5 ms·

The point is, the Bank bailout was spending taxpayers money without our consent. Claiming a few blue movies on the tax payer is the same, but hardly in the sam

by axod 17y ago

The point is, the Bank bailout was spending taxpayers money without our consent. Claiming a few blue movies on the tax payer is the same, but hardly in the same league in terms of amount of money spent. I'd just rather read about real news - that matters. Not a few grand some MPs have claimed on expenses that they maybe shouldn't have but it's a grey area. What is the total money claimed by all MPs, that shouldn't have been claimed by MPs? 6 figures maybe early 7 figures? Oh well that'll keep the NHS running for another few hours - the scale of this just seems miniscule. It's like finding out someone in the ships bar has stolen £10 from petty cash while the titanic sinks. </rant>

gaius 17y ago
The Bank of England has always been the "lender of last resort". That's integral to fractional reserve banking. That ship has sailed my friend :-) Now personally, I would have no problem with a few banks failing. There are 700-odd in the City, what's one or two? Wiping out existing shareholders was the right way to do it tho'.
hga 17y ago
If you believe the Clinton impeachment was about perjury in a court of law by the highest law enforcement officer in the nation, it was arguably worse than all of the above. But based on what I read of the first batch of (leaked) expense disclosures, they paint a pattern nearly as bad as Clinton's, much worse than "claiming a few blue movies*, one of an irredeemably corrupt ruling class. Granted, this is corruption at a "retail" personal level, but it's hard to imagine these same people aren't as corrupt when they're acting in their capacity as MPs and ... how do you say it? ... members of the government/ministers/front benchers/whatever.
- nfnaaron 17y ago
  Yes, exactly. While the corruption may be "retail," the fact or suspicion calls into question their ability to conduct more substantial business in the people's interest.
foldr 17y ago
>The point is, the Bank bailout was spending taxpayers money without our consent. Tax money is always spent without our consent in this sense. I don't recall the government asking my personal permission the last time they build a hospital or maintained a road. But they are elected and authorized to spend that money.

by axod 17y ago

gaius 17y ago

The Bank of England has always been the "lender of last resort". That's integral to fractional reserve banking. That ship has sailed my friend :-) Now personally, I would have no problem with a few banks failing. There are 700-odd in the City, what's one or two? Wiping out existing shareholders was the right way to do it tho'.

hga 17y ago

If you believe the Clinton impeachment was about perjury in a court of law by the highest law enforcement officer in the nation, it was arguably worse than all of the above. But based on what I read of the first batch of (leaked) expense disclosures, they paint a pattern nearly as bad as Clinton's, much worse than "claiming a few blue movies*, one of an irredeemably corrupt ruling class. Granted, this is corruption at a "retail" personal level, but it's hard to imagine these same people aren't as corrupt when they're acting in their capacity as MPs and ... how do you say it? ... members of the government/ministers/front benchers/whatever.

nfnaaron 17y ago
Yes, exactly. While the corruption may be "retail," the fact or suspicion calls into question their ability to conduct more substantial business in the people's interest.

foldr 17y ago

>The point is, the Bank bailout was spending taxpayers money without our consent. Tax money is always spent without our consent in this sense. I don't recall the government asking my personal permission the last time they build a hospital or maintained a road. But they are elected and authorized to spend that money.