1. Post #1
    Gold Member
    Stockers678's Avatar
    August 2009
    1,447 Posts
    [release]
    [h2]Tuition fees case: Callum Hurley and Katy Moore lose[/h2]

    Two teenagers have lost much of their legal battle against the raising of tuition fees in England.

    Callum Hurley, from Peterborough, and Katy Moore, from London, claimed the decision to allow fees to rise breached human rights and equality laws.

    The 17-year-olds had argued that higher fees would discriminate against poor and ethnic minority students.

    High Court judges sitting in London rejected calls for ministers to reconsider the plans for higher fees.

    They did say that the government had failed to comply fully with its public service equality duties, but said it would "not be appropriate" to quash the regulations bringing in higher fees because there had been "very substantial compliance".

    The government has welcomed the decision, saying it is pleased the judges had "rejected outright" the suggestion that its student finance changes breached human rights.

    The 17-year-olds' lawyers had argued that the "decision to increase the cap on university fees was unlawful, and should be quashed".

    Their lawyers say they partially succeeded in their claim.

    In a statement, Katy Moore said: "I am very pleased with the outcome. For the court to recognise that the government's actions were unlawful is a great achievement".

    Human rights

    The teenagers had challenged Business Secretary Vince Cable's decision to allow universities in England to raise fees from 3,290 a year to up to a maximum of 9,000 from this autumn.

    Fees are now set to rise in other parts of the UK too, although not for all students.

    The students had claimed that the scale of such an increase in the upper level of fees was in breach of part of human rights legislation, which sets out a right to education and a right to education without discrimination on any grounds.

    Their other claim was that the government had failed properly to assess the equal opportunity impact of raising tuition fees.

    A spokesman for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills said: "We are pleased the court rejected outright the suggestion that our student finance reforms breach students' human rights.

    "The court recognised the consultation and analysis we carried out. It also recognised the extensive debate which took place, both inside and outside Parliament, on how those from disadvantaged backgrounds can be encouraged to enter higher education.

    "Accordingly, the court has not agreed the claimants' request to quash the regulations, which set out tuition fee limits. This means that students and universities have the certainty to plan for the next academic year, and the government's higher education policies remain the same."

    'Disastrous'

    The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has always insisted its changes to student finance are fair - and that going to university depends on ability - not ability to pay.

    The judges said the government should pay half of the students' legal fees.

    Callum Hurley is a BTec student at Peterborough Regional College and Katy Moore is taking her A-levels at Lambeth Academy in south-west London.

    After the ruling, their solicitor, Tessa Gregory from Public Interest Lawyers, said: "Whilst our clients are disappointed that the court chose not to quash the regulations, they are pleased with the recognition that the government failed in its duties to properly think through the equality implications of its decision.

    "The government has accepted that it must keep under review the impact of its measures and the court has stated that in doing so the government must actively seek out evidence where none is available."

    Liam Burns, the president of the National Union of Students, said this was not the end of the challenge to the "government's disastrous higher education policies".

    "The highest court in the land has pointedly not given the government a clean bill of health.

    "It is high time that ministers came clean on the fact that a combination of inexcusably shoddy policy making and coalition horse trading has risked undermining equality of opportunity on grounds of gender, race and disability. It is now incumbent on ministers to reflect on this ruling and to rapidly change course."



    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-17069298
    [/release]
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows XP United Kingdom Show Events Friendly Friendly x 23Winner Winner x 1Dumb Dumb x 1 (list)

  2. Post #2
    sup, it's FoxPie
    Pandamox's Avatar
    June 2008
    3,435 Posts
    don't students in the UK only have to pay like 4,000 a year or something..?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Canada Show Events Disagree Disagree x 6 (list)

  3. Post #3
    don't students in the UK only have to pay like 4,000 a year or something..?
    It went from 3000 to like 9000.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Netherlands Show Events Agree Agree x 6Funny Funny x 3 (list)

  4. Post #4
    Ah yes "opinions"
    Jackald's Avatar
    October 2005
    16,907 Posts
    It went from 3000 to like 9000.
    per year. 9000 per year.

    And we have to pay 3% interest + inflation on it for every year we don't pay it back until we're 50. If you haven't paid it back by the time you're 50, you don't have to.

    which means that you potentially have to pay back up to 50,971 if you did a 3 year course, and 87,380 if you do a 4 year course.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Agree Agree x 4 (list)

  5. Post #5
    Gold Member
    PvtCupcakes's Avatar
    May 2008
    10,900 Posts
    I think the price does need to increase with inflation. In 100 years 3000GBP would be too little to cover the cost, but tripling the cost is more than just covering for inflation.

    I think it's wrong to charge so much for education, but an even bigger problem is how they just pulled the rug out from under everyone and tripled the price.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Linux United States Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  6. Post #6
    Ah yes "opinions"
    Jackald's Avatar
    October 2005
    16,907 Posts
    I think the price does need to increase with inflation. In 100 years 3000GBP would be too little to cover the cost, but tripling the cost is more than just covering for inflation.

    I think it's wrong to charge so much for education, but an even bigger problem is how they just pulled the rug out from under everyone and tripled the price.
    I have a lot of friends who feel like they've just wasted 2 years of their lives because they started doing A-levels with the idea of paying 9000 to go to university and then suddenly got told they'd have to pay 21000, meaning they don't want to go to university, meaning they could have spent 2 years getting a job.

    Besides which, 21,000 is just for tuition fees. This doesn't include living expenses for those 3 or 4 years. Lots of families have to get a loan out for that too. In the end you can reasonably be expected to be paying back 30,000 or 40,000.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  7. Post #7
    Gold Member
    toaster468's Avatar
    January 2010
    3,229 Posts
    Welcome to our world.

  8. Post #8
    The Union Jack would look a shit ton better with a Hammer and Sickle in the middle of it
    Bobie's Avatar
    November 2007
    7,248 Posts
    its kindof ironic how cameron set out to combat unemployment and spending, but in the long run this is going to put loads of youths on benefits and cost the government way more than the pretty small amounts they used to pay in order to provide free further education
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Mac United Kingdom Show Events Agree Agree x 2 (list)

  9. Post #9
    Fuarrrrkin sexier than zeez bruh
    Ruski v2.0's Avatar
    March 2011
    1,726 Posts
    For me to do law, it will be over 54,000.

    :o
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Friendly Friendly x 2 (list)

  10. Post #10
    Ah yes "opinions"
    Jackald's Avatar
    October 2005
    16,907 Posts
    Welcome to our world.
    Assuming you're American (the flags aren't there any more) that doesn't mean it's "fair." No offense, but the American education system is fucking terrible, and your university system is no different. But you're used to it and expected to it.

    This got sprung on us in 3 months by a party which had PLEDGED TO FIGHT A RISE IN TUITION FEES after massive protests against it.

    Before the election:

    Now fair enough, it was a coalition government, which means that there's got to be some negotiation. Instead, Nick Clegg just rolled over, accepted it, and made no public attempt to fight tuition fees at all. Why? So that he could campaign for the alternate vote (Which would make his party more likely to get into power at a later date), a campaign which he lost.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  11. Post #11
    WeekendWarrior's Avatar
    February 2010
    16,262 Posts
    its kindof ironic how cameron set out to combat unemployment and spending, but in the long run this is going to put loads of youths on benefits and cost the government way more than the pretty small amounts they used to pay in order to provide free further education
    Everybody knows that Cameron is too busy fighting binge drinking instead of attempting to create and save jobs.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  12. Post #12
    Ah yes "opinions"
    Jackald's Avatar
    October 2005
    16,907 Posts
    its kindof ironic how cameron set out to combat unemployment and spending, but in the long run this is going to put loads of youths on benefits and cost the government way more than the pretty small amounts they used to pay in order to provide free further education
    Honestly, the universities should be cutting retarded courses like "harry potter studies" and bullshit like that if they want to stay afloat rather than having all the serious students that want to do English, Geography, Mechanics, Maths, Bioscience and the like be forced to pay a metric fuckton of money.

    But, of course, David "Eton educated multi millionaire" Cameron is above such worries. Better to charge the great unwashed than the wealthy!
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  13. Post #13
    Gold Member
    carcarcargo's Avatar
    October 2007
    15,059 Posts
    We don't have a constitution so it probably isn't unlawful.

  14. Post #14

    August 2007
    318 Posts
    This is why I'm glad I live in Sweden.

  15. Post #15
    Roll a d100, 99? Deary me...
    cyclocius's Avatar
    January 2009
    8,439 Posts
    I can hear the student protest songs again!

    Build a bonfire...

  16. Post #16
    Awesome Member
    Dennab
    January 2006
    40,352 Posts
    I believe that all Thatcherites should be rounded up and turned into a fine powder for distribution to the masses.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 4 (list)

  17. Post #17
    MEGA SENPAI KAWAII UGUU~~ =^_^=
    Megafan's Avatar
    September 2008
    14,608 Posts
    I believe that all Thatcherites should be rounded up and turned into a fine powder for distribution to the masses.
    Thatcherite dust redistribution.

  18. Post #18
    Jsm
    "Belgium is pretty much a non-country"
    Jsm's Avatar
    June 2006
    7,923 Posts
    I really don't get how they can claim it discriminates against poor people. It is paid with a loan after all.
    Not that I support the increase, it just seems that that is a really weak argument against them.