Goldsmiths students stage education cuts protest

Around 40 Goldsmiths Students are occupying Deptford Town Hall in protest at cuts to University education budgets and the planned rise in student tuition fees, with a much greater proportion of the cost of a University degree being borne directly by the student.

With the sciences likely to be prioritised by government, Goldsmiths could receive budget cuts of up to 20% the University claims.

The dramatic pictures can be seen on the Save Goldsmiths University website.


Nervous in New Cross said...

If Goldsmiths suffers significant cuts, then there will be knock-on economic ramifications New Cross, Deptford and to a lesser extent Brockley. Not good...

Anonymous said...

Better to attract more high paying foreign students then, if any of then can get past the Border Agency, that is.

Lou Baker said...


University should be expensive.

It makes you realise how valuable your education is.

Perhaps you'll spend less time hungover, watching This Morning and Car Booty and more time in lectures.

Vesta Curry said...

Lou Baker is clearly not a person. It is a situationist gag.

Anonymous said...

Should get in touch with other Uni's to put the protest country wide.

Dr freud said...

Boy Lou, you're angry about lots of stuff. Do you have the sneaking suspicion that you're being had? I think you should come in for a chat, I'm free Wednesdays.

Lou Baker said...

Awwww thanks Doc.

If you're free on Wednesday you clearly must be working privately.

If you're an NHS doc you obviously won't be able to fit me in until December.


PS: I'm not angry.

I just think it's absurd for students to expect everyone else to pay for their education.

They're the ones that benefit - they should pay.

Anonymous said...

Chuckle. If only the world were really so black and white ...

Anonymous said...

I don't benefit if only rich people go to university so ignoring those brilliant people who are born to poor parents. A simplistic argument but youmlike those.

Brockley Kiwi said...

Lou just likes to provoke.

But occasionally if you can get over the blatant attempt to cause a reaction the man makes some reasonable points.

Vesta Curry said...

... yeh, c'mon let's commodify just everything. I benefit from the kindness of strangers ... quick, where to do I pay ... the love of my friends ... get your card out ...

On a more serious note: how about considering the gigantic benefit individuals get from being born into households with large capital resources! No interest in addressing that inequality?

Grrrr said...

I think it's the fault of the last government with their policy of trying to get 50% of school leavers to go to uni, hence having to invent a load of useless 'degrees' that don't make the students any more employable when they come out, and dumbing down many of the other courses. If fewer people went, they wouldn't need to charge as much. We need to go right back to encouraging people into apprentices. Then companies will sponsor those more able ones through uni, again saving us money.

Anonymous said...

Or to paraphrase Lou, you should receive an education based soley on the to pay and not on your needs or inteligence or other merits.

I don't have an easy answer but for many people from backgrounds that are not well off being in debt is scary. If you have the bank of mum and dad as a safety net the idea of big liability is less intimidating. It will put off more poor students than rich students - would have made me think twice.

Lou Baker said...



Students to be have nothing, nowt, zero, zilch to pay for tuition fees in advance.

Nothing. Zero.

Even the poorest people in society can afford
nothing. You do not have to be rich to afford
nothing. I am sure even you could afford nothing.

The problem here has never been money.
It's always been a lack of understanding
of an education's worth.

If you know spending £30k to get a degree will ultimately prove value for money then you know it is an investment worth making.

Young people need to know this. Their parents need
to know this. Schools need to know this - and even
lefty loons like you need to know.

Giving something valuable away for free degrades
it. If fewer people go to uni but they value
it more this idea will be a success.

Students will adapt. They'll get part time jobs and holiday jobs to help fund their studies. They may take a year out before hand to save up. I did all those things - and paid my own way through uni.

I know if you're a student it may seem unfair that someone on £40k doesn't contribute to you. But someone on £40k already sees half their salary go in the government

A pot which pinkos on here would like spent on
libraries every 200 yards, daily firework displays, and benefits so the lazy and workshy can live in Chelsea. Madness.

Anonymous said...

Maybe your right Grrr,50% more in Uni means 50% less unemployed.

Anonymous said...

And Streets free of White Vans Lou.

Anonymous said...

Another measured, sober retort from Lou. We're talking about how best to support those who would otherwise be denied access to university because of an accident of birth. Your rant illustrates your stupidity.

fabhat said...

Pinkos! I love the 70's terminology Lou...shame about the content.

Anonymous said...

He's a retro troll.

Ed said...

I'm afraid I agree that a university education should not be cheap. The proportion of layabouts I studied with that my parents (well all taxpayers) paid for is grotesque.

I am not saying that the most gifted should not be able to study regardless of their means but there is simply no need to educate so many at university.

It has come to be seen as a right or expectation and we need to remove the stigmas from other vocations that do not require a degree.

To compare a law/English/history/art degree to sports or media is just pointless.

Isn't such a demo aimed at us all saying 'we expect you to pay for our education even if you are struggling to afford it'?

Rant over.

C said...

To be honest guys, i think a lot of people on here are unfairly baiting "Lou". I think there is a good point in here that is being ignored because it is too uncomfortable to deal with.

I am a student from some of the backgrounds we're supposedly protecting here. Minority, working class, state school, etc...

While i appreciate the sentiments of some of the idealism on here, it doesn't cover up the fact that a lot of people have been sold a lie by the previous government, namely that if you get a degree you are somehow guaranteed to find a better job and, therefore, you'll be better off than your peers in the long-run.

The relentless increase of mediocre degrees offered to mediocre graduates at mediocre HEIs is doing nothing to increase the quality of the workforce. Industry has actually been complaining that the standard of graduate has been steadily decreasing. And all the while more and more graduates (to a record level now) are leaving university unemployed, presumably because the graduate market is saturated or because, for some strange reason, students with degrees in David Beckham Studies, Golf Management or Surf Studies (all real i assure you) are not being snapped up.

Let's wake up to the real world and actually listen to the young people instead of pointless scaremongering. I would personally rather than a working class person doesn't further disadvantage themselves by getting into debt (even at the current level) for a degree which won't actually set them apart in the workplace (without all the extra-curricular stuff that they can't afford) and will further disadvantage them by saddling them with debt.

Anonymous said...

Look what a large portion of those who 'benefitted' from a free uni education they upsticks and went abroad.

Wasn't there something called the brain drain in the 60's??

Suggesting an uneducated non skilled person gets on their bike to find work is regarded as an insult.

Educated uni individuals jetting off abroad are regarded as 'enterprising'.

This student needs a dose of reality...he's part of an island nation that can't afford a navy.

This student is being educated amongst some the most deprived people of europe and demanding they be burdened with someone elses education fees.

The student will probably claim he/she is supporting the local community by buying drugs locally.

Name said...

Well done Goldsmiths; this generation needs to fight, education for education sakes. It's not simply about jobs, the country can and should afford this investment in its younger citizens.

What deeply concerns about this is that all these cuts are announced but where is the reform of the banking system. If FAILED. We are in this mess because they royally messed up.

Children, young people and womem; Fawcett society figures disporportinately affected. It is regressive and backward.

Grrrr said...

Ed and C, I'm with you. Anon 08.33, if you were in some way responding to my previous post, you very much got the wrong end of the stick. I in no way think that only those with the ability to pay should go to university; quite the opposite. I happen to be a state-school-educated person who went to Oxford. I think it should be based purely on intellectual ability - there are far too many Tim-Nice-But-Dims doing Media Studies and similar at Oxford Brookes etc. I don't see why someone who gets Ds and Es in their A-levels thinks it's their God-given right to spend 3 years at university (or should I say 'university') anyway. Much as I might fancy the idea of working as a top chef, I would not expect to get a job at The Fat Duck as I have no qualifications or experience in that field. Those who are not academic achievers end up at an ex-poly doing a silly degree of the sort mentioned by C, and can't actually get a graduate job at the end of it, so they're in debt and still working in McDonalds. The prospect of being £20k in debt when they emerge from their 3 years of 'study' might make people stop and think before they apply for a degree in surfing. That said, much as it is certainly far from ideal to come out of uni saddled with debt, you don't have to pay any of it back until you are earning at least £21k, and if you ever lose your job or dip below that threshold, your repayments are frozen. Therefore, in theory, it shouldn't stop anyone, rich or poor, from going to university - if they have the ability.

Tamsin said...

But there is interest, is there not, above the rate of inflation?

We had it lucky in the 70s - the route was there for the bright, grammar school and a full grant (plus a means tested maintenance grant).

The see-saw between ideologies of the left and right have wrecked what was an education system second to none.

Anonymous said...

Lou constantly mixes the obvious points for discussion (how to fund education, how to help people live in decent accomodation etc...) with brainless abuse about 'lazy students' and scrounging dole claiments. it's simplistic, abusive and not at all helpful. He needs to grow up.

Deptford Pudding said...

1968 all over again, not.

Anonymous said...

I think you mean "previous governmentS" The torys should not be let off scott free.

They introduced the legislation that destroyed Polytechnics that were there specifically to offer more vocational, high standard qualifications as well as degrees at a lower cost. You couldn't study ancient greek but you could start on a HND and gain some confidence and perhaps progress to a degree.

They were run by local authorities and were way ahead of universities when it came to working with local employers. They pioneered the sandwich course, Thatcher was always suspicous of their (in her view) socialist flavour.

Well done her.

Grrrr said...

Yes, good point anon. I certainly didn't mean to let them off the hook. Getting rid of polys was a big mistake.

Headhunter said...

As has been pointed out, raising university tuition fees simply means that only the wealthy will be able to afford to go to university.

The problem is that Nu Lab and other governments have been too keen to raise the number of people in higher education through creating pointless "Media Studies" type degrees and vastly increasing the number of places at universities.

This is possibly due to a need to make the UK match up to other developed countries where XX% of the population has a degree (no matter what it is in or whether it's worth the paper it's written on) and a need to reduce the number of 16 and 18 year old school leavers signed up for benefits. A socialist friend of mine also believes it's a way of keeping the population with its nose to the grindstone so to speak with crippling debts

Unfortunately the vast number of university places created by recent governments is unsustainable financially through taxes, so we have come to a situation whereby each student is increasingly responsible for their own fees, and these fees are now unlimited. The result is that poor kids will no longer be able to attend university, no matter how gifted.

If we go back to grant maintained days, only the top 2%ish of the population went to university and they earned their places through hard work and study, whether they were at a grammar school or a public/private school.

Obviously back then there was perhaps more class discrimination in access to institutions like Oxford or Cambridge, however ironically the current government has simply written this into law and henceforth access to university places will be based on ability to pay rather than on ability to study and intelligence.

It's a shame.

Grrrr said...

HH, I'm sorry but it does NOT mean that poor people can't go to university. As I've just said, nobody pays a penny until they finish uni and are earning £21k or over. Therefore
it shouldn't stop anyone - obviously nobody wants to come out of university with that much debt but the interest rate is relatively low and on a salary of £21k + the repayments are not unmanageable. If you never earn over £21k you never pay it back. Maybe it will deter those who just see uni as a jolly that postpones entry into 'the real world' but is that such a bad thing?

Anonymous said...

What no one ever seems to talk about is the quality of teaching at uni!

I was an overseas student when I went to uni, thus paying full fees. I would say in terms of value for money, it was not great, with 4 hours of lectures and 4 hours of classes a week.

What students should be talking about is not how much it is going to cost - but how good the teaching quality and facetime with lecturers etc are you going to get.

This is where a uni like Cambridge excels with many one-on-ones with tutors, so for the price, you are getting a great service and education.

Anonymous said...


Headhunter said...

Grrrr - Yes but if you or you parents have no savings and no ability to fund university other than taking out enormous loans which accrue interest, it's hardly going to enourage you to head off to uni. Especially as once you come out the other end you may be aiming to start a family, have kids, perhaps buy a home. All that would have to go on hold whilst pay off the enormous debt you have hanging round your neck. Whereas kids with wealthy parents will just dip into savings.

There is a massive precedent for all this. The US has operated a system like this for decades and out there, there is very little access to higher education for those not earning much. The wealthy, however have enough exces cash to set up college funds for their kids.

I met loads of recent US grads when I was out teaching in Japan and in general they came from what we would categorise as middle or upper middle class families with some money, yet each of them had at least $20,000 of debt (accruing interest) around their necks at the age of 22, 23 years old. THis was bank debt, credit card debt etc etc. All of them had worked jobs whilst at university and had parents who had paid money off too, yet their debt was astounding.

Believe me this will lead to polarisation of access to education based on financial lines rather than intellectual ability.

Tamsin said...

Oxbridge in the 60s and 70s was more open than it is now to people from a poorer background because of grammar school education (whatever the rights or wrongs of taking decisive tests so early) and the potential for full grants. Also Ruskin College in Oxford, with its specific mission to older students who had missed out on educational opportunities, had full access to University facilities.

The colleges still try with scholarships and bursaries etc. but it is not so straight-forward.

Anonymous said...

I met someone who did American History ? Have they got one.

Grrrr said...

@HH, I hope you're wrong but I appreciate that some people's attitude toward debt might preclude them from taking it on at that level. Having said that, some people don't mind racking up thousands of pounds of debt on 52" plasmas and designer clothes, so maybe they'll see the value of spending it on an education instead ;-)


Lou Baker said...

Headhunter is talking twaddle.

It is not about the money. You do not pay tuition fees in advance - they are paid in arrears.

Its a bit like DFS - and they certainly don't struggle to get 'poor' customers.

This really is all about perception. For years we've given out the impression that university education is 'free'. Many have believed this lie and have treated it as such.

Now its time to tell the truth. University is an investment in your future. It may cost you 30k but you will probably end up earning more as a result. If you don't earn enough, you don't pay the fees. In other words it is just about the best investment you will ever make. It's virtually risk free.

Will this put some people off? Hopefully. There are far too many students doing far too many useless degrees. (Yes Goldsmiths, that means you). The crucial thing is that
any change doesn't put SMART people off - whether they're rich or poor.

I must also take issue with Headhunter's gross distortion of US universities. They are, on the whole, far superior to anything you'll find here. The facilities are excellent
and the teaching top notch. There are vast numbers of scholarships, programmes and support systems
in place to attract the best - regardless of wealth.

Degrees are incredibly flexible - meaning it is possible to do it around a full-time job if that's the only way to fund your studies. Many - if not most - American students take a job while at uni to help pay their way.

Most importantly they expect to end up in debt. And they expect it because they see university as investment which will make them richer (actually and metaphorically) in the long run. We need that attitude here.

Tamsin said...

It's not a risk free investment while interest might accrue at more than the rate of inflation.

You are not going to go off to do the equivalent of VSO, or take a low paid but worthwhile job, or spend time on pure research with just enoungh funding to survive, if while doing so your debt is increasing year on year.

As a system it stinks. And as I said earlier it comes from decades of idealogical messing (from both left and right).

Brockley Nick said...

@Tamsin no investment is risk free. A university education is about as risk-free investment as it is possible to get - especially since repayment on loans is income contingent. Student loans are, as far as I'm aware, pegged to inflation. The current interest rate appears to be 1.5%.

I agree that the student should have to make some contribution to their own education (and fees are infinitely better than the LibDem's graduate tax idea) - Lou is right that students will appreciate it more and be more discerning about their courses. It also makes sense that those who benefit most should pay for the privilege.

But, given that Lou is so keen to attach value to education he should also realise that we all benefit from a better-educated population that can compete in the global marketplace for better-paid jobs and provide the vital skills we need to keep the country running through their work and their voluntary contributions to society. Given that it is in the national interest to develop a well-educated population, there should be some level of public subsidy for degrees, in the same way we subsidise lots of other public goods.

So the question is balance. Current levels always seemed about right to me, there's a good argument to increase them, but £7k per year seems a bit steep to me.

THNick said...

Lou - US universities are so good and a degree such a good investment that there are 5,000 janitors in the US with PhDs.

And if we are aiming to charge people for the benefits of their education (and why single out university degrees?) there is already a system for doing that that also allows us to get more back from those that benefit the most - we could increase the top rate of income tax.

Brockley Nick said...

@THNick - there are lots of top rate taxpayers who didn't go to university. Why should they pay more for those that did? And the top rate of tax is only paid by those who earn considerably more than the median average wage. Finally, in all of this discussion it's worth keeping in mind that going to university is not just about making more money. It's an amazing experience and brilliant fun. Why shouldn't people be expected to pay something towards it?

THNick said...

Nick - those higher rate tax payers would have benefited from schooling, the UK business environment etc. University education is only part of their benefits. And I would agree with you that university is not just about the economic advantages - yet charging fees makes it just that. Why would you go and study an arts degree when it doesn't help you in the workplace?

It seems odd to encourage 50% of young people to go to university and then tax them such a large amount for doing so. By definition some of these people must end up on the median wage, but now with £35,000 debt.

Brockley Nick said...

What do you mean an arts degree wouldn't help you in the workplace? Having a good degree of any sort opens all sorts of doors. Most better paid jobs have it as a minimum requirement. I studied History and Economics. Doesn't have any direct relevance to what I do now, but I would almost certainly not have the career I do without a degree. But if it makes people a bit more selective and choose a degree that will equip them for the world of work then so much the better. That doesn't mean the end of English degrees and it could even be a boon for many of the more vocational degrees that some people are needlessly snooty about.

And yes, your first point is quite right, that's why they should pay a higher rate of tax and why there should be some subsidy for degrees. But it still doesn't explain why those lucky enough to do a degree shouldn't pay more towards it than those that don't.

Lou Baker said...


Universities will still receive hundreds of millions of pounds in funding each year. Particularly towards maths and sciences - and rightly so.

Business should also do much much more - for example by sponsoring programmes, individual students and courses.

AND alumni should consider making charitable donations to their university to help the next generation.

But students have the most to gain and they should pay the
biggest chunk. I don't think 7 or 8 grand is at all unreasonable.

I know it's difficult to get your head around owing 30k when you're 17 - but it is all a mindset. The funds are there - 'poor' students (I hate that phrase) just need the encouragement and support to take advantage of those funds.

Brockley Nick said...

See, doesn't it feel good to write in calm, rational sentences? We disagree on the appropriate balance of private v public investment, that is all. Call it 5k pa and reject the Coalition's slashing of University investment and you've got yourself a deal.

Name said...

About "David Beckham" degrees, it's a source of some regret that institutions allow degree courses to be named in this way, rather by the academic discipline from which it emanates.

Whilst often done for marketing reasons, for lower profile institutions what it also does is to provide opponents of the widening participation of HE with a stick to with which to beat it with.

No disrespect to Mr Beckham but I suspect it would be a challenge to generate sufficient rigorous questions for the specialist round on Mastermind much less a 3 year degree course. The course is not going to be about him per se but him as 'cultural phenomenon', which is a legitimate humanities subject.

Monkeyboy said...

"Business should also do much much more - for example by sponsoring programmes, individual students and courses."

The much derided Polytechnics we're way ahead of the game there. I remember Brighton Poly, that centre of academic excellence that produced me, had several Jaguar engines and a big machining centre (a computer controlled milling machine do da) from local bussineses who benefited from graduates. The poly used to lease time on the machining centre to smaller local firms when the students were not using it.

Alas central government did not think local authorities were best placed to run higher education institutions.

Brockley Nick said...

Quite right Monkeyboy and I disagree with Grrr that getting rid of Polys was a mistake.

Why should Universities' status be preserved in aspic? The old caste system essentially allowed traditional universities to have greater perceived status, regardless of how bad they were while however excellent the teaching, research and facilities at a Poly, its degrees would always be discounted.

Now, places like the University of Surrey (formerly Battersea College of Technology and before that Battersea Poly) are among our leading research establishments and we have league tables that give a very clear indication of the relative quality of each institution. Let the student and employer beware.

Anonymous said...


university was never FREE

like the NHS is not FREE

It is just not paid for at point of use but out of all the taxes that we PAY! (not to mention extra borrowing by the government)

So all that is happening now is that the portion from govt spending budget that goes to universities is being reduced so people have to stump up to make the difference.

I would much rather students have to pay for university out of their own pocket then the health service and early years education lose out.

Name said...

"university was never FREE" fine, so with that rationale, all who've benefitted from a free at the point of source education, before the introduction of fees should be asked to pay back, for what they received.

Name said...

Further to what I've written earlier; that the populist naming of degree courses provides a platform for bashers of the widening participation in HE, the Guardian has an article, published today, about a "Lady Gaga" degree.


Monkeyboy said...

Poly Toynbee gets right on my moobs but this worth a read

Anonymous said...

Yes - "Education for education sakes!"

Anonymous said...

My goodness, I have never been so disheartened when reading comments as I have in reading these. If you benefit you should pay; well that argument is a dangerous one and can easily become a rod to beat all other public services. You use the NHS, you've benefitted you should pay more than average Joe/Jo up the road who never goes to their GP or a&e service. You have anti-social behaviour in your area which means your area uses more resources than the area down the road, right you are then you pay more. Where exactly would this line of argument end?

The majority of people commenting seem all to comfortable with the idea that young people will be saddled with £30k worth of debt, which will cause stress, worry and a delay in being able to move forward with their lives in the way that we expect- buying a house, having savings (which we'll all need as pension schemes become increasingly meaningless). We talk about education like it only benefits the one individual who receives the degree; it doesn't. We talk as though all students will be discouraged from going to uni if tuition fees are raised; they won't, it will be those on the lowest incomes who will be mostly discouraged. By backing such cuts as this con dem government is proposing we are supporting retrograde steps in hard won rights for the poorest individuals. And I'm not talking from a hypothetical stance but as one of those individuals from a working class, monetarily underprivileged background. We're not just talking about minor contributions to education but saddling people with huge personal debts before they have even entered the real employment Market .

The government tell you that we're in it together , it's not true, they say they have to make these cuts in this way now, it's not true. We are allowing men with huge personal fortunes to make decisions for the vast majority of the population, a population whose lives are unimaginable to someone who has a £30m (yes I'm talking to you, Mr Cameron. I went to a good uni, worked hard for my place and will already be paying for it for many years to come. By I simply wouldn't have been able to have taken the chance if I knew I would be £30k in debt at the end. This attack isn't just financial it's ideological and on the basis alone we should fight and stand united.

Anonymous said...

Looking at a University education in terms of a long term career investment simply emphasises how narrow minded people are on this subject.

Do we really want institutions whose purpose is to contrive degrees that simply open the door for social advancement through access to the more lucrative end of the job market?

The landed gentry hijacked the Public school system and reserved many places at top universities in order to provide a finishing school for their chinless wonders.

The middle classes scramble for best state schools and head for degrees that lead to professional jobs so their progeny can also live in leafy comfort.

Both groups do little to further knowledge or increase the intellectual capital if the country.

It is often a sad experience to find that students care little for their subject, seeing it just a meal ticket.

Universities should be for scholarship not churning out vast numbers of immature nitwits. Most likely destined to spend the rest of their working life tapping out inane emails to each other in the degenerate bureaucracies that dominate much of the public and private sector organisations.

Education should be lifelong with people learning new skills as they arise and being able to dip in and out of educational institutions as needed. Instead it is more like a horse race.

We have got it all wrong.

Anonymous said...

The "stress" of a £30K debt?

How are the poor dahlings going to cope with a £100k mortgage or loan for a car?

I bet they cope much better than someone on low pay being taxed throughout their working life to provide these ungrateful students with a lifestyle far above their own.

I notice one of those impoverished students had an expensive camera slung round his neck.

From a 2003 Guardian article...

Just over one in 10 (12%) went to university. There were no student loans, fees were paid in full by local education authorities and there was a means-tested annual grant up of to £340 to cover living costs.

One in seven 18-year-olds were in higher education in 1972

A massive expansion in higher education numbers.....saw the proportion of 18-year-olds rocket to one in five by 1990 and funding for each student plummet. In 1989 the Tories introduced mortgage-style student loans to compensate for no annual increase in the grant.

The higher education boom continued in the early 1990s. In 1997 Labour scrapped the grant....and from 1998 introduced a new system of £1,000 means-tested and upfront tuition fees, and low-cost income-contingent loans.

Tamsin said...

By renting and using public transport until, five or so years down they line they can start off down that route if that is what their work and income expectations can justify. You don't want to start off with a massive debt.

Absolutely with Anon at half past one this morning (just give yourselves random initials perhaps?) that degrees should not be seen in such a purely commercial light - where is the option for voluntary work, blue sky research, doing something because you have a flair for the subject...?

Brockley Nick said...

"You don't want to start off with a massive debt."

When do you want to incur massive debts, Tamsin?

Lou Baker said...

I'm watching the student vandals smash up central London now.

They clearly have enough time to waste a day on their little jolly - and enough money to pay for it too.

As they have all this spare time - perhaps they could find part-time jobs to help fund their studies?

That's what I did and I left university with considerably less debt than most of my friends.

I got a better degree too.

Telling you straight said...

But look at your personality...

Lou Baker said...

Personality is fine thanks - it's you resorting to pathetic personal insults, not me.

Tamsin said...

@ Nick When you've got a partner, an income stream and some of granny's furniture (with not enough room in the rented flat) - so want to start thinking about a mortgage, etc.

Name said...

Well done to largel peaceful protest agains cut to HE & FE by students in London. Fantastic banners. "Nick hasn't got a cLEGg to stand on cuts"

Anonymous said...

Academics at Goldsmiths College issued an extraordinary statement saying they wanted to “congratulate staff and students on the magnificent anti-cuts demonstration”.

The document was signed by John Wadsworth, Goldsmiths lecturers' union president and a senior lecturer in education, and Des Freedman, a lecturer in communications and cultural studies.

It said: “The real violence in this situation relates not to a smashed window but to the destructive impact of the cuts and privatisation that will follow if tuition fees are increased and massive reductions in HE funding are implemented.”

Yeah, what were the Jews moaning about in the 1930's just cos Nazi's smashing a few windows.

And people disturbed a window got smashed at the Stephen Lawrence Centre should get a life.

Then again those Goldsmith's lecturers could be regarded as unitelligent chumps who have language but no brains.

Clearly if someone breaks John Wadsworth ruler he won't mind or if Des Feedman finds his phone smashed he'll accept it as a political statement.

Brockley Central Label Cloud