One law for the rich, anoher law for the poor.

fez said:
The lower earners in this country have it better than ever before; they have just been encouraged by successive governments to cultivate a sense of entitlement and an inflated sense of self worth.
Click to expand...

This tbh... and criminality exists within all social classes - all that happened in the riots was that an opportunity appeared (or at least an illusion of an opportunity given the numbers caught and sentences handed out) and certain people took advantage. Poverty itself isn't a reason - most poor kids didn't riot - it was 5000 people or so out of a city with a population of several million and plenty of poor areas.

People perceived that they could get away with it so joined in and they're not all chavs/gang members either - daughter of a doctor, 31 year old teaching assistant, Oxford graduate etc... though I'd wager that the majority did come from poorer backgrounds.

This didn't happen because the Tories cut funding to youth clubs etc... it was just a chance event that occurred which sparked it and an initial lax reaction by the police which allowed it to briefly spread.
 
No1newts said:
I'm not advocating banks should fail, I was just trying to point out the fallacy in the logic of your statement.
Click to expand...

My concern isn't that those bankers would be hurt and that they should not be held responsible. I don't think it was a simple case of "oh they've been bad but because they're rich we'll prop up the banks and the bankers".
 
hola_adios said:
Unsuccessful banks should have gone down, governments should have just covered savings per private accounts up to £80k, and £1M for company accounts (figures are just examples). This would have flushed all the culture of waste and risk on those companies.

I don't see why banks should not be treated like any other private company, rewarding failure is the wrong policy and against the spirit of capitalism.
Click to expand...

the banks would have been nationalised anyway, the debts would have been written of, the biggest losers would have been large investors, possibly pension funds.

it would however cause a deep recession as companies rely on credit to operate and credit would dry up.

the banks were nationalised, but the govt took on the risk, the risk will come back to bite us soon, we are on the hook for up to 1.5trn of bank illiquid assets which will have to be made liquid soon or yet again the credit lines dry up.

this is why companies are holding on to as much cash as they can.

whatever, private individuals would not lose any money, they might have lost their jobs though.
 
Slam62 said:
the banks would have been nationalised anyway, the debts would have been written of, the biggest losers would have been large investors, possibly pension funds.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the bulk of the money made up of pension funds?
 
godinman said:
Someones debt is someone else's money.
Click to expand...
this is exactly the point, bond holders or investors who want the benefits of risk, but not the pain.

that's the game they play, but they were given a get out of jail free card by the tax payer.
 
sigma said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the bulk of the money made up of pension funds?
Click to expand...

tbh I don't know I think it's probably a bit 'complex'

since the pension crisis about 10 years ago, pension funds do have a legal requirement to a significant proportion of their investments in low risk funds.
 
sigma said:
My concern isn't that those bankers would be hurt and that they should not be held responsible. I don't think it was a simple case of "oh they've been bad but because they're rich we'll prop up the banks and the bankers".
Click to expand...

I think the concern is that despite being blatantly hopeless at their jobs, the bankers continue to get generous salaries and bonuses which appear to be funded by the tax payer.
 
sigma said:
My concern isn't that those bankers would be hurt and that they should not be held responsible. I don't think it was a simple case of "oh they've been bad but because they're rich we'll prop up the banks and the bankers".
Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting it was.

I am not arguing some form of hidden class war being carried out. The fact remains though that their criminality went unpunished because they held the money (I am trying to make the distinction between them being personally rich and having all the money) and this should not be the case.

Actions need to have consequences, rioters who have been criminal are suffering the consequence. The banks whilst perhaps not directly criminal were certainly negligent to an extent approaching criminality yet were able to escape because they held the money. Fact. They have now had their own "riot" and have not had the stick, what is to dissuade them acting so again?
 
it's strange that rioters seem to be delt with over a weekend, but phone hackers seem to get 'luxury' arrests at a time of their convenience and then sent on their way.
 
The same goes for MPs and expenses, I agree.

The phone hacking problem is a bit more complex than kicking a shop window and I'm sure the phone hackers can afford decent lawyers, as bad as that sounds.
 
Last edited:
sigma said:
The same goes for MPs and expenses, I agree.

The phone hacking problem is a bit more complex than kicking a shop window and I'm sure the phone hackers can afford decent laws, as bad as that sounds.
Click to expand...

yes, it just sends out the wrong message.
 
You have to blame the regulators too, the bankers only did it because they got away with it. Why were they not caught before it all went ***s up?
 
sigma said:
You have to blame the regulators too, the bankers only did it because they got away with it. Why were they not caught before it all went ***s up?
Click to expand...

the regulators, the banks, the politicians, the media moguls and the billionaires are all in the same club.


you and I are definitely excluded
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom