Why are anarchists targeting HSBC?

[Deleted User]

Thrugelmir wrote: »

So much better to address the issues of the past and move forward. Than harbour ill founded grudges. When ultimately the banks are people. Where the bad guys have long since left.

The issues of the past have not been addressed. All we have had is proof that the banks can act with impunity.

Ruining the economy, the massive loss of jobs, and all the other issues mentioned earlier that you chose to ignore are hardly 'ill founded grudges'.

The banks are made up of people. The bad guys haven't left. It's doubtful there are any good guys.

There is still nothing to stop the same situation occurring again like it has in the past. Operation Merlin merely confirmed that nothing was going to be done to punish the banks and that our governments do not represent us in this regard. Those responsible kept their bonuses.

The people who work for the banks should pay for what they have done. As there seems to be no political will to do so, probably as a result of party funding, it is hardly surprising that many members of the public feel frustrated and appear to be leaning towards direct action.

Regardless of how much you ignore, deny or try and misrepresent what people say on here this anger towards your ilk is real, justified and widespread.

padington

Who pays the piper calls the tune ...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/revealed-how-the-city-bankrolls-tory-party-2208668.html

vivatifosi

I was in the Piccadilly yesterday and saw the scale of the clean up going on there. The Ritz was having massive cleaning work done to its fascade and its windows were boarded, as was the Santander branch across the road. A couple of random locations had also been damaged and as far as I could see had nothing to do with the protest, for example a restaurant that I do not know to be part of a chain had a smashed window. Regent Street was much better as was Oxford Circus, it looked as though Piccadilly bore the brunt from the parts that I could see.

Speaking to someone who works on the shopfloor at Fortnum and Mason and who probably doesn't earn a great deal (certainly not a manager or director of the firm) said they found the action of these people appalling and was thrilled when their employer was able to turn round and get back to business again. The problem with a lot of these actions is that they don't think of the impact on workers like this who don't deserve to be traumatised.

ILW

[quote=[Deleted User];42412426]Unlike yourself I back up what I say.[/QUOTE]

So far you have implied that banks pay taxes at a different rate tp other businesses, and when asked how have failed to give a single answer beyond some idea that in the 80s they paid people in champagne or something. Again, please explain how the tax regime for banks is different to any other corporation.

Generali

[quote=[Deleted User];42412830]The issues of the past have not been addressed. All we have had is proof that the banks can act with impunity.

Ruining the economy, the massive loss of jobs, and all the other issues mentioned earlier that you chose to ignore are hardly 'ill founded grudges'.

The banks are made up of people. The bad guys haven't left. It's doubtful there are any good guys.

There is still nothing to stop the same situation occurring again like it has in the past. Operation Merlin merely confirmed that nothing was going to be done to punish the banks and that our governments do not represent us in this regard. Those responsible kept their bonuses.

The people who work for the banks should pay for what they have done. As there seems to be no political will to do so, probably as a result of party funding, it is hardly surprising that many members of the public feel frustrated and appear to be leaning towards direct action.

Regardless of how much you ignore, deny or try and misrepresent what people say on here this anger towards your ilk is real, justified and widespread.[/QUOTE]

What do you think should be done apart from smashing the windows of the Ritz and Top Shop do you think?

[Deleted User]

vivatifosi wrote: »

I was in the Piccadilly yesterday and saw the scale of the clean up going on there. The Ritz was having massive cleaning work done to its fascade and its windows were boarded, as was the Santander branch across the road. A couple of random locations had also been damaged and as far as I could see had nothing to do with the protest, for example a restaurant that I do not know to be part of a chain had a smashed window. Regent Street was much better as was Oxford Circus, it looked as though Piccadilly bore the brunt from the parts that I could see.

Speaking to someone who works on the shopfloor at Fortnum and Mason and who probably doesn't earn a great deal (certainly not a manager or director of the firm) said they found the action of these people appalling and was thrilled when their employer was able to turn round and get back to business again. The problem with a lot of these actions is that they don't think of the impact on workers like this who don't deserve to be traumatised.

You're right if anyone is going to take direct action it should be against the people that work for the banks.

FTBFun

[quote=[Deleted User];42421456]You're right if anyone is going to take direct action it should be against the people that work for the banks.[/QUOTE]

What sort of direct action should be taken?

[Deleted User]

ILW wrote: »

So far you have implied that banks pay taxes at a different rate tp other businesses, and when asked how have failed to give a single answer beyond some idea that in the 80s they paid people in champagne or something. Again, please explain how the tax regime for banks is different to any other corporation.

NO I haven't, and I have already answered your question.

If you disagree why not give me an example of an organisation of even industry that has done all of the following:

1. Paid a similar amount in tax as a proportion of profit as Barclays. I'm using Barclays as I have already given them as an example which you have ignored.

2. Caused anything like as much damage to the UK. If the IRA or Al Qaeda had caused a fraction of this damage it would be their greatest moment.

3. Colluded in tax avoidance schemes to the point of not paying their staff in the local currency until only a few years ago when the revenue closed the loophole.

4. After being bailed out by the tax payer used subsidiaries in offshore tax havens to avoid tax to the point where they paid less than 1% of their profits in tax.

If you can cite an example please also tell us all whether you think that if these companies failed they should be bailed out and whether you would expect something back from them if they were.

What's the betting that all you will respond with is some random comment about some minor part of the above in isolation to the rest? Or later claim that I didn't even respond to you?

[Deleted User]

FTBFun wrote: »

What sort of direct action should be taken?

That's difficult. It has been reported that the ridiculously named Operation Merlin effectively closes the door on any legal action against the banks. Their investment in our politicians has paid off remarkably well in that respect.

As the interests of the electorate and tax payers don't seem to be represented by our government in this respect and the banks themselves are clearly not going to do anything beneficial voluntarily, direct action seems the only option.

I'd like to see something far more effective and more targeted than criminal damage however. I haven't got any ideas I wouldn't consider too risky, but after discussing things on here and witnessing more arrogance from these people and their apologists I will be giving it some thought.

I contributed to this thread as it seemed to be dominated by people representing the banks point of view which I suspect is unlikely if membership here were to represent an even cross-section of the population.

All of the above is why so many people hate the banks and feel frustrated thanks to all the legal options being closed by the politicians they bought.

FTBFun

[quote=[Deleted User];42422610]That's difficult. It has been reported that the ridiculously named Operation Merlin effectively closes the door on any legal action against the banks. Their investment in our politicians has paid off remarkably well in that respect.

As the interests of the electorate and tax payers don't seem to be represented by our government in this respect and the banks themselves are clearly not going to do anything beneficial voluntarily, direct action seems the only option.

I'd like to see something far more effective and more targeted than criminal damage however. I haven't got any ideas I wouldn't consider too risky, but after discussing things on here and witnessing more arrogance from these people and their apologists I will be giving it some thought.

I contributed to this thread as it seemed to be dominated by people representing the banks point of view which I suspect is unlikely if membership here were to represent an even cross-section of the population.

All of the above is why so many people hate the banks and feel frustrated thanks to all the legal options being closed by the politicians they bought.[/QUOTE]

"I haven't a clue" would have done y'know.