Does the City deserve a kicking?

[scotal]

Baby Huey said:

scotal said:

Baby Huey said:

I don't believe there will be any violence towards individuals.

Why do you believe that?

As far as I know there hasn't been before.

So when the protestors went up the escalators at Liffe (which was about the worst place they could have picked) they weren't going aftet the floor traders??? I think you're wrong.

[Maxf]

Can some of the 'yes' voters let us know why they are advocating violent protests?

Protests are fine, but IMO - 'a kicking' is very wrong indeed. Unless of course the 'yes' voters are assuming this means a regulatory 'kicking'.

[Baby Huey]

Maxf said:

Baby Huey said:

NDA said:

Cambodia

"Thousands were killed for wearing spectacles, which marked them out as intellectuals."

If they were that fking clever, why didn't they take off their glasses?

/Rickey Gervais

I knew I'd heard it somewhere before.

[Cpn Jack Spanner]

Baby Huey said:

NDA said:

Cambodia

"Thousands were killed for wearing spectacles, which marked them out as intellectuals."

If they were that fking clever, why didn't they take off their glasses?

And pretend to not know a foreign language. Did they trick them by saying something like "Parlez vous Francais" and killing anyone who didn't say "What!"

Saying "Excuse me?" would also get you killed

[thehawk]

Maxf said:

Protests are fine, but IMO - 'a kicking' is very wrong indeed. Unless of course the 'yes' voters are assuming this means a regulatory 'kicking'.

That's what I meant, the protesters themselves of course actually deserve a physical kicking for being filthy hippies. How I long for the TV shots of unwashed, lon haired members of collectives being beaten with police batons.

[JMGS4]

Maxf said:

Can some of the 'yes' voters let us know why they are advocating violent protests?

Protests are fine, but IMO - 'a kicking' is very wrong indeed. Unless of course the 'yes' voters are assuming this means a regulatory 'kicking'.

Voted yes, as they do need some strict regulation/punishment for their sheer greed, incompetence and their supercilious actions following the debacle; such action should be construed as a "kicking". Alas no other option on the vote...

[Baby Huey]

scotal said:

Baby Huey said:

scotal said:

Baby Huey said:

I don't believe there will be any violence towards individuals.

Why do you believe that?

As far as I know there hasn't been before.

So when the protestors went up the escalators at Liffe (which was about the worst place they could have picked) they weren't going aftet the floor traders??? I think you're wrong.

I don't know about that but I was working in the City the last couple of times this kicked off, and mostly it was pretty good humoured.

[BOR]

Maxf said:

Can some of the 'yes' voters let us know why they are advocating violent protests?

Protests are fine, but IMO - 'a kicking' is very wrong indeed. Unless of course the 'yes' voters are assuming this means a regulatory 'kicking'.

As you know, and know full well, the vast majority of the protestors are normal people who aren't there to get violent.

As you also know, they don't bear any ill-will to normal bank employees who are "just following orders".

This is a show of public opinion, from a public who are sick of bailing out bankrupt banks, who then take that bailout money and desparately try to trouser it as bonuses.

While the rest of us lose our jobs, these people are drinking champagne, paid for with our money.

And when people get this angry, anything can happen.

[Bing o]

BOR said:

Maxf said:

Can some of the 'yes' voters let us know why they are advocating violent protests?

Protests are fine, but IMO - 'a kicking' is very wrong indeed. Unless of course the 'yes' voters are assuming this means a regulatory 'kicking'.

As you know, and know full well, the vast majority of the protestors are normal people who aren't there to get violent.

As you also know, they don't bear any ill-will to normal bank employees who are "just following orders".

This is a show of public opinion, from a public who are sick of bailing out bankrupt banks, who then take that bailout money and desparately try to trouser it as bonuses.

While the rest of us lose our jobs, these people are drinking champagne, paid for with our money.

And when people get this angry, anything can happen.

How many of the protestors have ever paid taxes? Do you think they have bailed out the banks? With their benefits?

Joker.

[Baby Huey]

BOR said:

Maxf said:

Can some of the 'yes' voters let us know why they are advocating violent protests?

Protests are fine, but IMO - 'a kicking' is very wrong indeed. Unless of course the 'yes' voters are assuming this means a regulatory 'kicking'.

As you know, and know full well, the vast majority of the protestors are normal people who aren't there to get violent.

As you also know, they don't bear any ill-will to normal bank employees who are "just following orders".

This is a show of public opinion, from a public who are sick of bailing out bankrupt banks, who then take that bailout money and desparately try to trouser it as bonuses.

While the rest of us lose our jobs, these people are drinking champagne, paid for with our money.

And when people get this angry, anything can happen.

MaxF, the question I asked refers to the City, not City workers, so the kicking can only be metaphorical, not physical. I can only assume you are being disingenuous in your interpretation of the thread title you drama queen.

[collateral]

Predicted apologist responses:

If it doesn't kick off - 'hah what a fuss about nothing, crusty pussies'

If it does - 'what a disgrace'

[Don]

BOR said:

The vast majority of the protestors are normal people who aren't there to get violent.

I certainly hope that's true.

BOR said:

As you also know, they don't bear any ill-will to normal bank employees who are "just following orders".

Do you think that they can adequately distinguish between "innocents" and the "guilty". I don't believe that for a second. And when they are angry anything can happen. The peaceful protest could easily become a mob. Hence the police presence. I hope that it all amounts to some marching along, yelling of slogans and the government ministers in charge of dealing with this fully understanding the ire of the general population. I really, really do. But these things can sometimes get out of hand. Hopefully this won't...but it did the last time.

BOR said:

This is a show of public opinion, from a public who are sick of bailing out bankrupt banks, who then take that bailout money and desparately try to trouser it as bonuses.

I'm sure that's right. For the honest, decent, right thinking public who are attending. For the rest what is it?

BOR said:

While the rest of us lose our jobs, these people are drinking champagne, paid for with our money.

Something to be angry about when it's true. Personally I think that government should not have stepped into the free market other than to protect British depositors funds. The businesses based on financial sand should have been allowed to go bust and the shareholders/investors should have lost their money. But I also know how monumentally unpopular that would have been as huge numbers of pensioners would have lost their pension.

BOR said:

And when people get this angry, anything can happen.

Absolutely.

Always a problem this. It is an important democratic right to be able to freely and peacefully protest. Shame it's so bloody expensive to weed out the violent from the peaceful but there you go.

[eldar]

This whole topic just shows what a smart chap Brown is. He has deflected the blame from his goverment to the bankers (who do, collectively, deserve part of of it), but are now gaining all the blame.

Mind you, seeing some of the posts here, I'm not surprised

[Don]

eldar said:

This whole topic just shows what a smart chap Brown is. He has deflected the blame from his goverment to the bankers (who do, collectively, deserve part of of it), but are now gaining all the blame.

Mind you, seeing some of the posts here, I'm not surprised

Brown certainly bears a portion of blame, here. It was during his Chancellorship that the necessary deregulation was made to allow the start of this mess.

[ATG]

BOR said:

Maxf said:

Can some of the 'yes' voters let us know why they are advocating violent protests?

Protests are fine, but IMO - 'a kicking' is very wrong indeed. Unless of course the 'yes' voters are assuming this means a regulatory 'kicking'.

As you know, and know full well, the vast majority of the protestors are normal people who aren't there to get violent.

As you also know, they don't bear any ill-will to normal bank employees who are "just following orders".

This is a show of public opinion, from a public who are sick of bailing out bankrupt banks, who then take that bailout money and desparately try to trouser it as bonuses.

While the rest of us lose our jobs, these people are drinking champagne, paid for with our money.

And when people get this angry, anything can happen.

Most protestors are not normal people. They are a bunch of self-righteous fkwits who like to parade their simplistic, right-on, pseudo-politics in public as a way of boosting their fragile egos.

[Maxf]

Baby Huey said:

BOR said:

Maxf said:

Can some of the 'yes' voters let us know why they are advocating violent protests?

Protests are fine, but IMO - 'a kicking' is very wrong indeed. Unless of course the 'yes' voters are assuming this means a regulatory 'kicking'.

As you know, and know full well, the vast majority of the protestors are normal people who aren't there to get violent.

As you also know, they don't bear any ill-will to normal bank employees who are "just following orders".

This is a show of public opinion, from a public who are sick of bailing out bankrupt banks, who then take that bailout money and desparately try to trouser it as bonuses.

While the rest of us lose our jobs, these people are drinking champagne, paid for with our money.

And when people get this angry, anything can happen.

MaxF, the question I asked refers to the City, not City workers, so the kicking can only be metaphorical, not physical. I can only assume you are being disingenuous in your interpretation of the thread title you drama queen.

Not at all. I was actually thinking of violent protests in terms of what was seen in the 1990s - smashing up private property, that kind of thing. I didnt assume you meant city workers.

Of all the things people can call me - drama queen is unlikely to be on of them.

[Bing o]

Don said:

eldar said:

This whole topic just shows what a smart chap Brown is. He has deflected the blame from his goverment to the bankers (who do, collectively, deserve part of of it), but are now gaining all the blame.

Mind you, seeing some of the posts here, I'm not surprised

Brown certainly bears a portion of blame, here. It was during his Chancellorship that the necessary deregulation was made to allow the start of this mess.

Well, they can't protest outside Parliament any more can they?

[Fittster]

Maxf said:

Can some of the 'yes' voters let us know why they are advocating violent protests?

Protests are fine, but IMO - 'a kicking' is very wrong indeed. Unless of course the 'yes' voters are assuming this means a regulatory 'kicking'.

A free market kicking, where the government watches from the side lines but keeps the taxpayers wallet closed would be good.

[Don]

Bing o said:

Don said:

eldar said:

This whole topic just shows what a smart chap Brown is. He has deflected the blame from his goverment to the bankers (who do, collectively, deserve part of of it), but are now gaining all the blame.

Mind you, seeing some of the posts here, I'm not surprised

Brown certainly bears a portion of blame, here. It was during his Chancellorship that the necessary deregulation was made to allow the start of this mess.

Well, they can't protest outside Parliament any more can they?

Which is a disgrace.

[anonymous-user]

Paddy_n_Murphy said:

Podie said:

el stovey said:

I expect the taxpayer bailout has had something to do with it.

The Govt set the rules. The banks played to them.

Whilst the bankers may have stretched the rules, the Govt have done a neat job of sidestepping the blame.

Note that when the Govt are pulled up on stretching the rules for expenses it's OK...

yep - that is how I sees it too.

Mind you I thought in this day and age, no one was responsibles for any actions anyway ? I am looking for the next Council Pavement to trip up on for my next £50k. As someone says, "I have roights innit !"

I disagree. Some of the banks have been lending to those that can't afford it and buying companies like IMG. They have also clearly been trading in a manner they didn't really understand.

It may all be legal but it's hardly been good business. Unfortunately now, good companies are being dragged down by the actions of others. It's hard to have sympathy when your own company would go under if it had acted like some of these firms.

Does anyone actually know what the bailout figure is so far?