Occupy London Evicted But Can Take Heart

[nmarks]

The Occupy London movement were evicted from their camp outside St Paul's Cathedral last night but this morning can take heart from the news that Barclays Bank have been ordered by HMRC to pay £500 million they previously avoided.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17181213

[SleepyHead]

Which they'll pay with printed money, given in exchange for all their toxic mortgage securities.

Printed money devalues our money, therefore we're paying the £500 Million.

So where exactly can we take heart?

............... plus when HMG get the money, they'll just use it to bail out the banks again.

So again where exactly can we take heart?

[SpewLabour]

The Occupy London movement were evicted from their camp outside St Paul's Cathedral last night but this morning can take heart from the news that Barclays Bank have been ordered by HMRC to pay £500 million they previously avoided.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17181213

Good. They should have been made to clean all their graffiti off the stonework before they went. Shame Finsbury Square still looks like a refugee camp though.

[kenzdawg]

I would have liked to agree with the occupy crowd, after all I think everyone here would say that there is something systemically wrong with the world as it is currently organised. The trouble is the occupyX is made up of the professional malcontents and political entryists that make up all protest movements. Not only do they not have any answers they don`t even have any insight into the nature of the problem beyond "yeah, capitalism, innit".

So, good riddance.

[SleepyHead]

Good. They should have been made to clean all their graffiti off the stonework before they went. Shame Finsbury Square still looks like a refugee camp though.

The banks are extracting wealth from every corner of the world economy, wrecking peoples lives, and you're angry about this?

Are you f**king kidding?

[SpewLabour]

The banks are extracting wealth from every corner of the world economy, wrecking peoples lives, and you're angry about this?

Are you f**king kidding?

Yeah, I was fairly annoyed that a bunch of drunks and druggies set up a shanty town outside St Pauls, covered the area in rubbish and graffiti, started to s**t and p*ss all over the place, disturb the running of the Cathedral and generally acted like a bunch of unpleasant tw@ts.

[SleepyHead]

Yeah, I was fairly annoyed that a bunch of drunks and druggies set up a shanty town outside St Pauls, covered the area in rubbish and graffiti, started to s**t and p*ss all over the place, disturb the running of the Cathedral and generally acted like a bunch of unpleasant tw@ts.

yeah but enough about the bankers, what d'ya think about Occupy?

[RufflesTheGuineaPig]

Which they'll pay with printed money, given in exchange for all their toxic mortgage securities.

Printed money devalues our money, therefore we're paying the £500 Million.

BOE QE is used to buy back British government bonds. Dodgy mortgages are swapped with the ECB, which helps our exchange rate.

[Traktion]

I admire them for 'doing something' to change the system. I don't think they all know what they want, but knowing something is wrong is a good place to start.

For me, the state and its theft and violence is at the heart of the problem. Threatening people to do things, at the bidding of their legal construct, 'the corporation', is just not right.

A few people, creating layers and layers of laws for everyone else, which are enforced through threats of being put in cages is just a crazy, upside down system.

Free association and mutual agreement, with communities being built from the bottom up, rather than from the top down, would be far more civilised.

[Traktion]

BOE QE is used to buy back British government bonds. Dodgy mortgages are swapped with the ECB, which helps our exchange rate.

You make it sound like it's the patriotic thing to do! In reality, it is printing money, to let the banks and the government pay for things they can't afford.

[desertorchid]

I feel sympathy for the occupy movement. It started well and started to gain traction. However, as soon as the big guns got a whiff of the potential for real change the media and establishment came down like a ton of bricks, labeling them wasters, smelly hippies and anti capitalists (which they were not initially). Unfortunately there was an element of truth because the movement was hijacked by the usual anarchist mob who show up at every protest event and they were indeed the only ones with the will power and determination to see it through. They ultimately became the last men standing.

IMO Occupy was before its time. The idea will return because it is inevitable. The growing inequalities and unfairness in the system that is at the core of today's problems is not going away and is fact getting worse. The government is doing nothing to resolve these issues.

It is a shame to see posters and commentators who once had favorable things to say about the protests ( which at heart was about a small minority dictating and controlling the lives of the majority) ultimately turn against it. The 1% have one agenda to further enrich themselves whilst the remainder became debt slaves and remain doomed to forever fight for a minor stake in society. The cause was honorable but ultimately lacked coherency. As with Ron Paul in the US, they also faced an impossible battle against vested interests and the establishment.

It will return in another guise because it must.

[SleepyHead]

+1

I hope the movement can keep going. This interview gave me some hope it can.

[Guest Control]

Good. They should have been made to clean all their graffiti off the stonework before they went. Shame Finsbury Square still looks like a refugee camp though.

Congratulations, that's the most fatuous post on the thread. The city of London and Finsbury Square should have been roped off as a crime scene in 2008. They were lucky it wasn't burnt to the ground after the total shafting banks cheerfully administered to the country.

[R K]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17181213

They promised Osborne they wouldn't scam from the taxpayer then went ahead and did it anyway.

Why is he so weak that he refuses to withdraw their bankstering licence to scam?

Why does Cameron insist we must get behind the banks and stop being snobbish about allowing them to continue skimming scamming and scumming billions of the taxpayer?

[SpewLabour]

Congratulations, that's the most fatuous post on the thread. The city of London and Finsbury Square should have been roped off as a crime scene in 2008. They were lucky it wasn't burnt to the ground after the total shafting banks cheerfully administered to the country.

A bunch of clueless berks protesting along the lines of "Ooooh something's wrong but we haven't got the faintest idea what to do about it" set up a shanty town outside a world heritage site and start using the area as a toilet and general dumping ground and I'm supposed to be grateful about it? Dream on.

Should have bulldozed them down Ludgate hill the first night.

[Guest Control]

A bunch of clueless berks protesting along the lines of "Ooooh something's wrong but we haven't got the faintest idea what to do about it" set up a shanty town outside a world heritage site and start using the area as a toilet and general dumping ground and I'm supposed to be grateful about it? Dream on.

Should have bulldozed them down Ludgate hill the first night.

Care = less than zero. Poor diddums, someone hurted your pretty building. Bulldozing peaceful unarmed protestors? Welcome to the stupid crew, well done you. It is useful to know the supporters of the state position have such thuggish tendencies.

[Traktion]

Care = less than zero. Poor diddums, someone hurted your pretty building. Bulldozing peaceful unarmed protestors? Welcome to the stupid crew, well done you. It is useful to know the supporters of the state position have such thuggish tendencies.

Every supporter of the state has thuggish tendencies. If they didn't, they wouldn't expect people to be threatened and stolen from to fund it.

[desertorchid]

A bunch of clueless berks protesting along the lines of "Ooooh something's wrong but we haven't got the faintest idea what to do about it" set up a shanty town outside a world heritage site and start using the area as a toilet and general dumping ground and I'm supposed to be grateful about it? Dream on.

Should have bulldozed them down Ludgate hill the first night.

It is so so depressing to see how everyone has been brainwashed to think like this. Yes, there was a hijack of Occupy by some leftie nutjobs but they were the only folk with the staying power to persevere as the the media turned the screw. Every comment I see in the MSM today is saying what you are and it stinks.

Your comment: "Ooooh something's wrong but we haven't got the faintest idea what to do about it" is just misguided and I think you need to look carefully at how this movement morphed and what influenced public opinion. Watch the following speech carefully. I am grateful people like this got a voice, he represented the spirit of the movement early on, it changed.

[Guest Control]

Every supporter of the state has thuggish tendencies. If they didn't, they wouldn't expect people to be threatened and stolen from to fund it.

That's as mistaken as Spew Labour's position. You can't say every anything when it comes to a group that will include millions of people. It's like generalizations about race or nationality. The French are grumpy, Gemrnas efficient, Scots thrifty (I think Gordon Broon put that last one definitively to bed). A lot of state supporters are pragmatists.

I'd sooner be stolen from by the state and suffer it's protection than be robbed by what would replace it in some anarcho-liberal dreamland. It isn't only states that behave like gangsters, gangsters do as well. The most iconic and liberal of the free marketeers is also the epitome of gangsterism, namely pirates.

If you want to know what a state-less country looks like try Somalia. The problem isn't The State. It's the corruption of state mechanisms by big business. The two entities are driven by opposing ideals, and pretending otherwise is part of what got us here. The State has been overrun by a toxic mixture of business interests and ambitious and greedy politicians.

Business interests have always played a part in the activity of the state, but it has become a disproportionate part in last thirty years. The problem isn't one system over another, any system will fail if it becomes an unbalanced monoculture or disproportionately favors one set of interests. You need a strong state and a strong private sector and the two need to be kept reasonably separate.

[Olebrum]

The Bullingdon Dolts, like Liebour, are Corporatists.

They would have to be forced at gunpoint to do anything that might cause distress their constituency.

[easy2012]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17181213

They promised Osborne they wouldn't scam from the taxpayer then went ahead and did it anyway.

Why is he so weak that he refuses to withdraw their bankstering licence to scam?

Why does Cameron insist we must get behind the banks and stop being snobbish about allowing them to continue skimming scamming and scumming billions of the taxpayer?

Looks like Barclays is a true Champagne socialist organisation.. Do what I say...not what I do..

[Traktion]

That's as mistaken as Spew Labour's position. You can't say every anything when it comes to a group that will include millions of people. It's like generalizations about race or nationality. The French are grumpy, Gemrnas efficient, Scots thrifty (I think Gordon Broon put that last one definitively to bed). A lot of state supporters are pragmatists.

I'd sooner be stolen from by the state and suffer it's protection than be robbed by what would replace it in some anarcho-liberal dreamland. It isn't only states that behave like gangsters, gangsters do as well. The most iconic and liberal of the free marketeers is also the epitome of gangsterism, namely pirates.

If you want to know what a state-less country looks like try Somalia. The problem isn't The State. It's the corruption of state mechanisms by big business. The two entities are driven by opposing ideals, and pretending otherwise is part of what got us here. The State has been overrun by a toxic mixture of business interests and ambitious and greedy politicians.

Business interests have always played a part in the activity of the state, but it has become a disproportionate part in last thirty years. The problem isn't one system over another, any system will fail if it becomes an unbalanced monoculture or disproportionately favors one set of interests. You need a strong state and a strong private sector and the two need to be kept reasonably separate.

The state functions through thuggery. Whether you like the results of such thuggery or not is irrelevant. I'd rather have a choice of gangsters to pay off service providers, rather than being forced to use one with a monopoly, who steals most of my property, thanks.

Somalia is a failed state. It was state free before one was inflicted on them by Europeans and since it failed, it is state free again now. It is doing better than when it had a state too, as well as doing better than neighbouring states.

The problem is one of coercion. Whether it is a liar in a tailored suit or a chav in a tracksuit, theft and violence isn't acceptable. It certainly isn't civilised.

[Guest Control]

The state functions through thuggery. Whether you like the results of such thuggery or not is irrelevant. I'd rather have a choice of gangsters to pay off service providers, rather than being forced to use one with a monopoly, who steals most of my property, thanks.

Somalia is a failed state. It was state free before one was inflicted on them by Europeans and since it failed, it is state free again now. It is doing better than when it had a state too, as well as doing better than neighbouring states.

The problem is one of coercion. Whether it is a liar in a tailored suit or a chav in a tracksuit, theft and violence isn't acceptable. It certainly isn't civilised.

I don't disagree with you about theft and violence. Where I do I suspect we differ is that I don't think it will disappear with the reduction of the state. In fact, I am inclined to think it will get worse.

As for Somalia doing better than when it had it a state that is at best debatable. I suspect it's more likely just selective thinking.

The modern state, like we have is the single best way of organizing a complex society bar none. It's utterly imperfect and frustrating and riddled with short comings but it is a case of the alternative being worse.

If you expect any system to provide a perfect violence and thuggery free society you're kidding yourself. There are too many people with too many conflicting desires and perceived needs for a single system ever to work to everyone's satisfaction. I think this is the mistake libertarians make. They expect their political and economic answer to somehow provide a perfect system of society when in the reality of people-world there is no such possibility. This means we have to decide which system is the least worst option.

Politics isn't the art of success it's the art of managing failure as best you can. I'll take our modern state over Somalia style chaos any day.

I for one welcome our new lizard overlords.

[Lepista]

What's to stop a second protest group, with different people, occupying the same place? Would they have to get another eviction order for that group?

[Traktion]

I don't disagree with you about theft and violence. Where I do I suspect we differ is that I don't think it will disappear with the reduction of the state. In fact, I am inclined to think it will get worse.

Why?

The state steals 70% or so (IIRC) of everything the average person earns. It's hardly a high set bar to better 70% theft, is it?

I would rather pay for security, tailored for my needs, where it is necessary. For instance, I wouldn't want to pay for people in blue suits to try to catch people who ingest plant extracts. It simply isn't important to me and there are countless other examples.

If a private security agency can't manage to prevent 70% of my stuff from being stolen, it would be a rather poor show.

As for Somalia doing better than when it had it a state that is at best debatable. I suspect it's more likely just selective thinking.

There is evidence out there, for those who are interested. Somalia is presented to the west through very bias reports.

The amount that pirates steal will be a drop in the ocean of the corporates who they are stealing from. They could also better defend and insure themselves, as I believe they are already doing.

The modern state, like we have is the single best way of organizing a complex society bar none. It's utterly imperfect and frustrating and riddled with short comings but it is a case of the alternative being worse.

You think that using theft and violence is the best way of organising people?

If you expect any system to provide a perfect violence and thuggery free society you're kidding yourself. There are too many people with too many conflicting desires and perceived needs for a single system ever to work to everyone's satisfaction. I think this is the mistake libertarians make. They expect their political and economic answer to somehow provide a perfect system of society when in the reality of people-world there is no such possibility. This means we have to decide which system is the least worst option.

I didn't say I expected a system which would 'provide a perfect violence and thuggery free society'. I said I'd rather the monopoly on violence was removed from the state, so at least there is a chance of decreasing it.

That there isn't a single system to work to everyone's satisfaction is exactly why the state can't provide a useful solution. Saying that everyone wants different things, so we need a monopoly to impose one thing, is daft.

I have yet to discover a single thing which requires a monopoly on force to achieve.

Politics isn't the art of success it's the art of managing failure as best you can. I'll take our modern state over Somalia style chaos any day.

I for one welcome our new lizard overlords.

Somalia only has chaos where the state implosion has been felt particularly acutely. I would suggest reading 'The Law of the Somalis' to get a full picture of what is going on there; the average Somali had little to do with the state when it existed and none at all now.

Besides, Somalia was doing fine before imperialists invaded and forced a state and politics on a populous who didn't believe in either. The problems now are a direct result of aggressive actions by European states.

I find it quite amusing that people think this island would descend into violent chaos, just because the state wasn't stealing people's stuff and violating them if they resisted.

It isn't the policeman down the road who is keeping order, it is each any every one of us.