Anybody Who Cannot Make The Connection Between...

[Dashing Bob S]

...the behaviour of the rioters and looters, and the behaviour of the bankers, and the establishment's differing response to both is a demented jackass.


Discuss.

[Phil D. Rolls]

...the behaviour of the rioters and looters, and the behaviour of the bankers, and the establishment's differing response to both is a demented jackass.


Discuss.

The problem is that the bankers have been much harder to spot. They have had the cunning not to walk about the streets with five pairs of G Star Raw over their arm, although I have heard it said that in certain parts of London they do light cigars with five pound notes.

So the Establishment have the twin problems of identifying the culprits and then punishing them appropriately. Most bankers don't have a council house, so the authorities are immediately on the back foot, as it very hard to chuck someone out of their villa in Tuscany.

[Dashing Bob S]

The problem is that the bankers have been much harder to spot. They have had the cunning not to walk about the streets with five pairs of G Star Raw over their arm, although I have heard it said that in certain parts of London they do light cigars with five pound notes.

So the Establishment have the twin problems of identifying the culprits and then punishing them appropriately. Most bankers don't have a council house, so the authorities are immediately on the back foot, as it very hard to chuck someone out of their villa in Tuscany.

That's why it's easier for the rest of us to scorn the so-called lower orders, sadly. They tend not to be the cause of our problems, but they are a tangible and annoying manifestation of them.

[Future17]

The problem is that the bankers have been much harder to spot. They have had the cunning not to walk about the streets with five pairs of G Star Raw over their arm, although I have heard it said that in certain parts of London they do light cigars with five pound notes.

So the Establishment have the twin problems of identifying the culprits and then punishing them appropriately. Most bankers don't have a council house, so the authorities are immediately on the back foot, as it very hard to chuck someone out of their villa in Tuscany.

Nail on head. Also contributes to why stealing a five pairs of G Star Raw gets you years in jail, whereas stealing thousands of pounds from the taxpayer gets you a few months.

The hypocrisy is stomach-churning.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Nail on head. Also contributes to why stealing a five pairs of G Star Raw gets you years in jail, whereas stealing thousands of pounds from the taxpayer gets you a few months.

The hypocrisy is stomach-churning.

On reflection I'd like to add. One was a group of people who destroyed people's lives with wanton and reckless disregard for the principles of honesy, integrity and common humanity - not to mention the rule of law. The other was a group of teenagers out of control.

[hibsbollah]

http://m.guardian.co.uk/ms/p/gnm/op/sJtBC2Ij-Dfrrs3DWvGDm6g/view.m?id=15&gid=commentisfree/2011/aug/17/looing-with-lights-off&cat=commentisfree

Naomi Klein making a similar point here...

[Phil D. Rolls]

http://m.guardian.co.uk/ms/p/gnm/op/sJtBC2Ij-Dfrrs3DWvGDm6g/view.m?id=15&gid=commentisfree/2011/aug/17/looing-with-lights-off&cat=commentisfree

Naomi Klein making a similar point here...


This is what Cameron got wrong: you can't cut police budgets at the same time as you cut everything else. Because when you rob people of what little they have, in order to protect the interests of those who have more than anyone deserves, you should expect resistance – whether organised protests or spontaneous looting. And that's not politics. It's physics.

The exact opposite of what Thatcher did. Perhaps a consequence of a coalition government?

[Leicester Fan]

http://m.guardian.co.uk/ms/p/gnm/op/sJtBC2Ij-Dfrrs3DWvGDm6g/view.m?id=15&gid=commentisfree/2011/aug/17/looing-with-lights-off&cat=commentisfree

Naomi Klein making a similar point here...

What a load of cobblers.

[bighairyfaeleith]

What a load of cobblers.

tongue in cheek yes, cobblers no. He makes a good point in the end and that is that this conversation has moved on from the riots and on to how the politicians who never got punished are trying to impose ridiculous punishments on people. The government should be showing a level hand here and it is not. It may end up regretting taking this line.

[AgentDaleCooper]

What a load of cobblers.

what a comprehensive debunking of naomi klein's article.

[khib70]

what a comprehensive debunking of naomi klein's article.

That's all it deserves.

[Dashing Bob S]

Great to see the usual poverty of right-wing non-arguments are still applying when the debate gets raised slightly above the level of Daily Mail school-playground sloganeering.

Okay...keep hanging and flogging everyone from your keyboards if it makes you feel more manly and in control.

Sad and dumb, especially from Khib from whom I expect a bit more.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I don't think that the rioters thought about the bankers for one minute. I do think that they are both fruits of the same tree though. Both thought they were untouchable.

There ain't no crime if their ain't no law. And as long as you chose to ignore the law of the land, you can convince yourself that there is nothing wrong with what you are doing.

Personally, I think a few high profile OTT sentences will do no harm at all. Bit tough on the individuals, but if it sends out a clear message then that's a price to pay.

How nobody from the banks has been sent to jail for what happened though just seems to leave an increasingly bitter taste. At the end of the day it's down to the people though. There has been a clamour for something to be done about the rioters, but no-one wants to believe that a man in a suit and tie is anything other than someone to look up to.

Shame on us. The British must be one of the most cow towed nations on earth.

[RyeSloan]

Great to see the usual poverty of right-wing non-arguments are still applying when the debate gets raised slightly above the level of Daily Mail school-playground sloganeering.

Okay...keep hanging and flogging everyone from your keyboards if it makes you feel more manly and in control.

Sad and dumb, especially from Khib from whom I expect a bit more.

Who's arguements are you talking about here?

I agree with Khib on this one..the article is full of sound bites and comments that fail to address anything much.

"Locked away in a ballooning underclass with the few escape routes previously offered – a union job, a good affordable education – being rapidly sealed off."

Really come on...what does a union job actually mean (whatever that may be unless she is talking About Derek Simpson 100k+ salary) and has she forgotten that education to a A level standard is still 'free'...is that not considered 'good' anymore?

"Because when you rob people of what little they have, in order to protect the interests of those who have more than anyone deserves"

Who is she to decide what people 'deserve' and who has robbed people of 'what little they have'?...living standards have declined in the past year, for the first time in about 30 years!! So riots are justified because of a 1 year decline after a 30 increase?

Sounds to me like she does not have any evidence that the people involved have suffered any more economic hardship than the nation as whole in the last while, she is simply assuming this and linking these riots, even implicitly, to events in Iraq is just plain silly.

Finally like it or not there has always been a distinction between financial crime and physical crime. Someone who embezzles a few thousand from expenses will not and never has been treated the same as someone who displays wanton physical violence and destruction. This is not a new thing and should not be painted as such.

Some of the sentacing is OTT no doubt but that does little to deflect from the fact that a lot of these people were involved in burning and destroying their and others community and places of work. I'm afraid that if you are associated with that and the impact those events had then an OTT reaction might not be 'right' but when you look at how the rest of the public felt at the time (signficant support for live rounds FFS) then I think it is also to be entirely expected.

[RyeSloan]

I don't think that the rioters thought about the bankers for one minute. I do think that they are both fruits of the same tree though. Both thought they were untouchable.

There ain't no crime if their ain't no law. And as long as you chose to ignore the law of the land, you can convince yourself that there is nothing wrong with what you are doing.

Personally, I think a few high profile OTT sentences will do no harm at all. Bit tough on the individuals, but if it sends out a clear message then that's a price to pay.

How nobody from the banks has been sent to jail for what happened though just seems to leave an increasingly bitter taste. At the end of the day it's down to the people though. There has been a clamour for something to be done about the rioters, but no-one wants to believe that a man in a suit and tie is anything other than someone to look up to.

Shame on us. The British must be one of the most cow towed nations on earth.

I suppose you would have to evidence criminality in terms of the law...while the banking crisis was one hell of a mess I'm not too sure I saw anything that would suggest the banking sector as a whole or the CEO's of the main players were breaking any laws of the land.

There is also the fact the despite the financial cost of the banking crisis there was no banker on the street trying to torch your home or business (sure they might have done this indirectly!) so I think there is a significant difference between someone royally cocking something up at their place of work and someone consciously trying to burn down your home don't you?

[Betty Boop]

Who's arguements are you talking about here?

I agree with Khib on this one..the article is full of sound bites and comments that fail to address anything much.

"Locked away in a ballooning underclass with the few escape routes previously offered – a union job, a good affordable education – being rapidly sealed off."

Really come on...what does a union job actually mean (whatever that may be unless she is talking About Derek Simpson 100k+ salary) and has she forgotten that education to a A level standard is still 'free'...is that not considered 'good' anymore?

"Because when you rob people of what little they have, in order to protect the interests of those who have more than anyone deserves"

Who is she to decide what people 'deserve' and who has robbed people of 'what little they have'?...living standards have declined in the past year, for the first time in about 30 years!! So riots are justified because of a 1 year decline after a 30 increase?

Sounds to me like she does not have any evidence that the people involved have suffered any more economic hardship than the nation as whole in the last while, she is simply assuming this and linking these riots, even implicitly, to events in Iraq is just plain silly.

Finally like it or not there has always been a distinction between financial crime and physical crime. Someone who embezzles a few thousand from expenses will not and never has been treated the same as someone who displays wanton physical violence and destruction. This is not a new thing and should not be painted as such.

Some of the sentacing is OTT no doubt but that does little to deflect from the fact that a lot of these people were involved in burning and destroying their and others community and places of work. I'm afraid that if you are associated with that and the impact those events had then an OTT reaction might not be 'right' but when you look at how the rest of the public felt at the time (signficant support for live rounds FFS) then I think it is also to be entirely expected.I guess that depends on who you are. If you cheat and claim an extra few thousand in benefits, you would feel the full force of the law and receive a stiff prison sentence.

[(((Fergus)))]

I don't think that the rioters thought about the bankers for one minute. I do think that they are both fruits of the same tree though. Both thought they were untouchable.

There ain't no crime if their ain't no law. And as long as you chose to ignore the law of the land, you can convince yourself that there is nothing wrong with what you are doing.

Personally, I think a few high profile OTT sentences will do no harm at all. Bit tough on the individuals, but if it sends out a clear message then that's a price to pay.

How nobody from the banks has been sent to jail for what happened though just seems to leave an increasingly bitter taste. At the end of the day it's down to the people though. There has been a clamour for something to be done about the rioters, but no-one wants to believe that a man in a suit and tie is anything other than someone to look up to.

Shame on us. The British must be one of the most cow towed nations on earth.

Have the banks broken any laws and not been punished? If there are no laws where there should be, then that is our parliament's responsibility. Would we have voted for those who advocated the necessary changes that would have limited our spending power during the "boom" years?

[hibsbollah]

Have the banks broken any laws and not been punished? If there are no laws where there should be, then that is our parliament's responsibility. Would we have voted for those who advocated the necessary changes that would have limited our spending power during the "boom" years?

Are we judging morality merely by what is legal and can be proven in court? That wasnt the OPs point as you know fine well, beardy.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I suppose you would have to evidence criminality in terms of the law...while the banking crisis was one hell of a mess I'm not too sure I saw anything that would suggest the banking sector as a whole or the CEO's of the main players were breaking any laws of the land.

There is also the fact the despite the financial cost of the banking crisis there was no banker on the street trying to torch your home or business (sure they might have done this indirectly!) so I think there is a significant difference between someone royally cocking something up at their place of work and someone consciously trying to burn down your home don't you?

I think it went beyond "cocking up", I think it was a flagrant disregard for the rules that banks are supposed to operate under. Whether that was through ignorance or arrogance is neither here nor there. I think it suited someone, somewhere, to have a bunch of spivs who had never done their banking exams running the likes of RBS.

As Woody Guthrie said (and I am quoting for the 331st time) "some people rob you with a six gun, other with a fountain pen". The bottom line is that money that should be used for the public good is being diverted to patch up the ness that the banks made.


Have the banks broken any laws and not been punished? If there are no laws where there should be, then that is our parliament's responsibility. Would we have voted for those who advocated the necessary changes that would have limited our spending power during the "boom" years?

I need guidance on this, but my understanding that those with stewardship of financial institutions are bound by longstanding laws about how business is conducted. These laws were put in place to ensure that banks could always meet their liabilities. I believe it has been a criminal offence for sometime to disobey these laws, and then there is the small matter of lying to shareholders.

It's my understanding that the laws are there and no one has been brought to task.

Good point about the "boom" years. It would have been interesting if Brown had run on a ticket of "all this credit has to stop", even though it was exactly what was needed. New Labour were pretty good at handing out licences to lend money. But I can't see the likes of the Tories doing anything different.

[Leicester Fan]

what a comprehensive debunking of naomi klein's article.
There are better descriptions but I didn't want another infraction.


Who's arguements are you talking about here?

I agree with Khib on this one..the article is full of sound bites and comments that fail to address anything much.

"Locked away in a ballooning underclass with the few escape routes previously offered – a union job, a good affordable education – being rapidly sealed off."

Really come on...what does a union job actually mean (whatever that may be unless she is talking About Derek Simpson 100k+ salary) and has she forgotten that education to a A level standard is still 'free'...is that not considered 'good' anymore?

"Because when you rob people of what little they have, in order to protect the interests of those who have more than anyone deserves"

Who is she to decide what people 'deserve' and who has robbed people of 'what little they have'?...living standards have declined in the past year, for the first time in about 30 years!! So riots are justified because of a 1 year decline after a 30 increase?

Sounds to me like she does not have any evidence that the people involved have suffered any more economic hardship than the nation as whole in the last while, she is simply assuming this and linking these riots, even implicitly, to events in Iraq is just plain silly.

Finally like it or not there has always been a distinction between financial crime and physical crime. Someone who embezzles a few thousand from expenses will not and never has been treated the same as someone who displays wanton physical violence and destruction. This is not a new thing and should not be painted as such.

Some of the sentacing is OTT no doubt but that does little to deflect from the fact that a lot of these people were involved in burning and destroying their and others community and places of work. I'm afraid that if you are associated with that and the impact those events had then an OTT reaction might not be 'right' but when you look at how the rest of the public felt at the time (signficant support for live rounds FFS) then I think it is also to be entirely expected.
That sums it up nicely for me.

[Dashing Bob S]

Who's arguements are you talking about here?

I agree with Khib on this one..the article is full of sound bites and comments that fail to address anything much.

"Locked away in a ballooning underclass with the few escape routes previously offered – a union job, a good affordable education – being rapidly sealed off."

Really come on...what does a union job actually mean (whatever that may be unless she is talking About Derek Simpson 100k+ salary) and has she forgotten that education to a A level standard is still 'free'...is that not considered 'good' anymore?

"Because when you rob people of what little they have, in order to protect the interests of those who have more than anyone deserves"

Who is she to decide what people 'deserve' and who has robbed people of 'what little they have'?...living standards have declined in the past year, for the first time in about 30 years!! So riots are justified because of a 1 year decline after a 30 increase?

Sounds to me like she does not have any evidence that the people involved have suffered any more economic hardship than the nation as whole in the last while, she is simply assuming this and linking these riots, even implicitly, to events in Iraq is just plain silly.

Finally like it or not there has always been a distinction between financial crime and physical crime. Someone who embezzles a few thousand from expenses will not and never has been treated the same as someone who displays wanton physical violence and destruction. This is not a new thing and should not be painted as such.

Some of the sentacing is OTT no doubt but that does little to deflect from the fact that a lot of these people were involved in burning and destroying their and others community and places of work. I'm afraid that if you are associated with that and the impact those events had then an OTT reaction might not be 'right' but when you look at how the rest of the public felt at the time (signficant support for live rounds FFS) then I think it is also to be entirely expected.

She didn't mean the job of a parasitical trade union official, she meant the ones they were supposed to be defending for years, but which now largely no longer exist, for youth, in places like the ones subject to rioting.

Of course there has always been a distinction between certain types of crime. That is to do with the imbalance of power in society and the sway elite groups place upon certain types of crime above others. That doesn't make them intrinsically less morally reprehensible.

Yes, some of the sentencing is very OTT, but that's what happens when the courts allow themselves to be blatantly used for purposes of social control rather than serving justice. For example, how does an 'independent' police review body take months to determine whether there is a case against a police officer who allegedly shot an unarmed man, yet almost thousands of people accused of looting and rioting can be arrested, charged, tried, convicted and sentenced in the blink of an eye?

Living standards have undoubtedly gone up, but this has been financed by debt and borrowing, which, as we are now learning, cannot be sustained. Right-wing economists and political analysts have long argued that capitalism is in serious difficulty if you have three consecutive quarterly periods of zero growth. It's therefore bizarre that a right-wing government was so unprepared for what happened in Tottenham and beyond. Crucially, this debt-fueled growth hasn't been shared across the board. Pockets of deprivation and economic stagnation have been allowed to ****** for thirty years with no viable policy to offer employment opportunities to break the culture of poverty of aspiration, the black economy, drugs and petty crime.

People will put up with those inequities if there seems to be a general sense of fairness and/or continuing prosperity in society. What's happening now is that the winners are being perceived to get away with it, and the therefore the losers are simply doing the same. And all that can come of that, sadly, is that those of us in the middle might be joining the ranks of latter sooner than we think.

[Leicester Fan]

It's not like all these deprived areas are completely ignored by govt. Most if not all of them have had money poured into them, especially under the Labour govt, with very little tangible results.Which begs the question, is crime and anti social behaviour caused by poverty or is poverty caused by crime and anti social behaviour?

Bleating on about deprivation and blaming the well off might make you feel better about yourself but it doesn't do anything to change the situation. Maybe we have to accept that paying people to be poor makes the problems worse rather than better. Perhaps a bit of tough love would achieve more.

[Betty Boop]

She didn't mean the job of a parasitical trade union official, she meant the ones they were supposed to be defending for years, but which now largely no longer exist, for youth, in places like the ones subject to rioting.

Of course there has always been a distinction between certain types of crime. That is to do with the imbalance of power in society and the sway elite groups place upon certain types of crime above others. That doesn't make them intrinsically less morally reprehensible.

Yes, some of the sentencing is very OTT, but that's what happens when the courts allow themselves to be blatantly used for purposes of social control rather than serving justice. For example, how does an 'independent' police review body take months to determine whether there is a case against a police officer who allegedly shot an unarmed man, yet almost thousands of people accused of looting and rioting can be arrested, charged, tried, convicted and sentenced in the blink of an eye?

Living standards have undoubtedly gone up, but this has been financed by debt and borrowing, which, as we are now learning, cannot be sustained. Right-wing economists and political analysts have long argued that capitalism is in serious difficulty if you have three consecutive quarterly periods of zero growth. It's therefore bizarre that a right-wing government was so unprepared for what happened in Tottenham and beyond. Crucially, this debt-fueled growth hasn't been shared across the board. Pockets of deprivation and economic stagnation have been allowed to ****** for thirty years with no viable policy to offer employment opportunities to break the culture of poverty of aspiration, the black economy, drugs and petty crime.

People will put up with those inequities if there seems to be a general sense of fairness and/or continuing prosperity in society. What's happening now is that the winners are being perceived to get away with it, and the therefore the losers are simply doing the same. And all that can come of that, sadly, is that those of us in the middle might be joining the ranks of latter sooner than we think.

:top marks Great post Bob !

[Tyler Durden]

I think it went beyond "cocking up", I think it was a flagrant disregard for the rules that banks are supposed to operate under. Whether that was through ignorance or arrogance is neither here nor there. I think it suited someone, somewhere, to have a bunch of spivs who had never done their banking exams running the likes of RBS.As Woody Guthrie said (and I am quoting for the 331st time) "some people rob you with a six gun, other with a fountain pen". The bottom line is that money that should be used for the public good is being diverted to patch up the ness that the banks made.


I need guidance on this, but my understanding that those with stewardship of financial institutions are bound by longstanding laws about how business is conducted. These laws were put in place to ensure that banks could always meet their liabilities. I believe it has been a criminal offence for sometime to disobey these laws, and then there is the small matter of lying to shareholders.

It's my understanding that the laws are there and no one has been brought to task.

Good point about the "boom" years. It would have been interesting if Brown had run on a ticket of "all this credit has to stop", even though it was exactly what was needed. New Labour were pretty good at handing out licences to lend money. But I can't see the likes of the Tories doing anything different.

1. Not sure what you mean by this?
2. Do you think that was the reason a bunch of kids chose to loot their own communities?
3. By the sounds of it, you're not very clear on these laws? I think you are referring to capital adequacy rules, the Basel accord. The bottom line is that the government put regulations in place, which bankers operated within. Which specific crimes are you referring to? Were the government not quite happy to earn huge tax revenues from banking bonuses? Yet now you have morons like John Prescott berating "bankers" and blaming them for all social ills. Change the record please.
4. Totally agree re "all this credit has to stop". The likes of Vince Cable was saying this pre credit crunch, but in the good times, who listens to such talk? Gordon Brown had claimed to have ended boom and bust remember!

[bighairyfaeleith]

1. Not sure what you mean by this?
2. Do you think that was the reason a bunch of kids chose to loot their own communities?
3. By the sounds of it, you're not very clear on these laws? I think you are referring to capital adequacy rules, the Basel accord. The bottom line is that the government put regulations in place, which bankers operated within. Which specific crimes are you referring to? Were the government not quite happy to earn huge tax revenues from banking bonuses? Yet now you have morons like John Prescott berating "bankers" and blaming them for all social ills. Change the record please.
4. Totally agree re "all this credit has to stop". The likes of Vince Cable was saying this pre credit crunch, but in the good times, who listens to such talk? Gordon Brown had claimed to have ended boom and bust remember!

Have the tories now changed the laws for these bankers?

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk

[Phil D. Rolls]

It's not like all these deprived areas are completely ignored by govt. Most if not all of them have had money poured into them, especially under the Labour govt, with very little tangible results.Which begs the question, is crime and anti social behaviour caused by poverty or is poverty caused by crime and anti social behaviour?

Bleating on about deprivation and blaming the well off might make you feel better about yourself but it doesn't do anything to change the situation. Maybe we have to accept that paying people to be poor makes the problems worse rather than better. Perhaps a bit of tough love would achieve more.

Can't disagree with your point about the affect of pouring money into deprived areas. All it seems to have done to me is create a poverty industry.

Still doesn't square the circle though when it comes to one set of people being treated differently from another when it comes to crime.


1. Not sure what you mean by this?
2. Do you think that was the reason a bunch of kids chose to loot their own communities?
3. By the sounds of it, you're not very clear on these laws? I think you are referring to capital adequacy rules, the Basel accord. The bottom line is that the government put regulations in place, which bankers operated within. Which specific crimes are you referring to? Were the government not quite happy to earn huge tax revenues from banking bonuses? Yet now you have morons like John Prescott berating "bankers" and blaming them for all social ills. Change the record please.
4. Totally agree re "all this credit has to stop". The likes of Vince Cable was saying this pre credit crunch, but in the good times, who listens to such talk? Gordon Brown had claimed to have ended boom and bust remember!

1. I mean that if you wanted someone to do wrong on your behalf, who better than a putz that has no real idea about the laws that govern them.

2. Whatever reason the looting took place for, greed is greed and theft is theft. Yet one bunch of crooks get punished and another don't.

3. I am totally unclear on banking laws (maybe RBS can give me a call? :greengrin) that's why I asked for guidance. As for John Prescott, well we know what he's about. How can we change the record when the bankers ruined the economy - simply by lending money they didn't have?

4. From a personal point of view I twigged, before it was almost too late, that I would have to rein in my spending and credit. In a sense everyone in society has a bit of personal responsibility for what happened. But then, the likes of banks and governments are supposed to protect us from our own stupidity at times.

Whatever we say about causes for the wrongdoing, the point remains. The banks were wreckless and selfish in the way they ran their businesses in the last decade. If there isn't a criminal punishment that can be inflicted, the least they deserve is our scorn for a bit longer to come.

The latest decision by RBS shows that they continue to act in the most reprehensible way when it comes to serving customers. All their smiley wee lassies and clean cut white males, telling us they want to put us first come to nowt when they do things like withdrawing cash machines for the poorest. "Here for you" (providing you fit our demographic).

They say they don't make any money off these people. I always thought that the basic principle of banking was to be able to lend the money that people deposit with you, making money off the interest you receive. Clearly that only applies if you deposit above a certain amount.

[heretoday]

Judging by the sentences handed out to looters for stealing bottles of water etc the MPs who fiddled their expenses should all be sitting in cells on Robben Island.

[hibsbollah]

Judging by the sentences handed out to looters for stealing bottles of water etc the MPs who fiddled their expenses should all be sitting in cells on Robben Island.

...As i said on another thread; disgusting Jim Devine MP is just one of countless examples;, released after four months of a 16 month sentence for stealing £8000 from the public purse and then trying to blame his secretary for it in court. The enormous sweaty carbuncle is probably back in his livingston constituency office tucking into his fat expenses account.

One law for the establishment, another for the peasantry. Thats what Klein (and, if i may say so, Dashing Bob S,) are pointing out.

[hibsbollah]

More looting with the lights on...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5324625/James-Clappison-claims-100000-but-owns-24-houses-MPs-expenses.html

[Tyler Durden]

I understand the OP and general view that there's a wild inequality at play here when so called justice is meted out. I doubt any of us are really shocked by this.

What personally gets my goat, is "bankers" getting dragged back into this. In response to some of the previous posts about the role of banks in society, the bottom line is that banks are beholden to shareholders. Their objective is to make as much cash as possible for the shareholders, who in many cases are just normal people. That's the reality. Back when RBS and others were involved in sub prime markets, if they'd decided against such policies, they'd probably have been slated in certain quarters for failing to maximise returns available. As we now know, this turned toxic and the economy is ****ed. But....the banks were acting within regulations, so the government are as guilty as anyone. And I doubt the Tories would have done anything differently from Labour in that regard. Regarding bail outs for these organisations - was there really any other option?

So if people are now claiming banks caused downfall of economy which leads to further poverty/disillusionment leading to riots/looting.....personally I don't buy it. We're talking about kids in designer clothers out to grab what they can for purely material purposes.

[Hibs Class]

1. Not sure what you mean by this?2. Do you think that was the reason a bunch of kids chose to loot their own communities?3. By the sounds of it, you're not very clear on these laws? I think you are referring to capital adequacy rules, the Basel accord. The bottom line is that the government put regulations in place, which bankers operated within. Which specific crimes are you referring to? Were the government not quite happy to earn huge tax revenues from banking bonuses? Yet now you have morons like John Prescott berating "bankers" and blaming them for all social ills. Change the record please.4. Totally agree re "all this credit has to stop". The likes of Vince Cable was saying this pre credit crunch, but in the good times, who listens to such talk? Gordon Brown had claimed to have ended boom and bust remember!Re point 4, this really puzzles me. I keep hearing that Vince Cable had some kind of foresight and predicted the chaos that ensued. I don't recollect that being the case. I'm well aware of Cable subsequently claiming to have predicted this but I think he has been pretty clever at positioning himself as some kind of prescient being when in actual fact he had no greater insight than anyone else. The real Cable has been seen since the coalition was formed, namely a bumbling incompetent fool - ironic, given his finest hour was likening Brown to Mr Bean. Cable is possibly the best current example of being able to fool some of the people all of the time.

[hibsbollah]

An astonishingly brave and surprising speech from the Football Editor of the Times about the riots; attacking his own colleagues for the quality of the media coverage.

http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/ryan-gallagher/wilful-ignorance-media-journalism-riots-tony-evans

[Phil D. Rolls]

I understand the OP and general view that there's a wild inequality at play here when so called justice is meted out. I doubt any of us are really shocked by this.

What personally gets my goat, is "bankers" getting dragged back into this. In response to some of the previous posts about the role of banks in society, the bottom line is that banks are beholden to shareholders. Their objective is to make as much cash as possible for the shareholders, who in many cases are just normal people. That's the reality. Back when RBS and others were involved in sub prime markets, if they'd decided against such policies, they'd probably have been slated in certain quarters for failing to maximise returns available. As we now know, this turned toxic and the economy is ****ed. But....the banks were acting within regulations, so the government are as guilty as anyone. And I doubt the Tories would have done anything differently from Labour in that regard. Regarding bail outs for these organisations - was there really any other option?

So if people are now claiming banks caused downfall of economy which leads to further poverty/disillusionment leading to riots/looting.....personally I don't buy it. We're talking about kids in designer clothers out to grab what they can for purely material purposes.

Let's be clear on one thing - there is a massive hole in the nation's budget, because we had to find squillions of pounds to rescue the banking system. Many of those affected by the resulting cuts are "normal people" who use public services.

To bleat that the capitalist system and shareholderrs are somehow sacrosanct is unacceptable. If someone acts wrongly it is wrong whether they wear a suit and tie, or a baseball cap and hoodie.

At the end of the day both groups have been greedy and reckless.

[RyeSloan]

Let's be clear on one thing - there is a massive hole in the nation's budget, because we had to find squillions of pounds to rescue the banking system. Many of those affected by the resulting cuts are "normal people" who use public services.

To bleat that the capitalist system and shareholderrs are somehow sacrosanct is unacceptable. If someone acts wrongly it is wrong whether they wear a suit and tie, or a baseball cap and hoodie.

At the end of the day both groups have been greedy and reckless.

Lets be clear that is simply not true.

Indeed there was greed and recklessnes but that was hardly contained to the banking sector was it...

[Phil D. Rolls]

Lets be clear that is simply not true.

Indeed there was greed and recklessnes but that was hardly contained to the banking sector was it...

Yes, it's inherent in all of us to a certain degree, I would argue. However, there is a smoking gun here when it comes to the bankers - they had to bailed out of their mess in a way that individuals and other companies wouldn't be. Because they had such an important responsibility I would say they had a greater degree of care.

If a plumber messes up and connects the wrong pipes, it is not as bad as if a cardiac surgeon does the same thing.

Bankers done wrong, and got off with it. Others aren't as lucky.

[Hibrandenburg]

The main thing that both groups had in common is that both were not asking themselves why they were doing it, instead they were asking why not?

[IndieHibby]

I recently read a good book about the financial crisis - mini review:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_49/b4206102236772.htm

It's called "All The Devils Are Here"

It's excellent and from what I can gather, is widely considered to be highly accurate. It sources the recent financial crisis in the changes to banking practices/products going way back to the 60/70's.
The root causes were essentially not due to the breaking of laws, but down to the breaking of "common-sense" banking, such as:

Separating the lender from the borrower - essentially investors were sold credit derivatives/synthetics which told them nothing about the quality of the mortgage/debt as they were not provided any info about the debtors (enter rating agencies)
Gambling on the outcome of such products
Insuring against the poor performance of such products (AIG)
Ratings agencies being complicit/duped into insuring junk debt as AAA+
Politicians turning a blind eye to bad practices and consumers groups
Ideology trumping sensibility
The politcians and bankers were happy as long as things were booming, convinced of the mantra of ever expaning growth in house prices etc.

It's a pretty sobering read but I highly recommed you read it, before waxing lyrical about the current situation.

**Edit** Just seen this - straight from the horses mouth regarding the funding of rating agencies by the banks they are supposed to be rating:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/aug/22/ratings-agencies-conflict-of-interest

[Phil D. Rolls]

The main thing that both groups had in common is that both were not asking themselves why they were doing it, instead they were asking why not?

:top marks Sums the whole thing up in one sentence - brilliant,

I recently read a good book about the financial crisis - mini review:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_49/b4206102236772.htm

It's called "All The Devils Are Here"

It's excellent and from what I can gather, is widely considered to be highly accurate. It sources the recent financial crisis in the changes to banking practices/products going way back to the 60/70's.
The root causes were essentially not due to the breaking of laws, but down to the breaking of "common-sense" banking, such as:

Separating the lender from the borrower - essentially investors were sold credit derivatives/synthetics which told them nothing about the quality of the mortgage/debt as they were not provided any info about the debtors (enter rating agencies)
Gambling on the outcome of such products
Insuring against the poor performance of such products (AIG)
Ratings agencies being complicit/duped into insuring junk debt as AAA+
Politicians turning a blind eye to bad practices and consumers groups
Ideology trumping sensibility
The politcians and bankers were happy as long as things were booming, convinced of the mantra of ever expaning growth in house prices etc.

It's a pretty sobering read but I highly recommed you read it, before waxing lyrical about the current situation.

**Edit** Just seen this - straight from the horses mouth regarding the funding of rating agencies by the banks they are supposed to be rating:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/aug/22/ratings-agencies-conflict-of-interest

I think there must have been many experienced people in the banks who were put out to pasture as their views were seen as too fuddy duddy. I remember sharing an office block with the team who made up "Project Discovery" (or was it Columbus) in the RBS (I worked for another company), as well as having the misfortune to speak to a few of them personally.

They approached the restructuring of the bank with approach that was akin to religous fervour. Basically what they seemed to do was replace experienced bankers with people who shared their vision, on a much lower salary.

[Leicester Fan]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/sep/05/kenneth-clarke-riots-penal-system?intcmp=239




Revealing for the first time that almost 75% of those aged over 18 charged with offences committed during the riots had prior convictions, Clarke said the civil unrest had laid bare an urgent need for penal reform to stop reoffending among "a feral underclass, cut off from the mainstream in everything but its materialism". (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/sep/05/kenneth-clarke-riots-penal-system?intcmp=239)

Anyone still think these riots were political?

[AgentDaleCooper]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/sep/05/kenneth-clarke-riots-penal-system?intcmp=239



(http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/sep/05/kenneth-clarke-riots-penal-system?intcmp=239)

Anyone still think these riots were political?

i don't think the 'lefties' or whatever on this thread are saying that the rioters were political in their aims and motivations - it's the cause of the riots that one could describe as political. a moral vacuum from the top to the bottom, and complete disregard for long-term causal relations are the problems we are dealing with, and hammering the people at the bottom while funding the escape of those at the top is no way to deal with them.

[Leicester Fan]

i don't think the 'lefties' or whatever on this thread are saying that the rioters were political in their aims and motivations - it's the cause of the riots that one could describe as political. a moral vacuum from the top to the bottom, and complete disregard for long-term causal relations are the problems we are dealing with, and hammering the people at the bottom while funding the escape of those at the top is no way to deal with them.

Sounds like making excuses for criminality because it suits a certain argument to me.

[AgentDaleCooper]

Sounds like making excuses for criminality because it suits a certain argument to me.

sounds like confusing 'making excuses' and 'trying to find a cause' to me.

[Bishop Hibee]

The main thing that both groups had in common is that both were not asking themselves why they were doing it, instead they were asking why not?

Sums the situation up nicely. The feral elite keep there noses firmly in the trough as reported here:

http://highpaycommission.co.uk/

They are still saying "why not?"

Meanwhile the feral underclass loot as they felt they had nothing to lose and the punishments for shoplifting are worth the risk. What they didn't realise was that maximum sentencing would be imposed on the looters as it was political suicide to do anything else.

When will government intervene to stop the fleecing of the public purse through tax avoidance by companies like News International?

Did Steven Hester and his cronies deserve these bonuses for the continued failure of RBS?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/8369667/RBS-directors-share-28m-bonus-awards.html

Makes me sick to the pit of my stomach.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Sounds like making excuses for criminality because it suits a certain argument to me.

Sounds like you hear what you want to hear.

[Leicester Fan]

Sounds like you hear what you want to hear.

I'm flattered but I'm a married man.

[RyeSloan]

Sums the situation up nicely. The feral elite keep there noses firmly in the trough as reported here:

http://highpaycommission.co.uk/

They are still saying "why not?"

Meanwhile the feral underclass loot as they felt they had nothing to lose and the punishments for shoplifting are worth the risk. What they didn't realise was that maximum sentencing would be imposed on the looters as it was political suicide to do anything else.

When will government intervene to stop the fleecing of the public purse through tax avoidance by companies like News International?

Did Steven Hester and his cronies deserve these bonuses for the continued failure of RBS?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/8369667/RBS-directors-share-28m-bonus-awards.html

Makes me sick to the pit of my stomach.

Yet the largest portion by far of the pay deal was a conditional stock bonus..i.e one directly tied to performance. If you read the article these stock options are based on a share price of 44p...not much chance of him getting his mitts on this cash anytime soon. And even if he does that will indicate the bank has a share price north of 44p...considering the break even point is about 50p for the government to get it's money back I would have thought a strong performance related pay package for the board would have been considered a good thing.

You also need some perspective on what these high earners contribute to the country. You hear a lot of the 'nose in the trough' comments but very little on the fact that 1% of earners pay 25% of the total income tax received by the exchequer, a mere 275,000 people. Like it or not the continued expansion of the welfare state with the likes of child and working tax credits has resulted in a substantial decrease in net contributors and therefore an ever growing dependence on the 'super rich' to fund that largesse....

I'm not defending huge executive pay in totality as a lot is indeed over the top nor am I suggesting that the current set up is 'fair' but just like the huge tax contributions the finance sector made before the credit crunch I think it's important to understand just who is paying what in terms of taxation and just how much of that comes from the corporations and 'super rich' that everyone loves to give a kicking to and critically just how much of that is therefore re-distributed by the government.

[Big Ed]

Yet the largest portion by far of the pay deal was a conditional stock bonus..i.e one directly tied to performance. If you read the article these stock options are based on a share price of 44p...not much chance of him getting his mitts on this cash anytime soon. And even if he does that will indicate the bank has a share price north of 44p...considering the break even point is about 50p for the government to get it's money back I would have thought a strong performance related pay package for the board would have been considered a good thing.

You also need some perspective on what these high earners contribute to the country. You hear a lot of the 'nose in the trough' comments but very little on the fact that 1% of earners pay 25% of the total income tax received by the exchequer, a mere 275,000 people. Like it or not the continued expansion of the welfare state with the likes of child and working tax credits has resulted in a substantial decrease in net contributors and therefore an ever growing dependence on the 'super rich' to fund that largesse....

I'm not defending huge executive pay in totality as a lot is indeed over the top nor am I suggesting that the current set up is 'fair' but just like the huge tax contributions the finance sector made before the credit crunch I think it's important to understand just who is paying what in terms of taxation and just how much of that comes from the corporations and 'super rich' that everyone loves to give a kicking to and critically just how much of that is therefore re-distributed by the government.

What do you think would happen if this top 1% fled our shores? Do you think that CEOs of FTSE 100 companies would be irreplacable?
From what I have read recently; there is significant scepticism that, despite the plea of the twenty signatories who wrote to the FT, the 50p rate is "causing lasting damage to the economy".
The notion, that a country the size of the UK, is utterly dependent on 275,000 individuals for our economic future, is either extremely worrying, or bollocks. :dunno: