RIOT!

[777]

I don't buy that.

My dad's parents were un-educated and poor. His father came from a large family with many kids and a small subsistence farm that was too small to split up between the kids. He was finished school very young, worked on the farm till he was old enough to get a job, and then started at the absolute bottom rung of the ladder in an aluminium factor working with hot metal in sweltering heat for long hours and fuck all pay. He believed in bettering himself, and through nothing more than hard work, he was able to rise through the ranks to foreman, before leaving and getting a job as a truck driver for a brewery - why? He wanted to see the country! He never did get an education, he never did make a lot of money, but he saved very hard, and achieved his life's ambition - both of his sons went to university. My Dad inherited his father's work ethic, and was able to climb up another rung on the ladder, starting his career as an office clerk, and making it up to senior management, and was eventually able to become an entrepreneur and strike out on his own. He did what his father did, and made sure to educate his kids, so I got a college education, and was able to start a career in IT.

At no point in our family history from poverty to middle-class mediocrity was there any need for a handout. My family pulled ourselves up by the boot-straps. I didn't have to do it, because my grand parents and parents did it, but that doesn't mean it's not just as possible today.

In fact, I share my office with the perfect example, a guy my age who is doing the same job as me, but who was born into one of the worst slums in Dublin. He was able to pull himself up, he worked hard in school, and was able to get a scholarship and hence a college education. He's just bought a house - something his parents were never able to do.

You also have the inverse, kids born into very well off families with every opportunity wasting their lives and living off handouts.

Society is not deterministic. People are not mindless control-less sheep!

I asked my office mate what he thought about the riots, having grown up in the same conditions - he didn't think it was an excuse or a justification, and went on to excoriate the same chip on the shoulder or entitlement mind-set that Sean has been speaking against here.

Nothing justifies being immoral shits like these wankers!

Now - having said all that, I strongly believe in giving people a hand up, not a hand out, but a hand up. Help people to help themselves, but don't create a system where they become dependent on help - that breeds problems, and it breeds a sense of entitlement and a chip on the shoulder.

I find it my duty to vote for progressive parties who believe in a just society, and I do that in every single election I am entitled to vote in. I want to see more money spent on schools and youth centres. I want to see the massive chasm between the poorest of the poor and the richest of the rich shrink by orders of magnitude. I want free healthcare and education for all, so that every child born into every home has the same opportunities to make something of their lives, and that no one has to beat more obstacles than anyone else.

That's why I agreed with Bender001 that we need to restore order now, and then tackle the injustices in society. It's not enough to just restore order and then carry on regardless.

B.

I agree with the last part, and partly the first too.. though I think the times are different: one needs education in today's world in a totally different way than our grandparents. The world around us has changed quite a lot from those days.

 

[gb2000ie]

I agree with the last part, and partly the first too.. though I think the times are different: one needs education in today's world in a totally different way than our grandparents. The world around us has changed quite a lot from those days.

I figured you'd say that - hence I included a contemporary example too!

B.

 

[777]

I figured you'd say that - hence I included a contemporary example too!

B.

And reality how many are able to work so hard, or even have the strength to try to achieve something like that, and then get scholarships? Why isn't the education free? Anyone with enough money can get in, so they aren't smarter or better, just better off. Your co-worker can congratulate himself, he's smart and accomplished.

Like was it Bender001 pointed out, even with student loan poor tend to stay poor. One thing also is true about the situation, when a graduate from a poor background tries to find a job they are often rejected because of their background (the way they speak etc), or like in Finland, the employers look at earlier work experience and if you've had parents who've been able to get you places and experience you get a job faster and easier than the ones who don't have connections (there was a recent study about this). The differences are there, and that's the way society works. With hard work you can get out of slums... why is there slums in the first place. Just saying.

 

[hawtsean]

Just touching on some interesting points:

Free education is within the power of government, but it costs in taxes. That itself is a debate worthy of its own thread. If taxation is already so high that the middle and lower classes are breaking under the strain, than increasing their tax burden and forcing them into further poverty to pay for free higher education won't resolve the issue. One can argue that Professors and educational staff are overpaid. In some cases they probably are, but to keep qualified professionals on staff and continue to maintain degree-granting status, inevitably costs a lot of money.

Class identification by speech patterns and appearance is a sore point, I agree. In a perfect world without human bias, the best qualified would always get the best jobs, regardless of their financial status or who their parents know. In a perfect world.

I will not fall back on the cliche statement that "society has always been this way". I fully agree that change is needed, and needed now! But not at the end of a gun, or violent rioting. If that's what it takes to engender change, then change will happen every other day, needed or not, as someone decides to go on a rampage to vent their angst and prove their demand for what they feel is important to them. If anarchy is what will drive change, then I will get my guns and explosives out, and get me some of the change that I have been wanting, and that would be to rid the world of rioters..........but they might not like it

 

[gb2000ie]

Free education is within the power of government, but it costs in taxes. That itself is a debate worthy of its own thread. If taxation is already so high that the middle and lower classes are breaking under the strain, than increasing their tax burden and forcing them into further poverty to pay for free higher education won't resolve the issue. One can argue that Professors and educational staff are overpaid. In some cases they probably are, but to keep qualified professionals on staff and continue to maintain degree-granting status, inevitably costs a lot of money.

But why does the tax burden on the lower end have to increase? Tax codes come with bands, so it's possible the collect the same amount of tax in different ways with different tax burdens being placed on different people.

Also - healthcare is fucking expensive (as I've been finding out the hard way the last year), so if it became free, I would save on costs to off-set me increase in taxes. Private healthcare skims off money for profit and advertising, public healthcare doesn't need to do that, so you can deliver the same care for less. Assuming of course you do it right. If you badly implement anything it will suck.

Ireland had free third-level education for a long time, it can be done without crippling the country. We've only lost it now because we had a right-wing government who were against the concept, and felt it would be much better to put the money towards tax cuts for the rich and perks for business. It's all about priorities.

B.

 

[gb2000ie]

And reality how many are able to work so hard, or even have the strength to try to achieve something like that, and then get scholarships? Why isn't the education free? Anyone with enough money can get in, so they aren't smarter or better, just better off. Your co-worker can congratulate himself, he's smart and accomplished.

In Ireland education is free until university level, and anyone from low income who gets accepted to university gets a grant (not a loan, a grant). I used the word scholarship because I thought more people would understand it, but really, the only thing you need to qualify is to do well enough in your free education to get a place in uni, and be poor. The poorer you are, the more you get.

Maybe things are very different in the UK, and you can't get a free education till you're 17, but I thought you could? Once you get to there you should be able to get an apprentice ship or something. As long as you are in the free education system, surely there is no difference in the amount of work poor or rich people need to do to get the same marks?

Like was it Bender001 pointed out, even with student loan poor tend to stay poor. One thing also is true about the situation, when a graduate from a poor background tries to find a job they are often rejected because of their background (the way they speak etc), or like in Finland, the employees look at earlier work experience and if you've had parents who've been able to get you places and experience you get a job faster and easier than the ones who don't have connections (there was a recent study about this). The differences are there, and that's the way society works. With hard work you can get out of slums... why is there slums in the first place. Just saying.

I think a bigger problem is that parents in slums don't expect their kids to succeed in school, so it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. I think teachers get beaten down in poor areas and they too don't expect kids to get a load of A levels, so that re-enforces the self-fulfilling prophesy. I think the opportunity is there to at least get to good A levels without even having to think about getting into debt. In Ireland poor people get grants for uni, maybe that's gone in the UK, if so, that's unjust and unfair, but that's no excuse for terrorising innocent people and destroying lives.

B.

 

[hawtsean]

But why does the tax burden on the lower end have to increase? Tax codes come with bands, so it's possible the collect the same amount of tax in different ways with different tax burdens being placed on different people.

Indeed Bart, tax band mitigation is the right way to derive further spending capital for education or other citizen needs. However, just try to pass that one under current conditions in any country! I envy those living in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Argentina and Brazil, for a few examples. They have the educational system built into governmental budgeting and as far as I know all post-secondary education there (as well as primary/secondary of course) is totally free.

Massive restructuring is needed to achieve free edu in the UK, USA, Canada and other lands. I would honestly opt first for job creation, and increased financial help as a temporary hand UP, to get the poorest folk into productive employment and beginning self-sufficiency.

Health care, wow that's one I can't get my head around just now, so forgive me for not tackling the complexities at this time. Not the free and universal part of it, but the monstrous admin machine that tends to eat up as much or more money as the actual care itself.X_X

 

[gb2000ie]

Health care, wow that's one I can't get my head around just now, so forgive me for not tackling the complexities at this time. Not the free and universal part of it, but the monstrous admin machine that tends to eat up as much or more money as the actual care itself.X_X

While you're letting health care stew in your brain for a bit, I'll add in a suggestion of a country to look at - The Netherlands. Rather than the government running the hospitals, there is universal health insurance, so everyone is covered, including the poorest people. The government runs the insurance, but not the hospitals, they are run privately, getting paid by the national insurance, but the share each hospital gets is based on the number of patients they treat, and patients are free to choose any hospital. This means you don't have government trying to run hospitals, and you have hospitals competing with each other to deliver the best possible care to attract as many as possible patients. All the incentives run in the right direction, so it should be a stable system.

Now - I must clarify, this is what Irish politicians call "the Dutch Model", and what they want to introduce here. Maybe the model actually working on the ground in Holland is not as good as the idealised version we hear about here, but it makes a heck of a lot of sense to me as a sound plan.

B.

 

[hawtsean]

While you're letting health care stew in your brain for a bit, I'll add in a suggestion of a country to look at - The Netherlands..............The government runs the insurance, but not the hospitals, they are run privately, getting paid by the national insurance, but the share each hospital gets is based on the number of patients they treat, and patients are free to choose any hospital. ..............

Now - I must clarify, this is what Irish politicians call "the Dutch Model", and what they want to introduce here. Maybe the model actually working on the ground in Holland is not as good as the idealised version we hear about here, but it makes a heck of a lot of sense to me as a sound plan.

B.

Bart, this system is precisely how the universal health care scheme in Canada operates, or at least how they modeled it. My info is that it generally works, but that government had to create another level of bureaucracy within the system to permit more direct oversight in each regional area (within each Province of the country). Also, Canada via the central Federal government divides up the monthly allotment to each Province based on population.

The figures I have, show about $140 billion yearly on the Canadian health care scheme, with over 15% of that lost in admin costs. The model seems to work but long delays are reported for some procedures, and some Provincial authorities are actually paying private, third party providers (not under the scheme) to render services and cut waiting costs. So, it's not as perfected as one might like to see. Still, it is the one that the USA looked at and many there have urged it be adopted. Of course in the States, the big insurance and health maintenance outfits stand to lose billions if such a scheme went forward, so they and their favourite spokespersons in the House and Senate constantly oppose any such form of health care.

However, if this type of model can be introduced without further imposing a tax burden, then I am all for it. BTW, to reach back and touch on tax banding, an account dude whom I know in Canada explained that when tax returns are prepared and filed (determining what one owes in taxes), each Province has their specific formula that charges citizens for the health care service (via a tax surcharge) if they are in the higher income brackets, and exempts those below a certain level. That would seem to answer the need for low wage earners to be freed of that burden of expense. If that could be implemented for education and other needed services, what a boon, that could be. As I said, that would be a tough policy for a government to enact, or even tougher if they had to campaign on that for an election.

 

[topdog]

These are horrible events that make us stop and think hard about how we function together (or not) as a community. One of the results here at GH is this really good discussion on social justice and responsibility.

However, speaking directly about the riots and the reasons behind them I have to fall back on screenwriter William Goldman's quote describing the supposed expertise of movie studio executives: "Nobody knows anything."

If you want to know what is behind the riots, you have to ask the rioters. They are the only ones who know. Everyone else is looking from the outside and making guesses. Unemployment? European markets? The wealth imbalance? Poor parenting? Incompetent policing? Conservative government budget slashing? Lack of recreational opportunities? Gangs of thugs?

Motivation, (even in ourselves), is particularly hard to discern from the outside. There are small pieces of anecdotal information in the papers, but at this point the reasons given by the few participants who have been asked are so divergent that there is no clear picture of the source of the sudden violent behavior.

One of the more intelligent radio commentors I heard described the events as a political Rorschach test - an ink blot on to which individuals project their ideas about the failings of society and government.

Still, discussing these ideas is in itself a good thing. I just don't think that at this time anyone is in a position to say that one view is right, and another view is wrong.

Unfortunately, the way our media culture works is that a popular explanation will gain traction and stick in people's minds. Later, when researchers gather actual data and come to conclusions, no one will be listening. The event was already "explained" as it happened and the public has moved on to another crises.

 

[hawtsean]

If you want to know what is behind the riots, you have to ask the rioters. They are the only ones who know. Everyone else is looking from the outside and making guesses.

I could accept this, if the rioters were truly the ones directly impacted by the social wrongs that are widely touted as the reason for the violence. From what I have seen, and from what I have learned from those 'on the ground' in the UK, the riot is perpetrated by thugs, criminals and bored young people looking for a lark and caring not a bit about right or wrong actions. None of the damage done was directed at government buildings, if these rioters were really targeting bad government policies. All they did was run amuck in their own 'hood, or close by. They chose soft and easy targets for burning and smashing, and much of the property damage was sustained by those who ARE the ones beset by the very issues claimed as justification.

However, even if a majority of rioters WERE the ones feeling disenfranchised, that is still not an excuse for doing damage as has been done. As a general statement here, not directed to any one specifically:

the more excuses I read, attempting to justify the rioting, the less I believe that the 'justifiers' really care about the social conditions claimed as a causation.

Rooting for a perceived underdog is a classic knee-jerk response that never seems to view the issue at hand in its totality. The perceived underdog isn't always right. History has demonstrated that repeatedly.

 

[iryhousen]

Maybe the rioting and looting was caused by people watching 8 seasons of Shameless. It amazes me that TV in the UK features so much crime in a society that is relatively crime-free compared to the US. In the US, what happens to a criminal varies tremendously from one jurisdiction to the next. In some places, a young person who commits any small crime will end up living in juvenile hall. In Chicago (Cook County), there are over 80,000 serious juvenile criminal offenders not in any custody or subject to any enforceable curfew, free to commit more offenses. Gangs have been randomly attacking unsuspecting persons recently. The current US Secretary of Education, former chief of the Chicago public schools, wanted residential schools for a very large number of young people in this category, which would cost about $50,000 per year for each individual.

 

[slimjim]

None of the damage done was directed at government buildings, if these rioters were really targeting bad government policies. All they did was run amuck in their own 'hood, or close by. They chose soft and easy targets for burning and smashing, and much of the property damage was sustained by those who ARE the ones beset by the very issues claimed as justification.
.

I heard an interview on the radio with the owner of a ladies hairdresser in Birmingham... She stood outside her salon and defended it against a mob who were moving down her road, kicking in windows and setting fires as they came... When she asked them why they had passed but not attacked the off-license (liquor store) they replied "that's were we get our cheap booze". She also remarked that they had also passed, but not attacked the Job Centre, where some would be likely to sign-on to receive their unemployment benefit.

I also heard a comment that - "Only in England could people wearing £100 ($160/ €115) trainers use £300 ($485/ €340) Blackberrys to organise riots and loot and use poverty as an excuse"

btw: You may have heard mention of the UK Prime Minister holding sessions of the COBRA emergency commitee... a great sounding name maybe but it has nothing to do with the snake. It comes from the room the meetings are held in:

Cabinet Office Briefing Room A ...



Interesting to think what would have happened if they had met in either


Goverment Anteroom Y

Cabinet Office Cubicle K

National Emergency Room D or

Cabinet Utilities Meetingroom

 

[hawtsean]

Maybe the rioting and looting was caused by people watching 8 seasons of Shameless. It amazes me that TV in the UK features so much crime in a society that is relatively crime-free compared to the US.

:agree: That has always struck me as odd and risky - almost inciting young people to be rude, cocky, criminal and too smart for their own good at times. I've watched a number of Shameless episodes - entertaining in a way, sure. But what a poor comment on the state of things in the UK, even though the show is fictional. Art does tend to mirror life in some ways. (or are the producers trying to arrange for life to mimic their show. - if so, they seem to have succeeded)

In the US, what happens to a criminal varies tremendously from one jurisdiction to the next. In some places, a young person who commits any small crime will end up living in juvenile hall. In Chicago (Cook County), there are over 80,000 serious juvenile criminal offenders not in any custody or subject to any enforceable curfew, free to commit more offenses.

Yeah, the consequences of juvenile crime have drastic differences from State to State. In Texas, a violent crime (basically anything other than financial fraud or misdemeanor drug charge), lands the kid in detention for at least 30 days while he is investigated, assessed, and then taken before a Family Law Court judge. I have a good friend who is a juvenile intake worker in south TX, and he's shared with me that some of the tougher kids (repeat offenders) get sent immediately to a juvenile jail. They leave there only to attend court or hospital appointments, and if found guilty they continue serving their sentence there. The guards and supervisors demand instant obedience and respect - something that a good number of these young persons never learned or never were forced to practice. I understand that the biggest shock to them is having to sit, stand, move and do whatever when they are ordered to, rather than enjoy the freedoms a typical teen enjoys. That, apparently is the worst punishment, aside from the actual confinement.

 

[hawtsean]

Interesting to think what would have happened if they had met in either


Goverment Anteroom Y

Cabinet Office Cubicle K

National Emergency Room D or

Cabinet Utilities Meetingroom

I'll take Government Anteroom Y for 500 Alex, er SlimJim:rofl:

 

[gb2000ie]

I also heard a comment that - "Only in England could people wearing £100 ($160/ €115) trainers use £300 ($485/ €340) Blackberrys to organise riots and loot and use poverty as an excuse"

What a fantastic observation!

btw: You may have heard mention of the UK Prime Minister holding sessions of the COBRA emergency commitee... a great sounding name maybe but it has nothing to do with the snake. It comes from the room the meetings are held in:

Cabinet Office Briefing Room A ...



Interesting to think what would have happened if they had met in either


Goverment Anteroom Y

Cabinet Office Cubicle K

National Emergency Room D or

Cabinet Utilities Meetingroom

ROFL!!!! :rofl::rofl::rofl:

Priceless!

B.

 

[777]

In Ireland education is free until university level, and anyone from low income who gets accepted to university gets a grant (not a loan, a grant). I used the word scholarship because I thought more people would understand it, but really, the only thing you need to qualify is to do well enough in your free education to get a place in uni, and be poor. The poorer you are, the more you get.

That's something at least. Is the grant also tied to success or can you just go on as long as you're getting credits?

Maybe things are very different in the UK, and you can't get a free education till you're 17, but I thought you could? Once you get to there you should be able to get an apprentice ship or something. As long as you are in the free education system, surely there is no difference in the amount of work poor or rich people need to do to get the same marks?

I think a bigger problem is that parents in slums don't expect their kids to succeed in school, so it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. I think teachers get beaten down in poor areas and they too don't expect kids to get a load of A levels, so that re-enforces the self-fulfilling prophesy. I think the opportunity is there to at least get to good A levels without even having to think about getting into debt. In Ireland poor people get grants for uni, maybe that's gone in the UK, if so, that's unjust and unfair, but that's no excuse for terrorising innocent people and destroying lives.

B.

I agree that parents and other's expectations have a huge impact on how children grow to see their future. There's studies about it, pretty interesting to read. Often people feel that it's not PC to say that parent's education and position in life has an impact on how children do in school, but nevertheless it's true. Especially in the UK the working class has a really strong identity, and I know few people who've had difficulties with their families because they wanted to study and their parents didn't approve at all.

You talked about the free education part and sure, it's free. But just compare schools in slums and say, public schools. Where do you think your children would get a better education? Where teachers have more time per child, less social problems on the background of the children, which means they adapt to school life better, where there's more resources and a better environment for learning etc etc... A really brilliant mind doesn't get less brilliant with bad teaching, but the rest... also, when there's less resources children with learning difficulties are often ignored as long as they make it somehow or drop out. Children who come from bad homes have more difficulties in that too, for example abused children are often dyslexic too.

I don't think anyone here is saying that background works as an excuse for anything, but it is an explanation to why. And it offers solutions to those problems too, if only governments would feel like listening. It feels pretty unbelievable that basically the same riots have been taking place several times before too, and nothing has been done. Yeah, sure they punish people, sure they say from now on people may not wear masks in demonstrations, but how is that doing anything to the problem. Enough laws to say what people are not allowed to do and someday maybe we'll have the Orwellian thoughtcrime.

 

[gb2000ie]

That's something at least. Is the grant also tied to success or can you just go on as long as you're getting credits?

You get the grant once for every year of college. So they will pay for 1 first year, one second year, one third year, and one fourth year if you are doing a 4 year degree. They'll then pay for 1 masters degree.

So, if you fail first year you will loose the grant for the year you have to repeat, but you would get it back when you went on to second year. Generally, with modularisation, you would find yourself repeating just a few modules, so the norm, for everyone, would be to work for that year you're repeating, study at night, and only re-sit the exams. There's no requirement on repeat students to attend lectures, and if the course content changes they have to set a special exam for repeat students based on the content they would have studied.

Remember, you get two bites of the apple each year, so to have to repeat a year you have to fail twice, and to have to repeat a year more than once you'd have to fail 4 times. Also, tuition remains free, it's just the "maintenance grant" that you would loose while repeating.

I agree that parents and other's expectations have a huge impact on how children grow to see their future. There's studies about it, pretty interesting to read. Often people feel that it's not PC to say that parent's education and position in life has an impact on how children do in school, but nevertheless it's true. Especially in the UK the working class has a really strong identity, and I know few people who've had difficulties with their families because they wanted to study and their parents didn't approve at all.

You talked about the free education part and sure, it's free. But just compare schools in slums and say, public schools. Where do you think your children would get a better education? Where teachers have more time per child, less social problems on the background of the children, which means they adapt to school life better, where there's more resources and a better environment for learning etc etc... A really brilliant mind doesn't get less brilliant with bad teaching, but the rest... also, when there's less resources children with learning difficulties are often ignored as long as they make it somehow or drop out. Children who come from bad homes have more difficulties in that too, for example abused children are often dyslexic too.

I don't think anyone here is saying that background works as an excuse for anything, but it is an explanation to why. And it offers solutions to those problems too, if only governments would feel like listening. It feels pretty unbelievable that basically the same riots have been taking place several times before too, and nothing has been done. Yeah, sure they punish people, sure they say from now on people may not wear masks in demonstrations, but how is that doing anything to the problem. Enough laws to say what people are not allowed to do and someday maybe we'll have the Orwellian thoughtcrime.

I don't think it's fair to say nothing has changed since the 80s. There was rampant institutionalised racism in the 80s, that's what triggered those protests, and that is very much a thing of the past. There might still be the odd racist cop, but it's nothing at all like it was then.

The concept of community officers was utterly un-known then, a lot of work has gone into making the police a part of the community again.

Yes - I think more should be done, but that doesn't change the fact that it's wrong to say nothing has changed.

As a liberal socialist, I want to see much more money go into education, and much more money go into health, and much more money go into social services.

B.

 

[777]

I don't think it's fair to say nothing has changed since the 80s. There was rampant institutionalised racism in the 80s, that's what triggered those protests, and that is very much a thing of the past. There might still be the odd racist cop, but it's nothing at all like it was then.

The concept of community officers was utterly un-known then, a lot of work has gone into making the police a part of the community again.

Yes - I think more should be done, but that doesn't change the fact that it's wrong to say nothing has changed.

As a liberal socialist, I want to see much more money go into education, and much more money go into health, and much more money go into social services.

B.

I might agree and say it's wrong to say nothing has changed: I just don't think it's for the better. From what I've heard racism is one of the underlying reasons here.. not just in the 80's, it's happened more recently too. The rioters have been multicultural this time, at least the more opportunistic part, but the whole thing began in the black community where the previous ones began too, and part of it has been because the tension between the police and the community.

Black people have higher rates of unemployment than other ethnic groups, and the government has been cutting from public services and made it easier for employers to use people as they see fit and pay crappy salary to boot... Most people would like to just go to work and have nice things in their lives (like food and probably cable), nothing really elaborate. I don't think it's fair to expect people to do more than one full-time jobs nor many part time that don't pay a living, but that's how many people survive, and I stress the survive part. The ones who get unemployment payments might be a little better off, but that's not a whole lot of money either. In general when there's a lot of people with a lot of time in their hands and not a whole lot to do it's trouble it heads to.

Racism might not be as institutionalised as it was in the 80's, but it's still there. It's more difficult to get proper jobs with a dark skin, you get treated different by the police... The man who died might have been a thug, but I'm sure he hasn't been the only one to get the treatment along the years.

 

[hawtsean]

You get the grant once for every year of college. So they will pay for 1 first year, one second year, one third year, and one fourth year if you are doing a 4 year degree. They'll then pay for 1 masters degree.

So, if you fail first year you will loose the grant for the year you have to repeat, but you would get it back when you went on to second year. Generally, with modularisation, you would find yourself repeating just a few modules, so the norm, for everyone, would be to work for that year you're repeating, study at night, and only re-sit the exams. There's no requirement on repeat students to attend lectures, and if the course content changes they have to set a special exam for repeat students based on the content they would have studied.

Remember, you get two bites of the apple each year, so to have to repeat a year you have to fail twice, and to have to repeat a year more than once you'd have to fail 4 times. Also, tuition remains free, it's just the "maintenance grant" that you would loose while repeating.

I think that this is an excellent way to provide post-secondary ed. A shame that North American governments can't dump their fixed idea of loan the tuition and maintenance money up front and then collect it back with interest after a few years.(for kids whose parents cannot afford to foot the bill.) Our messed up system starts the graduates off with a heavy debt load, and all the attendant stress of repaying that debt as well as stepping out into the workforce.