"I would have had to get a part-time job if I hadn't had the EMA"Luckily, a commenter captured the text in a quote before the paper removed the original from the article:
If working about 8 hours a week for £30 (even under 18) is too much of a distraction, the 'real' world is going to be a horrible shock.
I wonder why they decided to remove the original wording? Not the right message? There is also this doozy in the comments:
Cameron got EMA, our parents got EMA, Charles Dickens got EMA, but suddenly there's no need for it. What gives ?
Whut? Some history:
- EMA was piloted in 1999 and rolled out UK-wide in 2004
- Charles Dickens died in 1870
- Cameron was the qualifying age for EMA between 1982 and 1985
- Anyone born before 1980 cannot ever have qualified for EMA, so 'our parents got EMA' means that the 'parents' had their offspring at the age of 15 or less, even stretching the dates to their limits.
Some of the comments suggest (shame! evil Tories!) that the 'students' use the EMA for dope, fags, clothes and make-up, rather than attending to their educational needs. Seems they may be right: basic history and current affairs seem to have fallen by the wayside.
The comments as a whole demonstrate entitlement-whinging at exhibition level. As many of the commenters in The Guardian say, the EMA is a ruse to keep the jobless figures down, and a bribe to keep young people voting Labour.
I can accept that help with travel and meal costs for the disadvantaged might be a good idea, but £30 cash in your hand looks too much like an inducement.