Banksy's Bailout Boat Banjaxed
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 serial thriller  The Promised Land 30 Aug 20 9.17pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Forest Hillbilly
It seems kind of disproportionate, and I only get my information from the media. So when someone who has contributed to The System all his working-life gets 'done-over', it raises a few concerns that people with no right to reside in the UK (and have made no contributions to the UK economy), seem to get housing and Benefits automatically. And not only are the (mainly) young men of fighting/working age, but once they land and get refugee status, that automatically gives their wives and children rights to reside in the UK. So in the beginnings of the CV19 decline and seeing pending increasing taxation and unemployment, isn't it bewildering that the UK seems to have funds to support additional drains on financial resources ? just a point of view The question you always have to ask is this: who funds this narrative? You read a newspaper. Who funds this paper? If I can't find out, why is that? You see a politician making a speech. Who funds that politician? Again, if I can't find out, why not? You see a person on the TV from a think tank you've never heard of. Who funds them? If I can't find out, why not? If you dig deep enough, all these questions will have similar answers. Offshore elites use London because our financial regulations have been stripped to the bone and don't do sh*t. Billions are made every week. Funding a narrative which makes them invisible pays, and if it lays the blame at the feet of a silent, powerless minority (refugees), then all the better! Follow the money. Pirates are raiding our society, and now youth centres are closing, libraries, small businesses, public spaces, art centres, and things like the welfare state, the NHS, social care, support for renters, pensions are disappearing before our eyes. Why? Where is that money going?
If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4 |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| Tom-the-eagle Croydon 30 Aug 20 9.18pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by serial thriller
The question you always have to ask is this: who funds this narrative? You read a newspaper. Who funds this paper? If I can't find out, why is that? You see a politician making a speech. Who funds that politician? Again, if I can't find out, why not? You see a person on the TV from a think tank you've never heard of. Who funds them? If I can't find out, why not? If you dig deep enough, all these questions will have similar answers. Offshore elites use London because our financial regulations have been stripped to the bone and don't do sh*t. Billions are made every week. Funding a narrative which makes them invisible pays, and if it lays the blame at the feet of a silent, powerless minority (refugees), then all the better! Follow the money. Pirates are raiding our society, and now youth centres are closing, libraries, small businesses, public spaces, art centres, and things like the welfare state, the NHS, social care, support for renters, pensions are disappearing before our eyes. Why? Where is that money going?
"It feels much better than it ever did, much more sensitive." John Wayne Bobbit |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 30 Aug 20 9.21pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by serial thriller
Where are the riots? Cos I'm looking out my window and I can't see anything... Maybe you should lean out a bit further and have a better look....it happens, just not on the same scale yet. Originally posted by serial thriller
There are issues in Germany of course. The fact they still wear lederhosen as just one. But then we have enough problems as it is without worrying about refugees. One thing I do see when I look out my window is 'For Sale' and 'To Let' signs going up almost daily. Why is that? Surely it's not because refugees are arriving with the 50k required to slap a deposit down. Maybe it's because London has essentially become a money laundering capital of the world, where billionaires buy shell companies, buy up property, pay no tax and trade their untaxable assets on the stock market? Well, apart from the unusual preoccupation with lederhosen I wouldn't necessarily disagree. Originally posted by serial thriller
That shady network - I'm currently reading the excellent 'Moneyland' by Oliver Burrough, so can't claim this is my own knowledge - comprises an economy which is the 3rd largest in the world. Offshore money, funneled through principlaities that ensures the rich steal money from us and pay nothing back, and is run straight through the city of london. Again, these aren't untruths. Originally posted by serial thriller
Let's think rationally for a second. What could be causing our society more harm? a few thousand refugees drowning in the med, some of whom may arrive here and live in a hostel for a few months before their asylum hearing? Or a global keptocratic elite, from the most corrupt countries in the world, who together possess trillions of pounds in untaxed wealth, who have bought up the vast majority of central London, and have access to politicians, the media and anyone else they care to possess? I'll leave it as an open question, because I'm genuinely intrigued at what you answer.
Yeah sure, it's a huge problem but if you fight the immigration issue you are also fighting against global capital itself as they support it......because they want a new layer of mixed up debt slaves.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| serial thriller The Promised Land 30 Aug 20 9.51pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Yeah sure, it's a huge problem but if you fight the immigration issue you are also fighting against global capital itself as they support it......because they want a new layer of mixed up debt slaves. Edited by Stirlingsays (30 Aug 2020 9.25pm) You're wrong. Why would a Ukrainian billionaire or Saudi royal be impacted by what we do to refugees? They don't give a f*ck about our immigration policy, just as they don't give a f*ck about whether we are in the EU or not. They make their money off the interests of assets which they own through a chain of accountancy tricks and trade off the LSE. whether our net migration is 0 or 10 million, the fact that the Financial Conduct Authorities are so understaffed will mean they can do so for perpetuity. If anything, leaving the EU probably creates a window of instability they can e exploit by shifting their financial assets in to hedging against the pound. And like I say, if migrants can be blamed for the inevitable social fallout of their crimes, I doubt theyd be too worried.
If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Matov 30 Aug 20 10.02pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by serial thriller
Almost all assets actually require people. Outside of pure speculation on precious metals, everything else is ultimately dependent on human involvement. Property needs somebody to pay rent, businesses need people to do the actual work. Assets do not exist, with notable exceptions, in a vacuum. That is the point. And do you think that you can have open borders without even more lax financial controls that exist already? Or do you think that you can have the freedom of movement of people without the freedom of movement of captial? Who benefits from unrestricted migration? Seriously, outside of all the feel good moments you on the left enjoy by championing the poor of other countries other than your own who do you think benefits by having wages kept low through having an increased pool of labour?
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 30 Aug 20 10.08pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by serial thriller
You're wrong. Why would a Ukrainian billionaire or Saudi royal be impacted by what we do to refugees? They don't give a f*ck about our immigration policy, just as they don't give a f*ck about whether we are in the EU or not. They make their money off the interests of assets which they own through a chain of accountancy tricks and trade off the LSE. whether our net migration is 0 or 10 million, the fact that the Financial Conduct Authorities are so understaffed will mean they can do so for perpetuity. If anything, leaving the EU probably creates a window of instability they can e exploit by shifting their financial assets in to hedging against the pound. And like I say, if migrants can be blamed for the inevitable social fallout of their crimes, I doubt theyd be too worried.
I told you why and so did Matov.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| serial thriller The Promised Land 31 Aug 20 8.48am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Matov
Almost all assets actually require people. Outside of pure speculation on precious metals, everything else is ultimately dependent on human involvement. Property needs somebody to pay rent, businesses need people to do the actual work. Assets do not exist, with notable exceptions, in a vacuum. That is the point. And do you think that you can have open borders without even more lax financial controls that exist already? Or do you think that you can have the freedom of movement of people without the freedom of movement of captial? Who benefits from unrestricted migration? Seriously, outside of all the feel good moments you on the left enjoy by championing the poor of other countries other than your own who do you think benefits by having wages kept low through having an increased pool of labour? Obviously I broadly agree. This is the foundational belief of Socialist economics after all. But assets do often exist beyond borders in today's world. Take your Gazprom executive, or your Nigerian coal mine owner. They clearly rely on a lot of labour and a lot of exploitation in many places to make their profit. But they aren't so stupid as to keep their assets tied to such risky places. Instead they take the capital from those businesses and invest it in bonds or stocks with a high chance of return. But before they do that, so as to pay no tax, they first run the money through, say, a she'll company in Luxembourg or St Kitts and Nevis. Or maybe they use the original cash to buy some property in London, safe returns, but again firstly they'll pass it through Switzerland and Jersey to make sure no one realises where it's come from, just in case the oil or coal industries start asking questions. So now not only are they screwing over their own countries, they are screwing us by paying no taxes on British stocks and property. This is bad for anyone looking to buy a house in London, but pretty good for our government, who can brag about our great GDP, even if they're getting very little returns on it. These kind of assets are totally legal, and comprise an enormous part of our financial sector. And here's the thing: as the Tories were playing tough on migration, getting it below 100 000 coming in, until Covid, these kinds of investments were actually increasing. So I ask again, Who's doing more damage to this country?
If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
cryrst  The garden of England 31 Aug 20 9.18am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by serial thriller
Obviously I broadly agree. This is the foundational belief of Socialist economics after all. But assets do often exist beyond borders in today's world. Take your Gazprom executive, or your Nigerian coal mine owner. They clearly rely on a lot of labour and a lot of exploitation in many places to make their profit. But they aren't so stupid as to keep their assets tied to such risky places. Instead they take the capital from those businesses and invest it in bonds or stocks with a high chance of return. But before they do that, so as to pay no tax, they first run the money through, say, a she'll company in Luxembourg or St Kitts and Nevis. Or maybe they use the original cash to buy some property in London, safe returns, but again firstly they'll pass it through Switzerland and Jersey to make sure no one realises where it's come from, just in case the oil or coal industries start asking questions. So now not only are they screwing over their own countries, they are screwing us by paying no taxes on British stocks and property. This is bad for anyone looking to buy a house in London, but pretty good for our government, who can brag about our great GDP, even if they're getting very little returns on it. These kind of assets are totally legal, and comprise an enormous part of our financial sector. And here's the thing: as the Tories were playing tough on migration, getting it below 100 000 coming in, until Covid, these kinds of investments were actually increasing. So I ask again, Who's doing more damage to this country? I think the legai bit answers all your questions.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| The Dolphin 31 Aug 20 9.39am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Forest Hillbilly
It seems kind of disproportionate, and I only get my information from the media. So when someone who has contributed to The System all his working-life gets 'done-over', it raises a few concerns that people with no right to reside in the UK (and have made no contributions to the UK economy), seem to get housing and Benefits automatically. And not only are the (mainly) young men of fighting/working age, but once they land and get refugee status, that automatically gives their wives and children rights to reside in the UK. So in the beginnings of the CV19 decline and seeing pending increasing taxation and unemployment, isn't it bewildering that the UK seems to have funds to support additional drains on financial resources ? just a point of view I I am with you.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| serial thriller The Promised Land 31 Aug 20 10.43am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by cryrst
I think the legai bit answers all your questions. I'm asking whether you think we as a society should be ok with this. Honestly I recommend to you all this book Moneyland as it's a brilliant analysis of the modern economy. For me there are three things we should be concerned about as UK citizens about this form of economy... 1. It is a surefire means of inflation. We most evidently see this in property, which obviously has a huge knock on in to local business, and is a large part of the reason why high streets are empty and housing is so extortionate. 2. It infiltrates our politics. There's a great bit in the book about Jersey. 100 000 population, but with some of the wealthiest Trust accounts in the world running through it. The financiers are so intertwined within the political system there that they are above the law. The book tells of a time when the Jersey police force brought in two of Britain's most high profile police, and they found a child sex ring operated by the same people, widescale crime cover ups, all because the accused had designed the legal system to cover themselves. You don't have to dig too far into our politics to see the risk of something similar happening is very high. 3. It's bad enough having foreign criminals hiding their wealth in London, but what about when they start bleeding our assets dry? Contracts in our rail, health and public utilities have been bought up by companies whose shareholders run identical financial set ups. So our government pays out millions of taxpayers' money, the shareholders get paid it in dividends, and that money is then taxed in the Cayman islands. Hence we lose billions in revenue, have to close down vital pubic services, and see real wages fall sharper than they have since Nelson was fighting Napoleon. Again, if someone can give me a detailed analysis of how this is the fault of refugees I'd be grateful. If anything, most of them are probably fleeing from the same people who are hiding the exploited profits in London property.
If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
PalazioVecchio  south pole 31 Aug 20 10.59am |
|
|---|---|
|
the question above, who benefits from the arrival of all these men ? is it any of the following ? - Landlords - women considered otherwise undate-able - other ?
Eze Peasy at Anfield.... |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 31 Aug 20 11.12am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by PalazioVecchio
the question above, who benefits from the arrival of all these men ? is it any of the following ? - Landlords - women considered otherwise undate-able - other ? The Labour Party. They are looking for a permanent majority which they have already achieved in Londonistan.
One more point |
|
| 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.