Anti-cuts groups descend on banks in NHS protest (UK)

Anti-cuts groups descend on banks in NHS protest (UK)

www.guardian.co.uk

Activists said they had occupied a number of banks in Brighton while actions also took place in Plymouth, Oxford, Leeds Liverpool, Bournmouth, Ipswich and Dundee. Protesters outside a branch of HSBC in Newcastle were joined by the musician and activist Billy Bragg, who addressed them by megaphone.

More than 30 groups across the country had been expected to take part in the day of action, while the Public and Commercial Services union (PCS) had encouraged members to attend

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.jackbristol.com
www.bristolanticutsalliance.org.uk
www.bristolanticutsalliance.org.uk
www.guardian.co.uk

Good, it seems that the only way to directly show our anger at the cuts which are basically threatening our life line is by attacking and protesting against the bankers who did it.

As was mentioned in the article, 'The NHS did not cause the financial crisis – the banks did and are continuing to make billions in profits. And yet it is the NHS which is being cut," said Candy Udwin of the Camden Keep Our NHS Public campaign, which took part.'

This is the biggest protests of its type as of late, since more than 100+ members were arrested on various petty charges by the establishment which defends those in power and cares little for the working person.

I hope these protests continue and continue until those who are guilty are brought to justice, since this kind of elitist behaviour is no longer tolerable.

Stay brave people. Stay loud.

www.europe-current-events.com...

www.guardian.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

Oh and let's cut to the chase, whilst we're here.

www.guardian.co.uk...

Just to prove that the police care little for our real interests (from last year)

Scotland Yard has deployed undercover officers to spy on a network of activists whose viral campaign against tax avoiders threatens to close down hundreds of shops in the run-up to Christmas. The surveillance officers were first used at a protest in October, the Guardian can reveal, despite an assurance given to parliament last year that only officers in full uniform gather intelligence at protests.

Despite assurances the police defied Parliament to defend the big industries.

Brings a new meaning to the phrase "drop while you shop"

It is wrong they can still get away with messing up most things from our free health care to our fire service even going after old folks homes and they get away with all our money. Dont we own RBS/Halifax? Im sure they can pay us back now, at 20%APR!

Originally posted by mr-lizard

Just to prove that the police care little for our real interests (from last year)

Of course they dont care for the interests of the common people. Even though you pay their salaries, in taxes, they take their orders from the powerful.

Just like our militaries. We pay for them, we participate in them, they serve the interests of the powerful and rich, not those who pay and staff the military. Its a scam.

I cant wait to see what is next as the "austerity measures" (translation; retracting any of the social reforms the working classes won over the last 100+ years as they now have no bargaining power in a globalized labor force) continue to unfold.

I have a feeling before its all said and done you may come to regret letting them disarm you all for your own "safety."

Capitalism is failing......well except for "the few". Communism has failed (although if you really analyse communist states they aren't really communist but capitalist dictatorships!). Communism fails because it does not address human nature. Capitalism fails because it allows the darker side of human nature to overwhelm everything.

We need a balance. It's called : . . . . . . . .

Originally posted by malcr
Capitalism is failing......well except for "the few". Communism has failed (although if you really analyse communist states they aren't really communist but capitalist dictatorships!). Communism fails because it does not address human nature. Capitalism fails because it allows the darker side of human nature to overwhelm everything.

We need a balance. It's called : . . . . . . . .

I agree with what you have stated. Capitalism destroys morals, communities, and the working class. Socialism is a bit worse because it destroys morals, culture, the economy, and rights. Neither has proven to work and for a simple reason; both are resulting systems of the enlightenment. Socialism just happens to be a bit worse because it can trace its roots back to the French Revolution while capitalism traces its roots back to the dissolution of the monastaries in Great Britain under King Henry VIII.

Neither have, are, or will ever work for the betterment of all humanity. Either it establishes a monopoly by the rich in which 90% of the people become servants or it establishes a society of violent oppression from which no one can ever pull themselves out of poverty. There is an alternative, although very few have ever recognized it, and it is called Distributism.

"Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's the other way around."

Just a little food for thought.

reply to post by Misoir


Its not surprising communism is the same thing, "man exploiting man" it was a reactionary theory. It was based on, "well, I DONT like this, therefore, what if we did the opposite?"

Platos system, on the other hand, is not reactionary, but based on a real understanding of human nature, and nature itself.

reply to post by Misoir


Distributism is simply communism without state ownership. You still have people who will complain about not being able to rob others and get disgustingly wealthy. You understand, the capitalist crowd's biggest issue with socialism is that it takes away their "freedom" to hurt others financially. I like the expression (paraphrasing here) "Too much capitalism isn't caused by too many capitalists, it's caused by too few."

Don't get me wrong, Distributism is the better of the three ideologies but the people who hate socialism will hate distributism for the same reasons.

reply to post by mr-lizard


Hey your the one's that wanted government to supply your so called free health care. Is it any wonder those of us with a brain don't want the US government trying to to do the same thing. You got what you wanted. You no longer control the quality, quanity, or cost of your health care. You really thought you could give that control to your government and it would not start cutting cost when things got tight?

I sure hope America is watching this and see's just what would happen if we let obamacare proceed.

reply to post by Phedreus


You really have no grasp on how their healthcare works, do you? It is nothing like what Obama is proposing. Nothing. It's like what Obama wanted to do but confused politicians wanted to confuse their constituents (you) with catchy fear-based words like "death panel" and it all ended up being the compromised piece of garbage it is now. Both sides created "Obamacare" and it is the farthest thing from socialism you can get. It's mandatory capitalism.

Originally posted by Glz00
It is wrong they can still get away with messing up most things from our free health care to our fire service even going after old folks homes and they get away with all our money. Dont we own RBS/Halifax? Im sure they can pay us back now, at 20%APR!

They can't. The money only exists in their accounting books.

reply to post by Cuervo


Distributism was actually constructed on the basis of Medieval romanticism. The founders were originally socialists who disapproved of the anti-property ideas of it. They also opposed the corrupting and monopolistic characteristics of capitalism. It was founded from Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Rerum Novarum when he discussed the growing movement against the atrocities of capitalism while trying to rescue the world from falling into communism.

Basically it's really an attempt at reviving late Medieval economic structures with some differentiations between individuals. Those who argue against it on the grounds of violating rights are the truly blind ones for they see only what the fog of capitalism allows them to. Economic freedom is the most critical freedom for without freedom to decide your own life and future you are not free. Capitalism makes you a slave to materially wealthier persons, socialism makes you a slave to the state, Distributism makes you a slave to no man or political body.

It is communitarianism but if you do not have community you will not have a strong individual. Without a strong individual you cannot protect and defend your rights. They are all intertwined. Individualism has failed, all aspects of liberalism have failed, is it not about time we remove the capitalist/socialist soapsuds from our eyes and see the truth?

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by Cuervo

 

Capitalism makes you a slave to materially wealthier persons, socialism makes you a slave to the state,

Slavery involves a zero-sum game. One side wins, while the other loses. Capitalism isn't a zero sum game. When two parties trade, they both benefit. Socialism doesn't necessarily need the state to function, there are many anarcho-socialist.

reply to post by Rockdisjoint


Are you sure about that?

The rules of slavery, at least in the Western world, were that the slave holders had to at least provide food, shelter, and clothing to their slaves. While they may not have earned any sort of true wealth accumulation they were guaranteed certain protections by law.

When you are forced to deal with someone who is in a superior position to your own for mere survival then that is basically involuntary action with the one you must work for/beg being the master in the situation. Your life revolves around the whims of others. That is not freedom. Slaves in Europe during the Roman era were allowed to buy their way out of slavery similar to the way we can today. Social welfare was instituted to re-establish certain legal basis for the treatment of the slaves (workers) and guarantee them certain basic human needs much like laws during the late Roman era had done.

The slaveholders (employers/government) supported these efforts tirelessly to guarantee that they will never have to contend with a disgruntled slave uprising, that is the same reason slaves were guaranteed certain rights in Rome.

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by Rockdisjoint

 

Are you sure about that?

The rules of slavery, at least in the Western world, were that the slave holders had to at least provide food, shelter, and clothing to their slaves. While they may not have earned any sort of true wealth accumulation they were guaranteed certain protections by law.

When you are forced to deal with someone who is in a superior position to your own for mere survival then that is basically involuntary action with the one you must work for/beg being the master in the situation. Your life revolves around the whims of others. That is not freedom. Slaves in Europe during the Roman era were allowed to buy their way out of slavery similar to the way we can today. Social welfare was instituted to re-establish certain legal basis for the treatment of the slaves (workers) and guarantee them certain basic human needs much like laws during the late Roman era had done.

The slaveholders (employers/government) supported these efforts tirelessly to guarantee that they will never have to contend with a disgruntled slave uprising, that is the same reason slaves were guaranteed certain rights in Rome.

Lots of loaded language here. Working for the life of yourself and slavery are different things. In slavery you belong to others. Unlike slavery you also work to afford a lifestyle. Since there is no free lunch, you have to provide some service so someone else willingly trades with you.

I love the irony here.

In the USA people are nearly ready to march on the streets because our government spending is so completely out of control and the country is being driven into the ground.

In the UK the government is trying to be responsible and the people are freaking out about losing entitlements.

Maybe - just maybe - you can't have it both ways. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. I have yet to see a country that can support these types of entitlements long-term. Eventually they all reach a point of economic crisis.

Ergo... entitlements are not the answer.

/logic

Originally posted by Schkeptick
I love the irony here.

In the USA people are nearly ready to march on the streets because our government spending is so completely out of control and the country is being driven into the ground.

In the UK the government is trying to be responsible and the people are freaking out about losing entitlements.

Maybe - just maybe - you can't have it both ways. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. I have yet to see a country that can support these types of entitlements long-term. Eventually they all reach a point of economic crisis.

Ergo... entitlements are not the answer.

/logic

Nor is pure capitalism.

reply to post by teapot


It may only be in digital figures and books,
but this crash has put lots of my friends out of work and at the same time its
got lots of bankers new shiny cars, houses and shares worth millions!

I'm glad Greece, Spain and France are doing more to say enough is enough.

Ireland and Portugal don't seem far off, But we seem a bit slower to react here. Maybe were used to being shafted over the ages!