pay the court fines. that would mean that they pay the "legal aid" money back, plus more, themselves. if they cannot pay immediately, they will have to pay over time. if they're innocent, they will be the *vast* minority of cases - who would wrongly report somebody of having a baby they can't afford? the people who take hold of the figures monitoring these facts wouldn't have an incentive to do that, and if it is found that there was no reason or evidence for the trial, then the person who reported them would obviously be punished if it was found that they were doing it for the wrong reasons.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    yes but if they *are* guilty then the evidence will be *overwhelmingly* clear, and then there will be an indemnity against them and they will pay the court fines. that would mean that they pay the "legal aid" money back, plus more, themselves. if they cannot pay immediately, they will have to pay over time.
    What if it is not obvious if they are guilty and its a more complex case? Even so the legal fees for the state to bring a case, file evidence and provide legal aid to the woman would far, far outweigh the £700. That's not even mentioning the prison fees for the woman which would be thousands and the birthing costs and child care for the child.

    You say 'make them pay it back' but the whole point is that they can't afford to and probably will never be able to. If they cannot afford to pay for the abortion, they are not going to be able to afford to pay thousands upon thousands for all the things you are saying they will pay back for. It will end up with the tax payer funding it all, which will cost us all far more.

    This is a very ill thought out and unfunded proposal.
    It would end up costing us far, far more.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    What if it is not obvious if they are guilty and its a more complex case?
    then the funds necessary to run such a case would be directed to the guilty party. and whatever fees they are unable to pay throughout their lifetime will be forwarded to either the father, or eventually (down the line), the tax payer, but again, this is *obviously* cheaper than the maintenance of a child + their own expenses as a care taker that they can claim, for 18 or even more years.

    Even so the legal fees for the state to bring a case, file evidence and provide legal aid to the woman would far, far outweigh the £700. That's not even mentioning the prison fees for the woman which would be thousands and the birthing costs and child care for the child.
    okay then let's say that they will have to pay the £700 over a certain length of time. problem solved.

    You say 'make them pay it back' but the whole point is that they can't afford to and probably will never be able to.
    you're assuming they will never have a job though (and I'm not adding any interest to the total), and if they will never have a job, how are they "possibly" innocent of such a hypothetical crime of financial negligence? :|

    If they cannot afford to pay for the abortion, they are not going to be able to afford to pay thousands upon thousands for all the things you are saying they will pay back for. It will end up with the tax payer funding it all, which will cost us all far more.
    you're making this far more complicated than it's worth. however complex my idea is, you're just pretending it's more complicated than it actually is. and sometimes, complicated problems require complicated solutions.

    This is a very ill thought out and unfunded proposal.
    It would end up costing us far, far more.
    nope
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    No and social services shouldn't take the child into care either.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    So Christians are more Liberal than atheists? Oh you do make me laugh. Furthermore are atheists not natives then?

    I thought you were an atheist anyway.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The average White atheist is culturally Christian, there is literally no difference. Also most of aspects of modern Western society those on the left love, i.e. feminism, welfare all have their roots in new Testament ethics.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    really, in the future there will be no more NHS. the conservative party love to privatize every institution and already there is news out there showing the factual figures. this would mean that abortion will no longer be free and it will pressurize those who want to have an abortion. in order for abortion to stay free, people should be supporting politicians from the left-wing party.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    What's wrong with atheists breeding then? Are you really suggesting Christians are more Liberal than atheists?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    By natives I do mean white atheists and Christians.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    then the funds necessary to run such a case would be directed to the guilty party. and whatever fees they are unable to pay throughout their lifetime will be forwarded to either the father, or eventually (down the line), the tax payer, but again, this is *obviously* cheaper than the maintenance of a child + their own expenses as a care taker that they can claim, for 18 or even more years.
    If the guilty party cannot afford to pay £700 for the abortion then how are they going to be able to afford thousands of pounds for legal fees, prison fees, birthing costs, NHS funds for the child, school places etc etc.
    What happens if the father cannot afford it either? Do we put him in prison? Then who pays for his prison fees and his legal fees if he cannot afford it?
    We could either charge the taxpayer £700, or we could charge them thousands.

    okay then let's say that they will have to pay the £700 over a certain length of time. problem solved.
    But bringing a case against them, filing the evidence, sending them to prison and paying for the birthing fees and other fees for the child will cost far, far more than £700.

    you're assuming they will never have a job though (and I'm not adding any interest to the total), and if they will never have a job, how are they "possibly" innocent of such a hypothetical crime of financial negligence? :|
    They are not going to have a job if they go to prison. Also it makes them far less employable after. The annual cost for a prisoner in the UK is £40,000. The tax payer would have to fund that. Then it ends up costing us far more than £700.

    you're making this far more complicated than it's worth. however complex my idea is, you're just pretending it's more complicated than it actually is. and sometimes, complicated problems require complicated solutions.
    I'm not making this more complicated then its worth. I'm simply pointing out how your idea would cost the tax payer far, far more than simply paying for the abortion.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by doctorwhofan98)
    Contraception - multiple types at the same time, even - can be used yet pregnancy can still occur; it's not just people being lazy. Even then, people can make mistakes; how would, say, a student be able to afford an abortion or raise a child?

    And what about cases of rape? You could say abortions could be free when there's a convicted rapist, but not all sexual assault is reported, not everything leads to a conviction, and a trial could run on long enough that an abortion wouldn't be viable, and only the richest (who, incidentally, would be the most financially equipped to raise a child) would be able to afford the abortion.

    If the NHS is strained, it needs more funding. The solution isn't to harm both the victims of sexual assault and anyone who isn't rich enough to afford an abortion.
    You do know there used to be laws dictating when abortion could and could not legally occur, right? There is no reason why similar things could not be done for the provision of free abortions.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    If the guilty party cannot afford to pay £700 for the abortion then how are they going to be able to afford thousands of pounds for legal fees, prison fees, birthing costs, NHS funds for the child, school places etc etc.
    um, so you're seriously saying that there are people who can't afford something like a month's wage on the min. wage...over their life time. pretty remote.

    What happens if the father cannot afford it either? Do we put him in prison? Then who pays for his prison fees and his legal fees if he cannot afford it?
    We could either charge the taxpayer £700, or we could charge them thousands.
    well if the father has £700 for the abortion, and he intended for the woman to use that money to have the abortion, and she didn't comply, then he's free of blame.

    But bringing a case against them, filing the evidence, sending them to prison and paying for the birthing fees and other fees for the child will cost far, far more than £700.
    so the obvious incentive for the potential mother is to not have a child, via the cost of an abortion which *does* cost the £700 and no more :| that's the whole idea here. logical incentives.

    They are not going to have a job if they go to prison. Also it makes them far less employable after. The annual cost for a prisoner in the UK is £40,000. The tax payer would have to fund that. Then it ends up costing us far more than £700.
    household conditional detention then - they can work, but must then return home immediately without unnecessary outside contact. repeat until funds are paid. no interest payments necessary too. I've already said that part but I'm wondering if you registered...
    and another solution that I've raised - lower the quality of prisons if necessary - at least for these criminals.

    I'm not making this more complicated then its worth. I'm simply pointing out how your idea would cost the tax payer far, far more than simply paying for the abortion.
    you really are though.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    um, so you're seriously saying that there are people who can't afford something like a month's wage on the min. wage...over their life time. pretty remote.



    well if the father has £700 for the abortion, and he intended for the woman to use that money to have the abortion, and she didn't comply, then he's free of blame.
    But your argument was that if a woman cannot afford to bring up a child she should be prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned. Even if they can afford the £700 over months and years then they would not be able to afford to bring the child up. That would mean that they would have to be prosecuted, charged and imprisoned which would cost us far more than £700. It costs us £40,000 a year for a prisoner.


    so the obvious incentive for the potential mother is to not have a child, via the cost of an abortion which *does* cost the £700 and no more :| that's the whole idea here. logical incentives.
    But if they cannot afford it, it will end up costing the tax payer tens of thousands in legal fees and prison fees, as well as costs for the child.

    household conditional detention then - they can work, but must then return home immediately without unnecessary outside contact. repeat until funds are paid. no interest payments necessary too. I've already said that part but I'm wondering if you registered...
    and another solution that I've raised - lower the quality of prisons if necessary - at least for these criminals.
    Even household detention and surveillance would cost us a huge amount in comparison to paying for an abortion. Again, we'd be losing money.

    you really are though.
    I'm not. I'm pointing out that your proposal would cost us huge amounts more than it would save us.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I
    But your argument was that if a woman cannot afford to bring up a child she should be prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned. Even if they can afford the £700 over months and years then they would not be able to afford to bring the child up. That would mean that they would have to be prosecuted, charged and imprisoned which would cost us far more than £700. It costs us £40,000 a year for a prisoner.
    I've addressed this. would you like me to say it a second time for your needs?

    But if they cannot afford it, it will end up costing the tax payer tens of thousands in legal fees and prison fees, as well as costs for the child.
    which they'll pay, over time, like I've explained. on top of the proposal of cutting the costs of prisons either way.

    Even household detention and surveillance would cost us a huge amount in comparison to paying for an abortion. Again, we'd be losing money.
    which *they* will pay over time. I accounted for all of this. now you're just ignoring me. if they can't afford £700 over the span of their entire lifetime, what *can* they afford? ever?

    I'm not. I'm pointing out that your proposal would cost us huge amounts more than it would save us.
    nope
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)

    which they'll pay, over time, like I've explained. on top of the proposal of cutting the costs of prisons either way.
    You said if someone cannot afford to bring up a child they should be prosecuted and imprisoned. To put someone in prison for a year costs the taxpayer £40 000. Are you saying that if someone cannot afford to bring up a child they will be able to pay the £40,000 in prison fees plus the thousands in court costs, plus the thousands it costs the NHS to vaccinate and that the child and the thousands it costs the tax payer to give them a school place.

    All of that adds up to way over £700.
    This will lose us huge amounts of money.


    You may want to cut prions costs but unless you can reduce them to less than 700 we would be losing a massive amount of money. Do tell me how you plan to cut the costs of prisons from over 40,000 to under 700?

    which *they* will pay over time. I accounted for all of this. now you're just ignoring me. if they can't afford £700 over the span of their entire lifetime, what *can* they afford? ever?



    nope
    But you proposed imprisoning people because they can't afford it. Now you're claiming that those who are imprisoned should repay the 40,000 a year it costs to keep them in prison on the basis that they can afford it? How does that work out?


    You're argument is that people should pay for abortions and if they cannot afford it then they should be charged, and imprisoned. That would cost the taxpayer far far more than simply funding all abortions.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    You said if someone cannot afford to bring up a child they should be prosecuted and imprisoned. To put someone in prison for a year costs the taxpayer £40 000. Are you saying that if someone cannot afford to bring up a child they will be able to pay the £40,000 in prison few, plus the thousands in court costs, plus the thousands it costs the NHS to vaccinate and that the child and the thousands it costs the tax payer to give them a school place.

    All of that adds up to way over £700.
    This will lose us huge amounts of money.


    You may want to cut prions costs but unless you can reduce them to less than 700 we would be losing a massive amount of money. Do tell me how you plan to cut the costs of prisons from over 40,000 to under 700?


    But you proposed imprisoning people because they can't afford it. Now you're claiming that those who are imprisoned should repay the 40,000 a year it costs to keep them in prison on the basis that they can afford it? How does that work out?


    You're argument is that people should pay for abortions and if they cannot afford it then they should be charged, and imprisoned. That would cost the taxpayer far far more than simply funding all abortions.


    Posted from TSR Mobile


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    You said if someone cannot afford to bring up a child they should be prosecuted and imprisoned.
    I thought you negotiated conditional household arrest from me...?

    To put someone in prison for a year costs the taxpayer £40 000.
    so lower the costs of prisons - I've said this to you already. that's barely even relevant because hardly any women would even end up there via this law because the incentive to *not* break it is very influential, seeing as women are humans who live via incentives.

    Are you saying that if someone cannot afford to bring up a child they will be able to pay the £40,000 in prison fees plus the thousands in court costs, plus the thousands it costs the NHS to vaccinate and that the child and the thousands it costs the tax payer to give them a school place.
    what kind of parent are they going to be if they deliberately have a child when they know they can't afford to have it though? why should they be the one to be the guardian if they're a delinquent without a sense of responsibility? what are you trying to tell me? that they *are*? really? and what kind of child will they likely grow up to be? simply, the incentives I'm putting into this system means that the child won't even be born in the first place - you seem to be putting emphasis completely away from this fact - why? incentives run our society. incentives run our lives. why don't incentives run people and society on *this* front? what is your reason? are you stressing the importance of a vast, vast minority? it really does look like it. and with *far*, *far*, fewer irresponsible births, this will cost the tax payer *LESS*. this is irregardless of all the other cuts i.e. prisons. why aren't you acknowledging that?


    You may want to cut prions costs but unless you can reduce them to less than 700 we would be losing a massive amount of money. Do tell me how you plan to cut the costs of prisons from over 40,000 to under 700?

    no? where did I say that? you seem to be assuming that it *must* be £700 (for the cost of prisons per year for one inmate) but why? they can pay over their lifetime.


    But you proposed imprisoning people because they can't afford it. Now you're claiming that those who are imprisoned should repay the 40,000 a year it costs to keep them in prison on the basis that they can afford it? How does that work out?
    *sigh*<
    I have proposed, again, for the fourth(?) time now, to drastically cut the costs of prisons anyway! and with this law in place, fewer people will be having children anyway! what are you suggesting? that the rate of births will be the same as it is now? what? :|

    You're argument is that people should pay for abortions and if they cannot afford it then they should be charged, and imprisoned. That would cost the taxpayer far far more than simply funding all abortions.
    nooooope. I've explained all this. if necessary, go back and read it again. I've literally accounted for everything you've listed multiple times, and you are failing to see the reality of the situation.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Brahmin of Booty)
    Also most of aspects of modern Western society those on the left love, i.e. feminism, welfare all have their roots in new Testament ethics.
    which ones?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    I thought you negotiated conditional household arrest from me...?



    so lower the costs of prisons - I've said this to you already. that's barely even relevant because hardly any women would even end up there via this law because the incentive to *not* break it is very influential, seeing as women are humans who live via incentives.



    what kind of parent are they going to be if they deliberately have a child when they know they can't afford to have it though? why should they be the one to be the guardian if they're a delinquent without a sense of responsibility? what are you trying to tell me? that they *are*? really? and what kind of child will they likely grow up to be? simply, the incentives I'm putting into this system means that the child won't even be born in the first place - you seem to be putting emphasis completely away from this fact - why? incentives run our society. incentives run our lives. why don't incentives run people and society on *this* front? what is your reason? are you stressing the importance of a vast, vast minority? it really does look like it. and with *far*, *far*, fewer irresponsible births, this will cost the tax payer *LESS*. this is irregardless of all the other cuts i.e. prisons. why aren't you acknowledging that?





    no? where did I say that? you seem to be assuming that it *must* be £700 (for the cost of prisons per year for one inmate) but why? they can pay over their lifetime.




    *sigh*<
    I have proposed, again, for the fourth(?) time now, to drastically cut the costs of prisons anyway! and with this law in place, fewer people will be having children anyway! what are you suggesting? that the rate of births will be the same as it is now? what? :|



    nooooope. I've explained all this. if necessary, go back and read it again. I've literally accounted for everything you've listed multiple times, and you are failing to see the reality of the situation.
    I'm really confused as to what you are arguing about now and I think you are too.
    Let's try and get some clarity.

    It costs the tax payer £700 for someone to have an abortion. You are arguing that we should make people pay for abortions to save money. Some people will be able to afford £700, many will not.
    So what happens to those who cannot afford it? It costs the NHS roughly £1000 in birthing costs to deliver a baby and that's given to everyone. On top of that the child will be entitled to use of the NHS, childcare, a school place etc. That will cost the tax payer for more than £700.

    Then you said that people who cannot afford to bring up a child should be charged and imprisoned or pit on house arrest. Again, the legal and prison costs would cost the tax payer huge amounts. And if someone can not afford to bring up a child, they will not be able to afford to pay 40,000 a year in prison costs plus legal aid, plus the costs for the state to bring a case.

    So your solution to this was to drastically cut prison costs. So please tell me which area the cuts should be made in? Can you give a detailed answer. And how much, realistically can you cut them to?
    And at what point do we declare a person cannot afford to bring up a baby?


    All of this would be fare more expensive and far more complicated than simply paying for the abortion.
    You also seems to forget that people's taxes go to the NHS so surely that would cover their abortion costs anyway?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I'm really confused as to what you are arguing about now and I think you are too.
    Let's try and get some clarity.

    It costs the tax payer £700 for someone to have an abortion. You are arguing that we should make people pay for abortions to save money. Some people will be blessed to afford £700, many will not.
    why are you saying this though? how many people can't afford £700 over their entire lifetime? simply give me an estimate - that will at least advance this argument - very few people will be in that position so it's as if you're pulling at straws. if I said "okay, fine, for the 0.000(etc)1% of caes, the tax payer will pay for it" that would STILL mean that costs will be lowered in this department compared to the costs of child maintenance for the irresponsible parents!

    So what happens to those who cannot afford it? It costs the NHS roughly £1000 in birthing costs to deliver a baby and that's given to everyone.
    pretty much everybody will make use of these resources for child birth, save a low amount who don't raise kid(s). what percentage of the population will be on benefits for the rest of their life? yet you're making the comparison how?

    On top of that the child will be entitled to use of the NHS, childcare, a school place etc. That will cost the tax payer for more than £700.
    and there will be less kids in my system than today........again, I don't know how many times I need to reiterate that fact. if you massively disincentivise having a kid when you can't afford it, how will it cost *more*? I have no idea how you come to this conclusion.

    Then you said that people who cannot afford to bring up a child should be charged and imprisoned or pit on house arrest. Again, the legal and prison costs would cost the tax payer huge amounts.
    how many times have I said that the criminal should pay for this, though? a bunch of times. I said house arrest because they will be able to go to work and nothing else - hence, they will eventually pay back the money they costed. but again, they will be very likely to never even get into that position because the system causes this scenario to be waaay more trouble than it would ever possibly be worth. I'm not going to explain this to you anymore.

    And if someone can not afford to bring up a child, they will not be able to afford to pay 40,000 a year in prison costs plus legal aid, plus the costs for the state to bring a case.
    1) over their *lifetime* - you're just straight-up ignoring me. do you comprehend what "debt" means?
    2) cheaper prisons. lower quality. less space. less resources. etc.

    So your solution to this was to drastically cut prison costs. So please tell me which area the cuts should be made in? Can you give a detailed answer. And how much, realistically can you cut them to?
    And at what point do we declare a person cannot afford to bring up a baby?
    how is a detailed answer here specifically warranted? if I told you something like "smaller cells", "less costs for entertainment", "less plumming privileges", "more labour mandates", etc, are you just going to say "okay"? of course not - so why is this warranted when you're very likely just going to dismiss it anyway whether or not it is valid? I don't get it - why are you asking a question that you don't even care about?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    i am against abortion. i believe in the rights to life.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    why are you saying this though? how many people can't afford £700 over their entire lifetime? simply give me an estimate - that will at least advance this argument - very few people will be in that position so it's as if you're pulling at straws. if I said "okay, fine, for the 0.000(etc)1% of caes, the tax payer will pay for it" that would STILL mean that costs will be lowered in this department compared to the costs of child maintenance for the irresponsible parents!
    In Ireland abortion is illegal, yet their teenage pregnancy rate is almost as high as ours. That strongly counters your 'disincentive argument'. It doesn't prevent pregnancies, it simply prevents women from having abortions and this in turn costs the taxpayer a lot of money.

    Plenty of people will be put off from having an abortion if they are really poor. £700 may not seem much to you, but it is to a lot of people. And if someone is put off from having an abortion then it will end up costing the tax payer thousands and thousands in subsequent fees. All it takes is a few people being put off having abortions to override the benefits of others paying.

    If someone pays for an abortion it saves the tax payer £700, if someone is put off having an abortion it would likely cost the taxpayer tens of thousands in school fees and healthcare. Say this costs the tax payer £30,000 per baby born, then it means that even if 45 women pay for an abortion, if one doesn't, it will cost us more.





    and there will be less kids in my system than today........again, I don't know how many times I need to reiterate that fact. if you massively disincentivise having a kid when you can't afford it, how will it cost *more*? I have no idea how you come to this conclusion.
    Where is your evidence that this will work? Again, the teenage pregnancy rate in ireland is almost as high as in the UK and they criminalize abortion.


    how many times have I said that the criminal should pay for this, though? a bunch of times. I said house arrest because they will be able to go to work and nothing else - hence, they will eventually pay back the money they costed. but again, they will be very likely to never even get into that position because the system causes this scenario to be waaay more trouble than it would ever possibly be worth. I'm not going to explain this to you anymore.
    So you are sending a woman to prison because she is so poor but you are claiming that they will be able to pay back £40,000? That could take them decades to pay off and many probably will never pay that off. And who pays in the mean time? Oh yeah, the tax payer.


    2) cheaper prisons. lower quality. less space. less resources. etc.



    how is a detailed answer here specifically warranted? if I told you something like "smaller cells", "less costs for entertainment", "less plumming privileges", "more labour mandates", etc, are you just going to say "okay"? of course not - so why is this warranted when you're very likely just going to dismiss it anyway whether or not it is valid? I don't get it - why are you asking a question that you don't even care about?
    If you are going to make wild, broadbrush claims like 'i'd massively reduce prison costs' then it is not unreasonable to ask how you would do this and how much by. So how much less should we pay for entertainment? How much less should we pay for cells? How much less should we pay for plumbing? And if we don't have plumbing, it increases the risk of diseases and that will cost us money to treat them.

    Please, let's see your workings.


    Again, who goes to prison? What's the cut off point?
 
 
 
  • 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
    Should Spain allow Catalonia to declare independence?
  • 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.