'anti-capitalist' 'protesters'
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Mr Fenandes  06 Nov 15 1.02pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote johnfirewall at 06 Nov 2015 12.58pm
Quote Mr Fenandes at 06 Nov 2015 12.50pm
Quote johnfirewall at 06 Nov 2015 12.42pm
Quote Mr Fenandes at 06 Nov 2015 12.35pm
Quote chris123 at 06 Nov 2015 12.22pm
Quote Mr Fenandes at 06 Nov 2015 12.02pm
Quote johnfirewall at 06 Nov 2015 11.55am
There's too much self righteous bulls*** where hating anyone with money or power is seen as honourable. Most the time it's about as senseless as blaming immigrants for everything. There is most certainly an element to that for sure and I can certainly understand the perception that there are those who are just looking to be angry and cause trouble, because it's true. But there are also those who see things like Goldman Sach's "advising" the government to sell the Post Office for half its value; then buying 50% of the stock and selling for double the price less than a week later. That's insider trading, there is no getting away from that. The definition of pillaging and an absolute disgrace, it should have been on of the biggest scandals of the year. Absolutely nothing. So on the other side of the coin, I can see why the elite rich have no credibility with these groups.
Edited by chris123 (06 Nov 2015 12.23pm) Smoke and mirrors. They didn't offer them to their customers our of sheer benevolence; money was made, and despite their instrumental involvement in the financial crisis, were also responsible for undervaluing a publicly owned service for private gain. And regardless who took the money, we basically paid a dividend to GS customers. Why is that okay? Why were they even given such a massive job given their track record? I have been a bit laxy-daisy with my figure of 50% and probably shouldn't have used it as an example, but it would only have been more dodgy if Venebles and Redknapp were consulted. PS, it is nice this has developed in to a debate with facts (however loose) and opinions with some sort of reasoning, as opposed to just calling people idiots and calling for them to be set alight. Why should we pay a dividend to anyone who bought them? I was talking metaphorically in terms of a quick payout at someone elses expense. So was I. Could apply to you or I or absolutely anyone who bought them, which in most cases would have been through Goldmans in some capacity. I can't see your issue other than the fact we paid a large bank for the advice and to run the book. Lets just say it's a matter of perspective and you believe that the customers are genuine, and little other than incompetency leading to taxpayers losing 1/4 of the amount what's being proposed from the tax-credit cuts; whereas I believe the customers are the right people in the right places who knew the right things and bought the shares at the right price and sold at the right time. I can't see how it's legal for a company to be consulted on the value of a company that is about to be sold, who have a vested interest in valuing below
Check out our Croydon-based football comedy series 'Road to F.A. Cup'! |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| Mr Fenandes 06 Nov 15 1.03pm |
|
|---|---|
|
And again, a bank that was complicit in our current financial situation. For that, there is little doubt and mountains of evidence. How are they still around, let alone consulting our government for a large fee? Sub-human scum.
Check out our Croydon-based football comedy series 'Road to F.A. Cup'! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
chris123  hove actually 06 Nov 15 1.09pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Mr Fenandes at 06 Nov 2015 1.02pm
Quote johnfirewall at 06 Nov 2015 12.58pm
Quote Mr Fenandes at 06 Nov 2015 12.50pm
Quote johnfirewall at 06 Nov 2015 12.42pm
Quote Mr Fenandes at 06 Nov 2015 12.35pm
Quote chris123 at 06 Nov 2015 12.22pm
Quote Mr Fenandes at 06 Nov 2015 12.02pm
Quote johnfirewall at 06 Nov 2015 11.55am
There's too much self righteous bulls*** where hating anyone with money or power is seen as honourable. Most the time it's about as senseless as blaming immigrants for everything. There is most certainly an element to that for sure and I can certainly understand the perception that there are those who are just looking to be angry and cause trouble, because it's true. But there are also those who see things like Goldman Sach's "advising" the government to sell the Post Office for half its value; then buying 50% of the stock and selling for double the price less than a week later. That's insider trading, there is no getting away from that. The definition of pillaging and an absolute disgrace, it should have been on of the biggest scandals of the year. Absolutely nothing. So on the other side of the coin, I can see why the elite rich have no credibility with these groups.
Edited by chris123 (06 Nov 2015 12.23pm) Smoke and mirrors. They didn't offer them to their customers our of sheer benevolence; money was made, and despite their instrumental involvement in the financial crisis, were also responsible for undervaluing a publicly owned service for private gain. And regardless who took the money, we basically paid a dividend to GS customers. Why is that okay? Why were they even given such a massive job given their track record? I have been a bit laxy-daisy with my figure of 50% and probably shouldn't have used it as an example, but it would only have been more dodgy if Venebles and Redknapp were consulted. PS, it is nice this has developed in to a debate with facts (however loose) and opinions with some sort of reasoning, as opposed to just calling people idiots and calling for them to be set alight. Why should we pay a dividend to anyone who bought them? I was talking metaphorically in terms of a quick payout at someone elses expense. So was I. Could apply to you or I or absolutely anyone who bought them, which in most cases would have been through Goldmans in some capacity. I can't see your issue other than the fact we paid a large bank for the advice and to run the book. Lets just say it's a matter of perspective and you believe that the customers are genuine, and little other than incompetency leading to taxpayers losing 1/4 of the amount what's being proposed from the tax-credit cuts; whereas I believe the customers are the right people in the right places who knew the right things and bought the shares at the right price and sold at the right time. I can't see how it's legal for a company to be consulted on the value of a company that is about to be sold, who have a vested interest in valuing below
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Mr Fenandes 06 Nov 15 1.16pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote chris123 at 06 Nov 2015 1.09pm
Quote Mr Fenandes at 06 Nov 2015 1.02pm
Quote johnfirewall at 06 Nov 2015 12.58pm
Quote Mr Fenandes at 06 Nov 2015 12.50pm
Quote johnfirewall at 06 Nov 2015 12.42pm
Quote Mr Fenandes at 06 Nov 2015 12.35pm
Quote chris123 at 06 Nov 2015 12.22pm
Quote Mr Fenandes at 06 Nov 2015 12.02pm
Quote johnfirewall at 06 Nov 2015 11.55am
There's too much self righteous bulls*** where hating anyone with money or power is seen as honourable. Most the time it's about as senseless as blaming immigrants for everything. There is most certainly an element to that for sure and I can certainly understand the perception that there are those who are just looking to be angry and cause trouble, because it's true. But there are also those who see things like Goldman Sach's "advising" the government to sell the Post Office for half its value; then buying 50% of the stock and selling for double the price less than a week later. That's insider trading, there is no getting away from that. The definition of pillaging and an absolute disgrace, it should have been on of the biggest scandals of the year. Absolutely nothing. So on the other side of the coin, I can see why the elite rich have no credibility with these groups.
Edited by chris123 (06 Nov 2015 12.23pm) Smoke and mirrors. They didn't offer them to their customers our of sheer benevolence; money was made, and despite their instrumental involvement in the financial crisis, were also responsible for undervaluing a publicly owned service for private gain. And regardless who took the money, we basically paid a dividend to GS customers. Why is that okay? Why were they even given such a massive job given their track record? I have been a bit laxy-daisy with my figure of 50% and probably shouldn't have used it as an example, but it would only have been more dodgy if Venebles and Redknapp were consulted. PS, it is nice this has developed in to a debate with facts (however loose) and opinions with some sort of reasoning, as opposed to just calling people idiots and calling for them to be set alight. Why should we pay a dividend to anyone who bought them? I was talking metaphorically in terms of a quick payout at someone elses expense. So was I. Could apply to you or I or absolutely anyone who bought them, which in most cases would have been through Goldmans in some capacity. I can't see your issue other than the fact we paid a large bank for the advice and to run the book. Lets just say it's a matter of perspective and you believe that the customers are genuine, and little other than incompetency leading to taxpayers losing 1/4 of the amount what's being proposed from the tax-credit cuts; whereas I believe the customers are the right people in the right places who knew the right things and bought the shares at the right price and sold at the right time. I can't see how it's legal for a company to be consulted on the value of a company that is about to be sold, who have a vested interest in valuing below
In theory yes, but a Chinese wall involves trust and ethics. How can they be trusted after the treason of the financial crisis? For me it's like getting Peter Ridsdale in at your club to sort out a financial mess and wondering why it all went pear-shaped.
Check out our Croydon-based football comedy series 'Road to F.A. Cup'! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| johnfirewall 06 Nov 15 1.18pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Mr Fenandes at 06 Nov 2015 1.02pm
I can't see how it's legal for a company to be consulted on the value of a company that is about to be sold, who have a vested interest in valuing below The brokerage would be a percentage so they'd have more to gain from a higher issue price. I don't know what other ways you're implying they benefited from ownership of the shares, but these orders are executed for clients who would have immediately become the beneficiary. Whatever they bought supplementary to that we all could have done the same but I think you just have an issue with the fact that the bigger you are the more you can buy. Edited by johnfirewall (06 Nov 2015 1.20pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| johnfirewall 06 Nov 15 1.25pm |
|
|---|---|
|
The other focus of the protest seems to be 'class war'. When did everyone start to care so much about 'the poor'? When they had someone to blame for it rather than actually doing something to help, that's when. Makes me grateful for the Facebook friends who are poor and just get on with it even if they are on the dole.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| johnfirewall 06 Nov 15 1.35pm |
|
|---|---|
|
"It was meant to be a peaceful protest but the police came with horses, meat wagons and helicopters" This is the sort of mentality we're dealing with.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 06 Nov 15 2.42pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote johnfirewall at 06 Nov 2015 1.25pm
The other focus of the protest seems to be 'class war'. When did everyone start to care so much about 'the poor'? When they had someone to blame for it rather than actually doing something to help, that's when. Makes me grateful for the Facebook friends who are poor and just get on with it even if they are on the dole. When I was about 16 I think, seemed unfair that some people worked hard all their life and got next to nothing in return.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 06 Nov 15 2.47pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Pawson Palace at 06 Nov 2015 12.03pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 06 Nov 2015 11.40am
Quote Pawson Palace at 06 Nov 2015 11.38am
Quote Mr Fenandes at 06 Nov 2015 11.28am
Must be really comfortable waking up every morning, reading whatever your rag of choice is and going "yep, that's 100% my opinion. Glad I don't have to look in to this any further as all the information I need is right here" and carrying that around with you all day. Yup. Smashing up someone else's property is wrong in my opinion 100%. I'd say smashing up someone's private property is about 75% wrong, but then some people sometimes have it coming. As for certain company property, in the right circumstances it can be the right thing to do. Come on chap. If I smash up your house/car and then you come out and give me right hook does that me the victim? Sometimes its a viable alternative to giving someone a vicious kicking, or revenge for something they did, say with that car etc. I don't condone it in every case, but sometimes you're better off going straight to the source of an issue, rather than relying on 'the system' to right wrongs. I'd say you'd get more done campaigning against exploitation of labour in the third world, through destroying the product of that labour in the UK and directly affecting the company via blockading stores or causing them to otherwise close, rather than standing around waving a placard in a designated state sanctioned protest zone surrounded by police.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 06 Nov 15 2.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote johnfirewall at 06 Nov 2015 1.35pm
"It was meant to be a peaceful protest but the police came with horses, meat wagons and helicopters" This is the sort of mentality we're dealing with. Doesn't actually seem that there was a lot of trouble though, three arrests and three policemen injured. Not even a Friday night in town.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| elgrande bedford 06 Nov 15 2.50pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 06 Nov 2015 2.47pm
Quote Pawson Palace at 06 Nov 2015 12.03pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 06 Nov 2015 11.40am
Quote Pawson Palace at 06 Nov 2015 11.38am
Quote Mr Fenandes at 06 Nov 2015 11.28am
Must be really comfortable waking up every morning, reading whatever your rag of choice is and going "yep, that's 100% my opinion. Glad I don't have to look in to this any further as all the information I need is right here" and carrying that around with you all day. Yup. Smashing up someone else's property is wrong in my opinion 100%. I'd say smashing up someone's private property is about 75% wrong, but then some people sometimes have it coming. As for certain company property, in the right circumstances it can be the right thing to do. Come on chap. If I smash up your house/car and then you come out and give me right hook does that me the victim? Sometimes its a viable alternative to giving someone a vicious kicking, or revenge for something they did, say with that car etc. I don't condone it in every case, but sometimes you're better off going straight to the source of an issue, rather than relying on 'the system' to right wrongs. I'd say you'd get more done campaigning against exploitation of labour in the third world, through destroying the product of that labour in the UK and directly affecting the company via blockading stores or causing them to otherwise close, rather than standing around waving a placard in a designated state sanctioned protest zone surrounded by police.
always a Norwood boy, where ever I live. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| elgrande bedford 06 Nov 15 2.51pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 06 Nov 2015 2.48pm
Quote johnfirewall at 06 Nov 2015 1.35pm
"It was meant to be a peaceful protest but the police came with horses, meat wagons and helicopters" This is the sort of mentality we're dealing with. Doesn't actually seem that there was a lot of trouble though, three arrests and three policemen injured. Not even a Friday night in town.
always a Norwood boy, where ever I live. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.