[q2]> > buying[/q2]
[q3]> > > > cigerettes should go up by one year, every year, until it's[/q3]
[q2]> > stupid[/q2]
[q3]> > > > like 250 That way, new people won't start smoking and starting[/q3]
[q2]> > a[/q2]
[q3]> > > > goddamn stupid habit.[/q3]
[q3]> > >[/q3]
[q3]> > > Only if you're foolish enough to believe that, at the moment, people[/q3]
[q2]> > 16[/q2]
[q3]> > > don't smoke at all.[/q3]
[q2]> > Well as the age limit increases, it will be harder for underage kids to[/q2]
[q2]> > cigerettes. So it would work.[/q2]
[q1]> No it wouldn't. Think about cannabis.[/q1]
well there's a reason to smoke cannabis.
there's no reason to smoke cigrettes.
a thought entered my head the other day, it was quite a disturbing experience, i hope it dosn't
happen again. anyway, the thought was about cigerette advertising. it seems a bit pointless.
people are, i reckon, pretty brand loyal when it comes to cigerettes, so current smokers aren't in
a hurry to change brand. so the advertising must be there to encourage people to take up smoking.
most adults i expect have too much common sense than to start that habit, so the only audience
left is kids.
of course there are those people who quit smoking and might be encouraged to start again, but it
seems a bit mean to advertise to them.
all in all, i don't see why cigerette advertising is allowed, and why cigerettes aren't a controlled
i know i've argued this before, but i seem to have forgotton all the arguments *for*
anyone care to remind me?
[q1]>IMO education should be budgeted for by parents who are bringing up children.[/q1]
Have you ever had children? No, thought not. No parent that I know of ever managed to budget
sensibly in the face of children. When they are born, you don't realise that they are going
to cost you *thousands* to supply them with nappies [and yes, you can save that by using
Terry towelling, as long as you realise that is going to cost you just as much in Napisan,
not to mention the time taken dealing with horribles]. A bit later, you don't realise that
they will triple the cost of your holidays [four bodies instead of two, and August instead
of during term], not to mention the fact that you are forced to spend your hols building
sandcastles instead of visiting art galleries. Later still, you don't realise that they are
about to triple your 'phone bill, even after you've bought them mobiles and cards. When they
get part-time jobs, it doesn't actually improve the family finances, as the money they bring
in goes in transport costs [and time spent acting as the unpaid family taxi service]. As for
"free" state education, forget it.
People talk about houses and cars as the two biggest expenses that normal families incur.
Wrong. No-one would have children if they thought for more than a millisecond about the
[q1]> They should start a fund when the child is born and put as much as they can into it,[/q1]
[q1]> since education is the most important thing a child can have.[/q1]
We sort-of did that. Lucky we did, as the fund was the only way we could afford holidays.
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK. [email protected]
<[email protected]> wrote:
[q1]> [...]. The idea which the Russell group were throwing around about charging students in certain[/q1]
[q1]> subjects up to ^#10,000 a year in top up fees is absolutely proposterous (sp?).[/q1]
That is the American model rather than anything that is likely to happen here.
You need to look at the entire package rather than the headline. No academic is in the least
bit interested in teaching rich stupid people in preference to poor clever ones, so top-up
fees will not be set at levels that, of themselves, deter people from applying to the best
courses. [There may, of course, be univs that specialise in teaching rich people, like
"crammer" schools for rich-but-stupid A-level students, but decent univs will not be like
that.] Alongside extra fees for the best courses go, and *must* go, scholarships and
sponsorships for the best students and endowments to finance the best univs.
HE is being run very much on the cheap in the UK, and the effects are showing. Nothing
that Gordon and Tone do with central funds is likely to change that. We desperately need
to get more money into HE. It happens in research, where the companies that want research
doing pay for it. It is not yet happening in teaching, where the students who benefit pay
only a nominal* fee, and the employers who benefit pay nothing, bar their general
taxation. We can't expect students or taxpayers to pay more, so the obvious sources are
companies and alumni.
Aside: at the moment, many less-favoured courses are offering golden handshakes. If you
object to top-up fees, should you not equally object to bottom-down bribes? What is the
logical difference between some univs saying that standard fees are too high and offering
bribes, and some saying that they are too low and charging extra?
* Compare current tuition fees with (a) the fees at private schools, and (b) the fees routinely paid
by companies to put staff through short training courses.
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK. [email protected]
[email protected] says...
[q2]> >> Big T? No comprendo.. Becca[/q2]
[q2]> >The Countess of Finchley[/q2]
[q1]> Still not enlightened I'm afraid... or was that a topical joke I didn't get? Becca[/q1]
Mrs Thatcher as was.
And to Becky: I don't see the indoctrination, especially if "rob" is altered to "took". Her
governments sharply widened the distribution of income, in the interests of incentivising managers
and entrepreneurs. But the living standards of the bottom ten percent declined absolutely during her
decade in power.
[q1]> Have you ever had children? No, thought not. No parent that I know of ever managed to budget[/q1]
[q1]> sensibly in the face of children. When they are born, you don't realise that they are going to[/q1]
[q1]> cost you *thousands* to supply them with nappies [and yes, you can save that by using Terry[/q1]
[q1]> towelling, as long as you realise that is going to cost you just as much in Napisan, not to[/q1]
[q1]> mention the time taken dealing with horribles]. A bit later, you don't realise that they will[/q1]
[q1]> triple the cost of your holidays [four bodies instead of two, and August instead of during term],[/q1]
[q1]> not to mention the fact that you are forced to spend your hols building sandcastles instead of[/q1]
[q1]> visiting art galleries. Later still, you don't realise that they are about to triple your 'phone[/q1]
[q1]> bill, even after you've bought them mobiles and cards. When they get part-time jobs, it doesn't[/q1]
[q1]> actually improve the family finances, as the money they bring in goes in transport costs [and time[/q1]
[q1]> spent acting as the unpaid family taxi service]. As for "free" state education, forget it.[/q1]
[q1]> People talk about houses and cars as the two biggest expenses that normal families incur. Wrong.[/q1]
[q1]> No-one would have children if they thought for more than a millisecond about the economic[/q1]
It's interesting that people manage isn't it?
i just fitted a stick of kit kat in my mouth accross-ways.
Anyway, people find a way. That's the amazing thing. So if it was completely normal to put away £20
a month or something when a child is born purely for education, then there is a good chance that
they would, and they'd cut back on something else, and still get by.
But I'm speaking from my perfect little world of no experience
[q2]>> million pound house.[/q2]
[q1]>Good-looking, is she?[/q1]
Although what thats got to do with things I dont know.
<snip parent rant>
Cheers and cackles :-)
Napisan chemicals gave me exzema: after that I decided that those dubiously disposables were the
better of two evils.
And you forgot the bit about where you get told that any money-saviing initiative you may attempt
to launch is completely impractical because ...<insert illogical but trenchantly-expressed
she shares her name with a girl I know, and who I briefly thought was the same person).
Ideally, the rich *should* subsidise the poor to some extent, but I can't really see the graduated
system that Becky L speaks of occurring. Far more likely is that anyone earning £30k a year (which
is, IIRC, what the cut-off point for the old funding system was) will be paying the same amount as
Richard Branson. I know that my parents would have had to pay the full £1075 under the old system,
and are reasonably comfortable financially, but otherwise are much closer to Becca T's definition of
"middle-class" than Becky L. There are no big cars (unless an N-reg Fiat Punto counts), foreign
holidays, music lessons or rooms filled with big gold coins a la Duck Tales. Both my parents come
from working-class backgrounds (my father's father was a machinist, my mother's a miner) and my dad
got to where he is now (working at the magistrate's court) through a series of night school
certificates (which can't even be done now: today you'd need a law degree to have such a job). I
went to a comprehensive school that was once upon a time famous for its drugs problems (though not
any more) and I'd say that 90% of my university-bound classmates come from what would be called
working class backgrounds.
If the American system was introduced, which I know isn't the issue being debated here, we'd have to
sell our house (worth about £8-10k less than the last calculated average UK house price, if I
I would guess that one of the reasons for this system was the old story about rich kids taking out
student loans they don't need (as mummy and daddy will fund studying), putting the money in
high-interest bank accounts and creaming off the profits at the end.
I, on the other hand (funnily enough the How To Write Your Personal Statement leaflet sitting next
to the keyboard warns of starting too many sentences with "I", 'lest universities take some
mysterious offence at this, or assume it is a sign of a weak intellect or something) would, like
most people, be dipping into that right away for rent and so on. I think my total savings amount
to something like £90. Yet, if the government choose to apply the same crude definitions of
financial ability as they did last time (and there's no reason why they shouldn't, it's not like
they've employed anyone with half a brain on the government yet), my family would be in a very bad
Though I might be misunderstanding it, the most stupidest aspect of this whole new system is the
interest rates on student loans. Now, I was led to believe that tuition fees were means-tested
because they were paid, not by the student, but by their "provider" (or whatever terminology), be
that the LEA, parents, the army, whoever. Student loans on they other hand I thought were to be
given to the students themselves.
Under the previous system student loans were means-tested, in terms of what the maximum loan you
could take out was. As MMH suggested a while back, this itself is a bit suspect - this is for the
students, but you're penalising them for their parents? However, what really makes it *stupid*,
unless I have totally misinterpreted it all, is the new idea of having the interest rates
Though I do not understand all the intricacies of the student loan system, I presume the interest
rate is how much the loan goes up year-by-year until it is paid off. And I suppose that the student
loan is usually paid off some time *after* the student has graduated from university? Therefore,
under the new system, doesn't this mean that either (a) even after the student leaves university and
becomes an independent person, he or she is *still* being penalised - personally, this time - for
their parents' status, or (b) the government believes that students from a middle-class background
are themselves middle-class once they leave university, and should be penalised because of this,
even though they are unemployed, deeply in debt, having only meagre possessions and living in the
cheapest hovel they can afford?
Isn't it funny that when the historically left-wing Labour party *finally* get round to implementing
something vaguely socialist, they do something that targets students (who historically are not
swimming in wealth)?
I say that if the government wants to pass top-up fees, as a goodwill gesture *all* the members of
parliament who have attended university should pay the equivalent of three years' study. I realise
that MPs are famously poor but honest people, and this is all incredibly unlikely, but it would only
be fair, and the saying "life is unfair" was only coined by nasty people who write reviews of
Machiavelli books on Amazon.co.uk and applaud his amorality, to help themselves sleep at night.
[q2]> >> million pound house.[/q2]
[q2]> >Good-looking, is she?[/q2]
[q1]> Although what thats got to do with things I dont know.[/q1]
It's called the "icing on the cake"
[q1]> i know i've argued this before, but i seem to have forgotton all the arguments *for*[/q1]
[q1]> anyone care to remind me?[/q1]
Because in the collective subconscious (or something), cigarette smoking more so than anything
sybolises a kind of cool, I-don't-care detachment. I think that would be the main reason.
BTW, totally off topic, isn't it really annoying when badly-written magazine interviews with
musicians or actors begin with detailed (i.e. horribly overwritten) description of how that person
handles their **** on the way to their mouth (do they forcefully tear a cig from the packet and
shove it between their lips, or tentatively twirl it betwixt first and middle fingers?) as if that
offers some brilliantly lucid insight into the interviewee's mentality.
[q1]> . They live in[/q1]
[q2]> > a[/q2]
[q3]> > >> million pound house.[/q3]
[q3]> > >[/q3]
[q3]> > >Good-looking, is she?[/q3]
[q2]> > Yes.[/q2]
[q2]> > Although what thats got to do with things I dont know.[/q2]
[q1]> It's called the "icing on the cake" [/q1]
Keep your grubby paws off, the lot of you...!