We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Iceland a terrorist state.
Comments
-
Another headline causing scares about misuse of Anti terror laws, yet when you read the actual Act, it covers this situation perfectly.
The Act is not just about Terrorism.0 -
Perhaps you can point to someone - ANYONE - on here who has been caught up in the Icesave fiasco and who has had the attitude of "sod the rest of you" now it looks like things are going to work out for us.
There's a big, big difference in worrying about the very real possibility of losing your hard-earned life savings and somebody who basically has nothing to do with this process (i.e. you) beefing on about how unfair it is that our government has stood behind their fellow citizens, the vast majority of whom are a long way from being 'fat cats'.
If you can't see that difference then more fool you....
"and somebody who basically has nothing to do with this process (i.e. you) "
Ah so you should only be concerned about our own selfish interest?
I'm beginning to get the hang of this!!
They made dammed sure the helped out the 'fat cats' that's why they are covering ammounts above £35K.
As for the people, the little people who will have to make up for the loss in council tax money, well......no announcement of hep for them was there?
No they ain't wealthy enough.0 -
The actual act is "Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act", so is being used for financial security of the country. This is not the first - nor the last - that such laws are not perhaps used for exactly what they were designed for..
Anyway I'm sure some people would say they were "terrified" of loosing their money and the Icelandic governments behavior.
You know it was sold on the anti-terrorism element to get it through, and notice I quuuoted the headline from the Times, no mention of crime and security there was there?
If there was people would be saying "What's all this about then?", hence they brushed that part of it under the carpet.
Oh and what has dogs fouling the pavement got to do with terorism or security?0 -
Why do all threads on MSE in the past week or so have to degenerate into this? What a place this has turned into.0
-
i agree ! I would much ratehr tax payers hard earned money went on Bombs , creating countless limbless children , on expenses so the politicians can cover second home morgages , on nice lives for politicians , on everything accept something that supports the taxpayers themselves.
Hopw dare the uk government use money i paid in taxes to help tax payers who lost money ! ..........
Or maybe you people are idiots and cant see whats happened here..........
Governments at last are working for all people , many icesave savers here were tax payers ? they have for years paid taxes - often to support things thye dont morally support so at last........we see the government supporting us rather than feeding off us ..........
You people who moan - i pay taxes but not to support icesave losers may want to ask yourself what you would prefer done with the money - the truth is your all hyporcrites , those saying they dont think ist right have no savings to lose............isnt that a BIG indication .........what if you had savings which you may lose , of course you would then say - hooray the savers are being saved........
I think no one has the right to judge the decision.
All you moaning tax payers who didnt lose to icesave and dont like just sum up the stinking rotting attitude which is going to bring on a huge depression eventually - selfishness.
People werent being selfish saving with icesave . they were trying to make interst to pay for tax , for inflated bills , inflated council tax , housing . . .
i think some people really do signal just how heartless and just how much of a curse their lives will be when they making sweeping remarks about how THEY as taxpayers dont believe this is right.
As TAXPAYERS are worseless........we all are , this is a parasitic system where were feed on and worked until we retire so when THE SYSTEM pays back THE PEOPLE i say THANK GOD !
Its time these people worked for us and time any tax payer who doesnt like this maybe considered just how many arms and legs the funded removal of , how manu disfigured children THEY funded..........and just what your heartlessness will oneday bring YOU .
My advice is share , give , be fair and stop thinking about ME ME ME ME ME
The people who lost funds SHOULD BE SUPPORTED in the same way Arms dealers are , nuclear industry , corrupt politicians ,
Tax payers...........if you think you are one your a bigger joke than i thought.
Were all hamsters on a wheel.......some just got feed back.
My grandfather died on the first world war ( defending a queen or king thats all part of this imaginary !!!!!!!!e ) so i am claiming my money on behlaf of him and the service he gave this GREAT nation..........
>>>>>>>>
I agree with the government putting right what Iceland hadn't, but to guarantee amounts even over £50k was a step too far.
Hopefully this is the last time the government wastes it's time covering idiots who put more than £50k in one place. As once is bad enough.[/quote]
<<<<<<<<,0 -
You know it was sold on the anti-terrorism element to get it through, and notice I quuuoted the headline from the Times, no mention of crime and security there was there?
If there was people would be saying "What's all this about then?", hence they brushed that part of it under the carpet.
Oh and what has dogs fouling the pavement got to do with terorism or security?
I keep hearing this "sold on terrorism" about Acts like this, RIPA etc. Can you show me where the facts are that they would not have been passed otherwise?
RIPA went through to cover all manner of things, as did this. They are used for what the definitions in the Acts allow, and this case seems one of them.
The fact the Times chose to only quote the terrorism side of the Act says much about the way the press regularly cause mischief on this topic.
The part of the Act used would not have had to establish terrorism links, and I would hope the Times would know that.0 -
Comfortably_Numb wrote: »I keep hearing this "sold on terrorism" about Acts like this, RIPA etc. Can you show me where the facts are that they would not have been passed otherwise?
RIPA went through to cover all manner of things, as did this. They are used for what the definitions in the Acts allow, and this case seems one of them.
The fact the Times chose to only quote the terrorism side of the Act says much about the way the press regularly cause mischief on this topic.
The part of the Act used would not have had to establish terrorism links, and I would hope the Times would know that.
No, no, no, you know what they did the tagged extra litle things onto the terrorism act which were not brought out into the open sufficienly they did this because they knew they would have trouble getting the extras through parliment on their own.
Afterall it does not look to good if you vote against an anti-terrorism act does it?
A similar trick was used by the banks or whatever when they bundled up loans, to hide the really toxic ones with some good ones so that most people would not notice.
It's a cheap trick, dirty, dishonest and underhand, but then what else would you expect from politians who put the peoples wishes last on the line?0 -
-
It may be illegal to nick £4 billion but it is a fantastic idea.0
-
No, no, no, you know what they did the tagged extra litle things onto the terrorism act which were not brought out into the open sufficienly they did this because they knew they would have trouble getting the extras through parliment on their own.
Afterall it does not look to good if you vote against an anti-terrorism act does it?
A similar trick was used by the banks or whatever when they bundled up loans, to hide the really toxic ones with some good ones so that most people would not notice.
It's a cheap trick, dirty, dishonest and underhand, but then what else would you expect from politians who put the peoples wishes last on the line?
This is not the Terrorism Act, therefore nothing was tagged onto it to get it through.
It covers all manner of things to do with the security of the Country, and not just terrorism.
One of the main things it is for is seizing assets, and freezing accounts etc.
This Act is not about the terrorism offences covered by the Terrorism Act.
Who actually opposed this legislation, because I dont recall any huge problems with its introduction?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.4K Spending & Discounts
- 247.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.4K Life & Family
- 261.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards