Calling all keyboard protestors, ranter and ravers

Gustav said:
trippy
no comment on the city of london plc inc ltd post?
i had some vague notions but ended up shocked and outraged after reading
Click to expand...

I'm not terribly moved by it one way of another.

The city of london (the square mile) is the boundaries of Londinium, dating back to like, at least 50AD as I understand it.

The office of the city rememberancer was (originally at least) essentially that of a messenger.

There is, it seems, no record of the city of london corporation having been incorporated, but it's first royal charter is from like, 1067, and may date as far back as 1003. It's function is (ostensibly) that of a city council.
:Shrugs:
Voting eligibility is 18+, a Sole trader, a Partner, or a resident.

In theory, at least, I don't see anything wrong with any of that, at least not in principle. I can, however, see how it might be open to abuse, or being hijacked by an 'old boys club'. But there's the potential for that to happen in any circumstances anyway.

I know that the 2002 reforms increased the scope of voting eligibility, to include:
Those who have worked for the body for the past year at premises in the City
Those who have served on the body's Board of Directors for the past year at premises in the City
Those who have worked in the City for the body for an aggregate total of five years
Those who have worked for in the City for a total of ten years​

I also know that Paul Double, the current city rememberancer is working with Parliment on reforms (I lack information about what kinds).

As for my personal opinion.

On the one hand, I can see how it might be corrupt (I view allegations as precisely that, an allegation remains an allegation until it's tested in a court of law, innocent until proven guilty and all that).
I can understand how it might have originated, and how its origin might have been valid - after all, the boardmembers of goldman-sax have democratic rights to.
I can see how what might be perceived as an imbalance of power might naturally arise if votes are awarded to business owners porportionally to the number of their employees, on the assumption they will represent the best interests of said employees.
My understanding is that some of the legal loopholes that people are now complaining about came about because the businesses involved (either now, or at the time) gave the city loans for things such as public works - in that regard, there's an element of karma and irony in amongst all of this.

Is it right or wrong that it's come to this point? I'll refrain from comment on that for now.
 
so neither of you find nothing unusual about a business voting by way of its proxies? a vote not only by residency but thru place of employment?
also it helps to quote in entirety, adoucette..

A private act of Parliament in 2002 reformed the voting system for electing Members to the Corporation of London and received the Royal Assent on 7 November 2002. Under the new system, the number of non-resident voters has doubled from 16,000 to 32,000. Previously disfranchised firms (and other organizations) are entitled to nominate voters, in addition to those already represented, and all such bodies are now required to choose their voters in a representative fashion.

Bodies employing fewer than ten people may appoint one voter; those employing ten to 50 people may appoint one voter for every five employees; those employing more than 50 people may appoint ten voters and one additional voter for each 50 employees beyond the first 50.​
and that is your alleged oversight?
The power and influence of the City over government policy has enraged democratically elected leaders down the ages. For example the former British Prime Minister Clement Attlee wrote “Over and over again we have seen that there is in this country another power than that which has its seat at Westminster. The City of London, a convenient term for a collection of financial interests, is able to assert itself against the Government of the country. Those who control money can pursue a policy at home and abroad contrary to that which has been decided by the people."​
but you guys know better, yes?
 
Gustav said:
Bodies employing fewer than ten people may appoint one voter; those employing ten to 50 people may appoint one voter for every five employees; those employing more than 50 people may appoint ten voters and one additional voter for each 50 employees beyond the first 50.
Click to expand...
This setup favour small business not large ones.

Imagine if Goldman-sachs, for example, got 1 vote for every 5 employees instead of one vote for every 50.
 
Trippy said:
This setup favour small business not large ones.

Imagine if Goldman-sachs, for example, got 1 vote for every 5 employees instead of one vote for every 50.
Click to expand...

so that is a "good" thing?

/chortle

"nothing unusual" about that stuff, eh?
 
Gustav said:
so neither of you find nothing unusual about a business voting by way of its proxies? a vote not only by residency but thru place of employment?
Click to expand...

Well no.
Considering that the area is quite unique in that it has 330,000 people who work there every day and less than 5% of that number live there. So yeah, giving some say to and about the welfare of the people who work there each day seems to make sense.

And what they are dealing with appears to be normal issues, mainly about upkeep of the area, zoning that sort of stuff. But what their actual influence is not clear to me.

I can find NOTHING though to indicate support for the main complaint in your original post that because the companies are in this small area that they in fact escape the rules, taxes etc set down by the British Parliment.

Like our own large corporations, the British companies also have a lot of influence and I don't think it's because of where they are headquartered.

And your quote was from 60 years ago.
You might want to find something a tad more current.

That said, I'm not British and not at all familiar with this and so it's quite possible I'm wrong, but as the article you quoted from points out: It should be noted that many criticisms of the 'City of London' also apply to the UK financial services industry.

Arthur
 
OXqge.jpg
 
Gustav said:
oh
did i just lump you in with the hated adoucette?
lemme go back and verify the "apologetic" stance discerned
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

And while you're at it, you can quote me commenting on the morality of the issue, versus the legality and the history of it.

Trippy said:
I'm not terribly moved by it one way of another...

...Is it right or wrong that it's come to this point? I'll refrain from comment on that for now.
Click to expand...

Of course, an astute observer will note that I alluded to some of the same potential problems as your own sources allege are happening, I'm just more cautious with my language (fancy that, someone with a science background being cautious with their language).

A sane observer will note that the most I have said on the matter more or less boils down to "Anybody who pays rates should have some say over how those rates are spent."

You mentioned multiple votes, and voting by proxy - how is the situation any different from an individual who owns properties in three different cities. Are they not entitled to have some say on how that money is spent?

Here in Dunedin, we have a University. The students at that university account for some absurdly high percentage of the population of Dunedin - it really is ridiculous. Let's say it's 20% (I have a feeling it may not be far off that). As a consequence of that, Dunedin also has a large rental property market, and there are a significant number of people that own multiple properties.
What's the fair and just way of conducting a city council election?
Do you send voting papers to every mailing address? That's unfair to the permanent residents, because many of the students may only be in the city for as little as six months, but you're giving them a say in issues that may affect the city for 50 years or more.
Do you send one voting paper to the owner of each property? That's unfair, because people who own multiple rental properties will get multiple votes.
Do you send one voting paper to each property owner? This strikes me as the fairest, but I'm sure that someone who owns multiple properties would probably argue that it's unfair.

What's my point? It doesn't matter what system you choose, there will always be someone who will have some degree of justification (in their eyes at least) to decry the system as being unfair.

And, you'll note, I still haven't commented on the morality of the situation - only to point out that I think that people are entitled to have a say on how their money is spent, and that it doesn't matter how you acheive that, it's probably going to piss someone off.
 
Gustav said:
oh
did i just lump you in with the hated adoucette?
lemme go back and verify the "apologetic" stance discerned
Click to expand...

Where you erred was trying to box my response as being 'Left wing' or 'Right wing'; or if you prefer 'Pro' or 'Apologist'.

Stop doing that, and we will have fewer miscommunications.

(Or - you and I seem to have the same basic problem that S.A.M and I had at one stage, reading too much into each others posts and responding accordingly).
 
spidergoat said:
I believe they are protesting the lack of regulation and lack of taxation of the rich and corporations. The government representatives are not doing enough to reign in the worst aspects of capitalism because they are bought.
Click to expand...

The problem is that buying politicians would accomplish nothing in a capitalist economy, since the government who would be forbidden from granting favors to businesses.

Why do they want more taxation of the rich? Why not less taxation of everyone else?
 
Take note America, this is how things should be done :3

Dunedin-Clutha area commander Inspector Greg Sparrow issued a brief statement late yesterday, confirming police would not act on the trespass notices issued to the protesters by council staff last week.

Police had been considering their legal position for the past week, but Insp Sparrow yesterday concluded the trespass notices did not meet "the test of balancing the rights and freedoms of all parties".

Police were yet to see any action by the protesters "that would justify police intervention", but would continue to monitor the situation, he said...

...Insp Sparrow's statement said the courts had made it clear any power to issue trespass notices to people protesting in a public place had to be "exercised reasonably" and balance the rights and freedoms of those involved...​

Source
 
meanwhile, back in the ranch....


Occupy Oakland: Target Practice (11-3-2011)


​


...and back in the day, oakland pd recruited rednecks from the deep south to deal with the influx of blacks
 
The following are 12 statistics about money and Congress that are so outrageous that it is hard to believe that they are actually true....

#1 The collective net worth of all of the members of Congress increased by 25 percent between 2008 and 2010.

#2 The collective net worth of all of the members of Congress is now slightly over 2 billion dollars. That is "billion" with a "b".

#3 This happened during a time when the net worth of most American households was declining rapidly. According to the Federal Reserve, the collective net worth of all American households decreased by 23 percent between 2007 and 2009.

#4 The average net worth for a member of Congress is now approximately 3.8 million dollars.

#5 The net worth of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi increased by 62 percent from 2009 to 2010. In 2009 it was reported that she had a net worth of 21.7 million dollars, and in 2010 it was reported that she had a net worth of 35.2 million dollars.

#6 The top Republican in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, saw his wealth grow by 29 percent from 2009 to 2010. He is now worth approximately 9.8 million dollars.

#7 More than 50 percent of the members of the U.S. Congress are millionaires.

#8 In 2008, the average cost of winning a seat in the House of Representatives was $1.1 million and the average cost of winning a seat in the U.S. Senate was $6.5 million. Spending on political campaigns has gotten way out of control.

#9 Insider trading is perfectly legal for members of the U.S. Congress - and they refuse to pass a law that would change that.

#10 The percentage of millionaires in Congress is more than 50 times higher than the percentage of millionaires in the general population.

#11 U.S. Representative Darrell Issa is worth approximately 220 million dollars. His wealth grew by approximately 37 percent from 2009 to 2010.

#12 The wealthiest member of Congress, U.S. Representative Michael McCaul, is worth approximately 294 million dollars.

So how are members of Congress becoming so wealthy?

Well, there are lots of ways they are raking in the cash, but one especially alarming thing that goes on is that members of Congress often make investments in companies that will go up significantly if legislation that is being considered by Congress "goes the right way".

This is called a "conflict of interest", but it happens constantly in Congress and nobody seems to get into any trouble for it.

The following is video of Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes ambushing Nancy Pelosi about one particular conflict of interest involving credit card legislation. As you can see, she does not want to talk about it....
Click to expand...
click here
As noted above, insider trading is perfectly legal for members of Congress.

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/12-facts-about-money-and-congress-that-are-so-outrageous-that-it-is-hard-to-believe-that-they-are-actually-true
 
The Esotericist said:
As noted above, insider trading is perfectly legal for members of Congress.
Click to expand...

Ah, no it's not.

Bills going through Congress are published and thus are PUBLIC knowledge, so if one makes investments based upon the anticipated impact that legislation may have on an industry or company, that's known as OUTSIDER infomation.

And indeed, it is one of the things that all wise investors consider.
Of course because members of Congress are probably much more aware of the possible impact than most people, they do do a bit better than the average investor (in a recent study on Congressional stock trades, they were about 6% better than the market average)

Insider information, in contrast, is information that one gets about a specific company because one works for the company and if one makes trades based on information that has not been released to the public, that is illegal.

That is NOT the type of information that the Congress has access to.

Arthur
 
This Is What Democracy Looks Like



​
Police used batons to try to push the students apart. Those they could separate, they arrested, kneeling on their bodies and pushing their heads into the ground. Those they could not separate, they pepper-sprayed directly in the face, holding these students as they did so. When students covered their eyes with their clothing, police forced open their mouths and pepper-sprayed down their throats. Several of these students were hospitalized. Others are seriously injured. One of them, forty-five minutes after being pepper-sprayed down his throat, was still coughing up blood.​



​
One of the most inspiring things (inspiring for those of us who care about students who assert their rights to free speech and peaceful assembly) about the demonstration in Berkeley on November 9 is that UC Berkeley faculty stood together with students, their arms linked together. Associate Professor of English Celeste Langan was grabbed by her hair, thrown on the ground, and arrested. Associate Professor Geoffrey O’Brien was injured by baton blows. Professor Robert Hass, former Poet Laureate of the United States, National Book Award and Pulitzer Prize winner, was also struck with a baton. These faculty stood together with students in solidarity, and they too were beaten and arrested by the police.​
Open Letter to Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi
 
Last edited:
UC Davis:Who's University? Our University!





​


A pretty remarkable thing just happened. A press conference, scheduled for 2:00pm between the UC Davis Chancellor and police on campus, did not end at 2:30. Instead, a mass of Occupy Davis students and sympathizers mobilized outside, demanding to have their voice heard. After some initial confusion, UC Chancellor Linda Katehi refused to leave the building, attempting to give the media the impression that the students were somehow holding her hostage.

A group of highly organized students formed large gap for the chancellor to leave. They chanted “we are peaceful” and “just walk home,” but nothing changed for several hours. Eventually student representatives convinced the chancellor to leave after telling their fellow students to sit down and lock arms.​
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top