Huguenot

What's the Irish cause, and how does not putting money into a Southwark Irish fete do nothing for it? @ibilly99: that's why the 'Let's blow all our cash on getting drunk and bugger the rest of it Party' didn't get elected ;-)

New Nexus, your doomsday scenario was based upon the fact that China rejects use of Special Drawing Rights and would destroy Society as we know it to prevent their use. Are you now changing your mind? I'm reassured that finally you accept that SDR is not a currency, but a loan system from a basket of currencies. And of course the devaluation of the US$ through QE is something I explicitly recognize and support. There is no surprise that China are unenthusiastic about it, but that's not the same as the end of the world. Turns out I seem to understand what I'm talking about eh? Pray tell, what else have you changed your mind about? ;-)

Ha ha! 'Delighted to answer questions'. What delusions of grandeur are you suffering from that you imagine you have any answers? I thought we'd already established that the only answers you're likely to have are hackneyed apocalyptic cliche. In times of trouble shall we all come kneel at the feet of UDT? Why would anyone have any questions for you? :))

UDT, you are absolutely blind to the fact that it's your apocalypse obsession that renders a sensible discussion impossible. Time and again on this site you've been found to make outrageous assertions that turn out to be unsubstantiated and finally incorrect. When this is revealed you try and pretend the conversation was about something else. I do not doubt that corporate financiers know the city better than I, I have never claimed otherwise - so why do you refute a point I have never made? This is typical of you. What I've said, again and again, is that there are any number of possible outcomes, and that global apocalypse on the scale of NN's scenario is one of the least likely. Disaster scenarios nevertheless make good telly.

@Scylla: Nicole Foss makes a huge number of predictions that make one key false assumption - that governments are not interventionist. From her perspective the forecasts are based on 'all things being equal'. History tells us this is not the case. Amercians get themselves in a huge steaming funk over this, but in Europe we have a much more socialist outlook and we don't associate interventionism with jackboots, media control and the end of society. Let us also remember that Nicole generates her income from her lecture tour, and you don't get paid for being balanced. She is also a psychologist and environmentalist, not an economist. If the banks had their way then the Euro would be dead already. A far more likely scenario is the EU becoming so exasperated with self-serving banking activity that they regulate them into impotence. This is the nature of interventionism.

I understand the 'scale of the risk' probably better than you do UDT - because I don't look at it through the distorted lenses of envy, misanthropy and anti-establishment propaganda, and I'm not locked into an onanist relationship with the word 'disaster'. This is just silly for example: "The question then becomes how much more able the taxpayers can cover the losses and at what point society starts breaking down when the country stretches itself to pay for these losses.". not only is it speculation, but it's completely disproportionate. You've been driven into a hysterical orgy of fear by media reporting of the numbers. The final cost to the UK taxpayer of the last crisis was relatively insignificant, and most of the investments have already delivered greater returns than the original payout. What I can recognise, and you seemingly cannot, is that the banking industry is one of a myriad of interlocking systems that keep our society functioning. All of the factors that are thrown into the arena for the forthcoming apocalypse applied equally before the sub-prime fiasco (and probably more so because they were unanticipated). The outcome was mitigated by everything from government interventionism to the actions of individuals. This will apply equally to any future scenario. I don't know why I bother telling you this - because you'ver tipped so far into irrationalism that you're no longer listening.

"You really could have just said, Post-hoc ergo propter hoc." You'll have to exaplin that UDT - using Latin doesn't make it any more relevant? NN was christened a nutter after he behaved like a nutter? That's obvious - but a few of you are insisting NN didn't behave like a nutter, so I was highlighting a few salient points. I don't see much point in discussing the Dispatches programme. Like I said, most people agree that the financial markets and the regulators got it wrong. There were many reasons for this. I'm not really interested in a string of apocalyptic disaster scenarios. I've already pointed out until I was bored that if you take every possibility to an extreme and coincidental end point that all things are 'possible'. Possible doesn't meand plausible or probable. The most likely outcome by a considerable margin is that we all stumble along as usual. So all this apocalypse talk is just tedious bullshit.

@Mockers - really, who is it? It seems such a pastiche of views I can't make my mind up. @UDT Eh? What's the Dispatches programme got to do with anything? Moving the goalposts again UDT? This thread is not about what the banks may have got wrong (most posters including me think that the banks and regulators got it wrong) - this thread is about the following extreme assertions made by New Nexus, all before 2014. It is these assertions that he has failed to substantiate, and it is his peculiar (ir)rationale that made people consider him a nuttter. ------------------- From New Nexus: "People will no longer be able to remove cash funds from their bank accounts and all ATM machines will be switched off. All credit and debit cards will no longer function ? Do not dispose of your credit or debit cards, central governments will use these to setup a rationing system for emergency food and water distribution. Telecommunication systems will be limited to emergency calls only this will include mobile and land-line. Internet systems will be re-routed to emergency holding pages only, Email servers will be turned off. Television programming will be centrally controlled. Stock markets will go into free-fall then trading will be suspended, but off market trading will decimate stocks. Hard assets will deflate by 90% this means a house at present costing $500,000.00 will drop to $50,000.00 this drop could be greater if mortgage defaults and delinquency are higher than predicted. Commodity prices will increase 200% per-day. Commodities like bread, meat and canned goods could increase 400 to 500 percent per-day. Mains water supply will first drop in pressure before it stops completely. Petrol and diesel will first be rationed and then very quickly disappear off the open market, any black market supplies will be completely unaffordable. Rolling blackouts will be common place and gas supplies will be interrupted and intermittent before energy imports completely dry up, most western nations have approximately 60 days of coal reserves. Unfortunately most generating stations have been designed to burn gas not coal. Large scale looting and civic disorder will ensue. Social unrest will very quickly usher in martial law. (troops on the streets and curfews imposed) Further false flag attacks will be instigated to render populations more susceptible to control."

27. There's a thin line between feeding the troll and teasing the troll.

I bet it would, he wouldn't half hum...

I understand that there is a correlation between the activities of scrubbers and the state of their jam pans.

Ha ha ha! NN, you think the arguments against your conclusions are reductio ad absurdum? There's never been a clearer case of projection!! Ha ha. :) Contrary to your assertion, it is the fact that so many people have been prepared to consider your 'paradigm that is outside the norms of mainstream media' and under analysis have found it vacuous, that has made you so furious. As I've said before, your arguments have been scare-mongering based on very few facts and demonstrably poor understanding. You've persistently used fabricated quotes and deliberately misinterpreted the views of other commentators. You have made sweeping, ugly and offensive generalisations about people in certain professions. You've resorted to cutting and pasting material from other websites and bulletin boards without attribution (passing them off as your own). Despite that, those who have argued against you have done little more than point out that the conclusions you have drawn are simply too extreme and poorly supported to be rational. No-one has said that there aren't bad seeds in banking and politics, but they have said that that cannot justify your extraordinary conclusions. It was your absolute refusal to accept any of these points, together with the reiteration and escalation of your pre-emptive claims of the destruction of society as we know it that earned you your reputation as a nutter.

I wasn't feigning the indignation of a taxpayer, I didn't either claim I was one or that they were indignant. I simply observed that if the attendees didn't think it was worth paying for, then there's no reason the taxpayer should either. Go back and read it again. Even if we accept that there were 16,000 attendees, this is still only a fraction of the taxpayers of Southwark. Having said that - since it's govt. funding to Southwark that's been cut, and council tax is a constant, we can assume that the funding for this picnic came from HM government fees - which means that it was the entire taxpaying population of the UK that were funding it. Come on AM - it's only 3 quid each, why don't all the attendees stump up for it, and you can still have your party without resorting to telling other people they're not entitled to an opinion. ;-)

18) There's a surprising number of people who know how to get the best out of their jam pans.

It wasn't a slur AM, it was what I saw. I certainly didn't see 16,000 people there either, but I'm quite happy to take them at their word. If there were, then they'd only have to pay 3 quid each. Even the traveller community could afford that, and for most kids it's only a part of their weekly pocket money. No need to bother the taxpayer at all - surprised it's even a conversation. They could probably make a packet in sponsorship if there were really that many people. Of course the organisers might not agree if there really weren't actually 16,000 people there ;-) Quite disappointed by your employment of the bankrupt ruse of calling me a foreigner to negate my opinion. It's been used before, and its repetition doesn't make it any more impressive.

15) It's not the information, it's the way that you use it. 16) You can't out-snoot RosieH when she's on her high horse ;-)

If these events are as popular and important as the attendees claim, then I'm sure they won't mind paying for their own facilities, policing and clear up? Eight hundred wouldn't be an unreasonable guesstimate of Irish Festival attendees - so at 40 grand cost, I'm sure they won't mind stumping up fifty quid each for the ticket, and the chance to sit on litter strewn damp grass and drink cheap alcohol? If they don't think it's worth fifty quid a ticket, then I'm sure they'll understand if the taxpayer doesn't think it's worth that also. By the way, re. the OP, are Irish and Gypsy now interchangeable?

Don't be an idiot.

Ha ha - if you really believe that LD, I'd be staggered. To be fair - he intended nothing of the sort. He used 'brain damage', not 'make-up'. He used the word 'brain damage' twice. What you're indulging in is called 'revisionism'. It's like getting caught stealing and claiming you were only 'borrowing'. ;-)

Mmmmm..... she's fresh... http://bayimg.com/image/eablpaacg.jpg

They're looking at you... http://leannea3.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/cupcake1.jpg

Only someone with the petulance and egotism of a child could imagine they could get away with claiming that drawing attention to an article such as that one is not the same thing as calling bankers brain-damaged. You sound like a twattish schoolboy trying to get away with an offence on a 'technicality'. Regarding being 'told you not to indulge me', do you really you have a carte blanche to carry on behaving like a prat?

So, fresh on the heels of calling these people liars, cheats, and fraudsters, you're now calling them brain damaged? Then iamhere comes on and complains about name-calling? What do you call hypocrites who have absolutely no sense of proportion, demonstrate delusional messiah complexes, make sweeping generalizations about groups of people, use fabricated quotes, deny evidence, indulge in self-reinforcing hysteria about the 'end times', and resolutely refuse to engage in meaningful debate? Nutters? ;-)

"Thats what your lot do to culture" Oh good heavens, just what we need, another petty racist.

I love that quote. It reads.... "AN Other, the otherwise unimportant man in charge of saying 'everything's buggered' said 'everything's buggered'"