On 24 Nov 2010 at 4:27pm Cronk wrote:
For a tuition fees march by around 100 pupils from Priory school.
Sort your priorities out! Both Police and Pupils to that point
On 24 Nov 2010 at 5:26pm Clifford wrote:
The pupils' priority will be the withdrawal of the education maintenance allowance and the soaring rise in higher education fees. I can't see they need to be 'sorted out' as they are obviously genuine grievances worth protesting about. The police... well, that's another matter. I'm sure some of them may feel like protesting when they see the impact of the cuts (thank you bankers) on their jobs. And we'll support them too.
On 24 Nov 2010 at 5:47pm MC wrote:
Go students, go!
Hopefully this sort of stuff will put some backbone into them and instil a political awareness that seemed to fade from student life after 70s and early 80s (did at Sussex University anyway).
In Brighton the police helicopter has been buzzing overhead all day and klaxon's are blaring. Bout time I left work to see what's going on.
On 24 Nov 2010 at 6:08pm Clifford wrote:
I agree MC - the students are showing the way and I'm proud of these young people. Over the past couple of years we have just laid down let the bankers and their friends in government (Labour and coalition) walk over us. Let's hope this is the beginning of the fightback.
On 24 Nov 2010 at 6:35pm stig of the dump wrote:
my child goes to priory and i had an email from the school yesterday saying the school are fully behind the pupils right to demonstrate over this issue. Therefore, year 11 students will be allowed to march out of school and demonstrate around the "roundabout" area in front of the school. The pupils will not be allowed into mountfield road although the school will ask local media to attend.
Well done priory and year 11 pupils.
On 24 Nov 2010 at 7:09pm Matt Kent wrote:
Quite a few Priory Students marched past my office along the Dyke Road, Hove towards BHASVIC this afternoon. Great to see them concerned about the future of education, but most importantly their education. Many students are disillusioned about what to do next with their future studies.
On 24 Nov 2010 at 9:04pm Hay Nonnie Donkey wrote:
Their education is going on now and they are missing it on some tin pot rally, when they should be in classroom getting on with it. Most pupils will get on any band wagon you care to mention if it means an hour off school.
On 24 Nov 2010 at 9:35pm Matt Sussex wrote:
The coalition's stance on these fees is absolutely correct. I'm fed up with young adults thinking that they have a right to go and bum around at some uni for four years ( regardless of their intelligence ) at the expense of the tax payer. The reason that there are so many graduates out of work is that they are unemployable. Qualifications up to their eye balls with intelligence round their ankles.
The dumbing down of education in this country. Another example of how bad the last 13 years have been under the worst government this country has ever seen.
On 24 Nov 2010 at 10:23pm Newmania wrote:
Yes I think the coalition are a fantastic breath of fresh air on education and god it needed one . It is unfortunate that ,un-used to power , the Liberals made a promise it was always utterly impossible to keep but that cannot be undone now .
On 24 Nov 2010 at 10:33pm jrsussex wrote:
I've watched the news on various channels tonight and cannot help but wonder why students feel they should be excluded from the effects of the recession? One foolish young man said that he has s right to an education, which I think he does as a child up to the school leaving age but not necessarily as he reaches adulthood.
He said that the Government has a duty to educate him. Well for Goverment read taxpayer, of which I am one, and I most certainly do not think he has a right to tell me that I have to pay to educate him.
A young relative of mine is currently at uni, he does a paper-round each morning and weekends works in two different pubs in order to support the cost of the education he wants. I just spoken to him and he said that of the ones he knows attending todays demonstrations, many are not particularly hard working students, much of the time they simply aren't there.
On 24 Nov 2010 at 10:39pm Clifford wrote:
I have no objection at all to paying for the education of children and young people (and mature students come to that) through my taxes. I know that they will be the doctors, teachers, engineers, administrators of the future, paying taxes in their turn to enable others to be educated. It's what we call 'society'. And it is usually the case that the most active students politically are also the most intelligent and able students, with an ability to analyse and question.
On 24 Nov 2010 at 10:58pm Brixtonbelle wrote:
I thought the head took the right approach with his email and discussing maturely with the kids the issues causing the students to protest. My son tells me that quite a few kids, not just Yr 11, were also involved in protesting and some joined the march in Brighton.
It's absolutely right that students partake in the democratic process and that includes the right to protest. Heard that toad, Michael Gove on SKY today, and given his made up on the spot education proposals, i suspect there will be many more protests and probably strikes to come.
On 25 Nov 2010 at 2:26am MC wrote:
Having a man who has no experience of state education in charge of state education doesn't seem like a great idea.
On 25 Nov 2010 at 6:38am Hay bonnier donkey wrote:
I was a mature student and an still paying 4 years later.I worked 4 days a week while at uni. Contrary to popular belief , work won't kill you and I'm happy to pay off a small amount each month. Go get a job and stop moaning.
On 25 Nov 2010 at 9:32am Clifford wrote:
What course were you doing Hay bonnier donkey and what class of degree did you get? I'd be interested to know what kind of degree course you could do AND work four days a week. Apart from the evening course at Birkbeck, of course.
On 25 Nov 2010 at 9:37am jrsussex wrote:
Thouhgt posters may like to see this.
Vice-chancellors are warning of the devastating impact on universities if politicians fail to agree on government plans to raise tuition fees.
Universities UK (UUK) head Professor Steve Smith says without higher fees the number of student places would have to be cut, as teaching grants are axed.
On 25 Nov 2010 at 9:42am Clifford wrote:
I heard him say that on Radio 4 this morning. But don't forget jrs that an alternative view was expressed as well - you shouldn't give the impression that as Professor Smith has spoken the debate is over - particularly as quite a few other academics disagree with him. There is still an argument for a graduate tax (even if I personally don't find it completely convincing).
On 25 Nov 2010 at 9:45am Vinyl Silk Sussex wrote:
Matt Sussex said "The dumbing down of education in this country. Another example of how bad the last 13 years have been under the worst government this country has ever seen."
Remind me who decided that all the polytechnics should be called universities, because they're just the same? Oh, I know, it was that set of idiots who were in prior to 'the worst government this country has ever seen'. Dumbing down indeed.
On 25 Nov 2010 at 12:16pm stig of the dump wrote:
just had another email from the school. It appears some pupils ignored the instructions to protest just around the school area and marched in both Lewes and Brighton town centres.
Silly little kids. Hope they get permenantly excluded and prosecuted for illegally leaving school without being authorised
If these kids want to play with the big boys, they must also face the consequences if they f**k it up.
On 25 Nov 2010 at 12:35pm Priory Parent wrote:
sotd: My kid left school and went to demonstrate in Brighton, peacefully, with my full support. If anyone wants to exclude or prosecute, bring it on. If you want a country where democratic protest is suppressed, North Korea sounds nice.
Who knows, maybe they even have an education system which would teach you to spell 'permanently'.
On 25 Nov 2010 at 12:40pm Clifford wrote:
I love it 'instructions to protest just around the school'. Sounds like some people need to understand the connection between 'protest' and 'democracy'. It's only in North Korea, China and the old Soviet Union that people are/were expected to obey 'instructions to protest'.
On 25 Nov 2010 at 1:10pm stig of the dump wrote:
@priory parent. people like you should have their children taken away from them. If you're happy to give your blessing to your child breaking the law, you both need locking up. They had the chance to protest but a few blew it and f**ked it up for the rest. When they've left school or are in their own time, the little darlings can do what they like...bless em.
Oh, and i love it when pedants have to lower themselves to pointing out silly spelling mistakes and slightly inferior grammar. Arguement lost already
I've emailed the head of Priory asking him what action he proposes to dish out on the law breakers.
On 25 Nov 2010 at 1:19pm Mystic Mog wrote:
I benefited from a great degree at a London Polytechnic. I received a full grant and fees paid for by the state, to which I am eternally grateful. I have a good job and in part due to my degree I am a higher rate tax payer.
Personally all education should be state funded otherwise the arguements for charging for degrees (better income etc.) is the same as charging pupils for A levels.
On 25 Nov 2010 at 1:37pm Priory Parent wrote:
"people like you should have their children taken away from them. If you're happy to give your blessing to your child breaking the law, you both need locking up."
As I understand it, all but about 15-20 of Y11, and about 30-50 other children, left school to go to Brighton. All those children in care will be a bit of a nuisance for social services, maybe, but I'm sure they'll get used to it.
If you really have no understanding of the extent to which lawbreakers have, historically, made this a country to be proud of - from Peterloo to Suffrage, it doesn't sound as though you paid much attention at school.
I struggle to understand the feeble mentality of the kind of person who would write to the Head, demanding action against kids whose actions had no impact on them personally, but you seem very pleased with yourself.
On 25 Nov 2010 at 1:44pm Clifford wrote:
stig of the dump wrote: 'I've emailed the head of Priory asking him what action he proposes to dish out on the law breakers.'
It's a pity East Germany and the Stasi have gone Stig, you'd have loved it there. They had a network of sneaks and spies turning their neighbours in. I wouldn't be surprised if you think what the kids did is worse than what the government is doing.
On 25 Nov 2010 at 4:19pm Old Bill wrote:
Pay for their education maybe, but they should be made to pay themselves for the damage they caused to other peoples property over the last week. Doctors and engineers of the future!! Yeah right. They don't do their cause any favours whatsoever.
@Priory Parent, whilst you might be right about the extent that lawbreakers have historically changed the country, the suffragettes and others like them didn't wear hoodies and masks and carry out acts of mindless vandalism and violence in the relative safety of a mob. They were brave enough to stand up for what they believed in and take the consequenses of their actions. I am not saying that skipping school is comparable to smashing up a police van (although would you still argue the same point if you had seen one of your kids on the news doing that?), but the law is the law and whilst you may not like it, it is there for a reason.
On 25 Nov 2010 at 4:34pm Priory Parent wrote:
Old Bill - No, I wouldn't condone violence and I made it very clear that, should anything happen, my kid should get as far away as possible immediately. Nor did they wear a hoodie or a mask.
What annoyed me about the press coverage was that it was said that 3,000 took part in Brighton, and maybe 15 or so caused any sort of disorder, with 5 arrests - ie far less than 1%. Yet the Daily Mail saw fit to use terms like 'rampaging mobs' which is a gross distortion of reality in any terms.
On 25 Nov 2010 at 4:57pm Freddy wrote:
At the end of the day, children who are willing to disobey rules and decide to break laws and try to act like "hard nuts" are very unlikely to be going to University. Maybe Priory should publish the list of protesters and then in 5 years or so we can see who went on to further enducation and who ended up on the dole or working for Dad.
Students and Pupils of secondary schools protesting is pointless, Students pay for University but instead walk out of lectures to protest? Great mentality.
Pupils walk out of compulsory education and were supposed to protest out side of a school even thought they broke this rule and the fact they wont be apply for university for another 2 years minimum.
Watch this space... And how pointless these protests really are.
P.S I am against student fees being risen but when has fighting and law breaking solved anything? Mindless Children
On 25 Nov 2010 at 5:30pm Priory Parent wrote:
Freddy said: 'At the end of the day, children who are willing to disobey rules and decide to break laws and try to act like "hard nuts" are very unlikely to be going to University.'
Have you got any statistical evidence to support this nonsense? As I said above, something like 80 or 90% of Y11 took part, including those who are predicted to achieve several A* grades and those who are studying AS levels a year early. I would argue that it's the kids who are sufficiently self-motivated to think, to consider and to express their opinions who are most likely to be going to good Universities - not the ones who aren't prepared to do anything.
Freddy said: 'but when has fighting and law breaking solved anything?'
Poll Tax ring any bells, then?
On 25 Nov 2010 at 5:51pm Clifford wrote:
So what it amounts to, as far as most of the people here are concerned, is don't ever do anything, don't protest, don't demonstrate, just keep your heads down, take your medicine and do what you're told. What a pathetic little crew.
On 25 Nov 2010 at 5:55pm Freddy wrote:
Like I said, give it 5 years see how many have been to university. Theres your stat you nonse.
On 25 Nov 2010 at 6:05pm not from around here wrote:
The important phrase here Priory Parent is 'children'. These are children and therefore are NOT part of the democratic process as you claim. They didn't vote because they are children and do not have enough judgement to vote or even begin to understand the issues involved. You should be ashamed of encouraging your children to break the law.
As far as the so-called rise in tuition fees 'stopping' people going to Uni - well for a start if it acts as a natural filter then so be it, the numbers going at the moment are wholly unsustainable. As far as the debt their all whining about, well if you earn £22,000 as a graduate then you are required to pay back just £7.50 a month - yes that's right seven pounds and fifty pence a month. That is NOT worth protesting about.
On 25 Nov 2010 at 6:10pm not from around here wrote:
Just to add to this - I have had several exchanges with priory students over this and it is very clear that they do NOT know what they are protesting about other than a vague notion that what is happening is somehow 'bad' because their friends said it was!
On 25 Nov 2010 at 6:27pm Clifford wrote:
not from around here wrote: 'As far as the so-called rise in tuition fees 'stopping' people going to Uni - well for a start if it acts as a natural filter then so be it, the numbers going at the moment are wholly unsustainable.'
So you think entry to university education should be rationed by the wealth of parents and not the student's ability? I think we all know where you're coming from.
On 25 Nov 2010 at 6:29pm Priory Parent wrote:
not from around here - I don't know which kids you've spoken to. Those I've spoken to are protesting the withdrawal of the EMA and are supporting the NUS proposal for a graduate tax as an alternative to fee debt.
Do you think enlightenment suddenly hits kids on their 18th birthdays then? There's a fundamental difference between having the right to vote and having the right to engage in democratic protest. It's their education, after all, and I'm proud, not ashamed of them.
On 25 Nov 2010 at 7:12pm stig of the dump. wrote:
@ clifford. Go away pal, no one gives a stuff about what you're saying.
Most of the kids i've spoken to who went on the demonstration neither knew nor cared about what they were protesting for. They just saw it as an excuse to get out of school and cause some agro for a while.
On 25 Nov 2010 at 7:38pm not from around here wrote:
Priory Parent - it's YOU who should be ashamed not them. They are kids and need a bit of guidance, not encouragement to break the law. Stig of the Dump is right - most don't know what they are protesting about at all. There are a few ring-leaders who encourage the others who all see as a good laugh.
No, of course I'm not saying that at 18 they are suddenly aware of 'issues' I'm just saying that they are legally classed as children (and I'm sure there are many other 'activities' even you would not want them to do as children) and really should not be encouraged to march on an issue which is way beyond their experience to understand.
Clifford how much extra tax would you be willing to pay to sustain the current levels of university students?
On 25 Nov 2010 at 7:41pm not from around here wrote:
Ok, Clifford just spotted your post. No you don't know where I'm coming from at all. What I meant was that those that are really committed and really genuinely want to be students will not be put off by paying back £7.50 a month at £22k income. But those that fancy a 3-year funded holiday might think again..
For the record - I am not in the category that could afford to pay fees upfront!
On 25 Nov 2010 at 7:53pm Dave wrote:
I do 'give a stuff' about what Clifford says Stig, please don't presume to talk for me or any one else when you actually have no idea what the majority think. I thinks it's obvious quite a lot of other contributors to this topic would side with Clifford rather than you.
On 25 Nov 2010 at 8:07pm jrsussex wrote:
Clifford - Just got in and read your post, to be honest I never heard it on radio 4, got it on the BBC internet. There was no mention of another view.
Protesting - I support entirely the right to protest but as I have said before on here, but not by the use of violence. I have protested on a number of occasion, when I was a little younger, and would do so again if I had strong feelings on whatever the matter was.
That said there should be legislation passed to ban protesters from covering of the face. There are many places where you cannot enter with your face covered, banks, supermarkets, shopping centres etc. One has to ask why they do protesters feel they want to? If they are genuinely protesting peacefully where is the need.
My pubs had CCTV, we had a ban on the wearing of headgear, it protects the decent customer from the yobs who want to spoil their social life
On 25 Nov 2010 at 8:43pm not from around here wrote:
JRSussex - I too believe in the right to protest but not the right to break things or to be violent. Considering the violence that was displayed by some of the protesters on the last march it is hardly surprising that the police responded in the way they did this time. Although as always it is a minority of protesters who cause the violence there are a large number of students who not only refuse to condemn the violence but who even actually support it - that makes them almost equally to blame in my view. I was thinking exactly the same thing about faces being covered, why, if you are protesting lawfully would you want to cover your face?
On 25 Nov 2010 at 8:58pm MC wrote:
Thinking of some of the demos I went on when I was younger I remember that it was the tactics of the police that often scared the life out of you and bred the atmosphere of violence in the first place. From talking to an employee journalist who was at the Brighton student demo yesterday things haven't changed much. He said that police used *kettling* techniques that left young demonstrators cornered, trapped, frightened and scared and needing to get out.
He also mentioned that a bunch of right wing skinhead thugs attempted to highjack the demo and cause trouble, upping the anti and that he then had the pleasure of returning from the demo on a bus with them afterwards when they started to intimidate some of passengers that they thought were not quite white (sorry). Apparently the bus driver stopped the bus and told everyone to get off.
Now that really does remind me of the 70s and early 80's.
Demos sometimes get violent but the assumed demonstrators (in this case students) are not always as much to blame as it might look from afar or as is it often presented in the generally lazy and reactionary "popular" media.
And stig. Cliffords comments are always thoughtful and worth reading (even if I don't agree with them) whereas yours appear to be governed by your angry chip-on-the-shoulder emotional state. Please don't presume to assume you talk for me.