Student Protest today - Who pays for damage?

[SparkleSoiree]

After today's little melee outside Tory HQ, who will pay for the damage caused by some our very well behaved students? (NOT!)

They are protesting about having to bear the cost of further education yet cause damage that WE will no doubt have to pay for.

I am perplexed. Seriously.

Nothing perplexing about it, surely? They are furious because their younger brothers and sisters and friends will be forced into a position where many of them will feel they just CAN'T go to university, come 2012, because the fear of massive debt is a perfectly sane one.
The demo became violent - feelings are running very high - with parents too - this is a MAD situation where children are being encouraged to believe it is perfectly fine to run up debts of tens of thousands of pounds before they have even learnt to earn a living.
Parents should demonstrate too. The kids have got the ball rolling. We should back them up.
Sure, crowds are dangerous, and adrenalin was pumping, understandably so. Students have a real and genuine grievance.
How about a parents' mass demonstration in London one Wednesday some time soon?
Of course all we taxpayers will pay.

Sorry, that line 'Of course all we taxpayers will pay' should have appeared at the beginning of my rant. Just pointing out that, realistically, I think upkeep of govt buildings is paid for by all of us.
If we can get a parents' demo together, I'm not envisaging quite the same amount of energy input in terms of window smashing etc (sadly, perhaps.)

It reminded me, sadly, of the 1st May protests at which all the terribly wacky and right-on anti-establishment types obviously didn't give a stuff that someone's ordinary working dad/mum/gran was going to be given the job of cleaning up all their mess and damage, and not some stuffed shirt/fat-cat in an ivory tower.

Yes that's true, unquietdad, and I felt sorry for the police, because they weren't the people who made these wicked decisions which may be enacted in 2012 unless we all can make the government back down. We should TRY; it's important for the future of so many teenagers.

Oh, no, poor Tories and their HQ, tell me this isn't true, how will I sleep tonight?

Perhaps if the taxpayer pays for David caemorn's vanity photographer AND videorecordist they will have to foot the bill for damages too. The way things go.

Next.

the tax payer no doubt.
not the students themselves.
strange that they are so keen to study but managed to skip a day to riot

I agree unquietdad.

I think we need a mindshift. Why is mortgage debt for bricks and mortar acceptable but a "mortgage" to pay for life enhancing education is deemed bad.

Perhaps we need to accept that for the rest of our working lives we willbe paying back for our education.

Cristina it is still damage that will need to be paid for. Since when did it become right to damage someone's property because you disagree with them.

I don't understand why you can't emmpathise with the students. This is a shitty thing which the coalition govt wants to impose (and as you know, Nick Clegg made a pre-election promise that student fees would NOT go up.) My blood is boiling; what can the students do BUT demonstrate?

I have no objections to them protesting, while I may not agree with their complaints I do empathise and understand their frustrations. I don't empthathise with people who act like hooligans though.

Waterloo - hey? Did I say it was right to damage property? I just said it will come from the taxpayer, the same as vanity photography and videographer's salaries are coming from. Now, where do I see you complaining about that bit of taxpayers' waste of money?

Hooligans? I bet that's what the Chinese would say. That's what Ceausescu said about students protesting. Hooligans is an easy one to label. Miners?

There used to be a song going like this "Better a hooligan than an activist". I think that would cover Tory activists too, although the original was aimed elsewhere.

Cristina I grew up in a mining village so I know all about the miners strike. You gave the impression the damage to property did not matter as it was Tory HQ.

I spent my youth marching with my SWP banner, I never damaged property though. I am hardly a tory activist!

gawd, you sound like a load of somone's mums

who cleaned up after '68? the students were giving them jobs, dontcha see that?

never mind the riot, where's the dust pan and brush

tis only the battle to keep education open to the very best not just the richest..

Of course it matters, but I find it hard to get worked up about it because it's NOT important in the grand scheme of things. Bricks get replaced. Freedoms don't, or with much more difficulty.

So I expect there were riots of a similar magnitude when tuition fees were first introduced a few years ago by a LABOUR government.

Oh. Hang on.

I don't either, waterlooroadisadocumentary, but - ooh, doesn't it take you back (I bet I'm a lot older than you.) Actually, it would have been a lot more dramatic if our students had been FRENCH! But seriously, there's a genuine grievance here. Angry - justifiably angry - crowds set everybody's adrenalin pumping, and,inevitably, some people will always go over the top.

I am not rich and I certainly did not grow up rich. We can only afford one child and she will have to pay for her own education unless someone dies relieving us of the financial burden of caring for elderly relatives. My dd will probably spend her whole working life paying for her degree and further study if that is what she chooses to do. I am fine with that.

Protests do take me back and I am pleased to see young people fired up about something. I understand that they feel they have a grievance.

I'd be very surprised if tory central was not insured.

A more appropriate question is who pays for the victims of the cuts. Who pays when homelessness spirals, when children are taken into care because they don't have a home? We all do, and not just financially.

Get a grip OP.

Yes, and you can bet your bottom dollar that if the £9,000 a year tuition fees go ahead there will be thousands of embittered people who are more than able to go to university but who'll simply feel they CAN'T. That pair of posh boys, Cameron and Clegg, don't understand that ordinary people mostly DON'T welcome debt. If I were 18 now I would be very, very anxious and upset about missing the opportunity of university. I simply couldn't countenance running up debts of tens of thousands of pounds when I'd never even experienced a full time job.

Let's not forget that it was Blair and his "posh boys" who first introduced tuition fees.

I agree about living in debt. If you're from a family where even a couple of hundred £, let alone several thousand £, is considered bad debt and something to worry about, then you can't even begin to think waht 330K debt is like.If, on the other hand, you're used to running up a bit of debt because Ma and Pa will help out, that won't be a problem.

I think it will prevent many children from applying to Uni. Many are still children, they will be swayed by whether or not they have family support.