“@ Jamie

Yes, I do hold the banks responsible for their behaviour - each decision along this disasterous road was taken by a person, or groups of people, any one of whom could have said 'Wait a minute...' - the same as I do with individuals who overextended themselves (though in fairness many people had little choice due to wage stagflation and reducing social mobility).

Governments since the 1970's have been held in thrall to the money markets, to the detriment of the electorate that they are supposed to work for - so they share some of the blame, but I am afraid most must sit with the money markets themselves, and the credit-rating agencies which signed off the debts as triple-A (which has nothing to do with governments, so your reference to 'governments and their rating agencies' seems a little confused). Did you see the reports this week about Standard & Poor admitting they didn't bother correctly pricing the CDO-risks because they knew taxpayers would ultimately bail out the system? We need look no further for our (sub-)prime culprits.

And this: 'A government can no more regulate taxes than it can regulate drugs or sunlight' is a nonsense - my monthly PAYE deduction tells us that much - it is the opaque nature of international tax-haven-using finance that makes it difficult, but not impossible.”

“I was stuck in work for a hour and 15 minutes yesterday as the police would'nt let any one out, by the way I wark in the uni.there were'nt mant actual students causing all the problems it was all the other people who decided to join the protest just to cause chaos which they managed to do in a big way. the people who decided to start throwing rubbish around from the skips were just being infantile and really need to grow up and learn to get thier own lives sorted out instead causing us tax payers more money with this stupidity. We do need people to keep coming to the uni or slowly and surely we would lose it competely.”

“Ben,
As we all know, a bank will attempt to grow by aquisition, new markets and other means with the ultimate aim of becoming a monopoly in any given market. As we also all know, Tories and Socialists alike, that such moves are detrimental to the greater good.

Can I ask who you think is responsible for regulating the financial sectors avarice? Certainly not the banks themselves?

Can I ask you who you think is responsible for stamping on irresponsible asset bubbles caused by tsunamis of cheap money?

The banks gluttony was only matched by public appetite for debt and while I don't agree that they anyone be bailed out, the banks can't be accused of acting in a fashion that we didn't expect.

There are two groups responsible for this.

1, government and their regulatory bodys that signed of risky debt as triple A and allowed the banks most mercentile instincts to survive

2, the borrowers themselves for taking on such irresponsible personal debt on the advice of their moneylenders rather than their own calculations.

Incedentally, there's no point chasing the ghost of declared taxes. A government can no more regulate taxes than it can regulate drugs or sunlight. The moral arguments are moot. .”

“@ Dan, South Glos:

¿By definition, avoidance is legal.¿

Ah, apologies Dan ¿ I thought we were discussing substance not semantics. It is funny, however, that you seem to think that tax avoidance isn¿t a problem in this country *when this very week* ¿...the 15 biggest banks operating in the U.K. have adopted a government code of practice on reducing tax avoidance...¿ in an attempt to head off legislation to curb their excesses (Bloomberg 30/11/10).

¿Bad legislation is the cause of loopholes and it isn't the fault of the HNW individual or company that they exist. Why shouldn't they be exploited if legal?¿

Poorly drafted legislation exists in most walks of life ¿ but finance is the only one which has tens of thousands of highly paid consultants, lawyers and accountants whose full-time job is to try and exploit the legislation in order to defeat the will of parliament to the detriment of wider society. By definition a loophole doesn¿t exist until someone tries to take advantage of it for their own financial gain.

¿Not quite - avoidance strategies need to be declared upfront to HMRC now.¿

Yes ¿ and how many hundreds of complex new schemes are being put forward each year? And why has the government sacked 400 tax inspectors whose job it was to assess these schemes?

¿'Tax avoidance just increases the burden on the rest of us - if everyone paid their fair share there would be no need for any of the cuts.'

That isn't true I'm afraid.¿

You seem to be the only person in the country who doesn¿t think there is a tax gap between what should be being collected and what is actually being collected ¿ even the Chancellor accepts it exists.

¿The whole "bankers/tax avoiders are evil and everything is their fault" parroted by politicians is to deflect attention away from themselves. If you want to get the real culprit then head over to Fife and bang on Gordon Brown's door... blahblahblah¿

You are right ¿ the only reason that the UK economy is in trouble is because of Brown, and no other developed nation fell into a recession caused by the incompetence/venality of the banks and credit rating agencies.

Oh, wait a minute - that just isn¿t true.
I disagree with huge amounts of what Labour did over the last decade (and never voted for them), but to pretend that a global recession is one man¿s fault is myopic in the extreme.

¿At least the coalition government have a credible plan to do something about it.¿

Yes, because Ireland shows us how successful cutting huge amounts of public spending will be in this situation. And if they have a credible plan why have the Government cancelled the ¿Growth¿ White Paper they were supposed to be releasing this month? (¿The coalition¿s attempts to set out a detailed plan for boosting Britain¿s growth before the year is out has been quietly dropped after George Osborne, the chancellor, decided he needed more time to draw up a coherent strategy. Aides admitted the government did not have enough serious content to warrant a white paper¿ (FT, 21/11/10).

Maybe it¿s because they have no real ideas other than a discredited Chicago-school ideology which is predicated on the assumption that private wealth is always better than public service ¿ the thinking that got us into this mess in the first place.”

“I want to protest against the protesters can we have some names and addresses please. Nice friendly protest outside their parents house a few broken windows on cars they own and paint over house. they might decide to sort their hooligan kids out then.”

“In response to Mr Guthrie who states:

"'It took me 2 weeks to find a job in direct marketing. Ive had no experiance beforhand in the direct marketing sector. Im 19. There are TONS of jobs available.'"

I am utterly astonished that you were able to find employment that easily! Why, because your statement is full of grammatical errors, hence demonstrating your lack of education.

You mention that you work in direct marketing, well if I were a potential client and read your statement, full of grammatical errors, I can asure you, that you would not be able to market anything to me sucessfully!

What I find beyond belief is that employers obviously give employment to people such as yourself who are not able to use the English language correctly in writing, yet there are plenty of literate people out there who can not find work.

Perphaps I should make myself illiterate? I may get more job offers?”

“I ended up in the middle of the student protest - peaceful it was not. I've got mobility issues and no car = having to use my wheelchair.

Four cars or so were stranded at the very bottom of Park Street coming off the Centre as the police suddenly shut roads. The first protesters down were fine. They tried to sit in the road in front of me, but I flashed my disabled badge at them, so they let me inch forward to get right up behind the car in front, then all hell broke loose as the mob descended. The car in front inched forward leaving a gap I didn't dare fill due to the number of people swarming around us. My car was rocked and buffeted and lots of the students had bandannas covering their faces intent on trouble.

Yet in a sense I was the lucky one as I ended up as the first car behind the police cordon (there were at least two other cars in front of it). I had police all along my driver's side and across my front and two huge police horses down the passenger side, but still the car was rocked and buffeted.

In all I was stuck for around 30 minutes and in the thick of it for a good ten minutes. It was a truly terrifying experience. I'd got my doors locked, but if they'd turned me over or smashed my windows I wouldn't have stood a chance. Not only was it fear for my personal safety, it was fear for my car as I depend on it.

I know at least one of the policemen had seen my disabled badge, as just before the mob arrived I asked if there was anyway to get out (turn round), but I think the police around my car was fluke, they were running ahead of the mob and I think the space around my car was the first chance they had to form a cordon, they certainly couldn't get in front of the first car because the mob was running diagonally towards us.

Personally I think there should be no tuition fees and also that the old style grant should be reinstated. We need to invest in the professionals of the future. However I also think the number of university places should be vastly reduced so that we are not creating too many graduates for the number of jobs available. If we did that, we could afford not to charge tuition fees and maybe even restore the grants.

However, that doesn't give these unruly mobs the right to go running amok, causing havoc and terrifying innocent bystanders.”

“Dan: "Bad legislation is the cause of loopholes and it isn't the fault of the HNW individual or company that they exist. Why shouldn't they be exploited if legal?"

Are you advocating increased regulation to counter, by your definition, those people who are "exploiting" the laws just because they can? The very same people who are in the luxurious position to be able to afford the accountants and lawyers necessary to eploit those silly 'tax loopholes' that exist?

So exactly who are the bad guys in your world, Dan? The benefit fraudsters who are breaking "real" laws in order to become just like you? The creation and enforcement of the law cost society money; whether it's curbing benefit fraud or encouraging the better of to contribute to a better, fairer society. In my eyes, exploiting the tax 'loopholes' is no less anti-social (and in many cases more so) than someone on the dole who's trying to better him or herself by earning a little extra cash. It's well know that benefit fraud pales into utter insignificance when all the little 'loopholes' you like to 'exploit' are totted up.”

“There is one problem that these protestors seem to forget; there are not enough jobs available for vast numbers to have a university education. Currently, there are plenty of postgraduates, as well as graduates out there who can not get a job, and I mean any job. Postgraduates spend considerably more money on their education that undergraduates, and do you hear them complaining? no. That is despite them paying considerably more for their education than a graduate, they still can not get jobs due to the state of the economy. Therefore, to burden the employment market with increasing numbers of undergraduates is absolutely ridiculous. The Government should not be encourgaing more people to go to university, instead it should be assisting those that have been, have worked hard, and want a job, to actually find a job! It is ridiculous to have an economy where there is excessive numbers of people qualified to a certin level that can not find jobs, and the people out there who say there are jobs are either: incredibly lucky having found one, lieing, or is it that employers do not like qualified people, instead prefering to employ those that have just got off their benefits???”

“The lot of you make me sick! Just because you lived in a time where jobs were easy to come across, people were willing to train you and the cost of living was cheap(er)! Im a first year paramedic student who worked in dead end jobs for years! If we didn't go to university we would all be working in corner shops, as bin men and in supermarkets! Then where would our country be?? Our economy would crash and burn! I would like to inform you that I am not a lazy student 'winging it' I do 48 hours a week, every week, if not more and I get 6 weeks off for the whole year! And I pay for the privilege... Do you really think I WANT £20.000 worth of debt? Erm HELL NO! But I have no choice if I actually want to survive in this country. And have any chance of owning a house and having a family.
How can you possibly think we would be better off if we all just went and got jobs at the age of 16? The poor would become poorer and never have the chance to change it. And the rich richer. Maybe try looking at it from the other side for once! I come from a low income family - living in a council house with parents on minimum wage, Ambitions and the want for a better life stopped me becoming another chav on a Southmead street corner with a bottle of white lightning in my hand! Maybe the government should concentrate on stopping underage pregnancy as the last time I checked it was illegal to have sex under 16. But instead of punishing these people WE PAY THEM!
Or control binge drinking which costs us billions each year. Or get those lazy gits off their sofas and out working in the community instead of being paid to sit and watch Jeremy Kyle.
I'd also like to inform you that careers like Paramedics, nurses, doctors all have to go to university, so if we don't, the general public suffer! Think about that the next time you have a sniffle or take a fall in this snow!”