TopShop targeted in London today by demonstrators

[ladyingreen]

cant blame them really for targeting a company whose owner lives in tax exile creaming off billions of pounds in tax free dividends.

Isn't it strange how they never target the Guardian - perhaps the most pernicious tax-avoiders of all?

Never fear LFN - Guido Fawks is doing his best to expose the Guardian's tax avoidance on his blog.

But I think you were a tad wrong about the Guardian. Didn't you used to say they were kept afloat by government adverts? When all along it was off shore investments keeping Polly T and co in champagne and second homes (apparently).

The same group of criminal vandals attacked a branch of Santander bank. Given that Santander was not one of the banks that needed public help in 2008 I think the only targeting going on, if any, was some kind of moronic idea that 'banks are bad'... Don't kid yourself that they understand Phillip Green's tax arrangements in any more depth than that.

Wonder how many of the vandals pay tax?

Santander reportedly have the worst customer services - so maybe a splinter group of frustrated Santander customers?

I was horrified by the media's (BBC's) response to the march.

They played down at every available opportunity and tried to demonise those who were demonstrating. -toughtless yobs most of them were not. Indeed you could argue that even those who were not involved in the violence were not thoughtless they activily targeted institutions they felt were complicit in the problem (negeotiating their own taxes etc).

FWIW I don't support the violence but neither do I feel they are thoughtless yobs...

They were smashing up restaurants and bars - with terrified people inside.
What if you were a couple that had saved for months to have a night at the Ritz - imagine how frightening it would have been to have windows smashed around you and flares thrown into the foyer...

Of course they were yobs.

Also watched BBC NEWS last night when people kettled in Trafalgar Square -I noticed that the footage was on a loop, so it was misrepresenting what was going on.

I thought the BBC's earlier coverage was very balanced. Both those marching and the police shown in a very positive light (as they no doubt deserved).

But violence is news (sadly) and the violent protesters eventually pushed the good news off the screens. That's the media for you.

An article from The Economist reviewing the day.

Quote from a friend who was there:

'pathetic that press/ tv can't/won't distinguish between peaceful TUC protest, peaceful UKuncut and red and black anarchists. hint: the clue is in the flags and the facemasks.'

"Don't kid yourself that they understand Phillip Green's tax arrangements in any more depth than that."

Top Shop is owned (on paper) by Philip Green's wife who lives in Monaco - she gets all the dividends & pays no UK tax on them. I think that's pretty easy to understand, Chil

so what was the excuse for vandalising the war memorials then?

I think the masked yobbos were operating on a brainwashed level of 'rich = bad'.... no more.

Was this on the same day that up to 500,000 people marched peacefully through London, standing up for public services and the NHS in the face of huge cuts, affecting the vulnerable most critically of all?

The march that seems to have elicited no threads whatsoever on here apart from something about TopShop being targetted?

Try here in the politics board.

TUC Demo against cuts.

Also top "discussion of the day" .

jackstarb Pretty much the only revenue source for the Guardian itself is the Government advertisements, as I understand it. After all, it hardly has any readers...

The Guardian Media Group, however, owns several profitable titles (most profitable is their share of Auto Trader, I think). The GMG uses shady Cayman Island shadow companies to avoid paying UK tax - quite rightly, because legally avoiding tax is a moral duty for all upstanding citizens and companies - except for the small matter of hypocrisy.

Did you read the Guardian's justification for tax avoiding? They seem to imply that it was ok for them to do it because their cause was good (keeping a left wing newspaper going). But they still felt fine criticising other companies for doing it (I guess because they were "less worthy" entities).

Presumably -

Pension funds investing in Barclays - bad.
Polly Toynbee's Tuscan second home - good.

But why the necessity for so many covered faces?

Santander have not been paying their fare share of corporation tax or something they said about it on the news, when they listed the reasons why the places that got attacked where targeted, and it was all pretty much about tax avoidance.

Hilarious that some of the 'anarchists' are the sons of multi millionaires - whose parents are well known for ....guess what....being tax exiles

I wonder how many were wearing clothes from the companies they attacked, or have accounts at targetted banks, or have been known to buy the Guardian, etc?

Apparently even the Co-op bank use some of same tax avoidance practices as Barclays and the Guardian Media Group. I expect all banks do.

So, tax avoidance protestors - it's got to be "money under the mattress" time for savings and Oxfam(?) for clothes......