PDA

View Full Version : Top-up fees



nessyfencer
-18th March 2005, 16:20
Education should not be on the basis of ability to pay, but should be on ability to learn. Personally I do not see why we have to take out a loan and get ourselves into debt for the pleasure of staying alive during our time in college/uni.

The issue of top up fees in further and higher education was considered by the Enterprise comittee of the Scottish parliament in february. Fiona Hyslop MSP of SNP put forward amendments which would have removed all provisions for top-up fees from the bill. Unfortunately these were voted down by Labour and Liberal Democrat.

Fiona is encouraging everyone to write to your MSP asking them to vote against top-up fees at stage 3 of the Further and Higher Education Bill.

Look at that - a serious post from me :eek:

Baldric
-18th March 2005, 16:53
Originally posted by nessyfencer
Education should not be on the basis of ability to pay, but should be on ability to learn.

Just to play devils advocate for a moment....

Do you think that students have an endless right to free education? For example - should every student be entitled to free Masters, PHDs and post doctoral studies for as long as they are capable of learning?

If you do think that this is the case, presumambly, you expect everyone else to work to pay for this. Is this fair?

If you don't support unlimited free education, then the argument merely becomes about where the line is drawn.

vil
-18th March 2005, 17:18
Originally posted by Baldric
Just to play devils advocate for a moment....

Do you think that students have an endless right to free education? For example - should every student be entitled to free Masters, PHDs and post doctoral studies for as long as they are capable of learning?

If you do think that this is the case, presumambly, you expect everyone else to work to pay for this. Is this fair?

If you don't support unlimited free education, then the argument merely becomes about where the line is drawn.
I am absolutely 100% in favor of free education. Free education means more people receiving education in general and more people studying advanced degrees in particular. That leads in turn to greater intellectual capital, making it easier to attract overseas business as well as more likely that innovation will happen here. Ultimately it benefits everyone in the country.

On the other hand, after a certain point it doesn't seem reasonable for people to expect to be supported while they study. I'm not sure where that line ought to be drawn.

nessyfencer
-18th March 2005, 18:12
Originally posted by Baldric
Just to play devils advocate for a moment....

Do you think that students have an endless right to free education? For example - should every student be entitled to free Masters, PHDs and post doctoral studies for as long as they are capable of learning?

If you do think that this is the case, presumambly, you expect everyone else to work to pay for this. Is this fair?

If you don't support unlimited free education, then the argument merely becomes about where the line is drawn.

Well why should someone who is quite possibly bright but happens to come from a poor background not have the opportunity to learn? Things can be tough enough for people while studying, due to the fact that they are not earning a full time wage without adding more expense onto these people.

The fact that some people would take advantage of the situation by staying in education for a lot longer than necessary does not mean that we should take it away from everyone. Some people take advantage of benefits by claiming what they are not entitled to, that does not mean that benefits as a whole should be scrapped.

fnork
-18th March 2005, 20:57
Personally I don't see the problem in having to pay for your own uni education, once you're a adult it is your responsibility and choice I guess. (And yes I will be having to pay them when I go so I'm not a hypocrite.)

However I'm not *best* pleased at this blasted means tested system which means nobody is going to be giving me any free money.

nessyfencer
-18th March 2005, 21:20
Originally posted by fnork
Personally I don't see the problem in having to pay for your own uni education

The problem is that not everyone can afford it. Everyone should have the same chances in life, why should only people from wealthy families have the chance to improve on their education?

fnork
-18th March 2005, 21:28
Originally posted by nessyfencer
The problem is that not everyone can afford it. Everyone should have the same chances in life, why should only people from wealthy families have the chance to improve on their education?

There is quite a lot of funding available from what I've looked into. A lot of it is means tested so people from families with less money can get grants (from what I gather from a talk I just sat through uh... 3 hours ago, however was kinda falling asleep so if I get something wrong do correct me) and higher loans, and you don't have to pay it back until you earn 15000...

Free education for everyone at any level would be a wonderful thing, only nothing *is* actually free someone has to pay it's just a matter of who.

To take another (albeit extreme point) if people shouldn't be granted/denied education on the basis of family wealth, why should they get it on intelligence? The debate here is simply one of equality. Who deserves what and why.

Baldric
-18th March 2005, 21:35
Hi Nessy

I am not particularly in favour of top-up fees, in fact, I will probably end up considerably out of pocket as a result of them.

I just wanted to challenge your assertion that education should be free as a matter of principle. I don't believe that this is true.

I would agree with the point that Vil made, in that it is in everyone's interests to have a well educated population. However, at sometime, someone has to actually pay for it!

Every time someone is granted a "right", someone else must accept a matching responsibility. In this case, the student demanding free tuition is actually demanding that taxpayers should have some of their money taken away from them to fund the student.

My personal view is that the government should decide how many doctors, architects, engineers, teachers, chemists etc the country needs to train each year, and fully fund that many places at university (including subsistence grants) - those places going to the best qualified applicants.

If there are more applicants than places, then I don't see why the excess (and poorer qualified) applicants should not be asked to pay for their tuition.

nessyfencer
-18th March 2005, 21:38
Originally posted by fnork
There is quite a lot of funding available from what I've looked into.


For higher education courses there is very little funding available.


Originally posted by fnork

To take another (albeit extreme point) if people shouldn't be granted/denied education on the basis of family wealth, why should they get it on intelligence? The debate here is simply one of equality. Who deserves what and why.

Which is why I said that everyone should have the same chances. If someone wants to learn then do not stop them.

Another point I should make is that I am in Scotland, not sure about you. I know it is very different in England and I have no idea what the situation is there.

nessyfencer
-18th March 2005, 21:47
Originally posted by Baldric
I would agree with the point that Vil made, in that it is in everyone's interests to have a well educated population. However, at sometime, someone has to actually pay for it!

Every time someone is granted a "right", someone else must accept a matching responsibility. In this case, the student demanding free tuition is actually demanding that taxpayers should have some of their money taken away from them to fund the student.


A couple people have now raised the point that someone must pay, fair enough, this is true. But what is the problem with tax payers money paying for education? When this generation finish education they will pay taxes, putting back in what they got and funding the next generation's education. Asking students to pay top-up fees and later pay back loans is like asking them to pay back the money twice. Another point is, last generations students who did not have to worry about loans and top-up fees are now paying taxes.


Originally posted by fnork
and you don't have to pay it back until you earn 15000...

15,000 is not a lot of money, a factory worker on minimum wage can earn that without too much of a problem and still struggle to keep a house/car/family.

gbm
-18th March 2005, 23:42
I think at one point at least the figures were that people who have a degree earn on average 500,000 more over their lifetime. Now, take 22% tax on that...

The Government should just look on us beer-guzzling students like banks do, as an investment for the future. The idea of an 'education tax' really is a bit silly, I can see the point, but graduates are probably already paying 80%* of the income tax in this country!

* guesstimated (made up) figure

Personally, I'm living at home to save money but have a car (to get to Uni and back because I now hate trains), and I've got a job that means I will pay tax next financial year even if I don't quite creep over the limit this year...

nessyfencer
-18th March 2005, 23:46
Originally posted by goodbadandme

us beer-guzzling students

Good point, how much tax is on beer n vodka (an cigarettes if our college is anything to go by)? Plenty! An the amount I drink...!

Baldric
-19th March 2005, 06:39
Originally posted by nessyfencer

15,000 is not a lot of money, a factory worker on minimum wage can earn that without too much of a problem and still struggle to keep a house/car/family.

On minimum wage, someone would have to work 58 hours a week to make 15,000.

Baldric
-19th March 2005, 06:43
Originally posted by nessyfencer
A couple people have now raised the point that someone must pay, fair enough, this is true. But what is the problem with tax payers money paying for education? When this generation finish education they will pay taxes, putting back in what they got and funding the next generation's education.



I have no problem with taxpayers funding education (see my post above).

However, I do see a trend towards a larger and larger percentage of 18yr olds going on to do degrees, many of which seem to have less and less practical application. If the trend continues, I can forsee a country composed entirely of graduates, all wondering why they can't find a plumber!

nessyfencer
-19th March 2005, 11:46
Originally posted by Baldric
On minimum wage, someone would have to work 58 hours a week to make 15,000.

Which is a typical manual workers hours, 12 hour shifts, 5 days, where I worked we had weekends on top of that to do.


Originally posted by Baldric
However, I do see a trend towards a larger and larger percentage of 18yr olds going on to do degrees, many of which seem to have less and less practical application. If the trend continues, I can forsee a country composed entirely of graduates, all wondering why they can't find a plumber!

This is a good point, we do need people like plumbers, builders etc, but who decides who gets the chance to go to university and get a degree and who has to go and serve their time in a trade? IMO it should be the individual that has the opportunity to make this decision. We also need people to work in factories and shops, if there were less people going into this kind of work then maybe they would get a half decent wage instead of working for next to nothing.

fitch
-19th March 2005, 13:22
Originally posted by Baldric
My personal view is that the government should decide how many doctors, architects, engineers, teachers, chemists etc the country needs to train each year, and fully fund that many places at university (including subsistence grants) - those places going to the best qualified applicants.

i have similar-ish views. Too many people go through uni education these days, and teh govt keeps trying to get more through it. Looking at the quality of some of the folk on my course, i wonder what they are doing here, and hope that I don't have to rely on their "expertise" in chemical engineering in the future, be that in teh same company or if they are involved in energy, food, water, safety etc indusries...... The fact that if they manage to bull**** in interviews enough they might end up in a 24-30k job the same as the grads-who-have-a-clue on my course will makes me a bit sick.

I can't remember the figures, but not every graduate goes into a "graduate job"after uni. I'm not saying that their degree was therefore wasted on them, as they will (hopefully) have learned a great deal of useful stuff, but did they "need" to go to uni???

To take a simplistic view, and one which may be incorrect and hence I won't take any correction personally!!, fewer students = less people in huge debts (~21k in my case) from student loan co., fewer people for the cash that the govt does have to be split over, fewer overqualified people in underqualified jobs, more skilled tradespeople as the would-be students are now plumbers/electricians/carpenters/etc, i.e. where's the benefit of more people entering higher education?

we have a poor manufacturing base in this country these days, ostensibly due to high labour costs, is this maybe 'cos all the people who would have been working in factories etc are now graduates and demanding higher salaries?

OK so the salary I hope to earn is worth the outlay on the education in the long term, and the universities having fewer students might lead to unis downsizing etc - but we're seeing that already, look at the number of unis in the last while that have closed departments? several chemistry ones have closed or are closing, and some unis are merging to cut costs.

University education should be a privelige for those who are academically capable. The best performing people get the chance to take things further thereby helping the country as a whole. If secondary level education produces more academically capable students, fair enough there's a selection issue, but unis lowering entrance standards to allow more students in is not teh way to improve our country's eductaion system.

(OK so there's more spelling mistakes in this text than 6 years of uni education should allow me, but we're all allowed a big daft rant now and again aren't we?)

nessyfencer
-19th March 2005, 14:30
Originally posted by fitch
but unis lowering entrance standards to allow more students in is not teh way to improve our country's eductaion system.

I don't think that this is the case, I think it is more a case of raising the students standards to allow more students in. RGU in Aberdeen have set up a lot of links with Banff and Buchan college which start people off studying at Intermediate 2 level and progress them on to do HND in college before moving them on to university providing the student is good enough for entry into uni at the end of the HND courses. There are also a lot of SWAP courses on the go which aim to get students up to the required standard for university.

People can achieve a lot more than their school grades sometimes show. Giving them the chance to prove this in colleges first can only be a good thing. Everyone deserves the chance to show that they are capable.

Nick_C
-19th March 2005, 21:40
Fees need to increase because Universities are currently losing vast amounts of money. The Government certainly cannot afford to pay everyone's tuition fees, and therefore the private sector must cover the difference. It's either that, or most of the UK's universities close down, OR increase in taxes by 2k per person per year.

They wouldn't ever have even suggested the whole top-up idea unless there was no feasible alternative.

In addition, in some courses, the Government will still pay the tuition fees for you (eg medical/nursing/midwifery courses), and pay off your student loans for you, plus an untaxed 2k golden-hello bonus for all teachers, so it's not all bad news. But you only hear about the bad news.

And don't think you can't afford it just because it's getting more expensive - you won't have to pay any of the fees until you're earning more than 16k pa.

This is not the disaster that most people like to make out.

Jambo
-20th March 2005, 10:19
Originally posted by Nick_C
In addition, in some courses, the Government will still pay the tuition fees for you (eg medical/nursing/midwifery courses), and pay off your student loans for you, plus an untaxed 2k golden-hello bonus for all teachers, so it's not all bad news. But you only hear about the bad news.


Medical?? Haha I wish. Most medical students I know, now into our final year have recevied no grants whatsoever, average debt is in the region of 25,000 (and thats the sensible people). Thats more than our untaxed basic salary when we start.

The fundamental problem, as people have said, is that too many people are in uni on a joyride, achieving nothing and costing a lot of money. University students used to comprise of the top 3% of the population, we need a return to that. It should be an intellectually elitist system not a financially eltitist one. In the current system my parents could not have gone to university because they simply couldn't have afforded it.

Labours rhetoric is sickening, education for all but only if you have rich enough parents.

Finally, playing devils advocate to an extent, there are a lot of people out there getting money (that would easily cover a lot of students costs) who aren't doing a thing for it and dont intend to, the benefit system...

Nick_C
-20th March 2005, 11:45
Originally posted by Jambo
Medical?? Haha I wish. Most medical students I know, now into our final year have recevied no grants whatsoever, average debt is in the region of 25,000 (and thats the sensible people). Thats more than our untaxed basic salary when we start.

Well, I'm going on what information I know to be the case. I'm starting a medical degree in September and the Department of Health is paying my tuition fees. I cannot comment on the medical students you know. I expect the exact level of debt essentially depends on the cost of living (eg area of the country you live in, and whether you own a car, smoke, drink, etc).


Labours rhetoric is sickening, education for all but only if you have rich enough parents.

No, this is exactly the opposite of the whole point. Tuition fees are paid for you if your parents earn less than a certain amount per year. My parents earn under this amount (I dont know how much it is), and therefore I have help with my tuition fees.

If you have rich parents, then they pay for your education. If you have poor parents, then they don't pay - the LEA pays for you. This is widening access to education, not restricting it.

Jambo
-20th March 2005, 11:52
You get your tuition fees paid for the last year. Too little too late.

The system penalises the lower middle classes (not trying to stereotype here, just in terms of income). There is a fairly significant gap between the income at which you get help and the income needed to be able to afford it without help. This gap will only get bigger if tuition fees rise to the 3000/year mark. Thats the point I was trying to make. Why should parents who are wealthy pay for it anyway, their taxes pay for the majority of the country already.

In terms of medical degrees I will be working for the government for the next 40 years, working for greater hours than I get paid for and paying vast taxes. Why should my parents get stuck with bills in excess of 8000/year for me to do this??

Nick_C
-20th March 2005, 12:02
I don't really have an answer for those questions. :) Perhaps it's worth pointing out that we both chose to do this course, and therefore have to accept that it is a financial gamble, which eventually pays off. I think this point also applies to taxes and 80-hour weeks. If you had major issues with these, then you wouldn't have chosen to study medicine.

Jambo
-20th March 2005, 12:10
Fair point. I love it and while I may grumble I have no major problem with the lifestyle/work.

The NHS grant system is ridiculous. I was assessed for a grant this year, did not receive one, but by merely being assessed (compulsory) I got my loan halved. Everyone in fifth year is seriously struggling, average loss of money is around 2000/year when compared to the four previous years. Very very stupid.

Increasing fees is going to make all of this a million times worse.

Naughty foilist
-21st March 2005, 07:35
I was part of the last year of students who didn't need to get loans, although we fought to stop them coming in.

I was one of the students who got a full grant due to my mother remarrying and my stepfather not being expected to pay for me.

In our circumstances, under means testing, I would have got a full grant without the stepparent rule.

However what rankled at the time was that some students in my year had gained a full grant under the same rule, where both parents were perfectly capable of paying full whack for the students concerned, and were bunging them extra on the side.

All that hard earned taxpayers money which could have supported another poor student. Still makes me angry.

pigeonmeister
-21st March 2005, 09:08
The fact remainsa that universities need more money, who's going to pay? Obviously you feel like the tax payer should, others are less keen in supporting little Jonnyu through his drama studies course. Free education is good in principle but is not compatable with the increase in people going to university.

There are two facts that underlie this problem.

1) A significant minority (I'm talking a lot) of students go to university for no other reason than a) they wanna do the 'student life' thing b) they don't know what else to do c) they feel that it is expected because of their middle class background. Contrast this will the foreign students I see who pay much more but work 10times harder and know what they want (they don't think degree first then think about a job later)

2) Students are in fact very well off and seem, judging by their clothes and drinking habits, to have large amounts of disposable income. The idea of students so poor they eat dog food, is not the reality of student life at birmingham anyway.

Given that those who might actually have to resort to eating dog food stand to gain from top up fees then maybe some students should look at themselves before they moan.

Maybe people will think twice before doing a degree just because they can't think of an alternative. I understand that medical students are slightly different but their seems to be nothing that stops people from poorer backgrounds completing a medical degree and having a very succesfull career.

Dave Hillier
-21st March 2005, 09:31
Originally posted by pigeonmeister

2) Students are in fact very well off and seem, judging by their clothes and drinking habits, to have large amounts of disposable income. The idea of students so poor they eat dog food, is not the reality of student life at birmingham anyway.


I think that a lot most students have accepted that they are going to end up heavily in debt anyway and think why not rack up another grand or two and have a bit of comfort.

pigeonmeister
-21st March 2005, 09:33
Well that's a luxury most cannot afford and is hardly a justification for not introducing top up fees.

randomsabreur
-21st March 2005, 09:35
Students are well off in that they have a large amount of disposable debt! It hurts a lot later.

Knowing that you will be 12 grand in debt in 4 years time, (which will barely cover your accommodation at Birmingham - I know as I was there) changes your attitude to debt, in that if I'm 12 grand in debt anyway, what's 100 extra anyway, which quickly becomes 1000.

Enjoy it while you can, and feel the pain when the banks start taking your overdraft away when you graduate!!!!

The Student Loan Company is now taking 150ish per month of my salary - the evil toerags. I suspect that that is barely covering the interest.

The main reasons for students spending money they don't have is that they sure as hell won't have time to spend it when they do have it.

nessyfencer
-21st March 2005, 11:37
How dull would life as a student be if you didn't let your hair down at the weekend? You work hard through the week and need social time, to have a bit of fun and relax at the weekend, because lets face it, next week at college/uni is going to be just as busy.

jennigoodman
-21st March 2005, 12:10
Originally posted by Jambo
The NHS grant system is ridiculous. I was assessed for a grant this year, did not receive one, but by merely being assessed (compulsory) I got my loan halved. Everyone in fifth year is seriously struggling, average loss of money is around 2000/year when compared to the four previous years. Very very stupid.



This is the most ridiculous part! A friend on my course has a brother at uni, whilst her parents earn nearly 2x as much as mine, enough to give her a smart car and pay for her to go on holiday several times a year, she gets a grant as they are both at uni. The fact that he got one D and an E at A level and is at the university of randomtown polytechnic doing performing ceramic design arts (or some such rubbish) makes no difference.

I wish I hadn't applied for a grant as although my loan would be increased, having to ask my bank manager for yet more overdraft is less desirable.

Yes, as students we are not poor, but as professional students, we have to spend a lot more on necessary items such as travel and clothes as well as having 43 week years compared to other student groups having 30 weeks. This means no-one wants to take you on for a job as you only have short holidays therefore earning capacity is reduced.

Add to this the fact that as a Medic/dentist you have to travel to far flung placements, wearing smart, clean clothes, and a railcard doesn't apply before 10am means that you are sh** on from several directions at once.

I think that the govt should decide where the skills shortages are and fund those places at uni. People should also be discouraged from going to uni because they have nothing else to do. Starting an apprenticeship at 16 or 18 is a much better route to getting a job than getting a 2:2 in textile design. IMHO.

UglyBug
-21st March 2005, 18:17
The problem with funding the places where there are currently shortages is that you move the problem round rather than solving it. If today we need loads of doctors and fund them up surely we then cause a hole elsewhere.

Jambo - completely agree with your point about penalising the middle-classes. The other ridiculous thing about the system is that it is means tested on what your parents earn, not what they give you. I had to pay full whack while getting nothing from my parents, while friends paid assisted fees and were getting money from their parents.

nessyfencer
-21st March 2005, 21:10
Originally posted by UglyBug
The other ridiculous thing about the system is that it is means tested on what your parents earn, not what they give you. I had to pay full whack while getting nothing from my parents, while friends paid assisted fees and were getting money from their parents.

Good point, but wouldn't people just lie and say their parents were giving them nothing anyway if it was diff?

Jambo
-21st March 2005, 21:27
Originally posted by nessyfencer
Good point, but wouldn't people just lie and say their parents were giving them nothing anyway if it was diff?

You can declare yourself financially independent.

pigeonmeister
-22nd March 2005, 08:38
Originally posted by randomsabreur
Knowing that you will be 12 grand in debt in 4 years time, (which will barely cover your accommodation at Birmingham - I know as I was there) changes your attitude to debt, in that if I'm 12 grand in debt anyway, what's 100 extra anyway, which quickly becomes 1000.

Enjoy it while you can, and feel the pain when the banks start taking your overdraft away when you graduate!!!!

The Student Loan Company is now taking 150ish per month of my salary - the evil toerags. I suspect that that is barely covering the interest.



It's not that bad, I paid about 2400 a year on rent in my 2nd, 3rd and 4th year. Now I'm sharing a room with my girlfriend it only costs be about 23 a week. But your right it does add up. The point I'm making is that some people take on this debt not always knowing why they are doing so (except to have a good time)

I would seriously doubt that 150 a month only covers interest payments. The desire to get in debt and worry about it later is not just limited to students, the difference is that a student loan compared to a bank loan or credit card is proabably 5x cheaper in terms of interest and much fairer in terms of how and when you pay it off. Therfore students can spend with better security than any other borrorwing group.

randomsabreur
-22nd March 2005, 09:01
In my 1st year at Brum, I was in catered halls, the annual rent was within 200 of my loan (minimum loan of just under 3k), and the first instalment required by the halls was actually greater than the first instalment of my loan. Fortunately my parents were generous, and arranged their payments to me so I got more in the first two than in the final term, when ridiculously you get a bigger instalment despite the fact that the term is less than a month long, and then you can work properly for the summer.

2nd year in self catered (one of the older blocks in Tennis Courts) was probably 500 less than loan.

3rd year was fine because I was in french halls which are ridiculously cheap and I had extra money because I was abroad

4th year, the reduced final year loan kicks in, so yes it is that bad!

OK I was exaggerating somewhat on the 150 only just covering the monthly interest, but according to my last statement (about a year ago) I was paying about 50 per month interest! It was 15 per month by the end of my first year. Now that it is up to 12k or so, I suspect that we are talking 60 plus per month.

My family's attitude to debt is don't do it - but the student loan is acceptable. Forcing people to take a massive loan gives the message that debt (in this instance, of a similar amount to may starting salaries) is acceptable, where perhaps it shouldn't be.

I would add that I did this with a well paid (if stressful) job in mind

pigeonmeister
-22nd March 2005, 09:10
Originally posted by randomsabreur

OK I was exaggerating somewhat on the 150 only just covering the monthly interest, but according to my last statement (about a year ago) I was paying about 50 per month interest! It was 15 per month by the end of my first year. Now that it is up to 12k or so, I suspect that we are talking 60 plus per month.



I'm not saying that it's not a lot of money, but surely the fact that you are in a position to start paying it off and have great career prospects means it has been worth it? It is also true that 50-60 interest a month on a 12K loan is a drop in the ocean compared to nearly all other loans available. Imagine how much 12K on a credit card would be- in fact don't its too scary!

randomsabreur
-22nd March 2005, 09:19
No I don't want to think about that, I am just making the comment that despite the fact that the student loans company are grabbing a fair proportion of what was my post rent and travelling expenses income, my student loan is not reducing by very much.

For me, the investment was worth it - I now have a good job, good prospects etc. However, there are too many graduates who end up in badly paid jobs, and they will potentially never clear their loans. Most people start on a lot less than I have and so the loan increases still more before they start paying it off.

jennigoodman
-22nd March 2005, 12:07
the point about reduced final year loan for medics and dentists is that they say: "fill in this for to get an NHS Bursary" OK, sounds like a good idea. Then SLC say "tick here if you have applied for a bursary. Then you get a letter from NHS saying "sorry no bursary for you" and one from the SLC saying "as you have applied for a bursary, you are not eligible for the means tested loan" that is a reduction by 2/3!!!!
Seems a little misleading to me.:(

Rdb811
-22nd March 2005, 22:34
Originally posted by jennigoodman
dentists is that they say: "fill in this

Ow !!!!::confused:

nessyfencer
-22nd March 2005, 22:41
Originally posted by Rdb811
Ow !!!!::confused:

:moon: :grin: