We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Why are anarchists targeting HSBC?
Comments
-
poppingjay wrote: »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.
I thought that was the real reason behind the "softly softly" approach - if the same protests were happening in a middle eastern country then the media would be cheering them on as freedom fighters instead of thugs.
It's a shame that the whole point of the real protest has been lost due to a minority though, it's almost as if the Gov were behind the attacks.0 -
I would disagree - I think the govt is delighted to see every act of vandalism highlighted by the press as they can then dismiss 250k marchers (and the rest) as rent a mob rowdies out for a bit of fun (the privileged offspring of the rich and famous are particularly spinable in this respect).I thought that was the real reason behind the "softly softly" approach - if the same protests were happening in a middle eastern country then the media would be cheering them on as freedom fighters instead of thugs.
It's a shame that the whole point of the real protest has been lost due to a minority though, it's almost as if the Gov were behind the attacks.I think....0 -
vivatifosi wrote: »Amusing explanation of why F&M was occupied was given on Andrew Marr show today:
Because "Proper Tea is Theft"
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
In 2010, the Charity commission found that between 1993 and 2004 the Charity had given donations to the UK Conservative Party that totaled £900,000, which constituted a breaches of UK Charity Law, as were similar donations to the right-wing think tank the Centre for Policy Studies, as well as to other right-wing European political lobby groups such as the European Foundation and the Labour Euro-Safeguards Campaign.[1]Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves. - Lord Byron0 -
[quote=[Deleted User];42351892]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Straight non-political question. Do you want the banks to base themselves in the UK or not?0 -
Thrugelmir wrote: »Straight non-political question. Do you want the banks to base themselves in the UK or not?
Auestion that most of the lefties chose to ignore.0 -
-
[quote=[Deleted User];42358244]
In answer to the question, yes, but not under the current terms.[/QUOTE]
Current terms?0 -
[quote=[Deleted User];42358244]Yes, fancy not replying within two minutes! You really are an idiot.
I wouldn't class myself as a 'lefty' in general either.
In answer to the question, yes, but not under the current terms.[/QUOTE]
What if the current terms are the only ones that will keep them here?0 -
-
vivatifosi wrote: »Genuine question.
They must of tried to use them for a mortgage. Took me 4 weeks to get them to accept that I'd (repeatedly) sent them every f'ing document they asked for. Another couple of days, and I'd have been down there kicking the doors down myself.Having a signature removed for mentioning the removal of a previous signature. Blackwhite bellyfeel double plus good...0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards