G20 demonstrations

[Master Fox]

nice pic Monk.

Must have been quite exciting to see Obama.

[purpleronnie]

Should we have to settle for either option?

Exactly.

Mr Cohen has come under fire over his second home expenses, said to be at least £104,000 over six years despite his constituency being 28 minutes from Westminster by Tube. One report has suggested his total claim could be more than £300,000.

Yep thats ok.

[Monk]

Yeah it was pretty cool - he was 10 ft from me and about 20 ft from my front door. It was quite bizarre really - my place was actually inside the police secure area so we were able to go right up to the edge of the exit road.

[Master Fox]

Yeah it was pretty cool - he was 10 ft from me and about 20 ft from my front door. It was quite bizarre really - my place was actually inside the police secure area so we were able to go right up to the edge of the exit road.

awesome

[Jon the Hat]

Yep thats ok.

Nothing OK about certain MP's taking the p!ss. What is ok is an MP claiming for a home in London if they live in Edinburgh. Also OK is employing a member of staff. They should be required to actually work for it though.

Makes me laugh that so many people think £60k a year is a lot of money. It isn't. I earn about that and I find it hard to support Wife and baby, 2 cars and a house in Surrey. Owning something in Central london on that kind of money is no doubt much harder. Many of our MP's have already had some success personally and myabe are in a decent financial position, but should this be a requirement?

So you either pay them oh I don't know, the same amount a a council Chief Exec (call it £150k a year) or you pay for their expenses. This is really a storm in a teacup over sod all money due to some dishonet gits taking our money to pay for their main house while they "live" at their Mum's or sisters or Aunt Ethels.

[Dr The Singh]

Nothing OK about certain MP's taking the p!ss. What is ok is an MP claiming for a home in London if they live in Edinburgh. Also OK is employing a member of staff. They should be required to actually work for it though.

Makes me laugh that so many people think £60k a year is a lot of money. It isn't. I earn about that and I find it hard to support Wife and baby, 2 cars and a house in Surrey. Owning something in Central london on that kind of money is no doubt much harder. Many of our MP's have already had some success personally and myabe are in a decent financial position, but should this be a requirement?

So you either pay them oh I don't know, the same amount a a council Chief Exec (call it £150k a year) or you pay for their expenses. This is really a storm in a teacup over sod all money due to some dishonet gits taking our money to pay for their main house while they "live" at their Mum's or sisters or Aunt Ethels.

In my opinion all public workers should be scrutinised, not just MP's!! Everyone has a right to a decent salary and it's fair to say the salary should match that of job they are doing!!

But the only difference with MP's is that they are elected by the public and represent the public, and need to act in a manner which befits the public, and unfortunatley whether they squander\misuse £100 or £10,000, it doesn't give us the public any confidence in our MP's or the system!!

[Finnegan]

MF's signature really does make you realise that the Queen and her husband are the two whitest people on the entire planet.

[Dr The Singh]

MF's signature really does make you realise that the Queen and her husband are the two whitest people on the entire planet.

And they look like Hobbits in comparison, the Obama's look massive!!!

[Master Fox]

MF's signature really does make you realise that the Queen and her husband are the two whitest people on the entire planet.

I also think prince Philip looks like he’s having racist thoughts and the Queen needs a new bra, her tits are around her waist.

[Finnegan]

I also think prince Philip looks like he’s having racist thoughts and the Queen needs a new bra, her tits are around her waist.

Titwanktastic.

[Flynny]

I also think prince Philip looks like he’s having racist thoughts

Addressing the Duke of Edinburgh, he added: “It’s a wonderful honour,” and then described his day. “I had breakfast with the Prime Minister, I had meetings with the Chinese, the Russians and David Cameron,” he said.

Appearing to refer to his jetlag, he won laughter from his hosts as he added: “I’m proud to say I did not nod off in any of the meetings.”

The Duke laughed and asked: “Can you tell the difference between them?” The President waved a hand and joked: “It’s all a blur.”

I'd like to think that's what he meant.

[Master Fox]

I'd like to think that's what he meant.

"We've counted all the valuables too, we know what your kind are like with your spears and stuff"

[Finnegan]

Hahaha. "The Chinese, The Russians and David Cameron."

I love that that's funny enough sounding [in my head, shut up!] that I don't need to make any additional gag.

[Master Fox]

Neanderthal Americans

[Dr The Singh]

"We've counted all the valuables too, we know what your kind are like with your spears and stuff"

Personally I think he's thinking Obama's got the more fitter women of the two and is cursing his luck!!!

[Finnegan]

I have this image of Obama tombstoning the Queen now. Which is equally funny.

[Flynny]

Personally I think he's thinking Obama's got the more fitter women of the two and is cursing his luck!!!

"So, uhhhh, do you fancy popping ones keys in this bowl? Marvellous."

[breadandcheese]

Interesting, but isn't the ambition and/or greed of people from lower socio-economic groups what drives them to take out mortgages that they can barely afford? Rather than encouraging people to get into debt, the emphasis should have been on providing better social housing.

I am sure that someone who knows about money might correct me, but isn't it in the interest of the economy to have more people spending, whether it's their own or someone else's money? So rather than helping the underclasses, what Clinton and Bush were trying to do was for economic growth and not for philanthropic purposes?

That's a fair point. I guess the ambition of people from lower socio-economic groups was not matched with a balance of risk. Add to that the "education" of people watching the market movements over the previous 15 years, would lead (and indeed did lead) many to conclude that buying property was wise, so you had to get on the ladder. It didn't matter about borrowing 5 times your salary because "house prices would always rise" so you'd always increase your capital base.

At all levels, risk was completely mismanaged. Those taking out the loans seemed to have no comprehension of the risk that they may not be able to pay it back and would risk losing their home. Financial institutions who created sub-prime loans in the belief that risk had been conquered through securitisation and government backed institutions (the now defunct Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the US), thought they were taking no risk at all. It's often remarked that the banks took huge risks with depositors money. In the banks' eyes, they thought they were buying AAA riskless securities, that had been split up and re-engineered, with the risk spread throughout the system. Instead, unbeknown to them, they were ballooning the risk and spreading it to all parties. In addition, the regulators (well done to the FSA) could not identify the risk and so took no action, allowing it to infest the economic system.

In response to Clinton and Bush's policy of encouraging home ownership, I think it's a little harsh to paint it as simply to promote economic growth with a negative slant of self-interest. Whilst it wasn't philanthropic, it is an interesting economic/social idea to encourage people to build up a capital base of their own through ownership in their house. If it helps to stimulate the economy, then that can only be a good thing. It is also the first time in history where members of the lowest socio-economic group actually had proper access to capital markets and credit. As much as credit has become a dirty word, it has been the best creation to allot money to those who need it for genuine investment (I don't mean for the latest flat-screen TV but for the purchase of the means of production). To get a sense on the importance of credit, it is worth comparing the rise of Britain over France in the 1800s.

With regards should the emphasis be on providing social housing over encouraging home ownership, it's certainly an interesting question. That's one for society, politicians and economists to fight over. I tend to favour the emphasis on getting people to have a stake in the economy by actually building up their own capital base. Obviously, it has to be balanced with risk of default.

[Master Fox]

Personally I think he's thinking Obama's got the more fitter women of the two and is cursing his luck!!!

Is the first lady holding Prince Philips cock in this pic??

"So, uhhhh, do you fancy popping ones keys in this bowl? Marvellous."

"i say didn't we torture your grandfather? hope you won't be chucking any spears while you're here"

[Finnegan]

"i say didn't we torture your grandfather? hope you won't be chucking any spears while you're here"

[Dr The Singh]

Is the first lady holding Prince Philips cock in this pic??

"i say didn't we torture your grandfather? hope you won't be chucking any spears while you're here"

It looks as though Prince Philip is taking a spear out of his arse!!!

[Dr The Singh]

"So, uhhhh, do you fancy popping ones keys in this bowl? Marvellous."

They were gonna to pick the bra out of the bag, but the queen with her massive droopers it would have been to easy to pick!!

[Flynny]

They were gonna to pick the bra out of the bag, but the queen with her massive droopers it would have been to easy to pick!!

It's really more of a steel girdle.

[Guest]

That's a fair point. I guess the ambition of people from lower socio-economic groups was not matched with a balance of risk. Add to that the "education" of people watching the market movements over the previous 15 years, would lead (and indeed did lead) many to conclude that buying property was wise, so you had to get on the ladder. It didn't matter about borrowing 5 times your salary because "house prices would always rise" so you'd always increase your capital base.

At all levels, risk was completely mismanaged. Those taking out the loans seemed to have no comprehension of the risk that they may not be able to pay it back and would risk losing their home. Financial institutions who created sub-prime loans in the belief that risk had been conquered through securitisation and government backed institutions (the now defunct Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the US), thought they were taking no risk at all. It's often remarked that the banks took huge risks with depositors money. In the banks' eyes, they thought they were buying AAA riskless securities, that had been split up and re-engineered, with the risk spread throughout the system. Instead, unbeknown to them, they were ballooning the risk and spreading it to all parties. In addition, the regulators (well done to the FSA) could not identify the risk and so took no action, allowing it to infest the economic system.

In response to Clinton and Bush's policy of encouraging home ownership, I think it's a little harsh to paint it as simply to promote economic growth with a negative slant of self-interest. Whilst it wasn't philanthropic, it is an interesting economic/social idea to encourage people to build up a capital base of their own through ownership in their house. If it helps to stimulate the economy, then that can only be a good thing. It is also the first time in history where members of the lowest socio-economic group actually had proper access to capital markets and credit. As much as credit has become a dirty word, it has been the best creation to allot money to those who need it for genuine investment (I don't mean for the latest flat-screen TV but for the purchase of the means of production). To get a sense on the importance of credit, it is worth comparing the rise of Britain over France in the 1800s.

With regards should the emphasis be on providing social housing over encouraging home ownership, it's certainly an interesting question. That's one for society, politicians and economists to fight over. I tend to favour the emphasis on getting people to have a stake in the economy by actually building up their own capital base. Obviously, it has to be balanced with risk of default.

Issues like these raise more questions than answers. Trying to get the right balance between those who need help, and those who want to help themselves is never going to be easy.

I guess I am cynical though.

[Fosse Boy]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-10723274

Surprise, surprise.