Should fines for crimes be based on income and wealth? Watch

Libertinex
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#61
Report 10 years ago
#61
noun] the quality of being patriotic; vigorous support for one's country.
(Original post by freckles29)
However, I would object to the varying of fines depending on wealth for the following reasons:
1. One of the important functions of punishment is its communicative element - it conveys to the public a message about how seriously the crime is viewed. Were we to vary punishment depending on personal circumstances the public would become easily muddled as to how blameworthy the behaviour was in the first place.
2. Fines are at the bottom of the sentencing ladder in the UK. They are not really meant to be a severe finanancial penalty, rather they are a way of conveying the censure element of the punishment. Here, the main detriment to the offender lies in damage to his reputation rather than financial hardship.
3. If we go down the path of varying punishment according to personal circumstances we get into very murky territory - already this job is done as far as is possible (without intruding too much on the principle of proportionality in sentencing) by the plea in mitigation that will be delivered by the defendant's counsel before sentencing.

In such a system the punishment isn't being varied. It would be equal for all. I.e. 5% fine (+or- judicial discretion). Hence no variation, the seriousness of the crime would be patently communicated to the public. And I think fines ought to be used to impose severe financial penalties for certain crimes, even if they are not at the moment.
0
quote
reply
Libertinex
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#62
Report 10 years ago
#62
(Original post by joker_900)
I believe that people who work harder to achieve deserve more. But a person is the influence of their genetics plus the influence of their upbringing. So if you don't believe that someone born more intelligent, and raised in a better way to cultivate their abilities, deserves more, then you can't believe that anyone deserves anything. e.g. winston churchill doesn't deserve respect because it was a combination of his genetics and upbringing that led him to be the man he became?

I'm not sure if that is worded particularly well, but in the short, yes i do believe that.

And this isn't really the issue here.
Besides your view that it is punishing someone for being rich has already been dealt with as absurd.
0
quote
reply
em_ily31
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#63
Report 10 years ago
#63
(Original post by The Solitary Reaper)
Not at all, though that you fail to follow a thread from "people deserve their earnings" to "people deserve the assets that afford them a significant portion of those earnings despite having no choice in the matter" is telling.

Do you think someone deserves to be significantly more successful in life because they were born naturally more intelligent than others, or were given more opportunities to cultivate their abilities, despite having done nothing at all to deserve this?
i support joker_900

why should people feel sorry that they are 'naturally more intelligent' or 'given more opportunities' ??

just because some people are born particually untalented, or have a series of bad luck, these 'talented' people should be put on a guilt trip???

yeh thats really fair (Y)

the fact of the matter is - everybodies different, and everyone has a role to play in society, each needing eachother to get by

as i suggested before - say you charge 10% of a persons income as the fine, nobody in their right mind sits there with say 20'000 in their bank account doing nothing

people have a house/houses to maintain, cars to fuel & insure, families to feed and clothe. its their prerogative to do so - they earn the money so they can spend it how they wish.
0
quote
reply
The Solitary Reaper
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#64
Report 10 years ago
#64
(Original post by em_ily31)
i support joker_900

why should people feel sorry that they are 'naturally more intelligent' or 'given more opportunities' ??

just because some people are born particually untalented, or have a series of bad luck, these 'talented' people should be put on a guilt trip???

yeh thats really fair (Y)

the fact of the matter is - everybodies different, and everyone has a role to play in society, each needing eachother to get by

as i suggested before - say you charge 10% of a persons income as the fine, nobody in their right mind sits there with say 20'000 in their bank account doing nothing

people have a house/houses to maintain, cars to fuel & insure, families to feed and clothe. its their prerogative to do so - they earn the money so they can spend it how they wish.
When did I say any of that?

Again, I'm quite sure we disagree fundamentally on the legitimacy of these claims that such people 'deserve' their wealth; I don't think either of you do or would understand why, and if you did I know you'd reject it in the reactionary manner you've displayed, so I'm not going to bother.

Just please, don't put words into my mouth about "guilt trips" or what not; I do not feel at all guilty that I am more intelligent than most.
0
quote
reply
death.drop
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#65
Report 10 years ago
#65
(Original post by em_ily31)
as i suggested before - say you charge 10% of a persons income as the fine, nobody in their right mind sits there with say 20'000 in their bank account doing nothing

people have a house/houses to maintain, cars to fuel & insure, families to feed and clothe. its their prerogative to do so - they earn the money so they can spend it how they wish.
I don't think you'll find someone on minimum wage will have 10% of their income (about £900) sitting in their bank doing nothing either. equally, they earn their money to spend it how they wish.
and btw, if you're earning 200,000 a year i don't think it would be too hard to find £20,000 from somewhere. even if it requires selling some stocks or something.

in my opinion it should be a fixed percentage of you disposable income (After basic living costs are taken out).
That is fairer than a percentage of income and fairer than a fixed amount.
It should hit everyone the same. It won't affect their ability to pay for the necessities, but will affect them fairly equally on what they have for luxiries like holidays, house improvements etc (compared to what they would have otherwise had).

i probably worded that really badly but i hope you get the idea.
0
quote
reply
Ishtar
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#66
Report 10 years ago
#66
(Original post by Libertinex)
In such a system the punishment isn't being varied. It would be equal for all. I.e. 5% fine (+or- judicial discretion). Hence no variation, the seriousness of the crime would be patently communicated to the public. And I think fines ought to be used to impose severe financial penalties for certain crimes, even if they are not at the moment.
Not the case, obviously, as such punishments would be reported in the press etc as 'a fine of £3000' etc. Unless of course, judgement was expressed as 'a fine of 5% of yearly income at the date of judgement' which carries massive practical problems, for example what counts as income? Do capital gains count as income? What about income from properties? Most of this will only really be assessed at the end of the tax year and enforcing judgement will be massively complicated.
0
quote
reply
em_ily31
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#67
Report 10 years ago
#67
(Original post by death.drop)
I don't think you'll find someone on minimum wage will have 10% of their income (about £900) sitting in their bank doing nothing either. equally, they earn their money to spend it how they wish.
and btw, if you're earning 200,000 a year i don't think it would be too hard to find £20,000 from somewhere. even if it requires selling some stocks or something.

in my opinion it should be a fixed percentage of you disposable income (After basic living costs are taken out).
That is fairer than a percentage of income and fairer than a fixed amount.
It should hit everyone the same. It won't affect their ability to pay for the necessities, but will affect them fairly equally on what they have for luxiries like holidays, house improvements etc (compared to what they would have otherwise had).

i probably worded that really badly but i hope you get the idea.
*argh i just typed a long reply then it deleted itself:mad: *

it doesnt matter what the percentage is - i think you will find that very few people have money just sitting in their account doing nothing

as to your "it wouldnt be that hard to find 20k" point - i would beg to differ. for some people thats an entire years school tution -its a lot of money to 'loose' in effect for a seemingly unfair reason

equally it all depends what "minus basic costs of living" means, 'basic' means very different things to different people. plus there are essential outgoings which need to be taken into account. the people this would effect the most [e.g. the rich] are mostly deemed by the government to be 'rich' enough not to require any grants etc, therefore their parents have to save for their futures *dont get me started on EMA*, ditto to payments into pension schemes, or property [for retirment] its unreasonable to expect someone to go from living in [what some would deem] 'the lap of luxury' to then be forced to live on a low budget by comparison

basically i think this stems from a fundamentally different view on whar fair/ equal means. to me fair/equal mean the same, but clearly to others they view this rather differently indeed!
0
quote
reply
death.drop
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#68
Report 10 years ago
#68
(Original post by em_ily31)
it doesnt matter what the percentage is - i think you will find that very few people have money just sitting in their account doing nothing
true, i wasn't talking about an exact percentage. just the one that the poster before me used.

as to your "it wouldnt be that hard to find 20k" point - i would beg to differ. for some people thats an entire years school tution -its a lot of money to 'loose' in effect for a seemingly unfair reason
for many, it's not a seemingly unfair reason. they could just take their kid out of that school for a year - although i expect they would have that amount of money somewhere else anyway. or they could take out a loan to pay the money and pay it back gradually - as any poorer person would probably have to do anyway.

equally it all depends what "minus basic costs of living" means, 'basic' means very different things to different people. plus there are essential outgoings which need to be taken into account. the people this would effect the most [e.g. the rich] are mostly deemed by the government to be 'rich' enough not to require any grants etc, therefore their parents have to save for their futures *dont get me started on EMA*, ditto to payments into pension schemes, or property [for retirment] its unreasonable to expect someone to go from living in [what some would deem] 'the lap of luxury' to then be forced to live on a low budget by comparison
basic living costs usually means food, housing & bills(i think). in other words, the essentials to live.
i know what you mean on EMA/uni loan thing, i think that whole system needs to be rethought but that's a different issue.
i don't think it's any more unreasonable to go from living in the lap of luxury to living on a lower buget than it is to expect people on low income to have to go into debt and end up paying interest on the money they borrow to pay the fines.
0
quote
reply
em_ily31
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#69
Report 10 years ago
#69
it doesnt matter how much money you earn the same rule applies to it all

if you cant afford to do something - you dont do it

if you cant afford to pay the punishment [whatever the amount] dont commit the crime

+ why should someone have to take their child out of school for a year, and send them to a school which would probably provide them with a lower standard of education and [probably] huge class sizes, it would be a change in topics covered etc etc, so when they could go back they'd be awfully behind - thats just unfair

ditto to the loan thing, why should someone be forced to take out a loan to pay an excessive fine, just because they've done well for themselves.

plus as someone above noted, more than likely this [excessive] fine amount would be released to the press, and i think you'll find many people would be unhappy to have their income plasted all over the press
0
quote
reply
death.drop
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#70
Report 10 years ago
#70
(Original post by em_ily31)
it doesnt matter how much money you earn the same rule applies to it all

if you cant afford to do something - you dont do it

if you cant afford to pay the punishment [whatever the amount] dont commit the crime
this is my point. it's a deterrent. making it an equal deterrent for all means making it proportionally similar.

+ why should someone have to take their child out of school for a year, and send them to a school which would probably provide them with a lower standard of education and [probably] huge class sizes, it would be a change in topics covered etc etc, so when they could go back they'd be awfully behind - thats just unfair
i said they probably wouldn't have to do that. and is it fair that most kids don't even get to go to private school in the first place? methinks not but that's the way it is.
if you break the law you face the consequences. if they've broken the law and their kids have to leave their school as a result that is your own fault.

ditto to the loan thing, why should someone be forced to take out a loan to pay an excessive fine, just because they've done well for themselves.
it's not because they've done well for themselves. it's because they've broken the law and it should have equal consequences for all.

plus as someone above noted, more than likely this [excessive] fine amount would be released to the press, and i think you'll find many people would be unhappy to have their income plasted all over the press
well then part of the law would have to be that the fine amount can not be released by the press. it would have to say fined x% of disposable income, instead of the actual figure.
0
quote
reply
em_ily31
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#71
Report 10 years ago
#71
(Original post by death.drop)


well then part of the law would have to be that the fine amount can not be released by the press. it would have to say fined x% of disposable income, instead of the actual figure.
that is my exact point

if it needs to be a percentage - it needs to be a percentage of somebodies disposable income, not income in total

if it was someones entire income, there would be so many loopholes it would be ridicioulus, one could suggest as ridiciulous as charging fines based on a persons wealth!

[+ its not unfair that not everyone can attend private school - the government provide schooling, its your parents choice to send you there because they can afford it - unfortunatly life is b**** and thats just the way things are ++ why should a childs education suffer just because their parent committed a crime - with all this children are the future stuff, i would assume this takes top prioity over the government grabbing every last penny they can get their hands one]
0
quote
reply
death.drop
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#72
Report 10 years ago
#72
(Original post by em_ily31)
that is my exact point

if it needs to be a percentage - it needs to be a percentage of somebodies disposable income, not income in total

if it was someones entire income, there would be so many loopholes it would be ridicioulus, one could suggest as ridiciulous as charging fines based on a persons wealth!

[+ its not unfair that not everyone can attend private school - the government provide schooling, its your parents choice to send you there because they can afford it - unfortunatly life is b**** and thats just the way things are ++ why should a childs education suffer just because their parent committed a crime - with all this children are the future stuff, i would assume this takes top prioity over the government grabbing every last penny they can get their hands one]
didn't i say it should be disposable income in the first place? all the time i've been talking about it with you, i've been talking about disposable income.

i think it is unfair that not everyone can attend private school. everyone should have equal education regardless of their parents wealth.

i'm not saying the childs education should suffer because their parent committed a crime, I said they could probably get the money elsewhere - even if it meant taking out a loan.

lastly, saying why should the childs education suffer because their parent committed a crime isn't that dissimilar to saying why should a child get a better education because their parent has more money.
0
quote
reply
em_ily31
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#73
Report 10 years ago
#73
(Original post by death.drop)
didn't i say it should be disposable income in the first place? all the time i've been talking about it with you, i've been talking about disposable income.

i think it is unfair that not everyone can attend private school. everyone should have equal education regardless of their parents wealth.

i'm not saying the childs education should suffer because their parent committed a crime, I said they could probably get the money elsewhere - even if it meant taking out a loan.

lastly, saying why should the childs education suffer because their parent committed a crime isn't that dissimilar to saying why should a child get a better education because their parent has more money.

yes its unfair that schools give such a different level of education, i mean some state schools have excellent reputations, but others have gcse rates of like 1 a-c grade average

but, in my case at least, its an attempt from my parents to give me the best start in life as they possibly can, as im sure it is for most parents, it just so happens that my dad has worked extremely hard, and had his fair share of luck in buying a business, that he is able to provide such an education for me and my brother, but thats just the way life is, you dont always get everything you want.

by saying the childs education would suffer, i mean it doesnt matter what school you go to, state or public, a change in this would disrupt your education and therefore have a negative effect, just as changing school at any time can disrupt your education

utimately we are all the same, so why shouldnt we be treated same, [ and by the same i mean pre-determined consequenced for an action, not one made up on the spot relating to a persons circumstances

i think that society relys on eachother and without this balance it would all be screwed up, e.g. a richer person probably employs people for something, roles which are filled by people less wealthy than himself. it he didnt have them, his business or whatever would suffer = he earns less money, but equally if the poorer person was unemployed = they earn less money

tbh its in noones interest to serverly finanically punish anyone [well cept maybe government bonus'!]
0
quote
reply
Ishtar
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#74
Report 10 years ago
#74
(Original post by death.drop)
this is my point. it's a deterrent. making it an equal deterrent for all means making it proportionally similar.
Do you honestly and genuinely think that a fine is an effective deterrent? The type of crimes that are punishable by fines alone tend to be very minor regulatory offences, and the fine essentially puts a price on the activity that the perpetrator must be willing to pay. These types of offences are almost akin to civil wrongs and the main form of punishment comes not from the fine but from the censure.

I do agree with you, however in principle on your approach to 'fairness' which is clearly not treating everybody exactly the same. However for practical reasons (and other reasons relating to the purposes of criminal punishment) I would have to disagree with the idea of making the level of fine dependant on personal wealth.


(Original post by death.drop)
i said they probably wouldn't have to do that. and is it fair that most kids don't even get to go to private school in the first place? methinks not but that's the way it is.
Of course it's fair. I will not only work extremely hard as a lawyer, but also add a (relatively) large amount to the economy in general. Why should I be prevented from paying for superior services, like better education and healthcare?


(Original post by death.drop)
it's not because they've done well for themselves. it's because they've broken the law and it should have equal consequences for all.
I agree with you here, but I think everybody is overestimating the extent of fines for criminal offences and their purpose. And there is a slippery slope argument - REGULATING this area of the law would mean that we would have to consider providing a legislative framework for e.g. reducing prison sentences for those who are old, mothers, sole earners etc etc. All of these issues are currently dealt with informally on the basis of sentence mitigation.

(Original post by death.drop)
well then part of the law would have to be that the fine amount can not be released by the press. it would have to say fined x% of disposable income, instead of the actual figure.
OK, this is my main problem with this thread. Please will someone give me an even vaguely possible method for working out disposable income? Are fines going to be worked out using monthly income as a base? If so, what about high net worth individuals who have most of their money invested in securities which fluctuate massively from month to month? What about individuals who invest in property for resale and some months have a relatively low income from it but other months make huge capital gains? Consider a banker with a relatively modest fixed salery but a massive bonus. If we are not assessing according to monthly income but rather yearly income, then the same variables come in to the calculation, but additionally, do we wait for the end of the current tax year or use the previous tax year. None of this is likely to give an adequate estimation of wealth.

It is likely that developing and enforcing the system would cost the country more than it would bring in.
0
quote
reply
death.drop
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#75
Report 10 years ago
#75
(Original post by em_ily31)
utimately we are all the same, so why shouldn't we be treated same, [ and by the same i mean pre-determined consequence for an action, not one made up on the spot relating to a persons circumstances
it is a predetermined consequence. the predetermined consequence is the %.

i think that society relys on eachother and without this balance it would all be screwed up, e.g. a richer person probably employs people for something, roles which are filled by people less wealthy than himself. it he didnt have them, his business or whatever would suffer = he earns less money, but equally if the poorer person was unemployed = they earn less money
i don't get the point of this bit. society also relies on people not breaking the law.

tbh its in noones interest to serverly finanically punish anyone [well cept maybe government bonus'!]
that's the whole point though. charging a rich person and a poor person the same amount of money is NOT an equal punishment or deterrent.
charging a % of disposable income isn't severely financially punishing a rich person any more than it is a poor person.
0
quote
reply
Crystaltears
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#76
Report 10 years ago
#76
Yeah, I agree that is fair.
0
quote
reply
death.drop
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#77
Report 10 years ago
#77
(Original post by freckles29)
Do you honestly and genuinely think that a fine is an effective deterrent? The type of crimes that are punishable by fines alone tend to be very minor regulatory offences, and the fine essentially puts a price on the activity that the perpetrator must be willing to pay. These types of offences are almost akin to civil wrongs and the main form of punishment comes not from the fine but from the censure.
i think in some cases a fine is an effective deterrant. I know friends of mine would not risk a parking fine because they can't afford it but my dad tends to go 'what's the fine? £60. well it could be worse' and leaves his car there.

Of course it's fair. I will not only work extremely hard as a lawyer, but also add a (relatively) large amount to the economy in general. Why should I be prevented from paying for superior services, like better education and healthcare?
I think people have a right to do it, but I do not think it's fair. why should one child have a better education than another just because of where they live or how much their parents earn? fair would be all children having the same in their lives and only benefiting from their own actions/talents.

I agree with you here, but I think everybody is overestimating the extent of fines for criminal offences and their purpose. And there is a slippery slope argument - REGULATING this area of the law would mean that we would have to consider providing a legislative framework for e.g. reducing prison sentences for those who are old, mothers, sole earners etc etc. All of these issues are currently dealt with informally on the basis of sentence mitigation.
It is a slipperly slope, but what we're questioning here is just whether fines should be proportionally equal, nothing further. prison sentencing is a different matter because it's very difficult to compare how much time is valuable to someone, not to mention that prison sentences are hardly representative of the seriousness of the crime in a lot of people's minds.

OK, this is my main problem with this thread. Please will someone give me an even vaguely possible method for working out disposable income? Are fines going to be worked out using monthly income as a base? If so, what about high net worth individuals who have most of their money invested in securities which fluctuate massively from month to month? What about individuals who invest in property for resale and some months have a relatively low income from it but other months make huge capital gains? Consider a banker with a relatively modest fixed salery but a massive bonus. If we are not assessing according to monthly income but rather yearly income, then the same variables come in to the calculation, but additionally, do we wait for the end of the current tax year or use the previous tax year. None of this is likely to give an adequate estimation of wealth.
I'm not talking about wealth. i'm talking about the last tax years disposable income. disposable income would be money after essential costs (housing, bills, food)

i completely see what you're saying about it not being practical and related to a whole bunch of other stuff. I'm just talking about it in regards to equality. hope that makes sense.
0
quote
reply
joker_900
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#78
Report 10 years ago
#78
(Original post by death.drop)
I don't think you'll find someone on minimum wage will have 10% of their income (about £900) sitting in their bank doing nothing either. equally, they earn their money to spend it how they wish.
and btw, if you're earning 200,000 a year i don't think it would be too hard to find £20,000 from somewhere. even if it requires selling some stocks or something.

in my opinion it should be a fixed percentage of you disposable income (After basic living costs are taken out).
That is fairer than a percentage of income and fairer than a fixed amount.
It should hit everyone the same. It won't affect their ability to pay for the necessities, but will affect them fairly equally on what they have for luxiries like holidays, house improvements etc (compared to what they would have otherwise had).

i probably worded that really badly but i hope you get the idea.
Firstly going by your first paragraph; assume neither the high or low earner have any money in their bank - the £900 can probably be covered by an allowed overdraft or something. The £20,000 one will require a loan or mortgage increase or something which will produce much higher interest. Thus the amount payed out will still be unequal even in terms of percentages. If both people are living up to their means, it will take the higher fined person a lot longer to pay it off and will require a much greater cut down in spending, something which they may not be able to do if the reason they are living up to their means is to support kids through uni or whatever. Not everyone earning high has an obscene amount of money to spare.

Then you talk about disposable income. This I think is just extremely impractical. Would you have to go to court and prove what your basic necessities are like in a divorce case or something? Plus who can decide what is a luxury and what isn't? This would lead to those earning low wages and so living on bare necessities basically getting off free, whilst those higher earners who indulge in a lot of "luxury" would have to take a step down in lifestyle, again which is unfair and would certainly not "hit everyone the same". Only those who can afford to go on holiday and usually do so would now not be able to - thus the fine changes only their lifestyle.

P.s. high earners can't just "find" 10% of their income lying around, and not all of them have £20,000 in stocks.
0
quote
reply
death.drop
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#79
Report 10 years ago
#79
(Original post by joker_900)
Firstly going by your first paragraph; assume neither the high or low earner have any money in their bank - the £900 can probably be covered by an allowed overdraft or something. The £20,000 one will require a loan or mortgage increase or something which will produce much higher interest. Thus the amount payed out will still be unequal even in terms of percentages.
if someone on minimum wage needed to pay a £900 fine and had no money they could not get that without paying some kind of fee or interest. it would take them a very very long time to pay back.
maybe it could be arranged like paying council tax or something, in instalments meaning you would not be charged interest.

If both people are living up to their means, it will take the higher fined person a lot longer to pay it off and will require a much greater cut down in spending, something which they may not be able to do if the reason they are living up to their means is to support kids through uni or whatever. Not everyone earning high has an obscene amount of money to spare.
nobody has to support their kids through uni. that's the point of loans and jobs. I'm on the minimum loan amount and receive no help from my parents. i get by just fine.
nobody HAS to have anything more than housing, bills & food (and travel, i did forget travel before). hence disposable income.
it will require a greater cut down in spending, but a proportionate amount. and they could certainly do this seeing as the fines are obviously not going to be obscenely high in relation to their disposable income.

Then you talk about disposable income. This I think is just extremely impractical. Would you have to go to court and prove what your basic necessities are like in a divorce case or something?
like i've said before, i'm thinking of this as an isolated thing, unrelated to anything else.

Plus who can decide what is a luxury and what isn't?
luxuries are things you do not need to have to live. there are already definitions for luxuries and essentials - it's how they work out things like JSA

This would lead to those earning low wages and so living on bare necessities basically getting off free, whilst those higher earners who indulge in a lot of "luxury" would have to take a step down in lifestyle, again which is unfair and would certainly not "hit everyone the same". Only those who can afford to go on holiday and usually do so would now not be able to - thus the fine changes only their lifestyle.
someone on minimum wage and over 25 can save up enough to go on holiday. this way of fining would affect what they have as disposable income each year and mean that they have to cut back on something. be that their yearly holiday, the amount of clothes they buy in a year, buying a new sofa, whatever. so this way of fining still affects their lifestyle.
it would still hit people a lot more similarly than a set amount for everyone would, even if it is tipped a little in different favour.

P.s. high earners can't just "find" 10% of their income lying around, and not all of them have £20,000 in stocks.
it was one suggestion. i'm sure someone earning £200,000 could find £20,000 somewhere. or if they have to pay in installments, so beit. either way, it's affordable.

perhaps the fine could be capped at a certain amount, I don't know how to make the consequences more equal. all i know is that a proportional amount is much more equal than a set amount which would hit the poor (The people who can ill afford it) much harder.
0
quote
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Were you ever put in isolation at school?

Yes (281)
27.6%
No (737)
72.4%

Watched Threads

View All