DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**nvideoe** · 11-03-2011, 10:31 PM

It's not extortion. In fact, it's pretty common consumer behaviour.

Extortion is the use, or the express or implicit threat of the use, of violence or other criminal means to cause harm to person, reputation, or property as a means to obtain property from someone else with his consent.

These people can choose to patronise the bank or not for any legal reason they see fit. If they say they won't patronise it for X reason but will patronise and give it other good will for Y reason, that's perfectly fine and quite normal in business. It's up to the bank whether or not it's willing to do what they want for seeking that business or forgo it.

As a matter of curiosity, if those who are instigating this boycott are, as is the case in this matter, agents of the government including police and fire, is there not a reasonable implication that such a protest might result in the withholding of public services? This isn't Sammy and Suzie homemaker pushing this agenda, it's the very people that are charged with the public service of protecting life and property.

11-03-2011, 10:31 PM	#38
nvideoe Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 489 Senior Member	It's not extortion. In fact, it's pretty common consumer behaviour. Extortion is the use, or the express or implicit threat of the use, of violence or other criminal means to cause harm to person, reputation, or property as a means to obtain property from someone else with his consent. These people can choose to patronise the bank or not for any legal reason they see fit. If they say they won't patronise it for X reason but will patronise and give it other good will for Y reason, that's perfectly fine and quite normal in business. It's up to the bank whether or not it's willing to do what they want for seeking that business or forgo it. As a matter of curiosity, if those who are instigating this boycott are, as is the case in this matter, agents of the government including police and fire, is there not a reasonable implication that such a protest might result in the withholding of public services? This isn't Sammy and Suzie homemaker pushing this agenda, it's the very people that are charged with the public service of protecting life and property.
	Quote