Why are anarchists targeting HSBC?

[Deleted User]

vivatifosi wrote: »

The mere act of occupying a firm's premises, particularly when windows are being smashed or slogans being daubed, is intimidating for those who work there. I'm not for one minute suggesting you'd assault someone WO, but it isn't nice to put the little peeps in that situation, and by going to the frontline of any organisation, that's who you are likely to meet.

You seem to be addressing me as if I was part of the protest. I wasn't. If you want my thoughts on the subject they are:

None of it is pleasant. However, I am surprised there hasn't been some serious violence. The public have shown unbelievable restraint so far IMHO.

The banks have played a very dangerous game. By treating the people that bailed them out with further contempt and arrogance let alone having created the situation that has cost millions their jobs and livelihoods.

Their staff need to look at themselves and consider whether it is morally acceptable to work for companies that behave this way. If they think it is then they carry some responsibility. Collectively their employees are 100% responsible.

Thanks to the Tories, who received almost 51% of their funding from the financial sector, 'Operation Merlin' removed any possibility of the banks being held to account over their actions.

If you remove the legal alternatives and continue to behave in such an offensive way it is naive to expect anything other than this creating a lot of frustration which will inevitably be vented somehow.

ILW

[quote=[Deleted User];42444190]You seem to be addressing me as if I was part of the protest. I wasn't. If you want my thoughts on the subject they are:

None of it is pleasant. However, I am surprised there hasn't been some serious violence. The public have shown unbelievable restraint so far IMHO.

The banks have played a very dangerous game. By treating the people that bailed them out with further contempt and arrogance let alone having created the situation that has cost millions their jobs and livelihoods.

Their staff need to look at themselves and consider whether it is morally acceptable to work for companies that behave this way. If they think it is then they carry some responsibility. Collectively their employees are 100% responsible.

Thanks to the Tories, who received almost 51% of their funding from the financial sector, 'Operation Merlin' removed any possibility of the banks being held to account over their actions.

If you remove the legal alternatives and continue to behave in such an offensive way it is naive to expect anything other than this creating a lot of frustration which will inevitably be vented somehow.[/QUOTE]

How ould you suggest the should be "held to account" in a way that would not damage the UK economy?

vivatifosi

[quote=[Deleted User];42444190]You seem to be addressing me as if I was part of the protest. I wasn't. [/QUOTE]

Then I apologise for that. I have always seen your argument as that of someone who was not there.

[quote=[Deleted User];42444190]
Their staff need to look at themselves and consider whether it is morally acceptable to work for companies that behave this way. If they think it is then they carry some responsibility. Collectively their employees are 100% responsible.[/QUOTE]

So what do you expect people to do if they worked as a bank teller for 20 years or in a Vodafone store for 5 years and suddenly find out that their company has not paid all the tax you think they should have done? Resign? That's all very well but there isn't a large number of jobs out there and people need to keep a roof over their heads and feed their families. The average employee of a large organisation will have no say whatsoever in the tax affairs of the organisation they work for. It is very different to taking a stance as I have that I'll never work for an arms manufacturer because I know from the outset what they are doing. How can an employee be 100% responsible for something they have no say over and which has changed over time?

FTBFun

padington wrote: »

Tell that to the poor people that signed up for a 5% credit card and now are being told to pay 29.9% or else.

There is something called personal responsibility, you know.

I have 3 credit cards but only for the rewards and consumer credit protection, as I pay them off in full each month.

ILW

I have two credit cards, both at less than 10%.

vivatifosi

padington wrote: »

Time and time and time again you have failed to see the point. The vandalism of the banks is far far greater than that of the people that protest against them.

Thats even when you consider the sum total of the actions of the 'good' and 'bad' banks vrs the 'good' and 'bad' protestors.

Yes some protesters are idiots and yes some bankers are even more criminal than others. The question is which group as a whole is the real danger to our society, democracy and our economy and who really deserves to be legislated against and have their 'rights' taken away?

I haven't failed to see the point, I disagree with your point, which you appear to think is the only valid one.

I am not pro-bank any more than I am anti-protestor. I started this thread purely because I couldn't see why HSBC was on the news as being targeted rather than other banks. Walking around the west end I could see HSBC and Santander banks that had been smashed up, but RBS ones that hadn't. I'm purely trying to get my head around why the selection was made to pick on particular companies and not others.

FWIW I do think banks have a lot to answer for, but as I have just pointed out in the post I made above, I worry a lot about the impact on frontline workers. I work on the frontline in the public sector and reiterate my point that if you are the one being assaulted or shouted at or threatened, or subjected to threatening behaviour, then it is thoroughly unpleasant and that the people in real power will just sit in their ivory towers and won't be affected. Therefore my protest against Vodafone will be to take my business elsewhere (my contract has just come up for renewal), as it will be with other companies that I don't agree with the business practices of. It is harder to disengage from banks, but there's nothing to stop us moving our money to mutuals or other banks with a different ethos (Co-Op for example).

[Deleted User]

vivatifosi wrote: »

Then I apologise for that. I have always seen your argument as that of someone who was not there.



So what do you expect people to do if they worked as a bank teller for 20 years or in a Vodafone store for 5 years and suddenly find out that their company has not paid all the tax you think they should have done? Resign? That's all very well but there isn't a large number of jobs out there and people need to keep a roof over their heads and feed their families. The average employee of a large organisation will have no say whatsoever in the tax affairs of the organisation they work for. It is very different to taking a stance as I have that I'll never work for an arms manufacturer because I know from the outset what they are doing. How can an employee be 100% responsible for something they have no say over and which has changed over time?

Most of the posts on here, from those who seem to think it is acceptable for the banks to behave as they do, seem to select one issue of the many and then try and argue that as not so bad in isolation.

The problem is the banks did ALL of the following:

1. Ruin the economy.

2. Cost millions their jobs.

3. Effectively bought protection (cheaply at that) via funding to the Tories and were rewarded with 'Operation Merlin' which prevents further legal action against them.

4. After being bailed out worldwide to prevent a systemic failure of the banking system. Instead of trying to repair their business in a steady way. They have done it as aggressively as possibly and as a consequence have caused a lot more damage some of which the bail outs were intended to prevent.

5. They then continue to reward the same incompetent staff who created the problem and are only 'performing' at the moment as they have a much lower starting point.

6. They then continue to use tactics such as offshore subsidiaries to reduce the tax they pay to a minute level which flies in the face of statements by themselves and the politicians they own as to how valuable they are to the country.

If you genuinely want to understand why there is so much hatred towards the banks then you need to look at these issues collectively. Otherwise you will come across as one of their many (a suspiciously high number) apologists on here.

ILW

How would you suggest the above should be addressed, apart from breaking windows?

[Deleted User]

ILW wrote: »

How would you suggest the above should be addressed, apart from breaking windows?

Any chance of you answering post #159 or reading #160 on this thread?

In a real democracy we would have legal options to pursue. That is how it should be. Unfortunately thanks to our current crop of finance sector sponsored Tories this is no longer an option in law.

Currently I don't intend to do anything, I'm not part of the protests so I think your addressing this question to the wrong person.

However, it will definitely effect my vote. I would prefer to see some well targeted action from the protesters that affects the banks operations or the staff that work in the investment banks/arms or HQs not breaking windows.

My contribution to this thread has been aimed at giving my view as to why there is so much hatred for the people who work in the banks. As to likely actions against them you would be better asking the protesters if you can get hold of them and they are prepared to speak to someone such as yourself.

Personally, my main aims for the foreseeable future is to look after my businesses and my staff. If I and/or my staff end up being victims of the banks and the recession they created then maybe I would consider joining the protesters, however I would focus on costing the banks far more than a few broken windows.

Thrugelmir

[quote=[Deleted User];42448890]Most of the posts on here, from those who seem to think it is acceptable for the banks to behave as they do, seem to select one issue of the many and then try and argue that as not so bad in isolation.

[/QUOTE]

The banks which behaved irresponsibly have either gone bust, or are currently in the processed of being downsized and wound up. A process which take a number of years.

The implementation of Basle 111 to regulate the banks in a tougher manner has been pushed back to 2018. Why? As the G20 recognised that the global financial system could not cope with both the reduction in individual country deficits and implementation of higher capital reserves on the banks concurrently. As the banks themselves are amongst the major buyers of Government debt. The net result being that change will take time so as not to cause further difficulties.

I am not pro a large bonus culture. But do accept the fact that the "banks" make a sizable contribution to the UK economy. So better to fight for better regulation etc than not have them based in the UK at all.

As for politics suggest you have a more open mind. Ed Balls received more in donations from bankers than the trade unions to fight his leadership campaign. The previous administration was very much in bed with the bankers, both as friends and advisors. Fred Godwin was very much involved from 1999 with the New Deal programme, later of course to be knighted. Perhaps something to do with the £3 billion of Corporation tax paid by RBS.