[between_the_lies]

According to The Guardian, the anarchistic occupation of a business' premises is business as usual:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...olice-uk-uncut

And here is the non neo-Marxist story from the Daily Mail:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-trespass.html

Isn't the Guardians attitude characteristic of our acceptance of anarchy.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[MBT Bot]

It's been a while since you posted and nobody's replied yet...maybe you should check out MarkedbyTeachers.com, TSR's sister site. It has the largest library of essays in the UK with over 173,000+ coursework, essays, homeworks etc.. all written by GCSE, A Level, University and IB students across all topics.

Handpicked examples show formative feedback comments from some brilliant teachers. Plus, reviews from A* students and hints, tips & common mistakes from their teacher team. You get access either by publishing some of your own work, or paying £4.99 for a month's access. Both ways give you unlimited access to all of the essays.

All their documents are submitted to Turnitin anti-plagiarism software, so it can't be misused, and the site's used by hundreds of thousands of UK teachers and students.

What's more, you can take a look around the site and preview the work, read reviews and teacher summaries AND view the hints and tips absolutely free. Click here to find out more...

[godblessyousir]

what

[ApresAlkan]

(Original post by between_the_lies)
According to The Guardian, the anarchistic occupation of a business' premises is business as usual:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...olice-uk-uncut

And here is the non neo-Marxist story from the Daily Mail:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-trespass.html

Isn't the Guardians attitude characteristic of our acceptance of anarchy.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Frankly, I've gotten over my initial rage at you insolent posts, and now find you completely comical.

You call an anti-cuts (therefore social democratic, not 'Marxist', the definition for which word I recommend you read and memorise) activist's opinion piece ('comment is free' is the Guardian's opinion page) 'anarchistic'. The piece protests against police brutality in response to a perfectly genial protest inside a haunt of the affluent.

The Mail's article is actually quite accurate, and describes things reasonably, albeit a little skewed. The Indy and Graun articles are much better written and more accurate.

[between_the_lies]

(Original post by ApresAlkan)
Frankly, I've gotten over my initial rage at you insolent posts, and now find you completely comical.

You call an anti-cuts (therefore social democratic, not 'Marxist', the definition for which word I recommend you read and memorise) activist's opinion piece ('comment is free' is the Guardian's opinion page) 'anarchistic'. The piece protests against police brutality in response to a perfectly genial protest inside a haunt of the affluent.

The Mail's article is actually quite accurate, and describes things reasonably, albeit a little skewed. The Indy and Graun articles are much better written and more accurate.

I apposite for my blatant misuse, over use and exaggerated use of terms. What I wanted to ask is whether norms of behaviour have been subverted to a point where anarchistic occupation becomes seen as normal behaviour.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[ApresAlkan]

(Original post by between_the_lies)
I apposite for my blatant misuse, over use and exaggerated use of terms. What I wanted to ask is whether norms of behaviour have been subverted to a point where anarchistic occupation becomes seen as normal behaviour.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

I assume you mean 'apologise'. As I'm short on time, I shan't write a complete reply, but here is something.

This was not 'anarchistic'. It was a jovial protest in a tax-avoiding haunt of the wealthy, with perhaps a few people using it as an excuse for uncouth behaviour. The protest was for a good cause and was well executed for the most part. They claim that they lost £50 000 in business because of the protest. The British taxpayer lost £10 000 000 due to Fortnum and Mason avoiding tax.

[mimx]

To sum up the guardian blog piece:

Why was I jailed for being disruptive and damaging someone's business?

Even if you think you -ought- to be able to do it, how can you be surprised by what happened.

[michael321]

(Original post by ApresAlkan)
I assume you mean 'apologise'. As I'm short on time, I shan't write a complete reply, but here is something.

This was not 'anarchistic'. It was a jovial protest in a tax-avoiding haunt of the wealthy, with perhaps a few people using it as an excuse for uncouth behaviour. The protest was for a good cause and was well executed for the most part. They claim that they lost £50 000 in business because of the protest. The British taxpayer lost £10 000 000 due to Fortnum and Mason avoiding tax.

Yes, but the £50,000 was lost through an illegal disruption. The (alleged) £10,000,000 went unpaid, I presume, because of legal tax avoidance. It is silly to suggest that a business should not seek to be as tax-efficient as possible; it's the government's job to ensure that there aren't loopholes.

Doesn't matter if the attitude of many was 'jovial': they invaded a shop, vandalised it, damaged it, stole from it, and prevented it from being used for its normal, legitimate purposes.

[ApresAlkan]

(Original post by michael321)
Yes, but the £50,000 was lost through an illegal disruption. The (alleged) £10,000,000 went unpaid, I presume, because of legal tax avoidance. It is silly to suggest that a business should not seek to be as tax-efficient as possible; it's the government's job to ensure that there aren't loopholes.

Doesn't matter if the attitude of many was 'jovial': they invaded a shop, vandalised it, damaged it, stole from it, and prevented it from being used for its normal, legitimate purposes.

It is not silly to suggest that a corporations should not seek to be as 'tax-efficient' as possible. It is positively misanthropic and foolish to avoid tax.

Te protest was peaceful and legitimate. Theft was hinted at in quotes, but does not appear to have been widespread--and would directly contradict the point of the protest. The protesters did not steal, but some may have used the protest as an excuse to do so.

If you are against such peaceful protest, pity is all I can express.

[between_the_lies]

(Original post by ApresAlkan)
It is not silly to suggest that a corporations should not seek to be as 'tax-efficient' as possible.

Oh when I look at the annual reports of the companies that I am invested in, if I see half their net profit paid out as tax, am I likely to send the Directors a letter of congratulation?

May I suggest a reality check.

[Nick100]

(Original post by ApresAlkan)
It is not silly to suggest that a corporations should not seek to be as 'tax-efficient' as possible. It is positively misanthropic and foolish to avoid tax.

In what way is it foolish? I gain purchasing power by avoiding tax. And how is one being misanthropic by refusing to hand control of their money to George Osborne, of all people?

Te protest was peaceful and legitimate. Theft was hinted at in quotes, but does not appear to have been widespread--and would directly contradict the point of the protest. The protesters did not steal, but some may have used the protest as an excuse to do so.

If a group of strangers walked into your property and just sat around without actually breaking anything would you be okay with that? Would you still be okay if they wrote "SCUM" on your walls?

[michael321]

(Original post by ApresAlkan)
It is not silly to suggest that a corporations should not seek to be as 'tax-efficient' as possible. It is positively misanthropic and foolish to avoid tax.

On a personal level I would actually agree with you. Of course, the government has an obligation to ensure that there are not loopholes, but people should pay their fair share.

However, when we start talking about companies and ownership is separated from control, things change. The forces acting on companies to be tax-efficient are much stronger than those acting on individuals: if Jimmy Carr decides he wants to pay all his taxes, he can maintain that decision indefinitely; if the board decides that a company won't avoid tax, it will quickly be ousted by shareholders and overtaken by less scrupulous competition. That's the way companies will logically act in our current system, and while you might disagree with that system you can't blame business from seeking to maximise profits.

Te protest was peaceful and legitimate. Theft was hinted at in quotes, but does not appear to have been widespread--and would directly contradict the point of the protest. The protesters did not steal, but some may have used the protest as an excuse to do so.

If you are against such peaceful protest, pity is all I can express.

Well clearly it wasn't legitimate, because the protesters were arrested and charged.

I am not generally against peaceful protest, but there's a line. It seems to me pretty clear that when you cause £100,000+ of damage/loss of profit, you are not performing a simple peaceful protest. If I disagree with something you've done, and as a result I damage your business, I am essentially punishing you without legitimate authority and the exercise of my right to free speech/movement is impinging on your rights.