Why are anarchists targeting HSBC?

N1AK

MegaMiniMouse wrote: »

Some of them just got lucky, and I expect you can easily prove me wrong

Why bother. There's about as much point in refuting that, as there would be you refuting my ascertation: that your a raving sheep lover; though I expect you can easily prove me wrong?

People love blaming banks, yet happily keep their money with them, and switch to whomever gives them the biggest wedge of cake (interest). Want rid of them? Set up local lending collectives, a new building society, borrow from friends and neighbours etc. Whinging about banks is in vogue, but as always whinging about something and doing nothing just makes you look pathetic and powerless.

ILW

[quote=[Deleted User];42366200]Then I think on balance they're not worth it for the reasons already given.[/QUOTE]

Wonder what would fill the financial hole if they took their businesses elsewhere?

iB1

The majority of those "anarchists" have no intention of changing anything. They just wanted a day out in London to daub graffiti and smash up stuff. I saw from some BBC footage someone writing on a wall "Tax the rich" eh? The rich get taxed quite a lot. Even if they avoid chunks of it, they still pay big wedges into the coffers.

I'd like to see some of these "anarchists" rounded up, de-balaclavaed and put in a studio and asked questions about what they would do differently. I'm not sure many of them could come up with any coherent answers.

grimsalve

Didn't they* stage a sit-in at Fortnum And Masons? I was hoping that the BBC news would mention which shop it was. Have Fortnum And Masons been accused of tax dodging too or was it just because they sell nice pate?

By the way, I think what the gov/police should do is make it an offence to cover your face if you're attending a rally, protest, etc. As far as I'm concerned the only reason to hide your identity from the cctv is to avoid being prosecuted for wrong-doings at a later date (therefore it's intent). If you're not intending on breaking the law then you have nothing to fear.

* I don't want to call them anarchists because IMO they're not

Thrugelmir

ILW wrote: »

Wonder what would fill the financial hole if they took their businesses elsewhere?

And no one complains about salary levels in other UK based international companies. Some of which make bankers pay look a pittance.

grimsalve

By the way, Boris Johnson in The Telegraph...

After all those strategy reviews, all those blank bits of paper, we have finally heard Labour's response to the fiscal crisis bequeathed to the nation by Gordon Brown. The plan is to get a load of aggressive crusties and Lefties to attack the Ritz hotel, to storm Fortnum's, and to cause so much argy-bargy that 4,500 police officers are obliged to waste their time (and our money) in putting out the bonfires and controlling events as peacefully as they can.

:rotfl:

pompeyfaith

Wonder if this Government hasd considered getting an order to shut down the anarchists websites? surely that has to be a done thing as well as banning orders

ILW

grimsalve wrote: »

Didn't they* stage a sit-in at Fortnum And Masons? I was hoping that the BBC news would mention which shop it was. Have Fortnum And Masons been accused of tax dodging too or was it just because they sell nice pate?

By the way, I think what the gov/police should do is make it an offence to cover your face if you're attending a rally, protest, etc. As far as I'm concerned the only reason to hide your identity from the cctv is to avoid being prosecuted for wrong-doings at a later date (therefore it's intent). If you're not intending on breaking the law then you have nothing to fear.

* I don't want to call them anarchists because IMO they're not

I would like to see a law banning anybody from covering their face in public without a special individual exemption for individuals with genuine reasons.

ILW

pompeyfaith wrote: »

Wonder if this Government hasd considered getting an order to shut down the anarchists websites? surely that has to be a done thing as well as banning orders

Bit of a slippery slope that one, who decides what is to be banned?

grimsalve

pompeyfaith wrote: »

Wonder if this Government hasd considered getting an order to shut down the anarchists websites? surely that has to be a done thing as well as banning orders

Facebook? :eek: