Sir Fred Goodwin's Pension

[Dashing Bob S]

As nobody seems to standing up for the rich, old, white guy in western society any more, i'll say: go on Sir Fred, don't let them get their greedy, jealous hands on a pension you've worked so hard for and richly deserve based on the selfless pleasure you've given to others over the years.

I feel for Sir Fred's family - the government are trying to take the bread out of their mouths.

[Betty Boop]

As nobody seems to standing up for the rich, old, white guy in western society any more, i'll say: go on Sir Fred, don't let them get their greedy, jealous hands on a pension you've worked so hard for and richly deserve based on the selfless pleasure you've given to others over the years.

I feel for Sir Fred's family - the government are trying to take the bread out of their mouths. Discussing this on "****bag millionaires thread".

[hibsbollah]

the government are trying to take the bread out of their mouths.

1 loaf family white bread=59p
Total 'Sir' Fred Goodwin pension funded by HM Govt=£16,000,000

Thats an awful lot of bread:greengrin

[ancienthibby]

1 loaf family white bread=59p
Total 'Sir' Fred Goodwin pension funded by HM Govt=£16,000,000

Thats an awful lot of bread:greengrin

Not so!

Funded by prior years' profits at RBS which Freddie helped generate from 2002-2007!!

Does not make it right, of course, - still obscene values!

[Arch Stanton]

Not so!

Funded by prior years' profits at RBS which Freddie helped generate from 2002-2007!!

Does not make it right, of course, - still obscene values!

It would serve him right though if he got sued for the £12bn mistake he made in buying ABN Amro.

[ancienthibby]

It would serve him right though if he got sued for the £12bn mistake he made in buying ABN Amro.

I have not the slightest issue with that!!

But so should Johnny Cameron, Andy Hornby, Adam Applegate, Peter Cummings and all the other rapaging (b)(w)(r)ankers who defrauded thousand and thousands of small shareholders of their value in their bank shares!!

But, despite our distaste for the values involved, ALL our pension rights MUST be held free of Government interference (or, if you like, their attemped cover-ups for their gross incompetence!!)

[Dashing Bob S]

There must be something we can do for Sir Fred, to alleviate the distress this sorry episiode must be causing to him and his family.

Is there no way that some money meant for the Dnipro Orphans can be siphoned off to this worthy cause?

C'mon you big-hearted Hibs fans, lets help out a guy who is under the cosh!

[Speedy]

I don't really see what the issue is with Sir Fred's pension. OK he made mistakes and was extremely overpaid but that's what was agreed in his contract so he is entitled to it

[Hibs Class]

Gordon Brown now under pressure to give up his PM pension when he goes.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/brown-refuses-to-hand-back-pension-200902271606/

[Wembley67]

EVERYONE is moaning about this. If you were in his position would you give it up?

Nope, didn't think so.

[hibsdaft]

EVERYONE is moaning about this. If you were in his position would you give it up?

Nope, didn't think so.

the Japanese bankers who brought similar doom in the 90's killed themselves because they felt that was the honourable thing to do - they felt so ashamed they could not look people in the eye.

but the government powerlessly asking him to give it back is embarrassing and its a daft situation.

we risk missing the bigger picture in all of this too.

we're told that ridiculous pay is given to people in these positions because of the results they get and what they do for the rest of us: we were told for years that we should be grateful for them and not to tax them too much or they might leave and take their talents elsewhere.

"meritocracy"

well i'd say thats been proven to be a lot of *****.

never mind grovelling to Goodwin for his pension, tax the whole lot of them to **** and lets move on with creating a future for the rest of us.

[Arch Stanton]

I don't really see what the issue is with Sir Fred's pension. OK he made mistakes and was extremely overpaid but that's what was agreed in his contract so he is entitled to it

That isn't the case though - no one has a contract saying the can just up and retire at 50. His contract did say that termination required a years notice and he used that to negotiate his early retirement deal.

The bottom line however is that he should have been sacked - there have been RBS employees sacked for less under his stewardship.

[Speedy]

That isn't the case though - no one has a contract saying the can just up and retire at 50. His contract did say that termination required a years notice and he used that to negotiate his early retirement deal.

The bottom line however is that he should have been sacked - there have been RBS employees sacked for less under his stewardship.

Well in that case it's still not his fault that whoever he negotiated this deal from the RBS side have made him this offer. I would assume that it was benefitial to RBS to allow him to retire early rather than sack him.

[Andy74]

I have not the slightest issue with that!!

But so should Johnny Cameron, Andy Hornby, Adam Applegate, Peter Cummings and all the other rapaging (b)(w)(r)ankers who defrauded thousand and thousands of small shareholders of their value in their bank shares!!

But, despite our distaste for the values involved, ALL our pension rights MUST be held free of Government interference (or, if you like, their attemped cover-ups for their gross incompetence!!)

Would you be willing or indeed able to back up your allegations of fraud in court??

[hibsboy90]

AFAIK, Goodwin forfeited his one year salary pay off when he left RBS - under the conditions that his Pension would remain untouched. Not too much was made of this is the red top papers at the time.

Now Goodwin has been made into a public hate figure, I can't help but feel this is diverting attention from the fact that he was told that he could keep the pension at the time. And the government have now realised that they made a mistake allowing this.

[Arch Stanton]

AFAIK, Goodwin forfeited his one year salary pay off when he left RBS - under the conditions that his Pension would remain untouched. Not too much was made of this is the red top papers at the time.

Now Goodwin has been made into a public hate figure, I can't help but feel this is diverting attention from the fact that he was told that he could keep the pension at the time. And the government have now realised that they made a mistake allowing this.

If the government make a mistaken payment then they should frofeit that payment?

Really?

Tell that to the over payments to working class people that have been clawed back with no regard to hardship imposed!!!!!!

Go on - tell them. I'd like to hear.

[ancienthibby]

Would you be willing or indeed able to back up your allegations of fraud in court??

No need!

That process has already been started!

And I suspect there will be a number of follow-ons - especially if HarrietH pursues her campaign!!:devil:

[Andy74]

No need!

That process has already been started!

And I suspect there will be a number of follow-ons - especially if HarrietH pursues her campaign!!:devil:

Harriet H is on a personal political campaign and the Government has moved to distance themselves from her words.

Can you point me to any public allegations of fraud?

It is interesting to note for example that the guy Hamilton was it with the case in Oban conceded that he had to to drop the accusations of fraud in his intial case and then had to abandon the case altogether.

It's clear there's been an across the board issue in decison making and even then the real problem has been the complexity of instruments these days and how they were rated and risk assesed.

I'm sure everyone involved would be very inteterested in hearing where any evidence of fradulent activity could be backed up from.

I'd be careful on that one.

[jonty]

Not so!

Funded by prior years' profits at RBS which Freddie helped generate from 2002-2007!!

Does not make it right, of course, - still obscene values!

The Scotsman website claimed that his pension might top £32 million by the time it's finished. (here) (http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/We39ll-change-the-law-to.5027331.jp)

If it's been funded by the profits he helped the bank made, then surely some of his pension should go towards filling the debt he left it in?

I'm not against him having a pension but the so called 'fat cats' have been getting away with obscene amounts of money for years (although not to the level of failure Fred Goodwin managed)

[McSwanky]

What odds Sir Fred has an "unfortunate accident" in the next couple of years, and sadly passes away?

Might save the Government a few bob....... :hmmm:

[ancienthibby]

Harriet H is on a personal political campaign and the Government has moved to distance themselves from her words.

Can you point me to any public allegations of fraud?

It is interesting to note for example that the guy Hamilton was it with the case in Oban conceded that he had to to drop the accusations of fraud in his intial case and then had to abandon the case altogether.

It's clear there's been an across the board issue in decison making and even then the real problem has been the complexity of instruments these days and how they were rated and risk assesed.

I'm sure everyone involved would be very inteterested in hearing where any evidence of fradulent activity could be backed up from.

I'd be careful on that one.

The parties that need to be careful with respect to the SFG Pension matter are those who continue to act as apologists for the man! (But I do defend his right to have a properly constructed and validated pension contract upheld).

I see that there is another Small Claims Court action being launched in the English Courts today - it is only a matter of time until sufficient evidence comes out that allows a fully developed case to be heard. That time seems to be drawing ever closer. The trigger may well be if there was a discretionary £8 million added to the pension pot in return for Fred's leaving. If so, the full force of a UK Government, already in deep brown stuff and desperate for a way out) will be launched against SFG.

There'll be no hiding places for apologists then!

[ancienthibby]

The Scotsman website claimed that his pension might top £32 million by the time it's finished. (here) (http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/We39ll-change-the-law-to.5027331.jp)

If it's been funded by the profits he helped the bank made, then surely some of his pension should go towards filling the debt he left it in?

I'm not against him having a pension but the so called 'fat cats' have been getting away with obscene amounts of money for years (although not to the level of failure Fred Goodwin managed)

I have posted before (and just did again) that I absolutely defend the right of individuals (especially in matters of employment law) to have their legal and validated contracts properly upheld. There should be no dispute about that!

This is especially so for pension contracts and there should be absolutely no way for a government to now come forward and retro-activately change the law and alter the contract. That could at a sweep alter all our pension rights and I'd like to think there would be a national uprising if that were to be the case!

That said, the position taken by SFG is that of a 'fat cat' (as you say) who has lost all understanding of business ethics and is putting self-interest ahead of everything else, whilst thousands and thousands of small shareholders rightly feel 'defrauded' that their shareholders' funds were 'mis-used'/'negligently used' in pursuing the takeover of ABN-AMRO - now for nil return given that the full purchase price has just been written-off by RBS.

As I have said before, SFG could solve this problem for himself at a stroke, by siphoning-off 50% of his pension to a 'FredTheShred' Charitable Trust. At a stroke he would show that he does have remaining business ethics and would reset public anger towards the UK government where it rightly belongs!

[jonty]

I have posted before (and just did again) that I absolutely defend the right of individuals (especially in matters of employment law) to have their legal and validated contracts properly upheld. There should be no dispute about that!

This is especially so for pension contracts and there should be absolutely no way for a government to now come forward and retro-activately change the law and alter the contract. That could at a sweep alter all our pension rights and I'd like to think there would be a national uprising if that were to be the case!

That said, the position taken by SFG is that of a 'fat cat' (as you say) who has lost all understanding of business ethics and is putting self-interest ahead of everything else, whilst thousands and thousands of small shareholders rightly feel 'defrauded' that their shareholders' funds were 'mis-used'/'negligently used' in pursuing the takeover of ABN-AMRO - now for nil return given that the full purchase price has just been written-off by RBS.

As I have said before, SFG could solve this problem for himself at a stroke, by siphoning-off 50% of his pension to a 'FredTheShred' Charitable Trust. At a stroke he would show that he does have remaining business ethics and would reset public anger towards the UK government where it rightly belongs!

I'm not disputing the fact at all :confused:.

The bottom line is he screwed up big style, but is quite happy to continue to take money having lost (as you say) all understanding of business ethics (and morals, if he ever had any).

I hope the SCC proceedings work and he ends up with just his shares in RBS.
He needs a bloody good wake-up call.

And after all this I'm surprised he still has his knighthood.

[Tomsk]

I have posted before (and just did again) that I absolutely defend the right of individuals (especially in matters of employment law) to have their legal and validated contracts properly upheld. There should be no dispute about that!

This is especially so for pension contracts and there should be absolutely no way for a government to now come forward and retro-activately change the law and alter the contract. That could at a sweep alter all our pension rights and I'd like to think there would be a national uprising if that were to be the case!

That said, the position taken by SFG is that of a 'fat cat' (as you say) who has lost all understanding of business ethics and is putting self-interest ahead of everything else, whilst thousands and thousands of small shareholders rightly feel 'defrauded' that their shareholders' funds were 'mis-used'/'negligently used' in pursuing the takeover of ABN-AMRO - now for nil return given that the full purchase price has just been written-off by RBS.

As I have said before, SFG could solve this problem for himself at a stroke, by siphoning-off 50% of his pension to a 'FredTheShred' Charitable Trust. At a stroke he would show that he does have remaining business ethics and would reset public anger towards the UK government where it rightly belongs!


Could you expand on this?

[ancient hibee]

For politicians (recipients of the best pensions in the UK plus tax payer funded second homes"I haven't broken any rules")to quibble about SFG screwing the system demonstrates a lack of self awarenessthat is vomit inducing.

[ancienthibby]

Could you expand on this?

Certainly!

First, the deal for all of the recent 'life-saving acquisition' of the RBS was done by the UK Government and, especially, its senior civil servants and ministers. So the exit terms for all bank executives were agreed by the UK Government - if the latter missed the real terms by a mile, then some heavily remunerated Government lawyers need to be brought to account!

Second, and more importantly, the UK (under G Brown et al) has run one of the loosest regulatory frameworks for banks in the world, along with the US. Consequently, these countries have experienced the most serious defaults in the banking world and, as these defaults have been progressively revealed, there has been a follow-on impact on other banking systems throughout the world. But, for the UK, the ownership of that state of affairs resides with recent residents of 11 Downing St!!

[Arch Stanton]

Certainly!

First, the deal for all of the recent 'life-saving acquisition' of the RBS was done by the UK Government and, especially, its senior civil servants and ministers. So the exit terms for all bank executives were agreed by the UK Government - if the latter missed the real terms by a mile, then some heavily remunerated Government lawyers need to be brought to account!

Second, and more importantly, the UK (under G Brown et al) has run one of the loosest regulatory frameworks for banks in the world, along with the US. Consequently, these countries have experienced the most serious defaults in the banking world and, as these defaults have been progressively revealed, there has been a follow-on impact on other banking systems throughout the world. But, for the UK, the ownership of that state of affairs resides with recent residents of 11 Downing St!!

Dearie me, don't I get enough anti-labour tripe from the British press?

Proper due diligence in taking over a bank commonly takes a number of months - if the RBS bailout hadn't been arranged on the Sunday afternoon then RBS would have been an ex-company on the Monday morning.

Also, you are very careful in not claiming that Brown bears any responsibility for the laxity of our banking laws but you still succeed in getting that outrageous slur across. The fact is that Britain regularly seesaws between labour and tory governments meaning that wholesale adoption of a particular philosophy would be counter-productive. The bottom line is that it is the tories who champion the cause of 'less government'!

So, all in all I reckon your defense of Sir Fred is both indefensible and unconscionable. Brown acted quickly and decisively in the best interests of the country - the sums involved were staggeringly large yet you think they should have been spending time sorting out someone's pension details. It was indeed an expensive mistake but the amount involved was small compared to the billions of pounds crisis we were in.

[Tomsk]

Certainly!

First, the deal for all of the recent 'life-saving acquisition' of the RBS was done by the UK Government and, especially, its senior civil servants and ministers. So the exit terms for all bank executives were agreed by the UK Government - if the latter missed the real terms by a mile, then some heavily remunerated Government lawyers need to be brought to account!

Second, and more importantly, the UK (under G Brown et al) has run one of the loosest regulatory frameworks for banks in the world, along with the US. Consequently, these countries have experienced the most serious defaults in the banking world and, as these defaults have been progressively revealed, there has been a follow-on impact on other banking systems throughout the world. But, for the UK, the ownership of that state of affairs resides with recent residents of 11 Downing St!!

Thanks!

Are you prompting the government now to adopt a more stringent regulatory financial regime?

If so, with respect, would you have answered the same say 18 months ago?

I know I wouldn't have.

Many of us (and I don't here include yourself) appear to have found a clarity of vision and wisdom after the event, not least the Conservative Party of David Cameron and George Osborne, which was not apparent in the lead in to the financial Armageddon. I don't recall these or any of the other myriad commentators who have been jumping up and down telling us how awful and perilous our state is showing any great prescience of impending doom at the time.

We were all doing very well only 18 months ago with our 125% mortgages and bottomless well credit card arrangements. While I accept the government is culpable, I can't help feeling they did what we, the people, pretty much collectively wanted them to do -- made hay while the sun shone.

I still think the bankers are real villains in the plot. There's negligence and there's downright irresponsibility. And for me Goodwin and his cronies have been guilty of criminal irresponsibility and should be brought to account. And if we don't have the laws needed in place we should write them up.

[ancienthibby]

Thanks!

Are you prompting the government now to adopt a more stringent regulatory financial regime?

If so, with respect, would you have answered the same say 18 months ago?

I know I wouldn't have.

Many of us (and I don't here include yourself) appear to have found a clarity of vision and wisdom after the event, not least the Conservative Party of David Cameron and George Osborne, which was not apparent in the lead in to the financial Armageddon. I don't recall these or any of the other myriad commentators who have been jumping up and down telling us how awful and perilous our state is showing any great prescience of impending doom at the time.

We were all doing very well only 18 months ago with our 125% mortgages and bottomless well credit card arrangements. While I accept the government is culpable, I can't help feeling they did what we, the people, pretty much collectively wanted them to do -- made hay while the sun shone.

I still think the bankers are real villains in the plot. There's negligence and there's downright irresponsibility. And for me Goodwin and his cronies have been guilty of criminal irresponsibility and should be brought to account. And if we don't have the laws needed in place we should write them up.

Tomsk,

I can't claim to have had 20/20 vision in advance of these events, but I do come at things from a slightly different perspective!

Unlike SFG, I do hold the full Scottish banking qualification (though a bit out of date now!) and, in later lives, I also gained significant experience in both treasury management and corporate finance. I can remember almost 25 years ago hearing, in the business we were then in, from a visiting banker, of a currency dealer in the City who paid for his girlfriend's abortion on his expenses.

And I am also long enough in the tooth to remember the 'Citibank approach' to expansing banking business overseas: hire an MBA, give him a suitcase of money and put him on a plane!! That fundamental model was later followed by almost every major bank in the world and I well know, in a corporate sense, that we had many many offers of lines of credit, not because we needed it, but because the offering banker got brownie points and bonuses.

So I have been a bit skeptical of bankers for many years and, sadly, have concluded that many now demean what used to be an 'honourable profession'!

Since I have now been a 'poacher rather than a gamekeeper' for more than 20 years now, I have to say that I completely share your views in your final paragraph.

Though I will post directly to 'Crabit' later on, I am in no doubt that 'Crash Gordon' as he is now being widely called, was at the heart of the 'hands-off' regulation that has caused so much distress these last few months. And, while I do stoutly defend the right of all pension-holders to have their contracts honoured, the level of the deal arranged for SFG remains an obsencity.

[Lucius Apuleius]

For politicians (recipients of the best pensions in the UK plus tax payer funded second homes"I haven't broken any rules")to quibble about SFG screwing the system demonstrates a lack of self awarenessthat is vomit inducing.

And that has been my argument all along to be honest AncientOne. SFG's pension may be obscene, but it was negotiated with outside bodies. Those ass wipes in Parliament vote themselves a pension, that is, in my opinion, disgraceful, and yet they are whingeing about this one. Hypocrites.

[ancient hibee]

And that has been my argument all along to be honest AncientOne. SFG's pension may be obscene, but it was negotiated with outside bodies. Those ass wipes in Parliament vote themselves a pension, that is, in my opinion, disgraceful, and yet they are whingeing about this one. Hypocrites.

You shouldn't beat about the bush-tell it as it is:greengrin

[Arch Stanton]

Though I will post directly to 'Crabit' later on, I am in no doubt that 'Crash Gordon' as he is now being widely called, was at the heart of the 'hands-off' regulation that has caused so much distress these last few months. And, while I do stoutly defend the right of all pension-holders to have their contracts honoured, the level of the deal arranged for SFG remains an obsencity.

I guess I can wait for an answer - it surely can't take that long to google banking deregulation after all.

In the meantime I must say that the little 'crash gordon' epithet no doubt came from those honest city brokers who have no interest in anything other than their own greed and personal ambition.

What does surprise me though is that GW Bush managed to grasp the fact that doing nothing was not an option while British Conservatives haven't.

[Tomsk]

Tomsk,

I can't claim to have had 20/20 vision in advance of these events, but I do come at things from a slightly different perspective!

Unlike SFG, I do hold the full Scottish banking qualification (though a bit out of date now!) and, in later lives, I also gained significant experience in both treasury management and corporate finance. I can remember almost 25 years ago hearing, in the business we were then in, from a visiting banker, of a currency dealer in the City who paid for his girlfriend's abortion on his expenses.
And I am also long enough in the tooth to remember the 'Citibank approach' to expansing banking business overseas: hire an MBA, give him a suitcase of money and put him on a plane!! That fundamental model was later followed by almost every major bank in the world and I well know, in a corporate sense, that we had many many offers of lines of credit, not because we needed it, but because the offering banker got brownie points and bonuses.

So I have been a bit skeptical of bankers for many years and, sadly, have concluded that many now demean what used to be an 'honourable profession'!

Since I have now been a 'poacher rather than a gamekeeper' for more than 20 years now, I have to say that I completely share your views in your final paragraph.

Though I will post directly to 'Crabit' later on, I am in no doubt that 'Crash Gordon' as he is now being widely called, was at the heart of the 'hands-off' regulation that has caused so much distress these last few months. And, while I do stoutly defend the right of all pension-holders to have their contracts honoured, the level of the deal arranged for SFG remains an obsencity.


Funny you should mention that. I know of a individual who paid for his daughter's breasts enlargement operation on his expenses.

Yes, I did say daughter. She is actually quite well know.

[ancienthibby]

Dearie me, don't I get enough anti-labour tripe from the British press?

Proper due diligence in taking over a bank commonly takes a number of months - if the RBS bailout hadn't been arranged on the Sunday afternoon then RBS would have been an ex-company on the Monday morning.

Also, you are very careful in not claiming that Brown bears any responsibility for the laxity of our banking laws but you still succeed in getting that outrageous slur across. The fact is that Britain regularly seesaws between labour and tory governments meaning that wholesale adoption of a particular philosophy would be counter-productive. The bottom line is that it is the tories who champion the cause of 'less government'!

So, all in all I reckon your defense of Sir Fred is both indefensible and unconscionable. Brown acted quickly and decisively in the best interests of the country - the sums involved were staggeringly large yet you think they should have been spending time sorting out someone's pension details. It was indeed an expensive mistake but the amount involved was small compared to the billions of pounds crisis we were in.

Your patience will now be well rewarded, crabit one, as I only deal in quality rejoinders!!:thumbsup:

I may have been tardy in responding to your post but that is due to my astonishment that you could have levelled such accusations against me!!


For example, take this quote:
'So, all in all I reckon your defense of Sir Fred is both indefensible and unconscionable.'

So just where and how have I defended SFG?? I have defended the right of every employee to have their pension righted protected under contract law. And I have said, and repeated, that the level of SFG's pension reward is obsence, repeat obsence (see my earlier posts).

You seem very confused, as your ire should be directed against Andy74 who is the most vocal and vodiferous defender of SFG you will find on these boards!

Can I also take issue with this statement of yours:
'Proper due diligence in taking over a bank commonly takes a number of months - if the RBS bailout hadn't been arranged on the Sunday afternoon then RBS would have been an ex-company on the Monday morning.'

Garbage!

I have been there and done it. And the very first thing that's done in a takeover/acquisition/merger/reconstruction/whatever is to sort out the incumbent Board!! The outgoing Board will always be properly and legally silenced and their employment contracts will be gone over with a fine toothcomb and EVERY item completely nailed. Clearly, the incompetents in G Broon's government failed to do this!!

And, oh, then there is today's lovely news, that the publicised SFG pension contract details were wrong, and SFG is getting even more pension value!! You couldnae' make this up!!

And then you offer the recent 'wee Bendy Wendy' excuse: 'it wisnae me, guv!!':
'The fact is that Britain regularly seesaws between labour and tory governments meaning that wholesale adoption of a particular philosophy would be counter-productive.'

The REAL fact is, that, as is universally acknowledged amongst commentators now, the wholesale deregulation of the UK financial services industry was engineered, overseen and completed under the stewardship of one - G Broon!

Finally, your attitude to the 'error/mistake' because it was quite small (fraud/cheating i'd prefer to call it!) is quite breathtaking!

Tell that to the thousands and thousands of individual RBS shareholders who have lost both their interest and CAPITAL through the downfall of RBS!!

Add to that, the recent, continuing and appalling history of Nu-Lab ministers and MPs in working the property system to their obscene personal advantage seems to have completely by-passed you!!

[Dashing Bob S]

Villians of our current plight:

1. Thatcher: started a culture of entitlement for the rich and promoted greed as a legitimate way of living your life.

2. Thatcher: sale of council houses/promotion of home ownership. Though popular at the time, perpetuated the lie that the bulk of people transfering from rents to mortgages could 'own' their homes. The banks own their homes. There was a public sector rental sector because many people could not and never will be able to own their homes. Aspiring towards this does not make it real.

3. Thatcher: student grants to loans. Get a whole generation used to the fact that they will be in debt, irrespective of whether or not they will be able to ever clear this debt - which they won't.

4. Blair: carrying on the same policies.

5. Blair/Brown: deregulation of the UK financial services industry.

We already have a situation where greed and non regulation (STATE INTERFERENCE!) is touted as the bogeyman. So they make it possible for these incompetent idiots to clean up. Nice one Blair, brilliant one Brown.

They deserve to be buried along with Thatcher and her purile, serville, rich-asslick philosophy.

[Arch Stanton]

Your patience will now be well rewarded, crabit one, as I only deal in quality rejoinders!!:thumbsup:

I may have been tardy in responding to your post but that is due to my astonishment that you could have levelled such accusations against me!!


For example, take this quote:
'So, all in all I reckon your defense of Sir Fred is both indefensible and unconscionable.'

So just where and how have I defended SFG?? I have defended the right of every employee to have their pension righted protected under contract law. And I have said, and repeated, that the level of SFG's pension reward is obsence, repeat obsence (see my earlier posts).

You seem very confused, as your ire should be directed against Andy74 who is the most vocal and vodiferous defender of SFG you will find on these boards!

Can I also take issue with this statement of yours:
'Proper due diligence in taking over a bank commonly takes a number of months - if the RBS bailout hadn't been arranged on the Sunday afternoon then RBS would have been an ex-company on the Monday morning.'

Garbage!

I have been there and done it. And the very first thing that's done in a takeover/acquisition/merger/reconstruction/whatever is to sort out the incumbent Board!! The outgoing Board will always be properly and legally silenced and their employment contracts will be gone over with a fine toothcomb and EVERY item completely nailed. Clearly, the incompetents in G Broon's government failed to do this!!

And, oh, then there is today's lovely news, that the publicised SFG pension contract details were wrong, and SFG is getting even more pension value!! You couldnae' make this up!!

And then you offer the recent 'wee Bendy Wendy' excuse: 'it wisnae me, guv!!':
'The fact is that Britain regularly seesaws between labour and tory governments meaning that wholesale adoption of a particular philosophy would be counter-productive.'

The REAL fact is, that, as is universally acknowledged amongst commentators now, the wholesale deregulation of the UK financial services industry was engineered, overseen and completed under the stewardship of one - G Broon!

Finally, your attitude to the 'error/mistake' because it was quite small (fraud/cheating i'd prefer to call it!) is quite breathtaking!

Tell that to the thousands and thousands of individual RBS shareholders who have lost both their interest and CAPITAL through the downfall of RBS!!

Add to that, the recent, continuing and appalling history of Nu-Lab ministers and MPs in working the property system to their obscene personal advantage seems to have completely by-passed you!!

"I only deal in quality rejoinders!!"

Really? I hadn't noticed. You made some vague attempts at scoring debating points but I am not really into debates to be honest.

"The REAL fact is, that, as is universally acknowledged amongst commentators now, the wholesale deregulation of the UK financial services industry was engineered, overseen and completed under the stewardship of one - G Broon!"

And i was expecting you to tell me all about that and justify the stupid slurs you made - not just reiterate (there is a difference).

Could I also point out that the debate in the country is not about Goodwin's pension rights - it is about the discretionary award given by the board which doubled what he was due. Also - no one in the country has a right to any pension whatsoever at 50. (Edit - with the exception of those who do of course :-)

And as for your 'it wisnae me, guv!!': - it seems like all those stalwarts who sat in front of the cameras accepting the blame can now happily watch these attempts to shift the blame onto Brown.You and they may hold themselves in high regard but they are lowlife in my book.

Looking on the bright side I don't have to answer your pathetic accusation about the government being to blame for Fred's pension - just go and read what John Kingman said will you.

[ancient hibee]

Villians of our current plight:

1. Thatcher: started a culture of entitlement for the rich and promoted greed as a legitimate way of living your life.

2. Thatcher: sale of council houses/promotion of home ownership. Though popular at the time, perpetuated the lie that the bulk of people transfering from rents to mortgages could 'own' their homes. The banks own their homes. There was a public sector rental sector because many people could not and never will be able to own their homes. Aspiring towards this does not make it real.

3. Thatcher: student grants to loans. Get a whole generation used to the fact that they will be in debt, irrespective of whether or not they will be able to ever clear this debt - which they won't.

4. Blair: carrying on the same policies.

5. Blair/Brown: deregulation of the UK financial services industry.

We already have a situation where greed and non regulation (STATE INTERFERENCE!) is touted as the bogeyman. So they make it possible for these incompetent idiots to clean up. Nice one Blair, brilliant one Brown.

They deserve to be buried along with Thatcher and her purile, serville, rich-asslick philosophy.

Many people in Edinburgh 20 years ago were buying their council houses for £10/12000-don't think they will be too disappointed.
Is it fairer that people go to university and have their costs paid by the taxes of many payers who will never earn as much themselves?

[ancienthibby]

"I only deal in quality rejoinders!!"

Really? I hadn't noticed. You made some vague attempts at scoring debating points but I am not really into debates to be honest.

"The REAL fact is, that, as is universally acknowledged amongst commentators now, the wholesale deregulation of the UK financial services industry was engineered, overseen and completed under the stewardship of one - G Broon!"

And i was expecting you to tell me all about that and justify the stupid slurs you made - not just reiterate (there is a difference).

Could I also point out that the debate in the country is not about Goodwin's pension rights - it is about the discretionary award given by the board which doubled what he was due. Also - no one in the country has a right to any pension whatsoever at 50. (Edit - with the exception of those who do of course :-)

And as for your 'it wisnae me, guv!!': - it seems like all those stalwarts who sat in front of the cameras accepting the blame can now happily watch these attempts to shift the blame onto Brown.You and they may hold themselves in high regard but they are lowlife in my book.

Looking on the bright side I don't have to answer your pathetic accusation about the government being to blame for Fred's pension - just go and read what John Kingman said will you.

I do not think so!

This will be the same John Kingman whose appearance at today's Treasury Select Committee was completely rubbished and whose performance was described as 'unprepared'??

Aye right, I'll sure be listening to him!:devil:

[Dashing Bob S]

Many people in Edinburgh 20 years ago were buying their council houses for £10/12000-don't think they will be too disappointed.
Is it fairer that people go to university and have their costs paid by the taxes of many payers who will never earn as much themselves?

Actually, on reflection, I'm forced to swallow a little slice of humble pie and concede those points, AH.

[ancient hibee]

Actually, on reflection, I'm forced to swallow a little slice of humble pie and concede those points, AH.

A noble quality that does you credit:greengrin

[Tomsk]

Actually, on reflection, I'm forced to swallow a little slice of humble pie and concede those points, AH.

That's no very nice, Bob! :wink:

[ancienthibby]

You couldnae make this up!!

Here (at long last) are some 'other losers' from the RBS fiasco initiating a lawsuit (in the US) against RBS for published mis-information - and who have they hired as their QC??

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7946124.stm

























C
H
E
R
I
E
!!!

Yes THAT one!!

B


L
A
I
R

Freddy - your time-up gets closer!!

[JimBHibees]

Seems like Nu Labors continual denial about their economic incompetence is finally unravelling.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/2009/03/rock_blew_whistle_on_economic.html

[McSwanky]

Seems like Nu Labors continual denial about their economic incompetence is finally unravelling.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/2009/03/rock_blew_whistle_on_economic.html

According to Mr Scaremonger himself - Robert Peston.

I'm fed up of watching/reading the news these days, it seems that most journalists are only interested in causing a stir to get themselves noticed, instead of the good old days of getting the facts and presenting them impartially to the public.

I blame Rupert Murdoch.

[JimBHibees]

According to Mr Scaremonger himself - Robert Peston.

I'm fed up of watching/reading the news these days, it seems that most journalists are only interested in causing a stir to get themselves noticed, instead of the good old days of getting the facts and presenting them impartially to the public.

I blame Rupert Murdoch.

He is summarising a National Audit Office report into the handling of Northern Rock so sounds like he has the facts to hand. We could do with more journalists like him rather than the government lackeys slavishly spouting the party line.

[McSwanky]

He is summarising a National Audit Office report into the handling of Northern Rock so sounds like he has the facts to hand. We could do with more journalists like him rather than the government lackeys slavishly spouting the party line.

Serious question. Have you seen him on the telly? And if you have, do you still think that we could do with more like him?

[steakbake]

Peston shouts the news. He's a hysterical kind of a guy who likes to bark out the latest bad news. He does ma heid in.

I might not like his style, or indeed the BBC's continual coverage (and seeming glee) of the economic downturn, but it does not alter the facts of the situation.

Brown's illusion of prudence has turned to ***** before our very eyes.

Who can fix it? Only someone who is willing to hike up taxes for those who work and scale back spending.

It's going to be a tough few years.

[JimBHibees]

Serious question. Have you seen him on the telly? And if you have, do you still think that we could do with more like him?

I have and wasn't talking about him personally but the fact he doesnt appear to be afraid to give an opinion that isnt always in line with government agenda is a plus.

[JimBHibees]

Peston shouts the news. He's a hysterical kind of a guy who likes to bark out the latest bad news. He does ma heid in.

I might not like his style, or indeed the BBC's continual coverage (and seeming glee) of the economic downturn, but it does not alter the facts of the situation.

Brown's illusion of prudence has turned to ***** before our very eyes.

Who can fix it? Only someone who is willing to hike up taxes for those who work and scale back spending.

It's going to be a tough few years.

Yep Labour's policy of bending over for big business has come back to haunt them.

[hibsdaft]

the market doessn't know best afterall.

given that the market has entered every sector of the economy, doesn't this suggest we may need a major rethink on how we do, well, pretty much everything?

[ancienthibby]

the market doessn't know best afterall.

given that the market has entered every sector of the economy, doesn't this suggest we may need a major rethink on how we do, well, pretty much everything?

That'll be you saying the capitalist system doesnae work after all??!!

Jings crivvens; help ma boab!!

There is hope for this world yet!!:devil: