CCTV to be Shut Down During G20 Summit

[magma]

Finally some real points! Thanks...

and what in the world encourages us to think banks are that weak now that they will allow anyone reform them? to reform them to the point they work for their customers would mean anyway to transform them in something new - aka replacement
also i'm not the one payed to provide the replacement, i'm the one entitled to it as the payer, so it's not my job.

Lots of banks are incredibly weak now. They are being nationalised (Northern Rock, RBS, AIG). It is feasible to believe that government can be pushed towards taking larger controlling measures in order to keep the industry functioning and alive. If we're going to own the banks, we should be able to exert control on them.

As a member of a democracy it is your right and prerogative to have constructive opinions on how to make things better. It is your hard-fought duty and privelige as an interested citizen (which you clearly are) to not sit on your solutions to make things better. Bevan didn't, Benn didn't, Cromwell didn't and by the sounds of things neither do a few people on this board. Everyone's got an opinion, but do you have the conviction of your opinion to actually try and make a difference?

you missed the point: you said you can't expect the people to control the banks, but governments are the people and made of people.

Ahh, a misunderstanding. When I said people couldn't be controlled, I meant that any individual given the chance to be greedy, will likely be greedy (see Goodwin recently). En masse, especially in a democracy, humans are actually pretty good at being moral ("Now that God is dead, hell is other people" as Satre put it). More power should go to the people through government regulation so that the individual persons aren't given the chance to be overly greedy.

yeah, only houses don't kill people for money
and the small percentage of fair service is just the cover-up for much larger financial operations that are harmful to everyone but them

A properly run business doesn't kill people for money. A bank is a business. If regulated to be properly run they won't kill people for money.

I have serious doubts that banks kill people for money in any direct sense - I still don't buy the link between allowing loans to weapons manufacturers. That comes down to society and its government's weapons legislation. Also, examples about banks acting under totalitarian, fascist government is a bit of a cheap shot. That's not now, it's over 60 years ago.

who's "we", i'm not in that,
I'm talking about people working there NOW and being a piece in their corrupt machinery and getting payed blood money that were made from shit in the past, and them trying to appear they work for a better future there, while nobody asks them about the future, just to comply and help screwing people for money. We're talking about the system not giving us any chance to regulate it because it's too powerful and while you
were supporting them they just fixed themselves some trillions and g20
and what to do now depends on what can be done.

It's my conjecture that the current crisis could be used to bring more control for the people (read: government) over the banking market.

As much as I have "supported" the banks by contracting for them in IT for around 12 months (I'm a biiiiiig banker), they have also supported me by giving me somewhere to put my money, letting me spend a little bit extra when I'm short or want to buy something that I can't save up for very quickly (my old car - now all paid off, but soon to be deceased :/ ).

They also make sure my rent gets paid on time every month, that my bills are easily dealt with and they make it really easy for me to get money out abroad using a fancy plastic card with a chip in it and my name on it.

They have also offered me lots of credit which, although annoying, I managed to avoid taking. I imagine not taking credit isn't such an easy decision for large parts of society and it has been marketed and sold incredibly irresponsibly both to businesses and private individuals - this needs to change.

you need a form of securing your cash and your transactions, not a bank account.

That sounds like a bank account to me. I bank with Nationwide who call themselves a Building Society, but I still have a bank account with them and they still provide me with banking services. Just because you rebrand it to "form of securing your cash and your transactions" (which is a snappy title) doesn't mean it's not still a "Bank Account". A rose by any other name....

any good produced is produced to be sold. nobody would make only houses that people can't buy, it would be pointless. if it wasn't for the speculative economy encouraged by banks the houses would have now affordable prices, but why should they sell them cheap when it's so easy to use money you didn't work for yet and to sell your ass to the banks?! the prices in US now are dictated by the market more than before, they become cheaper because the speculative system collapsed.

Housing is massively inflated, I agree. I sincerely doubt that housing is realistically cheap enough to not need to save up for several years or even decades to pay for a house outright. In this reality, banks that can offer secured loans responsibly benefit society.

your perception of banks is something that saves space and holds secure your money and transactions, but that's more like paypal

Yes. PayPal provide banking services. I imagine their service would get a lot more "Bank Like" should people start failing to have bank accounts, though. I also think they'd suffer an awful lot if nobody had Visa, Mastercard, Switch etc cards which are also banking services.

so you basically wash the shit from your hands through a compensatory dissident activity, huh?
if i had time i'd want to watch that in action

Thanks for keeping it grownup.

But not really, no. I don't engage people in debate to make myself feel better. I don't really feel badly about working for a bank. I don't make decisions or even sit in and watch people make decisions about anything other than how to best run an IT department. If banks exist then they're going to have IT departments. I feel no differently about contracting for a financial institution than I did contracting for a retail chain or local government - IT is pretty similar wherever you go. I would have no more or less power over the existance of the banking industry in the charity sector compared to the banking sector. If I were to have influence, it would be as a British Citizen, not as a professional, but my choice is to have influence to encourage reform, not replacement.

So yeah, I feel pretty neutral about working for a bank.

I don't connect any type of "dissidence" with it - I'm naturally opinionated and informed as a citizen (well, subject :/ ) of the United Kingdom and I imagine I'd have much the same conversations wherever I worked. I've always been the pinko liberal because that's just who I am. Of course, compared to people with genuinely extreme viewpoints like yourself, I'm probably seen as a Thatcherite or something.

that's a total failure in logic, because grey is white + black, only idealistically the mixture is equal, so one thing is rather white or rather black aka rather bad or rather good, so it's actually just these 2 options and a lot of people propagating ignorance through a misunderstood metaphor

LOL!
BLACK/WHITE refers to the binary thinking that I MUST THINK THIS OR THIS. I deal with binary every day 9-5 for something it's useful for - computing. Binary thinking isn't very good for humans forming opinions, because human thought and society are complexand therefore human's thoughts about society are complex.

The nature of a good democracy is finding compromises that 'please most people most of the time'. It's not storming around going "I THINK THIS AND IF ANY OF YOU DISAGREE I'M GOING TO CALL YOU A DICK AND THEN NOT DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT"

This problem will be tackled (however effectively) using politics between the centre left and the centre right - quite simply because it is these people who are open enough to listen to ideas from all sides.

A warming moment from the G20 was Nicolas Sarkozy's little tantrum. He succeeded in making a little win for the people against tax havens. That's debate and that's high level democracy in action.

This "proper thought" is why mine, tr0tsky's, kins, eLBe's etc posts take up paragraphs and your posts contain only insults, short, vague sentences and links to other people's thoughts that you're substituting for your own.

please please do! the amount of fun i'd have afterwards would pay off for everything!
later on i might have time to even teach you how that's done properly

"Please please do" what? I didn't say I was going to do anything.

(I'm on call tonight so I can't go to the pub )

[alien pimp]

i'll be with you in a minute, bit busy right now, but basically but now everything you said is either not going against my ideas or not true.
i'll explain, don't worry

before that, you read again my post history, because you don't know what you are talking about

sorry, i took the last one the wrong way, but it's just a shitty lie anyway
just to mention elbe's first post addressed to me (without me ever talking to him) was calling me "a tnuc" for my views. and i got over it initially
so you switching the blame on me for saying shit after i fought this habit here so intensely is a very lame attempt at manipulating a public perception that i don't care about anyway. and a lot of bullshit very easy to dismiss by my post history. pushing this idea forward shows you are willing to say any bullshit to cover up for your own
one more of that and i'm gonna change the approach here!

respect the code or you fail!

brb

[magma]

Ok - as long as there's no resort to insults we'll leave that issue by the side.

Agreed.

Continue...

[spooKs]

Guys...

[alien pimp]

Ok - as long as there's no resort to insults we'll leave that issue by the side.

Agreed.

Continue...

there never was, as proved by everything i've ever said, but apparently you like to hang out with people that stand against your declared beliefs

i'm almost done with work, we'll see about it in a bit

[tr0tsky]

right, so according to that thinking, the conspiracy is that there's some global shadow organization just controlling drought, and creating famine, disease and suffering, because they want to hold africa at its knees, and keep them down?

LOL at the suggestion that in 2009 famine is a simple matter of crops failing.

Actually, that's not funny at all.

[alien pimp]

Finally some real points! Thanks...

and what in the world encourages us to think banks are that weak now that they will allow anyone reform them? to reform them to the point they work for their customers would mean anyway to transform them in something new - aka replacement
also i'm not the one payed to provide the replacement, i'm the one entitled to it as the payer, so it's not my job.

Lots of banks are incredibly weak now. They are being nationalised (Northern Rock, RBS, AIG). It is feasible to believe that government can be pushed towards taking larger controlling measures in order to keep the industry functioning and alive.

what proof ever existed for that except you imagining it?

If we're going to own the banks

this idea is totally new to me, can you mail me a book where this is seen as possible, i don't accept links

As a member of a democracy it is your right and prerogative to have constructive opinions on how to make things better. It is your hard-fought duty and privelige as an interested citizen (which you clearly are) to not sit on your solutions to make things better. Bevan didn't, Benn didn't, Cromwell didn't and by the sounds of things neither do a few people on this board. Everyone's got an opinion, but do you have the conviction of your opinion to actually try and make a difference?

i don't know exactly what you mean, but i also don't know who benn is, i'll see about it, what's that supposed to prove related to the topic anyway?

you missed the point: you said you can't expect the people to control the banks, but governments are the people and made of people.

Ahh, a misunderstanding. When I said people couldn't be controlled, I meant that any individual given the chance to be greedy, will likely be greedy (see Goodwin recently).

you missed the point again! if people can't control their greed, who can control banks that are exactly a product of their greed?

En masse, especially in a democracy, humans are actually pretty good at being moral ("Now that God is dead, hell is other people" as Satre put it). More power should go to the people through government regulation so that the individual persons aren't given the chance to be overly greedy.

that's just an ungrounded statement (feel free to demonstrate otherwise), but even if it was true, the government is made of greedy people again, as most often proven by those people's bios.

yeah, only houses don't kill people for money
and the small percentage of fair service is just the cover-up for much larger financial operations that are harmful to everyone but them

A properly run business doesn't kill people for money. A bank is a business. If regulated to be properly run they won't kill people for money.

I have serious doubts that banks kill people for money in any direct sense - I still don't buy the link between allowing loans to weapons manufacturers. That comes down to society and its government's weapons legislation. Also, examples about banks acting under totalitarian, fascist government is a bit of a cheap shot. That's not now, it's over 60 years ago.

a properly run business, as proved by anything ever recorded, cares only about profit, starting with pharmaceuticals and ending with entertainment
your serious doubts or what you buy prove as much as my serious doubts: nothing!
since when something that's 60 years ago (i have older relatives) means nothing to a reasonable person?

who's "we", i'm not in that,
I'm talking about people working there NOW and being a piece in their corrupt machinery and getting payed blood money that were made from shit in the past, and them trying to appear they work for a better future there, while nobody asks them about the future, just to comply and help screwing people for money. We're talking about the system not giving us any chance to regulate it because it's too powerful and while you
were supporting them they just fixed themselves some trillions and g20
and what to do now depends on what can be done.

It's my conjecture that the current crisis could be used to bring more control for the people (read: government) over the banking market.

As much as I have "supported" the banks by contracting for them in IT for around 12 months (I'm a biiiiiig banker), they have also supported me by giving me somewhere to put my money, letting me spend a little bit extra when I'm short or want to buy something that I can't save up for very quickly (my old car - now all paid off, but soon to be deceased :/ ).

They also make sure my rent gets paid on time every month, that my bills are easily dealt with and they make it really easy for me to get money out abroad using a fancy plastic card with a chip in it and my name on it.

They have also offered me lots of credit which, although annoying, I managed to avoid taking. I imagine not taking credit isn't such an easy decision for large parts of society and it has been marketed and sold incredibly irresponsibly both to businesses and private individuals - this needs to change.

that justifies everything, thank you, very valuable lesson! and you complain about others being childish... are you mocking me or what here?

you need a form of securing your cash and your transactions, not a bank account.

That sounds like a bank account to me. I bank with Nationwide who call themselves a Building Society, but I still have a bank account with them and they still provide me with banking services. Just because you rebrand it to "form of securing your cash and your transactions" (which is a snappy title) doesn't mean it's not still a "Bank Account". A rose by any other name....

just because you rebrand that shit to "bank account" doesn't mean it's not still what i said - services that banks too/mostly but not only offer, just less secure even than a hole in the ground. your aesthetic considerations over my made up title mean nothing but lack of solid arguments for your point, you're just filling space here a lot!

any good produced is produced to be sold. nobody would make only houses that people can't buy, it would be pointless. if it wasn't for the speculative economy encouraged by banks the houses would have now affordable prices, but why should they sell them cheap when it's so easy to use money you didn't work for yet and to sell your ass to the banks?! the prices in US now are dictated by the market more than before, they become cheaper because the speculative system collapsed.

Housing is massively inflated, I agree. I sincerely doubt that housing is realistically cheap enough to not need to save up for several years or even decades to pay for a house outright. In this reality, banks that can offer secured loans responsibly benefit society.

you dismiss my links but you put nothing instead. you oppose to history and logic your ungrounded considerations again. what can i use these for?
especially when you cried for grounds of my ideas?
and how does that stand against what i said? are you even reading me?!?!
how the fact that they can means they will ever do it? they can end world famine this very second, shall we expect that too?

your perception of banks is something that saves space and holds secure your money and transactions, but that's more like paypal

Yes. PayPal provide banking services. I imagine their service would get a lot more "Bank Like" should people start failing to have bank accounts, though. I also think they'd suffer an awful lot if nobody had Visa, Mastercard, Switch etc cards which are also banking services.

paypal does not provide banking services, can you read that anywhere or what grounds are there for that?
a lot of imagination again, no grounds

so you basically wash the shit from your hands through a compensatory dissident activity, huh?
if i had time i'd want to watch that in action

Thanks for keeping it grownup.

But not really, no. I don't engage people in debate to make myself feel better. I don't really feel badly about working for a bank. I don't make decisions or even sit in and watch people make decisions about anything other than how to best run an IT department. If banks exist then they're going to have IT departments. I feel no differently about contracting for a financial institution than I did contracting for a retail chain or local government - IT is pretty similar wherever you go. I would have no more or less power over the existance of the banking industry in the charity sector compared to the banking sector. If I were to have influence, it would be as a British Citizen, not as a professional, but my choice is to have influence to encourage reform, not replacement.

So yeah, I feel pretty neutral about working for a bank.

I don't connect any type of "dissidence" with it - I'm naturally opinionated and informed as a citizen (well, subject :/ ) of the United Kingdom and I imagine I'd have much the same conversations wherever I worked. I've always been the pinko liberal because that's just who I am. Of course, compared to people with genuinely extreme viewpoints like yourself, I'm probably seen as a Thatcherite or something.

ok, then you don't wash it, if i got it right, because you feel you don't have what to, right?

that's a total failure in logic, because grey is white + black, only idealistically the mixture is equal, so one thing is rather white or rather black aka rather bad or rather good, so it's actually just these 2 options and a lot of people propagating ignorance through a misunderstood metaphor

LOL!
BLACK/WHITE refers to the binary thinking that I MUST THINK THIS OR THIS. I deal with binary every day 9-5 for something it's useful for - computing. Binary thinking isn't very good for humans forming opinions, because human thought and society are complexand therefore human's thoughts about society are complex.

The nature of a good democracy is finding compromises that 'please most people most of the time'. It's not storming around going "I THINK THIS AND IF ANY OF YOU DISAGREE I'M GOING TO CALL YOU A DICK AND THEN NOT DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT"

This problem will be tackled (however effectively) using politics between the centre left and the centre right - quite simply because it is these people who are open enough to listen to ideas from all sides.

A warming moment from the G20 was Nicolas Sarkozy's little tantrum. He succeeded in making a little win for the people against tax havens. That's debate and that's high level democracy in action.

filling space again...
compromise over truth never helps!
other than that, in a shorter post, what other choice do you have for a thing except "rather good" or "rather bad"? the most complex law, financial institution or whatever can be anything else than rather good or rather bad from any point of view?

the rest is a fucking lie that would call for the fair punishment of you not watching tv ever!
the only answer is for your friend's wiseness:

you're a tnuc

except now it was called for it! and that's a biiiig difference!

[seckle]

compromise over truth never helps!

don't know what country you're from but....

do you vote in your country's elections?
do you pay your income tax or annual citizen tax?
do you volunteer or support community based programs in your country?

[alien pimp]

compromise over truth never helps!

don't know what country you're from but....

do you vote in your country's elections?
do you pay your income tax or annual citizen tax?
do you volunteer or support community based programs in your country?

you're attempt of profiling me with facebook kind of questions is futile
but if you need to know, i try not to participate in anything i consider corrupt or harmful, especially i can't accept to make a politician happy with my vote because i haven't seen one ok. ron paul seems to be somebody cool enough, need to figure him out better.

not that i manage to do that properly, just doing better than most of the people

[magma]

Fair enough.

You don't count then.

I'm going to bed, but I might respond to a couple of those points in the morning. The most glaring being you not knowing who Tony Benn is and why he should be important to you.

Absolutely astounding.

[alien pimp]

bring it!
with the proper attitude you, like nobody else before now, won't have troubles with me

i still have a lot to learn, but only people who prove good will and correct judgment are to be considered. pls be one of them and i'll make it worthwhile!

it's that simple

[seckle]

compromise over truth never helps!

don't know what country you're from but....

do you vote in your country's elections?
do you pay your income tax or annual citizen tax?
do you volunteer or support community based programs in your country?

you're attempt of profiling me with facebook kind of questions is futile
but if you need to know, i try not to participate in anything i consider corrupt or harmful, especially i can't accept to make a politician happy with my vote because i haven't seen one ok. ron paul seems to be somebody cool enough, need to figure him out better.

not that i manage to do that properly, just doing better than most of the people

i'm not trying to profile you. i'm just noticing this constant black and white, /us or them....thinking. its circular logic. cult-like logic.

Nietzsche, in Thus Spoke Zarathustra tried to illustrate the world by self designed truths and allegiances to no religion or society. he was speaking to a time when people were witness to empires crumbling, and global poverty and totalitarian regimes were everywhere. maybe, in some respects, we're witnessing such a time right now, but the difference is that we're also experiencing a global revolution in information and worldview. global view. this is unprecedented in history.

this is a time of empowerment. we have the power to influence and change our fate and the history around us. no other generation in history has had this. why would you choose to live in a world of extremes when there's more strength in listening to all sides. being informed by all kinds of thinking.

having a firm belief in one set of beliefs is everyone's choice and is very important, but taking that to non-conformist/nihilistic levels of worldview is just self indulgence. everyone has to compromise their viewpoint at some stage. everyone. otherwise why join any society at all?

no one has all the answers.

[alien pimp]

i can only answer with my previous question:

in a shorter post, what other choice do you have for a thing except "rather good" or "rather bad"?

[alien pimp]

The most glaring being you not knowing who Tony Benn is and why he should be important to you.

Absolutely astounding.

the few bits i read on this benn guy show a nice and unrepresentative guy for uk politics. he's prolly iconic for a fraction of the people in uk and for very very few outside uk, simply because he's the kind of personality that's surprising he got even that high in hierarchies.
but what exactly did he accomplish apart from making some witty comments in the media?
is anything better today because of him?

a hero for me is this guy who saved entire populations in africa by creating some new corn hybrid or something. shame on me, i don't even remember his name!

feed me details, you got me a bit tired today