Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jennybean)
    :confused: I never said anything about what Widdecombe said. In fact I did explicitly say I missed the programme. And fair enough nobody has actually come out and said that they think the state should withdraw all benefit but I know for a fact there are people on TSR who would absolutely support that motion. I still maintain there was absolutely no need to be so sardonic, I'm not a moron.



    1. But you admit that it was an inference on your part and not an implication on mine? No one else has commented on it.

    2. Fine but like I said, that doesn't do anything to solve the situation as it stands, does it? Perhaps the benefits culture is somewhat to blame for people like him having 17 kids but you can hardly be claiming that everyone on benefits in this country is just running wild, popping out kids like popcorn chicken and expecting the state to foot the bill? He is a truly exceptional case and to be honest I think that regardless of the generosity (or lack thereof) of the welfare state, there will always be people like him who do things the rest of us consider very odd or perhaps lacking in judgement. I really don't think one person with a ****load of kids is a reason to whittle down the payments given to everyone, including people who desperately depend on them.

    3. Thanks for looking up those statistics, that's great. I would say that clearly you do have a point and that there will undoubtedly be people who should make that bit more effort to find a job. But proximity to a job isn't the only factor. I don't like the idea seemingly held by the Conservatives that "beggars can't be choosers" when it comes to the unemployed. I know that if I needed a job to support my family, it would seem like a false economy to get into a job that I hated, that wanted me to work awful hours and for rubbish pay, or that severely conflicted with my lifestyle. Surely it makes sense to find a job that you at least can tolerate and that fits in well with your life, even if it does take that bit longer to get settled into permanent employment, because then you are more likely to be motivated, to work harder and to stick with it long term. Rushing into a job you hate simply because a Tory politician did a bit of shouting seems foolish to me - if you do badly and get sacked then that damages your long term employment prospects doesn't it? Better to think about the long run. But that's only my opinion of course...
    And your opinion is perfect in mine. Thats what i was attempting to stab at earlier on, and you put it into words easily! The attitude of Ann was "beggars can't be choosers", and she did just waltz around giving people random jobs. Life is a biut more than working, and to be honest, i would rther sit around doing nothing that constantly doing a job i hated. Quality of life and happiness are very importnt things to me.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    And your opinion is perfect in mine.
    :proud: You do flatter me. Next step, world domination, yes?
    Offline

    13
    I haven't had time to read all of these posts but I'd like to add my two cents. I thought the programme was badly made, appallingly managed and totally unrepresentative of those people actually claiming benefits. Some people are unemployed because of long term illness, mental break-downs etc. should we penalise those people? Should we shun someone from society who's worked damn hard for 20 odd years and then has had, for example, a nervous breakdown? Is it our fault that the welfare system has led to a state of dependency? Why is it, despite common misconception, that many people who claim benefits are actually worse off than they would be if they were working full time? The principle that the welfare state was founded on was (and still is, although they forget to mention this) 'the principle of less eligibility' - meaning that those who claim benefits receive less than the worst paid worker. I don't think that spurs people on to get work - I think it's degrading. We should look after vulnerable members of society. Sure, there will always be scroungers but we can't clump everyone into the same category. It's just presumptuous and judgemental:mad:.

    Ann Widdecombe should stick to celebrity fat club:rolleyes:.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jennybean)
    Sorry to double post and sorry if this is a little offtopic, but Lib I'm really interested to hear more about your views
    Hello. I'll get back to you in the near future, preferably when I'm not hungover and worrying about train timetables!

    (Original post by DanGrover)
    his various exotic mistresses
    Oo-er.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jennybean)
    :confused: I never said anything about what Widdecombe said. In fact I did explicitly say I missed the programme. And fair enough nobody has actually come out and said that they think the state should withdraw all benefit but I know for a fact there are people on TSR who would absolutely support that motion. I still maintain there was absolutely no need to be so sardonic, I'm not a moron.
    You said "I made the very silly mistake of thinking people in here were arguing that this man should be supporting his family off his own bat and not relying on benefits" - which means you either made an assumption about everyone in the thread and/or you didn't read any of the thread before posting


    1. But you admit that it was an inference on your part and not an implication on mine? No one else has commented on it.

    2. Fine but like I said, that doesn't do anything to solve the situation as it stands, does it? Perhaps the benefits culture is somewhat to blame for people like him having 17 kids but you can hardly be claiming that everyone on benefits in this country is just running wild, popping out kids like popcorn chicken and expecting the state to foot the bill? He is a truly exceptional case and to be honest I think that regardless of the generosity (or lack thereof) of the welfare state, there will always be people like him who do things the rest of us consider very odd or perhaps lacking in judgement. I really don't think one person with a ****load of kids is a reason to whittle down the payments given to everyone, including people who desperately depend on them.

    3. Thanks for looking up those statistics, that's great. I would say that clearly you do have a point and that there will undoubtedly be people who should make that bit more effort to find a job. But proximity to a job isn't the only factor. I don't like the idea seemingly held by the Conservatives that "beggars can't be choosers" when it comes to the unemployed. I know that if I needed a job to support my family, it would seem like a false economy to get into a job that I hated, that wanted me to work awful hours and for rubbish pay, or that severely conflicted with my lifestyle. Surely it makes sense to find a job that you at least can tolerate and that fits in well with your life, even if it does take that bit longer to get settled into permanent employment, because then you are more likely to be motivated, to work harder and to stick with it long term. Rushing into a job you hate simply because a Tory politician did a bit of shouting seems foolish to me - if you do badly and get sacked then that damages your long term employment prospects doesn't it? Better to think about the long run. But that's only my opinion of course...

    1. Well, it's pretty obviously implied, to be honest - "the second some Tory politician gets down off their high horse and does a day's manual labour I'll have some respect for their views that the Great Unwashed just need to get off their arses."
    Since we know that you have no respect for their views about the "Great Unwashed", we can deduce that you think no Tory has ever done a day's manual labour.

    2. No, it doesn't solve the problem of that guy...but when did I say it would?
    It also seems pretty valid to claim that providing financial incentives for an activity will see an increase in that activity. If this guy was a 'one off' then it would be, as you say, silly to reduce benefits based on him alone, but that's not the case.

    3. Whilst I don't favour pushing people into the first available job, I don't think you can be overly picky when looking for employment. If the state wants you to get a job, and the state is the one supporting your current lifestyle, I think you should feel an obligation to pay something back. Besides, unemployment benefits last for a fairly long time - if you take more than (is it 6 months?) to find a job in a high employment area, you're clearly being too picky.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Will)
    It just looked like she was walking around a red light district and shouting at prostitutes, embarrassing them and herself. I don't see why she thinks it is right to take a film crew around and try to lecture these women.
    She did more stupid things even than that. On her prostitution programme, she and her film crew asked a car to pull over (in a red light district, of course), asked the driver what he was doing, asked him whether he was looking for a prostitute, and told him to go away and not to come back.

    Self-deification at its finest.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Apagg)
    2. No, it doesn't solve the problem of that guy...but when did I say it would?
    It also seems pretty valid to claim that providing financial incentives for an activity will see an increase in that activity. If this guy was a 'one off' then it would be, as you say, silly to reduce benefits based on him alone, but that's not the case.
    What? He is a one-off. They specifically targeted the "biggest scrounger in the UK", meaning he really is the only one doing this to such an extent. (If they'd had more decent examples, they would've included them; as it happens, their only examples of 'scroungers' in the programme were him and two girls from around Liverpool living off the dole.)

    Nor is having children an "activity" that the state provides financial "incentives" for. Having children is really not something we can belittle in this way - if any woman wants children then she has the right to have children, regardless of her financial situation. (It's all too easy to say "just get a job and raise money first" - some people can't.) And I think you need to get your terminology right - "incentives" and "support" are entirely different. It's really quite a poor effort to formulate an argument on your part to assume that there is any significant number of people out there saying "the government's offering money, all you have to do is have a kid - impregnate me!". It's financial support for those who want a kid but couldn't afford to bring one up, job or no job.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    He's not the only one with a family larger than he would have had if he were forced to support them rather than relying on the state. I wouldn't use the low quality of ITV programming as proof that there are no other scroungers.

    Do you know the definition of incentive, or activity? Yes, fine, it's your "right" to have as many kids as you want, but why should anyone else pay for them? If you can't afford to have children, it's irresponsible to do so, not least because of the message their kids get - scrounge all your life, let someone else pick up the tab. (Before you shout at me, children from benefit dependent families are more likely to go on benefits themselves, so this seems a valid conclusion to make).
    Why should anyone work harder to ensure their children have the best possible start in life if they can relax and let the state cough up instead?

    When did I claim that people were having children to get the payments? I said only that the payments provide an incentive to do so, to be weighed against the disincentives. As such, generous support could encourage pregnancy before the mother is ready (rise in teen pregnancies is certainly evident) or before the parents are really financially able to support a child - the payments may be enough to feed and clothe them, but their lives won't be as good as if their parents had waited a couple of years and built up a nest egg.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Astor)
    I will neg rep if I 'Disagree' which is one of the rep options, dunce.

    I disagree with you. And I think your view of Widde is an opinion. I think abortion is "despicable", thats my opinion.
    What about if that abortion saved the state from paying out 18 years of child benefits?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Apagg)
    You said "I made the very silly mistake of thinking people in here were arguing that this man should be supporting his family off his own bat and not relying on benefits" - which means you either made an assumption about everyone in the thread and/or you didn't read any of the thread before posting.
    Oh for goodness' sake! There are people in this thread saying he shouldn't be relying on benefits. I'm just gonna leave you to be petty about this...

    (Original post by Apagg)
    1. Well, it's pretty obviously implied, to be honest - "the second some Tory politician gets down off their high horse and does a day's manual labour I'll have some respect for their views that the Great Unwashed just need to get off their arses."
    Since we know that you have no respect for their views about the "Great Unwashed", we can deduce that you think no Tory has ever done a day's manual labour.

    2. No, it doesn't solve the problem of that guy...but when did I say it would?
    It also seems pretty valid to claim that providing financial incentives for an activity will see an increase in that activity. If this guy was a 'one off' then it would be, as you say, silly to reduce benefits based on him alone, but that's not the case.

    3. Whilst I don't favour pushing people into the first available job, I don't think you can be overly picky when looking for employment. If the state wants you to get a job, and the state is the one supporting your current lifestyle, I think you should feel an obligation to pay something back. Besides, unemployment benefits last for a fairly long time - if you take more than (is it 6 months?) to find a job in a high employment area, you're clearly being too picky.
    1. Well, to be honest even if every single member of the Conservative party had been involved at some point with a manual labour job, I still wouldn't have much respect for their views on the unemployed and people who accept help from the state. But the fact that I'm pretty sure the vast majority of them were born with a silver spoon in their mouths and had a great head start in a high-achiever's lifeplan means I'm even less inclined to respect their views. Seeing as you so obviously know best though, come on then let's have an example of a Tory politician who you know for a fact has at some point in their lives depended on manual labour to earn their living.

    2. I think Generalebriety has already addressed this point but I will reiterate - do you mean to say that there are many people like this man in the UK, having loads of kids simply because of state benefits? I find that quite funny to be honest, how many people do you know that have more than four kids? I can think of one family and I know an awful lot of people...

    3. Have you ever been unemployed? Do you know anyone that has? Stastitics and impartial judgements are all very well but I think that often personal testimonies are the best way to get a feel for the problems surrounding an issue like this.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jennybean)
    Oh for goodness' sake! There are people in this thread saying he shouldn't be relying on benefits. I'm just gonna leave you to be petty about this...
    You can't make a claim and then call me petty when it turns out you're wrong...

    1. Well, to be honest even if every single member of the Conservative party had been involved at some point with a manual labour job, I still wouldn't have much respect for their views on the unemployed and people who accept help from the state. But the fact that I'm pretty sure the vast majority of them were born with a silver spoon in their mouths and had a great head start in a high-achiever's lifeplan means I'm even less inclined to respect their views. Seeing as you so obviously know best though, come on then let's have an example of a Tory politician who you know for a fact has at some point in their lives depended on manual labour to earn their living.

    2. I think Generalebriety has already addressed this point but I will reiterate - do you mean to say that there are many people like this man in the UK, having loads of kids simply because of state benefits? I find that quite funny to be honest, how many people do you know that have more than four kids? I can think of one family and I know an awful lot of people...

    3. Have you ever been unemployed? Do you know anyone that has? Stastitics and impartial judgements are all very well but I think that often personal testimonies are the best way to get a feel for the problems surrounding an issue like this.
    1. I do love inverse snobbery, it's lovely. I'm not aware that Tory politicians make their CVs public, and I'm not trawling Google. Out of interest, have you had to depend on manual labour to earn a living, personally? (Your parents don't count) If not I don't know how you can possibly comment on the issue :rolleyes:

    2. I think you'll find I addressed that particular strawman.
    Do you live in a deprived area? I know plenty. As you think anecdotes are better evidence than statistics, how's this?
    I know someone who specifically had a kid because,although they couldn't afford it at that point, they could with benefits and council housing, which they're now waiting for. In the meantime, they're living with their parents - 6 adults and a baby in a small 3 bed house, I'm sure it's a good beginning for the child.

    3. I come from the north and now live in Devon, I know plenty of unemployed people. Was there a point to this question?

    I can't believe you actually think subjective evidence is the best way to analyse a situation. Not one of nature's scientists eh? If we go with your opinion, then the ITV programme is proof that benefits should be scrapped, surely?
    Long term unemployment is debilitating, and it's in the individual's interests as well as society's to return to work as soon as possible.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by generalebriety)
    And I think you need to get your terminology right - "incentives" and "support" are entirely different. It's really quite a poor effort to formulate an argument on your part to assume that there is any significant number of people out there saying "the government's offering money, all you have to do is have a kid - impregnate me!".
    And you Sir make the common, false and somewhat foolish assumption that incentives require active cognition.

    Not to mention the fact that 'support' is an 'incentive' in it's self.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Apagg)
    You can't make a claim and then call me petty when it turns out you're wrong...
    My only claim is that there are plenty of people on TSR who think that benefits should be completely withdrawn, and that is absolutely true.

    (Original post by Apagg)
    1. I do love inverse snobbery, it's lovely. I'm not aware that Tory politicians make their CVs public, and I'm not trawling Google. Out of interest, have you had to depend on manual labour to earn a living, personally? (Your parents don't count) If not I don't know how you can possibly comment on the issue :rolleyes:
    Clearly at 19 I have not yet been in the position to have left home and be supporting a family, but I've already stated that I'm working in a job this summer which is manual labour, and also did so on my other work experience placements, and that having compared it with university, manual labour comes out on top as being the harder of the two by a long, long way. It's not inverse snobbery to state that most middle and upper class people have an easier time getting to "higher places" than working class people, hell I am one myself, I know! If I had been born into a working class family I can be almost certain I would be married by now, probably looking to start a family. I would never have aspired to go to university if it weren't for my parents' attitude and my upbringing. I've had an awful lot of help and support getting to where I am now and there's a reason that vet school is filled with the sons and daughters of either farmers or middle class families. More to the point, if someone has empathy for the unemployed or those in employment as manual labourers, I don't really see why it should matter that they haven't done it themselves. For those who like to preach, I think a little experience would be a good thing for their attitude.

    (Original post by Apagg)
    3. I come from the north and now live in Devon, I know plenty of unemployed people. Was there a point to this question?

    I can't believe you actually think subjective evidence is the best way to analyse a situation. Not one of nature's scientists eh? If we go with your opinion, then the ITV programme is proof that benefits should be scrapped, surely?
    Long term unemployment is debilitating, and it's in the individual's interests as well as society's to return to work as soon as possible.
    I expect I'm more of a scientist than you'll ever be, especially seeing as you like to skim read then inflate and misconstrue statements so completely I don't think anecdotal evidence is the best way to analyse a situation, I think it's the best way to analyse this situation; seeing as clearly one man on a telly programme or a bunch of statistics cannot possibly tell us what we need to know about why the unemployed are not making use of the apparent abundance of job vacancies, what we really need is for some other people in that position to tell us exactly what has prevented them from getting a job. You cannot possibly be arguing that those statistics conclusively prove that every unemployed person is just a layabout or that one bloke with 17 kids is representative of everyone on benefits? :rolleyes:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by City bound)
    Not to mention the fact that 'support' is an 'incentive' in it's self.
    Is it always? If my company makes a loss, the government pay me VAT. That's not a great incentive for me to help my company to make a loss!
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Apagg)
    Do you know the definition of incentive, or activity? Yes, fine, it's your "right" to have as many kids as you want, but why should anyone else pay for them? If you can't afford to have children, it's irresponsible to do so, not least because of the message their kids get - scrounge all your life, let someone else pick up the tab. (Before you shout at me, children from benefit dependent families are more likely to go on benefits themselves, so this seems a valid conclusion to make).

    Why should anyone work harder to ensure their children have the best possible start in life if they can relax and let the state cough up instead?
    Choice of the parent. My parents were relatively poor and they worked, and still are and still do. I haven't had the best possible start in life. But I'm glad I was born when I was, and they're glad too. It's not as if my parents didn't work 'harder' than yours, they just weren't qualified to do decent jobs so got stuck with **** ones and, consequently, **** wages. No matter how much they work in their lives they're never gonna pay off their debt. By your reasoning, I'd never have been born and nor would my brother. Blatant middle-class snobbery, that's all your post is; you make the ridiculous assumption that poor people don't work as hard as rich people, or could somehow just work a bit more and earn a bit more money. *******s, frankly.

    (Original post by Apagg)
    When did I claim that people were having children to get the payments? I said only that the payments provide an incentive to do so, to be weighed against the disincentives. As such, generous support could encourage pregnancy before the mother is ready (rise in teen pregnancies is certainly evident) or before the parents are really financially able to support a child - the payments may be enough to feed and clothe them, but their lives won't be as good as if their parents had waited a couple of years and built up a nest egg.
    I think it's you who doesn't know the meaning of "incentive"...
    in·cen·tive /ɪnˈsɛntɪv/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-sen-tiv] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
    –noun
    1. something that incites or tends to incite to action or greater effort, as a reward offered for increased productivity.
    –adjective
    2. inciting, as to action; stimulating; provocative.
    So, state support incites reproduction; rewards its increase; stimulates or provokes it? No it doesn't, it supports it. That's why it's called support. Calling it an incentive implies exactly what I said - that someone would have a kid (purely or partly) in order to receive benefits. Which is crap.

    (Original post by Apagg)
    Do you live in a deprived area? I know plenty. As you think anecdotes are better evidence than statistics, how's this?
    I know someone who specifically had a kid because,although they couldn't afford it at that point, they could with benefits and council housing, which they're now waiting for. In the meantime, they're living with their parents - 6 adults and a baby in a small 3 bed house, I'm sure it's a good beginning for the child.
    That's right; lots of people living in your house means you're automatically gonna have a **** upbringing, your mother's a prostitute, your dad's a dealer and you're gonna grow up to be a smackhead on the dole.

    (Original post by City bound)
    And you Sir make the common, false and somewhat foolish assumption that incentives require active cognition.

    Not to mention the fact that 'support' is an 'incentive' in it's self.
    Um, rather than coming out with a pile of crap littered with long words which is somehow going to convince someone, could you actually compose some sort of argument against what I said? I don't care if incentives require active cognition or not. It's not an incentive, it's support. An incentive would imply that benefits made people want to have kids; support implies that benefits, you know, support people wanting to have kids. It certainly doesn't do the former. Support is not an incentive.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    As an observer, JB, a couple of points. Firstly, on the 'hardness' issue, reverse the scenario, take a big burly but stupid bloke and then try to suggest that manual work is a far harder. i.e. difficulty is subjective.

    Secondly, you'll be vet (I presume), he'll be a social scientist (Economist). You stick your hand up a Cows rear (I semi-jest), he'll spend his time examining just these sorts of issues. Who's more of a scientist is rather a moot point.

    Thirdly, anecdotal evidence for something that's a largely psychological problem is useless. It's far too easy for individuals to generate unfounded justifications and excuses; indeed, one might say, that's the issue itself. Thus, by asking for their excuses you do nothing but acknowledge the problem exists, which is identical to simply looking at the nominal, bean-counting-based statistics of unemployment. i.e. anecdotal evidence adds nothing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by samba)
    Is it always? If my company makes a loss, the government pay me VAT. That's not a great incentive for me to help my company to make a loss!
    It's an incentive to opperate the business in the first place as part of the potential loss is mittigated. Thus, risk is reduced and your decision making has been influence.
    (Original post by generalebriety)
    I don't care if incentives require active cognition or not. It's not an incentive, it's support. An incentive would imply that benefits made people want to have kids; support implies that benefits, you know, support people wanting to have kids. It certainly doesn't do the former. Support is not an incentive.
    They don't have to 'make' them have kids - as in they actively decide to have kids because they want the money - in order to be incentives, they just have to influence the probability. Child related benefits may not, for most people, be so high that they cause such a reaction, however their existance as part of a wider safety net is undoubtedly an influence on decisions not to have children. i.e. if we posit a system with no such benefits, there are unlikely to be many couples who previously would have had children due to extra income generated but now have no children because in their (for want of a better word) 'natural' state they don't desire them, however, there will almost certainly be far more couples who would dearly love to have children but have actively decided not to due to financial constraints.

    Get it?
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by City bound)
    They don't have to 'make' them have kids - as in they actively decide to have kids because they want the money - in order to be incentives, they just have to influence the probability. Child related benefits may not, for most people, be so high that they cause such a reaction, however their existance as part of a wider safety net is undoubtedly an influence on decisions not to have children. i.e. if we posit a system with no such benefits, there are unlikely to be many couples who previously would have had children due to extra income generated but now have no children because in their (for want of a better word) 'natural' state they don't desire them, however, there will almost certainly be far more couples who would dearly love to have children but have actively decided not to due to financial constraints.

    Get it?
    So what you mean is "I agree with you, but I'm using the word 'incentive' wrongly to prove a point"?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Apagg)
    He's not the only one with a family larger than he would have had if he were forced to support them rather than relying on the state. I wouldn't use the low quality of ITV programming as proof that there are no other scroungers.

    Do you know the definition of incentive, or activity? Yes, fine, it's your "right" to have as many kids as you want, but why should anyone else pay for them? If you can't afford to have children, it's irresponsible to do so, not least because of the message their kids get - scrounge all your life, let someone else pick up the tab. (Before you shout at me, children from benefit dependent families are more likely to go on benefits themselves, so this seems a valid conclusion to make).
    Why should anyone work harder to ensure their children have the best possible start in life if they can relax and let the state cough up instead?

    When did I claim that people were having children to get the payments? I said only that the payments provide an incentive to do so, to be weighed against the disincentives. As such, generous support could encourage pregnancy before the mother is ready (rise in teen pregnancies is certainly evident) or before the parents are really financially able to support a child - the payments may be enough to feed and clothe them, but their lives won't be as good as if their parents had waited a couple of years and built up a nest egg.
    Suppose we scrap the benefits. What are you going to do about the now impoverished children?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by phawkins1988)
    Suppose we scrap the benefits. What are you going to do about the now impoverished children?
    When did I suggest we do that? It'd be wrong to cut off payments to existing children, but I'd like to see the size and scale of benefits cut down for future recipients.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
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: April 3, 2013
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

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.