|
Post by NYR on Dec 10, 2010 7:10:35 GMT -5
if you like the royal family, please disregard. i had to get this off of my chest. i'm watching the early show today (i'm sick ) and they spend a good ten minutes on why british students are protesting tax hikes by attacking prince charles and camilla. they are shocked (shocked, i tell you!) while missing the most obvious point: if this guy's family hadn't spent centuries taxing the shit out of their subjects and killing in the name of more land and wealth so they could live more lavishly, these students might not have attacked charles and his girlfriend. (i never got america's obsession with the british royal family. didn't we revolt against these people?) -------------------------------------- could someone please explain what's going on with these protests? all the news americans are getting are related to prince charles.
|
|
|
Post by gdforever on Dec 10, 2010 12:29:37 GMT -5
I think violence in protests is wrong. I don't disagree with protesting...but physical attacks for political points is wrong. I think it's closer to terrorism than freedom of speech @ that point.
Blah blah blah...the royal family had a history of ruthlessness centuries ago. But other than the fortune/misfortune of being born into a that family...what is it that makes u think that this is alright to attack two old peoples car? They're royal so they don't count as people?
I am not saying this because I like the royals. I am saying this because I think that common decency and respect is owed to all people.
These are supposed to be educated young people. I hope that those that got swept up in the mob mentality are ashamed of themselves in the cold light of day.
|
|
|
Post by gdforever on Dec 10, 2010 12:35:02 GMT -5
Also I don't get ur point about taxation in the distant past directly leading to this current crisis. Their is no point hanging the royals now for a social and political structure that hasn't been in place for the whole of their lifetimes.
It more like if the American banking and investment sector hadn't been so greedy in the past half century maybe these kids wouldn't have had to had this protest.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Dec 10, 2010 13:07:13 GMT -5
The fascination with the royal family is cringe worthy, in my opinion. However, I think that fascination is actually romanticism.
As for the protests? Protests are fine. The violence is not.
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Dec 10, 2010 13:53:38 GMT -5
you all are right. i'm not condoning any violence, and it is rarely, if ever justified... (and hate populism), but they are symbols of the upper class mooching off of the rest of the population. i think it's a natural reaction for the students to rebel against them like that. it's not right, though.
just my two cents. (i'd say pence but i'm still american.)
|
|
|
Post by matt on Dec 10, 2010 13:54:02 GMT -5
It's all to do with tuition fees being raised from £3000 a year to £9000. That is the basis of it all, although it doesn't apply for all students. The poorest will get help with it through things like subsidies and they won't have to start paying until the third year. This rise will help see off the deficit, and put money back into universities. The families of 'middle England' look to be the worse off. Also, students won't pay it back until they are earning over £21,000 a year.
The recommendations were made last year out of Lord Browne's commission report, which the Labour government said would back the outcome of whatever the result (which they have since gone back on their word and favoured the idea of a graduate tax system - an idea which the Lib Dems favoured but after Vince Cable - who predicted the recession - looked further into and claimed it 'unworkable').
The protests are understandable but the violence is unacceptable. It's tainting the student cause massively thanks to all these idiots - some socialist prat I vaguely know of was arrested for attacking a policeman.
Also, there is no basis for attacking the royals. This royal family are of German descent anyway.
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Dec 10, 2010 13:56:24 GMT -5
are these protestors students or anarchists? (or both?) look at g20 summits--there are always idiots looking to start revolutions through physical and violent means. they taint the entire group of protestors.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Dec 10, 2010 13:59:54 GMT -5
are these protestors students or anarchists? (or both?) look at g20 summits--there are always idiots looking to start revolutions through physical and violent means. they taint the entire group of protestors. Both. Also, some London gangs are using it as an excuse to riot.
|
|
|
Post by globe on Dec 10, 2010 14:07:59 GMT -5
I'm suprised so many of them could drag themselves away from the SU bar and Countdown.
|
|
|
Post by gdforever on Dec 10, 2010 15:28:33 GMT -5
you all are right. i'm not condoning any violence, and it is rarely, if ever justified... (and hate populism), but they are symbols of the upper class mooching off of the rest of the population. i think it's a natural reaction for the students to rebel against them like that. it's not right, though. just my two cents. (i'd say pence but i'm still american.) Certainly rebelling against the social structure that the royals are a part of is alright. Attacking them for it is not. The fact is that they were rebelling against their tuition. The royals have no practical power. The attack served no purpose other than to scare two old people and give the media an excuse to talk more about the attack than the tuitions and to tut at the protesters. Counterproductive I say. Its a classic case of mob mentality. Anyone with a level head a decent morality should see it was wrong of them from outside the melee. Even if they were protesting the royals position attacking them would still have ultimately been wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Rita on Dec 10, 2010 15:34:12 GMT -5
Is it confirmed, though? Is it really going to raise that high?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2010 18:48:25 GMT -5
the royals where in the wrong place at the wrong time, pure incompetence on the part of their security team. how this small story stole the headlines away from what is an important issue is beyond comprehension.
the protests were as has already been stated in this thread the student fees will be going up from £3000, up to a maximum of £9000 per year. These fees will be paid back when the they are earning £21,000 a year and will be canceled after 30 years. there is also going to be an increase in the rates of interest on the student loans.
In the coalition government the smaller liberal democrat party signed a pledge before the election stating that they would not raise tuition fees this gained them votes among students and within months they have reneged on their promise.
as for the protests themselves there was a small amount of violence most of it premeditated and carried out by so called anarchists, however thousands of people were involved in non violent action.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2010 14:32:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by His Royal Noelness on Dec 23, 2010 11:04:58 GMT -5
Can I ask what is the point of the British royal family? Seems a bit medieval for the 21st Century.
|
|
|
Post by thomaslivesforever on Dec 23, 2010 11:36:09 GMT -5
It's all to do with tuition fees being raised from £3000 a year to £9000. That is the basis of it all, although it doesn't apply for all students. The poorest will get help with it through things like subsidies and they won't have to start paying until the third year. This rise will help see off the deficit, and put money back into universities. The families of 'middle England' look to be the worse off. Also, students won't pay it back until they are earning over £21,000 a year. The recommendations were made last year out of Lord Browne's commission report, which the Labour government said would back the outcome of whatever the result (which they have since gone back on their word and favoured the idea of a graduate tax system - an idea which the Lib Dems favoured but after Vince Cable - who predicted the recession - looked further into and claimed it 'unworkable'). The protests are understandable but the violence is unacceptable. It's tainting the student cause massively thanks to all these idiots - some socialist prat I vaguely know of was arrested for attacking a policeman. Also, there is no basis for attacking the royals. This royal family are of German descent anyway. The Royal bloodline runs all the way back to William I from the current queen though. The family has its branches in quite a few countries but it is very English.
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Dec 23, 2010 12:09:09 GMT -5
you guys pay only £3,000 for university? my school's tuition was around $33,000 a year. (add about $10,000 for room & board, food/groceries, electricity, travel and any other expense.)
|
|
|
Post by gdforever on Dec 23, 2010 17:07:13 GMT -5
you guys pay only £3,000 for university? my school's tuition was around $33,000 a year. (add about $10,000 for room & board, food/groceries, electricity, travel and any other expense.) I know. My schooling was about $10000/year in Canada. But it is a bit out of order to hike it up that quickly though.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Dec 23, 2010 17:43:18 GMT -5
you guys pay only £3,000 for university? my school's tuition was around $33,000 a year. (add about $10,000 for room & board, food/groceries, electricity, travel and any other expense.) I'd take both - combined even - than for what mine cost. (I think that's 3 posts in a row I used that 'smiley')....$53,000
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2010 18:07:22 GMT -5
tuition fees are only about a decade old in england and they don't have them in scotland.
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Dec 23, 2010 20:58:28 GMT -5
you guys pay only £3,000 for university? my school's tuition was around $33,000 a year. (add about $10,000 for room & board, food/groceries, electricity, travel and any other expense.) I'd take both - combined even - than for what mine cost. (I think that's 3 posts in a row I used that 'smiley')....$53,000 that takes the cake, man. 53k a year? jesus! you should be the one protesting out out of anybody here. unless we have some sarah lawrence college students/alumni on the forum, you win/lose.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Dec 24, 2010 2:02:21 GMT -5
I'd take both - combined even - than for what mine cost. (I think that's 3 posts in a row I used that 'smiley')....$53,000 that takes the cake, man. 53k a year? jesus! you should be the one protesting out out of anybody here. unless we have some sarah lawrence college students/alumni on the forum, you win/lose. Gone down in the last year, but it's still absurd. Here's the top 20 most expensive: voices.washingtonpost.com/college-inc/2010/10/most_expensive_colleges_a_list.html
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Dec 26, 2010 12:49:24 GMT -5
and most of those schools are in the northeast. go figure.
|
|