Tuition fee rises will not affect Welsh Students!

[Chippiewill]

I quoted her because I was replying to what she said. I said "IF you are poorer". I IF being a subjective word...only used if the person were to be in that situation, and "you" ok that may have implied her, but it was aimed generally at anyone reading.

Any person would infer that you meant Shar.

[Conservative,]

I meant anyone who it is related to. Not necessarily Shar.

[FlyingJesus]

Everybody has the right to go to University

Absolutely - if you can afford it

Poor is what you say when you believe you are better than someone. Underprivileged is what you say when you understand the situation they are in.

Would you like to talk some more nonsense? I don't believe you're actually able to tell people what they mean when they say a certain word, and underprivileged is a far worse way of saying poor, it's a term I'd associate with the 3rd world and such. Also:

So:

a) Anyone with less wealth than you is technically 'less lucky' than you?
b) Luck has nothing to do with it.

In what way is "less lucky" a phrase you can have a go at him for when you're saying "underprivileged" which is exactly the same? And regardless, luck has everything to do with it as I don't recall being able to choose whether I was born into a rich or poor family

Any person would infer that you meant Shar.

That's not the case at all, anyone with a mind for debating will quite easily work out that points made in such discussions are not personal unless clearly stated as such. So just to make it easy, this following question is directed for you, Chippiewill: if David Cameron goes on TV and is asked about the rising costs of education by the reporting journalist and he says "if you are a poorer (I MEAN UNDERPRIVILEGED OMG) student you will receive financial aid" would you then assume he was talking directly to the reporter about his personal situation? Or would you assume that he meant it as a general statement to all whom might be affected?

[HotelUser]

If your a poorer student then you'll get help with paying for it. Alternatively take a apprenticeship? The whole "OMG I NEED TO GO TO UNI OR I'LL FAIL IN LIFE" irks me. You don't have to - I simply want to due to the nature of career I wish to go on to.

If you look at-- well, any established countries career statistics you will find that unless you are Bill Gates you're likely going to make more money in your future career if you've attended university. This results in an uberhigher chance of not failing in life.

I may be in a more privileged position than some, but if that's the case then I should be the one moaning/complaining or as you say "exercising our opinion". The hardest hit will be middle class citizens such as myself. The working class and poorer students will get huge pay packages to help with the money and the rich can just pay it off. But my family won't get any help because my father makes enough money. The only help I'm getting is from my deceased Grandfather who has set up a fund to help pay for University.

These changes will not cause you to sleep in the same room as your parents every night. Your parents will still be able to afford all your subjective goodies like your too fast internet, new computer, xbox, tv, cable, two vehicles, larger house. What irks me is YOU are so afraid of being left worse off, when even WITH the government help other people get they're still worse off then you. You have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to complain about. You will still be able to go on your jolly way to University regardless of whether or not a small small fraction of tax payers money (which for the record neither you or I actually pay for it's our parents) goes toward helping people who GENUINELY should be worried about not affording University.

It's not Shar's or whoever else's fault as a student that they can't afford to go to University. What have you as an individual done any better than Shar to deserve to go to University more? Nothing. So you should both have the equal opportunity to better your lives through University. I don't care if she has no parents living under the sea and that your parents could be two mighty and rich Doctors. That's still your parents money. Nothing at all to do with you.

So you are, as you said, perfectly entitled to your opinion. But I'm entitled to thinking it's complaining.

Yes you are, and I am entitled to mine. An entirely socialist government would be horrible. However SLIGHT socialist tendencies, such as free Health Care and free Education, crown corporations like one unified post company, or as you have in the UK, a tax payer funded media station (BBC) are GOOD THINGS. They're about making life FAIR for everyone. There shouldn't be an iron curtain separating the super rich and the super poor like many countries see; where the poor have no opportunities. What's great about where we are blessed to live is even if you have nothing, you can build a life for yourself because there's thriving opportunity. Do you yourself realize how your parent's tax money could be spent a lot worse than helping young girls and boys pay for education? I'm extremely proud about tax payers money being spent towards things which will help other people.

[Chippiewill]

Absolutely - if you can afford it

Are you saying that someone only has the right if they can afford it?

Would you like to talk some more nonsense? I don't believe you're actually able to tell people what they mean when they say a certain word, and underprivileged is a far worse way of saying poor, it's a term I'd associate with the 3rd world and such. Also:

Ideally yes, financially disadvantaged is the correct term, however underprivileged is the term which Shar used herself.

In what way is "less lucky" a phrase you can have a go at him for when you're saying "underprivileged" which is exactly the same? And regardless, luck has everything to do with it as I don't recall being able to choose whether I was born into a rich or poor family

That like saying ******ed is the same as developmentally challenged? To whom you are born is still predetermined by the movement of particles.

That's not the case at all, anyone with a mind for debating will quite easily work out that points made in such discussions are not personal unless clearly stated as such. So just to make it easy, this following question is directed for you, Chippiewill: if David Cameron goes on TV and is asked about the rising costs of education by the reporting journalist and he says "if you are a poorer (I MEAN UNDERPRIVILEGED OMG) student you will receive financial aid" would you then assume he was talking directly to the reporter about his personal situation? Or would you assume that he meant it as a general statement to all whom might be affected?

That's because a television broadcast is not a threaded discussion?

[Soy]

YES HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAA


AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA


HAAHHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAA

HA

[FlyingJesus]

Are you saying that someone only has the right if they can afford it?

No, I was mocking the fact that it's seen as a right at all. We have free education of a pretty good standard right up to the age of 18, an age at which a large amount of laws concerning our liberties and such are changed, so suggesting that we all ought to be able to stay in education beyond 18 for free seems entirely counterproductive to the country as a whole - I know I for one would never leave uni if this were the case

That like saying ******ed is the same as developmentally challenged? To whom you are born is still predetermined by the movement of particles.

Then it's a lucky movement of particles if you're wanting to go down that route, we still aren't choosing it ourselves. Not sure what you're aiming at with the first part either, I'm pretty sure unlucky has never been an offensive term

That's because a television broadcast is not a threaded discussion?

And a duck isn't a goose, what's your point?

[Soy]

Are you saying that someone only has the right if they can afford it?


Ideally yes, financially disadvantaged is the correct term, however underprivileged is the term which Shar used herself.


That like saying ******ed is the same as developmentally challenged? To whom you are born is still predetermined by the movement of particles.


That's because a television broadcast is not a threaded discussion?

go say that to the government

smash windows etc this is a habbo forum lol

[luce]

my mum asked me if i wanted to go to a welsh university before telling me this LOL i was like i'm going to a university to get a good degree and i don't rate any uni in Wales for law. Anyway in theory i will be able to pay of my debts with my wages after a few years anyway if it goes ok.

[Chippiewill]

No, I was mocking the fact that it's seen as a right at all. We have free education of a pretty good standard right up to the age of 18, an age at which a large amount of laws concerning our liberties and such are changed, so suggesting that we all ought to be able to stay in education beyond 18 for free seems entirely counterproductive to the country as a whole - I know I for one would never leave uni if this were the case

So you're saying that those who deserve to go to university are those who can afford it and not those who get good grades and would benefit this country to a greater degree?

Then it's a lucky movement of particles if you're wanting to go down that route, we still aren't choosing it ourselves. Not sure what you're aiming at with the first part either, I'm pretty sure unlucky has never been an offensive term

I was frozen today!

And a duck isn't a goose, what's your point?

Generally in a threaded conversation it's a reply to the statement, in an interview your reply can be directed at anyone.