Why are anarchists targeting HSBC?

[Deleted User]

Thrugelmir wrote: »

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

Depends how much damage they have caused to the broader economy.

If they genuinely perform* then it is up to them to decide levels of pay.

*good performance in this case does NOT include:

Convincing governments that they should be bailed out and then maximising their profits in a way that inflicts even more damage on the economy and the people that bailed them out.

Buying political parties so that they do not represent the wishes of the people that voted them in.

Paying less than 1% in corporation tax.

When being put under the slightest pressure from the people that saved the entire system they exploit threatening to leave the country and taking the jobs they create (rather than the enormous amount they helped destroy) and what little tax they pay (as a proportion) with them.

padington

[quote=[Deleted User];42371514]Depends how much damage they have caused to the broader economy.

If they genuinely perform* then it is up to them to decide levels of pay.

*good performance in this case does NOT include:

Convincing governments that they should be bailed out and then maximising their profits in a way that inflicts even more damage on the economy and the people that bailed them out.

Buying political parties so that they do not represent the wishes of the people that voted them in.

Paying less than 1% in corporation tax.

When being put under the slightest pressure from the people that saved the entire system they exploit threatening to leave the country and taking the jobs they create (rather than the enormous amount they helped destroy) and what little tax they pay (as a proportion) with them.[/QUOTE]

Well said. Special Interests are making a mockery of our democracies. I'm personally very glad the younger generation put a few windows in. There will be a lot more targeted aggression towards corporate loan sharks and tax thieves to come, this was just the beginning. Watch what happens when the cuts together with hyper inflation kick in. Its going to get very messy but thats karma for you.

ILW

Please explain how the banks have not paid their taxes. I believe that all they have done is offset previous losses against current profits. This is available to even the smallest companies. They are doing nothing that anybody else cannot do.

vivatifosi

ninky wrote: »

or it might be because owners Wittington Investments are actually 80 percent owned by the Garfield Weston Foundation - a "charitable" trust that made large donations to the conservative party and a right-wing think tank and other right wing organisations in breach of charity law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garfield_Weston_Foundation

I've personally been involved with fundraising for an educational institution and it is pretty damn hard. Garfield Weston Foundation was one of the very few foundations that routinely helped educational establishments and they give away millions every year.

The Times source article that Wikipedia quotes states:

The Charity Commission also found that the charity’s nine trustees breached their duties in January 2006 by voting for a resolution allowing Wittington to make donations without giving proper consideration. The regulator said it was not ordering the trustees to repay the donations because it had not established that they committed the breaches knowingly or recklessly.

Wittington is seeking legal advice on whether the donations made between 2000 and 2007 should be reimbursed. An individual has reimbursed the 2004 donation to the Conservatives.

The Foundation said that “at no point did the trustees consider these as effectively donations by the charity itself. The Charity Commission acknowledges that the trustees acted in good faith in respect of the donations."

The donation was not given directly by Garfield Weston Trust but by the company it owned and the trust itself has - as any responsible trust would - sought to put the matter right.

If trusts wish to give funding to left-wing think tanks or right-wing ones that's up to them.

Generali

[quote=[Deleted User];42371514]Paying less than 1% in corporation tax.[/QUOTE]

1% of what?

FTBFun

[quote=[Deleted User];42371514]Paying less than 1% in corporation tax.[/QUOTE]

This point annoys me - it fails to take into account all the other taxes that are paid. In particular employer's NIC which at an uncapped rate of 12.8% is rather substantial.

N1AK

grimsalve wrote: »

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.

A really, incredibly, bad idea. Although there is an attraction to legislating something like this, making it even easier for the government to stifle protests isn't a good idea.

Requiring that people wear ID, and allowing temporary detainment without charge are also measures which you "have nothing to fear" assuming they are never abused, and no mistakes are made.

If in 10 years time you find yourself protesting against a more authoritarian government, you may well wish that someone hadn't given up your ability to go about in public without identifying yourself, just to avoid a bit of vandalism.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin was smart enough to know this nearly 250 years ago, back when the dangers of life were far more oppressive than now, it is sad to see that after all this time many still can not appreciate it.

grimsalve

N1AK wrote: »

Requiring that people wear ID, and allowing temporary detainment without charge are also measures which you "have nothing to fear" assuming they are never abused, and no mistakes are made.

I'm not saying everyone should carry ID or allow temporary detainment or anything like that. I just think anyone who goes to a rally, protest, etc. and intentionally covers their face to avoid being recorded on cctv is only doing it for one reason and that's to avoid being brought to justice at a later date (with the cctv proving their wrong-doing). I don't see how this is an infringement of anyone's rights.

Thrugelmir

[quote=[Deleted User];42371514]
If they genuinely perform* then it is up to them to decide levels of pay.

[/QUOTE]

The investment banking division of RBS contributed £3.5 billion of profit to the group's 2010 results, around 50% in fact. Not their fault if other operating divisions didn't performance as well.

So where do you draw the line?

Do you want RBS to have an investment bank division or just be a low profit retail bank offering mortgages and personal loans to consumers ?

ILW

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The investment banking division of RBS contributed £3.5 billion of profit to the group's 2010 results, around 50% in fact. Not their fault if other operating divisions didn't performance as well.

So where do you draw the line?

Do you want RBS to have an investment bank division or just be a low profit retail bank offering mortgages and personal loans to consumers ?

Why not two separate companies where one has no liability if the other should fail. Could address the "too big to fail" issue.

I would be more than happy to deal with a bank that just offered loans, mortgages and savings accounts.