tommyboy
New Member
Posts โข 155
Likes โข 5
October 2007
|
|
|
Simococo
Junior Member
Posts โข 3,179
Likes โข 388
April 2007
|
UK the New China - Protests in London - Coverup, by Simococo on Oct 11, 2008 17:00:10 GMT 1, I was surprised nothing was on the news about it. About 200 protesters marched down Threadneedle Street and Cornhill near the Bank of England. It was a peaceful affair though with only a mild bit or argy bargy.
It will gather momentum though and I expect some larger demonstrations soon.
I was surprised nothing was on the news about it. About 200 protesters marched down Threadneedle Street and Cornhill near the Bank of England. It was a peaceful affair though with only a mild bit or argy bargy.
It will gather momentum though and I expect some larger demonstrations soon.
|
|
|
|
UK the New China - Protests in London - Coverup, by manchestermike on Oct 11, 2008 17:00:50 GMT 1, Maybe if it looked to be any more than a few students and professional protesters doing not much then it'd be reported.
Also our news sites (correctly) tend to report after such events... rather than promote them prior
Maybe if it looked to be any more than a few students and professional protesters doing not much then it'd be reported.
Also our news sites (correctly) tend to report after such events... rather than promote them prior
|
|
Simococo
Junior Member
Posts โข 3,179
Likes โข 388
April 2007
|
UK the New China - Protests in London - Coverup, by Simococo on Oct 11, 2008 17:03:31 GMT 1, one of the police dogs was particularly angry though.
That alone should have made Five News
one of the police dogs was particularly angry though.
That alone should have made Five News
|
|
|
|
UK the New China - Protests in London - Coverup, by giiiant on Oct 11, 2008 17:03:51 GMT 1, Maybe if it looked to be any more than a few students and professional protesters doing not much then it'd be reported. Also our news sites (correctly) tend to report after such events... rather than promote them prior
well said
Maybe if it looked to be any more than a few students and professional protesters doing not much then it'd be reported. Also our news sites (correctly) tend to report after such events... rather than promote them prior well said |
|
tommyboy
New Member
Posts โข 155
Likes โข 5
October 2007
|
UK the New China - Protests in London - Coverup, by tommyboy on Oct 11, 2008 17:04:34 GMT 1, uk.youtube.com/watch?v=O0NWU7RDvIw
also if itys good enough for news in canada, france and many other international countries, why not our news
|
|
|
|
Simococo
Junior Member
Posts โข 3,179
Likes โข 388
April 2007
|
UK the New China - Protests in London - Coverup, by Simococo on Oct 11, 2008 17:07:22 GMT 1, can you spot the Big Brother contestant?
can you spot the Big Brother contestant?
|
|
|
|
UK the New China - Protests in London - Coverup, by manchestermike on Oct 11, 2008 17:12:23 GMT 1,
Slow news day over there?
Maybe it'll get a 2 second mention in the "and finally" bit. Not even that newsworthy really. Nice of them to wait for the weekend so as not to disturb the people at work too.
Slow news day over there? Maybe it'll get a 2 second mention in the "and finally" bit. Not even that newsworthy really. Nice of them to wait for the weekend so as not to disturb the people at work too. |
|
savilerogue
New Member
Posts โข 326
Likes โข 0
August 2007
|
UK the New China - Protests in London - Coverup, by savilerogue on Oct 11, 2008 17:15:14 GMT 1, I did see coverage on it on one of the BBC's bulletins, and it is covered on the BBC's website:
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7664707.stm
Bit of a misguided protest IMO. The government's action is the lesser of two evils, and could well give the taxpayer a massive return in a few years' time; it also means that the government can actually exercise some direct control over banks' operations.
I did see coverage on it on one of the BBC's bulletins, and it is covered on the BBC's website: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7664707.stmBit of a misguided protest IMO. The government's action is the lesser of two evils, and could well give the taxpayer a massive return in a few years' time; it also means that the government can actually exercise some direct control over banks' operations. |
|
|
|
UK the New China - Protests in London - Coverup, by manchestermike on Oct 11, 2008 17:16:05 GMT 1, Looking at the placards it'd help if they decided what they were protesting about... seems to me about 3 or 4 protests have got jumbled up... Sounds that way reading the YouTube comments too, people going for one reason coerced into protesting about something else... sounds about right.
Looking at the placards it'd help if they decided what they were protesting about... seems to me about 3 or 4 protests have got jumbled up... Sounds that way reading the YouTube comments too, people going for one reason coerced into protesting about something else... sounds about right.
|
|
bullet
Blank Rank
Posts โข 0
Likes โข 16
January 2013
|
UK the New China - Protests in London - Coverup, by bullet on Oct 11, 2008 17:42:02 GMT 1, why do students give a flying fuck, they dont pay the tax which is being used.
go to uni yes, does not mean you have to act like an absolute moron.
why do students give a flying fuck, they dont pay the tax which is being used.
go to uni yes, does not mean you have to act like an absolute moron.
|
|
tommyboy
New Member
Posts โข 155
Likes โข 5
October 2007
|
UK the New China - Protests in London - Coverup, by tommyboy on Oct 11, 2008 18:40:14 GMT 1, I did see coverage on it on one of the BBC's bulletins, and it is covered on the BBC's website: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7664707.stmBit of a misguided protest IMO. The government's action is the lesser of two evils, and could well give the taxpayer a massive return in a few years' time; it also means that the government can actually exercise some direct control over banks' operations.
It could also mean the taxpayer will be paying for this for years to come.
The whole reason we are in this mess is due to a the biggest debt bubble to date
and the answer is to borrow 500 billion to sort it out
The fact that brown stated 2 days after this rescue plan that it will not work unless all other economies do the same thing, makes its very irresponsible use of taxpayers money in my opinion
Why should it be down to those who have lived within their means and not built up thousands of pounds of debt, to pay for the responsibility of others.
Stock markets have lost 20% in the last week and browns amazing plan does not seem to have worked. and i doubt it will. taxpayer will be paying for this and other irresponsible schemes like pfi that the labour party has introduced.
Let the banks fail, one thing you would be sure of is this will not happen again.
I did see coverage on it on one of the BBC's bulletins, and it is covered on the BBC's website: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7664707.stmBit of a misguided protest IMO. The government's action is the lesser of two evils, and could well give the taxpayer a massive return in a few years' time; it also means that the government can actually exercise some direct control over banks' operations. It could also mean the taxpayer will be paying for this for years to come. The whole reason we are in this mess is due to a the biggest debt bubble to date and the answer is to borrow 500 billion to sort it out The fact that brown stated 2 days after this rescue plan that it will not work unless all other economies do the same thing, makes its very irresponsible use of taxpayers money in my opinion Why should it be down to those who have lived within their means and not built up thousands of pounds of debt, to pay for the responsibility of others. Stock markets have lost 20% in the last week and browns amazing plan does not seem to have worked. and i doubt it will. taxpayer will be paying for this and other irresponsible schemes like pfi that the labour party has introduced. Let the banks fail, one thing you would be sure of is this will not happen again. |
|
|
|
UK the New China - Protests in London - Coverup, by manchestermike on Oct 11, 2008 19:07:12 GMT 1, I did see coverage on it on one of the BBC's bulletins, and it is covered on the BBC's website: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7664707.stmBit of a misguided protest IMO. The government's action is the lesser of two evils, and could well give the taxpayer a massive return in a few years' time; it also means that the government can actually exercise some direct control over banks' operations. It could also mean the taxpayer will be paying for this for years to come. The whole reason we are in this mess is due to a the biggest debt bubble to date and the answer is to borrow 500 billion to sort it out The fact that brown stated 2 days after this rescue plan that it will not work unless all other economies do the same thing, makes its very irresponsible use of taxpayers money in my opinion Why should it be down to those who have lived within their means and not built up thousands of pounds of debt, to pay for the responsibility of others. Stock markets have lost 20% in the last week and browns amazing plan does not seem to have worked. and i doubt it will. taxpayer will be paying for this and other irresponsible schemes like pfi that the labour party has introduced. Let the banks fail, one thing you would be sure of is this will not happen again.
Let the banks fall?
Are you mad... then what? You can't just let banks fall.
The tax payer will be paying for this, as well I, like everyone who pays tax, knows we will. But there is no other way around it
I did see coverage on it on one of the BBC's bulletins, and it is covered on the BBC's website: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7664707.stmBit of a misguided protest IMO. The government's action is the lesser of two evils, and could well give the taxpayer a massive return in a few years' time; it also means that the government can actually exercise some direct control over banks' operations. It could also mean the taxpayer will be paying for this for years to come. The whole reason we are in this mess is due to a the biggest debt bubble to date and the answer is to borrow 500 billion to sort it out The fact that brown stated 2 days after this rescue plan that it will not work unless all other economies do the same thing, makes its very irresponsible use of taxpayers money in my opinion Why should it be down to those who have lived within their means and not built up thousands of pounds of debt, to pay for the responsibility of others. Stock markets have lost 20% in the last week and browns amazing plan does not seem to have worked. and i doubt it will. taxpayer will be paying for this and other irresponsible schemes like pfi that the labour party has introduced. Let the banks fail, one thing you would be sure of is this will not happen again. Let the banks fall? Are you mad... then what? You can't just let banks fall. The tax payer will be paying for this, as well I, like everyone who pays tax, knows we will. But there is no other way around it |
|
tommyboy
New Member
Posts โข 155
Likes โข 5
October 2007
|
UK the New China - Protests in London - Coverup, by tommyboy on Oct 11, 2008 19:15:27 GMT 1, It could also mean the taxpayer will be paying for this for years to come. The whole reason we are in this mess is due to a the biggest debt bubble to date and the answer is to borrow 500 billion to sort it out The fact that brown stated 2 days after this rescue plan that it will not work unless all other economies do the same thing, makes its very irresponsible use of taxpayers money in my opinion Why should it be down to those who have lived within their means and not built up thousands of pounds of debt, to pay for the responsibility of others. Stock markets have lost 20% in the last week and browns amazing plan does not seem to have worked. and i doubt it will. taxpayer will be paying for this and other irresponsible schemes like pfi that the labour party has introduced. Let the banks fail, one thing you would be sure of is this will not happen again. Let the banks fall? Are you mad... then what? You can't just let banks fall. The tax payer will be paying for this, as well I, like everyone who pays tax, knows we will. But there is no other way around it
Why do you say this? Why cant you let a bank fail, That is why deposits are backed to the tune of 50K
If this is such a great investment opportunity for the tax payer, why is it no private offers of investment are being put forward
Have you just come to this conclusion because brown said so, Or have you got any basis that it would cost me a penny as a taxpayer if say rbs went under tomorrow.
Tell me why you cant let a bank fail, and why it would cost the tax payer any money
It could also mean the taxpayer will be paying for this for years to come. The whole reason we are in this mess is due to a the biggest debt bubble to date and the answer is to borrow 500 billion to sort it out The fact that brown stated 2 days after this rescue plan that it will not work unless all other economies do the same thing, makes its very irresponsible use of taxpayers money in my opinion Why should it be down to those who have lived within their means and not built up thousands of pounds of debt, to pay for the responsibility of others. Stock markets have lost 20% in the last week and browns amazing plan does not seem to have worked. and i doubt it will. taxpayer will be paying for this and other irresponsible schemes like pfi that the labour party has introduced. Let the banks fail, one thing you would be sure of is this will not happen again. Let the banks fall? Are you mad... then what? You can't just let banks fall. The tax payer will be paying for this, as well I, like everyone who pays tax, knows we will. But there is no other way around it Why do you say this? Why cant you let a bank fail, That is why deposits are backed to the tune of 50K If this is such a great investment opportunity for the tax payer, why is it no private offers of investment are being put forward Have you just come to this conclusion because brown said so, Or have you got any basis that it would cost me a penny as a taxpayer if say rbs went under tomorrow. Tell me why you cant let a bank fail, and why it would cost the tax payer any money |
|
|
|
|
|
UK the New China - Protests in London - Coverup, by manchestermike on Oct 11, 2008 19:19:53 GMT 1, Let the banks fall? Are you mad... then what? You can't just let banks fall. The tax payer will be paying for this, as well I, like everyone who pays tax, knows we will. But there is no other way around it Why do you say this? Why cant you let a bank fail, That is why deposits are backed to the tune of 50K If this is such a great investment opportunity for the tax payer, why is it no private offers of investment are being put forward Have you just come to this conclusion because brown said so, Or have you got any basis that it would cost me a penny as a taxpayer if say rbs went under tomorrow. Tell me why you cant let a bank fail, and why it would cost the tax payer any money
And what about the people and businesses that have more than ยฃ50k in these banks?
Let the banks fall? Are you mad... then what? You can't just let banks fall. The tax payer will be paying for this, as well I, like everyone who pays tax, knows we will. But there is no other way around it Why do you say this? Why cant you let a bank fail, That is why deposits are backed to the tune of 50K If this is such a great investment opportunity for the tax payer, why is it no private offers of investment are being put forward Have you just come to this conclusion because brown said so, Or have you got any basis that it would cost me a penny as a taxpayer if say rbs went under tomorrow. Tell me why you cant let a bank fail, and why it would cost the tax payer any money And what about the people and businesses that have more than ยฃ50k in these banks? |
|
tommyboy
New Member
Posts โข 155
Likes โข 5
October 2007
|
UK the New China - Protests in London - Coverup, by tommyboy on Oct 11, 2008 19:26:59 GMT 1, Well they are making a investment decision placing all these funds in this institution, they receive interest on their deposits.
You are taking a risk with any investment, fair enough the only risk in putting your money in the bank is that it will go bust. But this is the risk, and for this risk you get rewarded with interest
Just as if you take bigger risks you get better rates of return
Just like the icesave bank, there were reports that they were in trouble 6 months ago, and this is exactly why i closed my account. Any one who left theor money in their and has lost out, it is really their fault for not researching and keping an eye on thor investment
Well they are making a investment decision placing all these funds in this institution, they receive interest on their deposits.
You are taking a risk with any investment, fair enough the only risk in putting your money in the bank is that it will go bust. But this is the risk, and for this risk you get rewarded with interest
Just as if you take bigger risks you get better rates of return
Just like the icesave bank, there were reports that they were in trouble 6 months ago, and this is exactly why i closed my account. Any one who left theor money in their and has lost out, it is really their fault for not researching and keping an eye on thor investment
|
|
|
|
UK the New China - Protests in London - Coverup, by manchestermike on Oct 11, 2008 19:52:34 GMT 1, Well they are making a investment decision placing all these funds in this institution, they receive interest on their deposits. You are taking a risk with any investment, fair enough the only risk in putting your money in the bank is that it will go bust. But this is the risk, and for this risk you get rewarded with interest Just as if you take bigger risks you get better rates of return Just like the icesave bank, there were reports that they were in trouble 6 months ago, and this is exactly why i closed my account. Any one who left theor money in their and has lost out, it is really their fault for not researching and keping an eye on thor investment
Not so with company bank accounts though. The money needs to be with one bank for a lot of companies due to the way they deal.
And even with personal accounts, there are some occasions where you need money available quickly with one bank
Well they are making a investment decision placing all these funds in this institution, they receive interest on their deposits. You are taking a risk with any investment, fair enough the only risk in putting your money in the bank is that it will go bust. But this is the risk, and for this risk you get rewarded with interest Just as if you take bigger risks you get better rates of return Just like the icesave bank, there were reports that they were in trouble 6 months ago, and this is exactly why i closed my account. Any one who left theor money in their and has lost out, it is really their fault for not researching and keping an eye on thor investment Not so with company bank accounts though. The money needs to be with one bank for a lot of companies due to the way they deal. And even with personal accounts, there are some occasions where you need money available quickly with one bank |
|
savilerogue
New Member
Posts โข 326
Likes โข 0
August 2007
|
UK the New China - Protests in London - Coverup, by savilerogue on Oct 11, 2008 19:53:51 GMT 1, It could also mean the taxpayer will be paying for this for years to come. The whole reason we are in this mess is due to a the biggest debt bubble to date and the answer is to borrow 500 billion to sort it out The fact that brown stated 2 days after this rescue plan that it will not work unless all other economies do the same thing, makes its very irresponsible use of taxpayers money in my opinion Why should it be down to those who have lived within their means and not built up thousands of pounds of debt, to pay for the responsibility of others. Stock markets have lost 20% in the last week and browns amazing plan does not seem to have worked. and i doubt it will. taxpayer will be paying for this and other irresponsible schemes like pfi that the labour party has introduced. Let the banks fail, one thing you would be sure of is this will not happen again.
You clearly care a lot about the issue which is admirable, but this post is really a bit of a tabloid knee-jerk reaction, and shows not a little lack of understanding.
Nobody has 'borrowed' ยฃ500 billion: the scheme as it stands is to make ยฃ50 billion of capital available in return for preference shares, ยฃ200 billion in short-term loans and ยฃ250 billion is being made available at commerical rates for mortgage guarantees. it is not clear whether much or all of this will be taken up.
Stick markets have fallen by 20% - this is hardly unprecedented - the FTSE fell 30% in a single day just over 20 years ago.
Letting the banks fail would be madness. That would require much larger borrowing in order to repay consumer and commercial deposits.
It could also mean the taxpayer will be paying for this for years to come. The whole reason we are in this mess is due to a the biggest debt bubble to date and the answer is to borrow 500 billion to sort it out The fact that brown stated 2 days after this rescue plan that it will not work unless all other economies do the same thing, makes its very irresponsible use of taxpayers money in my opinion Why should it be down to those who have lived within their means and not built up thousands of pounds of debt, to pay for the responsibility of others. Stock markets have lost 20% in the last week and browns amazing plan does not seem to have worked. and i doubt it will. taxpayer will be paying for this and other irresponsible schemes like pfi that the labour party has introduced. Let the banks fail, one thing you would be sure of is this will not happen again. You clearly care a lot about the issue which is admirable, but this post is really a bit of a tabloid knee-jerk reaction, and shows not a little lack of understanding. Nobody has 'borrowed' ยฃ500 billion: the scheme as it stands is to make ยฃ50 billion of capital available in return for preference shares, ยฃ200 billion in short-term loans and ยฃ250 billion is being made available at commerical rates for mortgage guarantees. it is not clear whether much or all of this will be taken up. Stick markets have fallen by 20% - this is hardly unprecedented - the FTSE fell 30% in a single day just over 20 years ago. Letting the banks fail would be madness. That would require much larger borrowing in order to repay consumer and commercial deposits. |
|
savilerogue
New Member
Posts โข 326
Likes โข 0
August 2007
|
UK the New China - Protests in London - Coverup, by savilerogue on Oct 11, 2008 19:57:12 GMT 1, Any one who left theor money in their and has lost out, it is really their fault for not researching and keping an eye on thor investment
Nobody has 'lost out' apart from institutional investors. Most of your posts contain more errors than facts.
Any one who left theor money in their and has lost out, it is really their fault for not researching and keping an eye on thor investment Nobody has 'lost out' apart from institutional investors. Most of your posts contain more errors than facts. |
|
tommyboy
New Member
Posts โข 155
Likes โข 5
October 2007
|
UK the New China - Protests in London - Coverup, by tommyboy on Oct 11, 2008 20:09:50 GMT 1, It could also mean the taxpayer will be paying for this for years to come. The whole reason we are in this mess is due to a the biggest debt bubble to date and the answer is to borrow 500 billion to sort it out The fact that brown stated 2 days after this rescue plan that it will not work unless all other economies do the same thing, makes its very irresponsible use of taxpayers money in my opinion Why should it be down to those who have lived within their means and not built up thousands of pounds of debt, to pay for the responsibility of others. Stock markets have lost 20% in the last week and browns amazing plan does not seem to have worked. and i doubt it will. taxpayer will be paying for this and other irresponsible schemes like pfi that the labour party has introduced. Let the banks fail, one thing you would be sure of is this will not happen again. You clearly care a lot about the issue which is admirable, but this post is really a bit of a tabloid knee-jerk reaction, and shows not a little lack of understanding. Nobody has 'borrowed' ยฃ500 billion: the scheme as it stands is to make ยฃ50 billion of capital available in return for preference shares, ยฃ200 billion in short-term loans and ยฃ250 billion is being made available at commerical rates for mortgage guarantees. Stick markets have fallen by 20% - this is hardly unprecedented - the FTSE fell 30% in a single day just over 20 years ago. Letting the banks fail would be madness. That would require much larger borrowing in order to repay consumer and commercial deposits.
yes the government will have to borrow and pay interest on 500billion
Where else do you think they are getting the money from?
What happens if they make these loans and the banks still fail. Will the government just borrow another 500 billion to prop them up
This has not fully unfolded yet, and there is alot more to come
Yes the bail out could make taxpayers money, but it could always loose alot of money
also there was not a 30% drop in one day in 1987, it was 22% over the period of a week, bigest fall was 12% one day and 10% the day after. This week we have lost 21% of the value of the ftse
It could also mean the taxpayer will be paying for this for years to come. The whole reason we are in this mess is due to a the biggest debt bubble to date and the answer is to borrow 500 billion to sort it out The fact that brown stated 2 days after this rescue plan that it will not work unless all other economies do the same thing, makes its very irresponsible use of taxpayers money in my opinion Why should it be down to those who have lived within their means and not built up thousands of pounds of debt, to pay for the responsibility of others. Stock markets have lost 20% in the last week and browns amazing plan does not seem to have worked. and i doubt it will. taxpayer will be paying for this and other irresponsible schemes like pfi that the labour party has introduced. Let the banks fail, one thing you would be sure of is this will not happen again. You clearly care a lot about the issue which is admirable, but this post is really a bit of a tabloid knee-jerk reaction, and shows not a little lack of understanding. Nobody has 'borrowed' ยฃ500 billion: the scheme as it stands is to make ยฃ50 billion of capital available in return for preference shares, ยฃ200 billion in short-term loans and ยฃ250 billion is being made available at commerical rates for mortgage guarantees. Stick markets have fallen by 20% - this is hardly unprecedented - the FTSE fell 30% in a single day just over 20 years ago. Letting the banks fail would be madness. That would require much larger borrowing in order to repay consumer and commercial deposits. yes the government will have to borrow and pay interest on 500billion Where else do you think they are getting the money from? What happens if they make these loans and the banks still fail. Will the government just borrow another 500 billion to prop them up This has not fully unfolded yet, and there is alot more to come Yes the bail out could make taxpayers money, but it could always loose alot of money also there was not a 30% drop in one day in 1987, it was 22% over the period of a week, bigest fall was 12% one day and 10% the day after. This week we have lost 21% of the value of the ftse |
|
tommyboy
New Member
Posts โข 155
Likes โข 5
October 2007
|
UK the New China - Protests in London - Coverup, by tommyboy on Oct 11, 2008 20:13:36 GMT 1, Any one who left theor money in their and has lost out, it is really their fault for not researching and keping an eye on thor investment Nobody has 'lost out' apart from institutional investors. Most of your posts contain more errors than facts.
I said those we left their money in this institution and lost out
Including those in the uk had brown and darling not stepped in to cover the deposits, those in the isle of man all the depositors around the world not covered by the protection and all the instittional and comercial investors as you say
So what errors are you talking about exactly?
Any one who left theor money in their and has lost out, it is really their fault for not researching and keping an eye on thor investment Nobody has 'lost out' apart from institutional investors. Most of your posts contain more errors than facts. I said those we left their money in this institution and lost out Including those in the uk had brown and darling not stepped in to cover the deposits, those in the isle of man all the depositors around the world not covered by the protection and all the instittional and comercial investors as you say So what errors are you talking about exactly? |
|
savilerogue
New Member
Posts โข 326
Likes โข 0
August 2007
|
UK the New China - Protests in London - Coverup, by savilerogue on Oct 11, 2008 20:33:51 GMT 1, yes the government will have to borrow and pay interest on 500billion
No, it won't - not if it is not all taken up.
What happens if they make these loans and the banks still fail. Will the government just borrow another 500 billion to prop them up
that's highly unlikely. In any case, letting the banks stiff would have far worse repercussions for the economy as a whole. Total UK deposits are in the region of ยฃ1.6 trillion. That makes ยฃ500 billion look relatively small fry. Imagine every single depositor losing their life savings, their pensions, and people who do have any money keeping it under their mattress. That is what would happen if the banks were left to fail. We would become a third-world country.
yes the government will have to borrow and pay interest on 500billion No, it won't - not if it is not all taken up. What happens if they make these loans and the banks still fail. Will the government just borrow another 500 billion to prop them up that's highly unlikely. In any case, letting the banks stiff would have far worse repercussions for the economy as a whole. Total UK deposits are in the region of ยฃ1.6 trillion. That makes ยฃ500 billion look relatively small fry. Imagine every single depositor losing their life savings, their pensions, and people who do have any money keeping it under their mattress. That is what would happen if the banks were left to fail. We would become a third-world country. |
|
|
|
|
|
UK the New China - Protests in London - Coverup, by mcnuts on Oct 11, 2008 20:39:54 GMT 1, too much of a thread to read at the moment... but
* I did see it mentioned on Channel 4 7pm news briefly but with little context
* had it not been organised by the SWP it may have gotten more news. they are professionals.
* had the tactics been more "newsworthy" they would have been successful
* the public relatively confused over what the real solution is, the news isnt necessarily sympathetic so it would require spectacle or celebrity to gain access
* j-boy stop being a tw@t!
* there are multiple stories and actions the media dont cover everyday!
too much of a thread to read at the moment... but
* I did see it mentioned on Channel 4 7pm news briefly but with little context
* had it not been organised by the SWP it may have gotten more news. they are professionals.
* had the tactics been more "newsworthy" they would have been successful
* the public relatively confused over what the real solution is, the news isnt necessarily sympathetic so it would require spectacle or celebrity to gain access
* j-boy stop being a tw@t!
* there are multiple stories and actions the media dont cover everyday!
|
|
andrewd
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,079
Likes โข 33
September 2006
|
UK the New China - Protests in London - Coverup, by andrewd on Oct 11, 2008 20:44:17 GMT 1, 200 people marching didn't make the news! Of course it wouldn't! There are many marches and demos. Often it's only those that employ good PR that get coverage. Apparently it's the same with street artists. Well done Jo Brookes.
200 people marching didn't make the news! Of course it wouldn't! There are many marches and demos. Often it's only those that employ good PR that get coverage. Apparently it's the same with street artists. Well done Jo Brookes.
|
|
tommyboy
New Member
Posts โข 155
Likes โข 5
October 2007
|
UK the New China - Protests in London - Coverup, by tommyboy on Oct 11, 2008 21:25:15 GMT 1, if this plan was a good decisions on the governments part
why is darling announcing yet another plan to save the banks next week
if this plan was a good decisions on the governments part
why is darling announcing yet another plan to save the banks next week
|
|
jon11
New Member
Posts โข 392
Likes โข 3
June 2007
|
UK the New China - Protests in London - Coverup, by jon11 on Oct 11, 2008 22:16:50 GMT 1, what about the art? come on boys save it for the FT forum
what about the art? come on boys save it for the FT forum
|
|
|
|
UK the New China - Protests in London - Coverup, by daz205 on Oct 12, 2008 1:10:28 GMT 1, i bet if it was a protest of 200 pairs of boobs it would have got both the media`s and my attention < back from pub
i bet if it was a protest of 200 pairs of boobs it would have got both the media`s and my attention < back from pub
|
|
|
|
UK the New China - Protests in London - Coverup, by daz205 on Oct 12, 2008 1:11:07 GMT 1, jon11`s fault
jon11`s fault
|
|
