Student Demonstrations

[Cardboard Box City]

I don't see your point? He's an evolutionary psychologist.

[pink_triangle]

which is why this 'fight' is so important

the whole shrugging of shoulders and just going "meh, what are you going to do" isn't going to achieve much, is it?

[lost]

the year fee's are introduced students should boycott English uni's, either go abroad or take a year out.

[worm]

I know exactly what he is. I have a few books on my bed at the moment and 'Motivation and Personality' is one of them and its open so I just typed the first sentence I saw from it. I'm doing a bit on motivation within the realms of organisational behaviour you see.

I also have Clayton Alderfer, Frederick Herzberg, David McLelland, Victor Vroom, John Stacey Adams, Edwin Locke and John Adair to hand if you prefer a blast of them?

Edited December 12, 2010 by worm

[llcoolphil]

that doesn't matter for now... they might end up as you predict, they might not.

Edited December 12, 2010 by llcoolphil

[Cardboard Box City]

So you're saying that you didn't have a point. I don't have to be Maslow to see that your post was motivated by boredom spiced with a little procrastination.

[worm]

No I was drunk and bored you boob.

[eFestivals]

There is no 'apart from' about it. If someone wouldn't let their child accumulate debt for their education, where is the argument to support the same parent encouraging their child accumulating significantly greater debt for a property?

a mortgage is a debt taken out for something tangible - and resellable. Outside of the less usual situation of negative equity, it's not a debt that is actually a burden, it's a debt you can choose to relinquish at any time.

The same is not true with an education debt. It's a debt that you can't remove from yourself once you have it, and it's a debt that has much less of a guarantee than housing of being sellable.

[diddly-dee]

diddly-dee, on 11 December 2010 - 04:08 PM, said:

Whilst this may sound a bit 'conspiracy theory' the Government 'wants' lots of young people to go to university and end up with big debts. Think about it, an individual with a millstone of debt around their neck is far more likely to take any job rather than sit back on the dole and wait for something better to come along, they are far less likely to be belligerent in the workplace as they don't want to get sacked, go on strike or do anything to 'rock the boat' when they really 'need' a job. Young people with big debts is a means of social control - increasing house prices, student debts - they are all means to help engineer a subservient workforce and population. Unless of course everyone says 'f*ck it, i'm not paying, what are you going to do about it?'. But, alas, that's not likely to happen in this country.

Just a minute...

llcoolphil, on 15 October 2010 - 10:57 PM, said:

I am fairly convinced that the decision to massively expand the HE sector over the last 15 years (and to do that you need students to part-fund themselves, it is too expensive to be funded centrally) is directly related to the decision to ease border controls and encourage mass immigration in order to keep wages down and control inflation (because Blair recognised that every Labour government had lost control of inflation and, consequently, the economy). If you are going to encourage a whole host of people from overseas to come and work, you have to find somewhere for those already here to go. And proposing that you want to build a knowledge based economy sounds a bloody great way forward.

If I was a conspiracy theorist, I would definitely be exploring the idea that you keep people under control by enslaving them to capital and having to spend a lifetime repaying worthless debt would be a good way to start that enslavement process!

Snap!

Ha ha, well I'm, hoping it's a case of 'great minds think alike' rather than 'fools seldom differ'. Because two of us have thought this, does this mean it's not a conspiracy theory but an established fact?

[eFestivals]

Did you see this story?

Police 'tried to bar injured student from hospital'

That's as disgusting as it gets. :angry:

[rabid]

Did you see this story?

Police 'tried to bar injured student from hospital'

That's as disgusting as it gets. :angry:

[rabid]

well they did try to bar an injured student from the hospital

what's sensationalist about the headline?

[eFestivals]

The police haven't commented.

The IPCC say they'll investigate IF there's a complaint.

The hospital say that no civilians were turned away.

There was a prior agreement that civilians would be treated elsewhere anyway.

The understandably distraught mother is the only one quoted saying there was any kind of problem.

The patient with a head injury was transferred to a hospital where there is a specialist brain injuries unit.

I don't think that's the story that the headline really portrays and certainly not 'as disgusting as it gets'

Then I suggest you go and track down the version of the same story as reported in Sunday's Observer.

A line of coppers barred the way of the ambulance men with the patient, and told the ambulance man to take him to another hospital. The Ambulance man told them to f**k off, but the old bill still wouldn't let the patient in. The patient only got into that hospital by being sneaked around the coppers.

The old bill have no right whatsoever to demand that protesters are treated at a different hospital, or to demand of a hospital that a patient cannot be treated.

It *IS* as disgusting as it gets. The only deciding factor over who gets medical care should be medical need, and not some bigoted w*nker saying the equivalent of "I don't like him, so I get medical care in preference to him".

Edited December 14, 2010 by eFestivals

[rabid]

Then I suggest you go and track down the version of the same story as reported in Sunday's Observer.

A line of coppers barred the way of the ambulance men with the patient, and told the ambulance man to take him to another hospital. The Ambulance man told them to f**k off, but the old bill still wouldn't let the patient in. The patient only got into that hospital by being sneaked around the coppers.

[eFestivals]

Just had a look at that and I can't see any mention of a line of coppers or sneaking him in. Am I looking at the right one?

no idea. I couldn't find it yesterday when I looked, which is why I linked to the BBC version.

Quite right as the MET themselves say

Then it would be good if the Met actually acted to those nice words rather than deliberately put the seriously injured in danger due only to bigotry.

[rabid]

do you think it's made up?

[eFestivals]

He got the treatment the LAS said he should.

No he didn't - unless the LAS have a rule that says they should be refused access to a hospital for a patient.

Which part of "they were refused access to the hospital" are you finding so hard to grasp?

The fact that they did - not long after - get that access doesn't alter the fact of them having first been refused it.

[rabid]

No he didn't - unless the LAS have a rule that says they should be refused access to a hospital for a patient.

Which part of "they were refused access to the hospital" are you finding so hard to grasp?

The fact that they did - not long after - get that access doesn't alter the fact of them having first been refused it.

[diddly-dee]

Did you see this story?

Police 'tried to bar injured student from hospital'

That's as disgusting as it gets. :angry:

[eFestivals]

Nothing to grasp really. The agreement was that police were sent to that hospital, civilians to others. The LAS said he should be treated there. He was treated there.

1. why are the police asking for that 'agreement' in the first place? They have no greater right to medical care than any other person.

2. why are other govt depts agreeing to a treatment situation that is not based on medical need?

3. The police tried to block a seriously ill man's treatment.

None of those things should be ignored merely because the hospital and ambulance man found a way around the police's attempted block on his admission.

If the police believe that they should be treated in a hospital that's completely free of people they dislike, then the obligation should be theirs and theirs alone to find a hospital so far away from the scene that they can have that guarantee.

But the fact that they are giving pre-conditions about who they like and who they don't like only gets to further show that they were never policing the demonstrations in an unbiased manner in the first place, but with the agenda that protesters are inherently bad people.

[eFestivals]

But, the tragic thing is, i'm no longer surpirsed/shocked by events like this. A met' plod murdered that newspaper seller and no charges are being brought by the CPS so something like the above is small fry. Lumpenproletariat thugs is all they are.

It's no surprise to me at all.

There's nothing different about any of this from when the Met truncheoned Blair peach to death in the late 70s, only because he was 'outrageously' protesting about The National Front's racist agenda; an agenda they only stopped being at the forefront of with the return to racism of the tories in the '79 election.

The tories might as well continue to use the slogan "if you want a nigger for a neighbour vote Liberal or Labour" - which got their guy elected in the late 60s, and who sat in the commons until 1997. It's clear that the police would still approve.

[eFestivals]

And of course there's now the case of the student in a wheelchair that was filmed being tipped out of his chair and dragged across the road, for the crime of being guilty of having a social conscience.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11988333

[krisskross]

1. why are the police asking for that 'agreement' in the first place? They have no greater right to medical care than any other person.

2. why are other govt depts agreeing to a treatment situation that is not based on medical need?

3. The police tried to block a seriously ill man's treatment.

None of those things should be ignored merely because the hospital and ambulance man found a way around the police's attempted block on his admission.

If the police believe that they should be treated in a hospital that's completely free of people they dislike, then the obligation should be theirs and theirs alone to find a hospital so far away from the scene that they can have that guarantee.

But the fact that they are giving pre-conditions about who they like and who they don't like only gets to further show that they were never policing the demonstrations in an unbiased manner in the first place, but with the agenda that protesters are inherently bad people.

[rabid]

yet the hospital still tried to turn him away

[rabid]

None of those things should be ignored merely because the hospital and ambulance man found a way around the police's attempted block on his admission.