Why are anarchists targeting HSBC?

vivatifosi

There's an interesting blog on the occupation of Fortnum and Mason on the Telegraph website:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/georgepitcher/100081450/fortnum-and-mason-just-the-most-stupid-target-for-those-student-rioters-to-pick/

...There is barely a new college benefactors’ plaque in the country that doesn’t bear the Weston name. So much for “Share the Wealth” (you muppet). And it’s difficult to think of an institution more likely to step in to the gap left by Government funding. The trustees’ in their latest report explicitly say that they have prudently made some reserves because they “have also been mindful of the possibility of requests for urgent funding being made by charities which have had their funding from other sources cut due to the difficult economic conditions”.

So well done, you students. Of all the locations you could have picked, you’ve actually chosen to bite one of the hands that promises to feed you – and one of the most generous hands at that.

Not that these were particularly hungry protesters. Not exactly in the Jarrow tradition. I hear these sons and daughters of our bourgoisie made their way through the food halls to loot the fine wines and Champagne. Clearly close to the the harsh realities of the 21st-century.

Incidentally, I also hear that afternoon tea was served throughout on the fourth floor, with Andre undisturbed at the piano. Which I suppose means that it really was a thoroughly middle-class riot throughout – while the children played downstairs, their mummies and daddies were properly “kettled” upstairs...


Amusing explanation of why F&M was occupied was given on Andrew Marr show today:

Because "Proper Tea is Theft"

Errata

vivatifosi wrote: »

There's an interesting blog on the occupation of Fortnum and Mason on the Telegraph website:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/georgepitcher/100081450/fortnum-and-mason-just-the-most-stupid-target-for-those-student-rioters-to-pick/

...There is barely a new college benefactors’ plaque in the country that doesn’t bear the Weston name. So much for “Share the Wealth” (you muppet). And it’s difficult to think of an institution more likely to step in to the gap left by Government funding. The trustees’ in their latest report explicitly say that they have prudently made some reserves because they “have also been mindful of the possibility of requests for urgent funding being made by charities which have had their funding from other sources cut due to the difficult economic conditions”.

So well done, you students. Of all the locations you could have picked, you’ve actually chosen to bite one of the hands that promises to feed you – and one of the most generous hands at that.

Not that these were particularly hungry protesters. Not exactly in the Jarrow tradition. I hear these sons and daughters of our bourgoisie made their way through the food halls to loot the fine wines and Champagne. Clearly close to the the harsh realities of the 21st-century.

Incidentally, I also hear that afternoon tea was served throughout on the fourth floor, with Andre undisturbed at the piano. Which I suppose means that it really was a thoroughly middle-class riot throughout – while the children played downstairs, their mummies and daddies were properly “kettled” upstairs...


Amusing explanation of why F&M was occupied was given on Andrew Marr show today:

Because "Proper Tea is Theft"

Students? I think they were the modern day version of prentice boys running riot through the streets of olde London Towne. Pests then, pests now.

Wookster

padington wrote: »

Nope. Investments doing equally well though, plus 20% in two months.

Even nicer seeing I'm all in

... but cant talk about that around here can we.

Ah so you are capitalist after all :rotfl:

[Deleted User]

The whole banking system was on the brink of failure not just those directly bailed out. The bail-outs stopped them from falling one after another.

I can understand the hatred most people feel for these organisations and their employees. After being bailed out they have been paying large bonuses, whilst increasing their margins and fees to the consumers that bailed them out. They have been particularly exploitative of small businesses as they are probably the softest target. With many businesses that collectively pay more tax (not difficult) and employ more people not being bailed out yet suffering as the banks try to rebuild their balance sheets through exorbitant fees or doing anything possible to cancel performing overdrafts etc it's not hard to see where the anger comes from. Especially in the aftermath of a recession, in which they were a major contributing factor, that cost millions their jobs.

Although it's a small proportion, the banks do pay a large absolute figure in tax. They do employ people albeit of questionable morality. However, the SMEs and the people employed by them pay more collectively both as an amount and as a proportion. Not much support for them though is there.

The banks have got away with it by funding the Tories who seem to be their willing puppets. So there seems to be no political solution on offer at least during this parliment regardless of the majority opinion being against the banks. So much for democracy!

I think a bit of paint and occupation of buildings is a bit trivial in light of the above, but it's hard to see how it could yield results. Unless the protesters go after the people that work for the banks especially the decision makers then it is hard to see how anything will come of it. Always the case though, we're too apathetic in this country.

Wookster

[quote=[Deleted User];42350910]The banks have got away with it by funding the Tories who seem to be their willing puppets.[/QUOTE]

If you check back you'll see that it was actually Labour who were in power for about 13 years, up until about 1 year ago.

So much for common sense.

[Deleted User]

Wookster wrote: »

If you check back you'll see that it was actually Labour who were in power for about 13 years, up until about 1 year ago.

So much for common sense.

Nobody said they weren't. What's your point?

[Deleted User]

I'm guessing you're taking issue with me pointing out that the Tories sold out. They did, and Operation Merlin was a washout.

I'm not a great fan of Labour either and yes they were in power during the bail-outs. This is not a contradiction of anything I posted.

All of this is common sense if you can actually read.

Wookster

[quote=[Deleted User];42351462]Nobody said they weren't. What's your point?[/QUOTE]

You're blaming the Tories... yet Labour were in power.

The depth of Labour and their supporter's stupidity never ceases to amaze me. You guys are like Comical Ali (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Saeed_al-Sahhaf).

It would be funny if the previous government didn't make such a mess.

[Deleted User]

Wookster wrote: »

You're blaming the Tories... yet Labour were in power.

The depth of Labour and their supporter's stupidity never ceases to amaze me. You guys are like Comical Ali (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Saeed_al-Sahhaf).

It would be funny if the previous government didn't make such a mess.

I'm not a Labour supporter. Your stupidity is only matched by your arrogance.

I'm blaming the Tories for not doing anything when they had the opportunity to do so with 'Operation Merlin' which turned out to be a washout. I also think their lack of action might have something to do with them getting half of their funding from the financial sector. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/feb/08/tory-funds-half-city-banks-financial-sector?intcmp=239

The point is that there appears to be no chance of anything happening to satisfy the majority who are disgusted with the banks during this parliament. If you want to talk party politics then I suspect no appropriate action will be taken by whichever party wins the next election.

Given the apparent impunity the banks enjoy I think it is no wonder that people are frustrated enough to take matters into their own hands. However unless they get much more organised and serious in their actions, which I think is unlikely, then nothing is going to change. The current minor criminal damage will have no effect in my opinion.

poppingjay

fc123 wrote: »

Their passivity came over as odd....i remember Brixton in the 80's. In fact, the police seem to be more active if they catch you doing 33 in a 30 zone.

It's obvious why the London Met were on their best behaviour isn't it? Our government our busy 'supporting' the protesters in the middle east, it wouldn't look good if they were bashing 'mostly peaceful' protesters back home would it. In the interests of fairness Cameron should brought a party of arms dealers to the congregation.