Fred Goodwin's Home Trashed

[Betty Boop]

Sir Fred Goodwin's home has been trashed overnight, along with his prized Merc. http://deadlinescotland.wordpress.com/2009/03/25/vandals-attack-sir-fred-goodwins-home/

[lyonhibs]

The heart bleeds. I'm not condoning the vandals actions at all, but I find it hard to feel sympathetic for Mr Goodwin himself. He'll probably just about scrape by on his £600k (?) pension :rolleyes:

[LiverpoolHibs]

:tee hee:

[Wembley67]

:tee hee:

Funny? Why?

[Betty Boop]

The heart bleeds. I'm not condoning the vandals actions at all, but I find it hard to feel sympathetic for Mr Goodwin himself. He'll probably just about scrape byon his £600k (?) pension :rolleyes:

An email from an organisation called Bank losses are criminal.com, claiming responsibility,has been sent to the Evening News, they say it is part of a wider campaign. Maybe a build up to the G20 demonstration on the 2nd of April? :rolleyes:

[LiverpoolHibs]

Funny? Why?

Possibly a bit of a childish response but I've got absolutely no sympathy for the ******* whatsoever. If he's going to be rewarded rather than held accountable for his actions then something like this isn't exactly going to bring a tear to my eye, despite the fact that he's a clever little deflection for others and, in effect, just symptomatic of a wider criminality.

[steakbake]

This is teetering on the brink of becoming a condolences thread.

Deepest sympathies, Fred, for your smashed window. And I hope your merc is on the mend soon.

[Killiehibbie]

He shouldn't even be at home he should be in jail along with plenty others in the banking industry. Throw in all these MPs fiddling their expenses as well.

[Wembley67]

Possibly a bit of a childish response but I've got absolutely no sympathy for the ******* whatsoever. If he's going to be rewarded rather than held accountable for his actions then something like this isn't exactly going to bring a tear to my eye, despite the fact that he's a clever little deflection for others and, in effect, just symptomatic of a wider criminality.

I hear what your saying but it's a bit tight tanning his windows especially if any of his family were in the house at the time.

[Woody1985]

I hear what your saying but it's a bit tight tanning his windows especially if any of his family were in the house at the time.

It could have easily have been done by someone who no longer has a home with windows to smash.

We're going to be paying for all these **** ups for another generation. It's obviously not his sole responsibility but I'm sure he has played his part.

I can honestly say I don't really care that he's had his windows smashed. Tough titty. What happened to the security guards that RBS were paying for?

If his family were in the house then I would say it's a bit out of order but I'm sure they were in luxurious comfort in one of his many other pads at the time.

[Jack]

I am sure he’ll have a Direct Line to his insurance company!!!

What excuse do you think they’ll use in his case to avoid a payout :duck:

[GlesgaeHibby]

He shouldn't even be at home he should be in jail along with plenty others in the banking industry. Throw in all these MPs fiddling their expenses as well.

:top marks

[Betty Boop]

Sorry the group is called Bank Bosses are Criminals not Bank losses. :faf:

[hibsdaft]

amazing how many police were crawling all over the property this morning, for a bit of minor vandalism.

the Goodwins haven't been living there for months btw, and its been reported in the papers before now. where exactly he is the real question, especially since the weekends revalations that people at RBS who raised doubts about the business model may have been threatened and intimidated into silence.

Goodwin has chosen to play this game. he chose to stuck his two fingers up to the rest of society, that was his choice. he's now finding out the rules of that game. today its daft vandalism of his house, tomorrow who knows.

if he wants this to end he knows what he has to do. in the meantime i don't have any sympathy for him whatsoever.

[Dashing Bob S]

amazing how many police were crawling all over the property this morning, for a bit of minor vandalism.

the Goodwins haven't been living there for months btw, and its been reported in the papers before now. where exactly he is the real question, especially since the weekends revalations that people at RBS who raised doubts about the business model may have been threatened and intimidated into silence.

Goodwin has chosen to play this game. he chose to stuck his two fingers up to the rest of society, that was his choice. he's now finding out the rules of that game. today its daft vandalism of his house, tomorrow who knows.

if he wants this to end he knows what he has to do. in the meantime i don't have any sympathy for him whatsoever.

Couldn't agree more. If you can't stand the heat...

[Danderhall Hibs]

My thoughts are with his window and her family. He was a smashing guy.

[--------]

amazing how many police were crawling all over the property this morning, for a bit of minor vandalism.

the Goodwins haven't been living there for months btw, and its been reported in the papers before now. where exactly he is the real question, especially since the weekends revalations that people at RBS who raised doubts about the business model may have been threatened and intimidated into silence.

Goodwin has chosen to play this game. he chose to stuck his two fingers up to the rest of society, that was his choice. he's now finding out the rules of that game. today its daft vandalism of his house, tomorrow who knows.

if he wants this to end he knows what he has to do. in the meantime i don't have any sympathy for him whatsoever.



Oswald Road - the Polis Computer at Fettes is programmed to send all available units down there as soon as the report with the address comes in. The Chief Constable's alerted along with all his deputies, and no other crime is investigated until that one's cleared up.

Cannae have the fat cats' windaes put in ot their Mercs and Lexuses damaged.....




Strangely enough, when it's some wee working girl raped and beaten up down in Leith, the same computer comes up "NHI". :cool2:

[Dashing Bob S]

My thoughts are with his window and her family. He was a smashing guy.

I think Sir Fred's glazing acted a mirror in which, we as a society, could see ourselves and recognise our own moments of triumph and despair.

I feel sorry for the frames left behind.

[ancient hibee]

amazing how many police were crawling all over the property this morning, for a bit of minor vandalism.

the Goodwins haven't been living there for months btw, and its been reported in the papers before now. where exactly he is the real question, especially since the weekends revalations that people at RBS who raised doubts about the business model may have been threatened and intimidated into silence.

Goodwin has chosen to play this game. he chose to stuck his two fingers up to the rest of society, that was his choice. he's now finding out the rules of that game. today its daft vandalism of his house, tomorrow who knows.

if he wants this to end he knows what he has to do. in the meantime i don't have any sympathy for him whatsoever.

OK for his kids to be bullied at school as well is it?Let's send somebody along to give them a doing.All the columnists in the newspapers who are having a go have spent the last 10 years crawling up his backside.It's amazing that these people coming out of the woodwork at RBS about bullying(diddums)are not actually the ones who were bullied.Most of the stories belong on the same level as"I've got a mate who knows somebody at the club and he says Mixu...."He made one bad mistake in takingover ABN Amro otherwise success all the way.How about having a go at the guy who has just wasted £3billionon the NHS computer system-oh we don't knowwho he is-the big difference between the private and the public sector.

[macca70]

OK for his kids to be bullied at school as well is it?Let's send somebody along to give them a doing.All the columnists in the newspapers who are having a go have spent the last 10 years crawling up his backside.It's amazing that these people coming out of the woodwork at RBS about bullying(diddums)are not actually the ones who were bullied.Most of the stories belong on the same level as"I've got a mate who knows somebody at the club and he says Mixu...."He made one bad mistake in takingover ABN Amro otherwise success all the way.How about having a go at the guy who has just wasted £3billionon the NHS computer system-oh we don't knowwho he is-the big difference between the private and the public sector.

:top marks

The Government should be taking full responsibility for this vadalism. Its them that instigated this hate campaign.

Does this mean at the end of each month, if we have performed poorly in our jobs we should be handing our salary back to our employer? AOB would be due Hibs a fortune :agree:

If the FSA werent so caught up with investgating small brokers and fineing the wee mortgage broker in leith for not keeping 4 copies of a reasons why letter and spent more time regulating the big banks and preventing them from offering 125% mortgages/secured loans to folk who blatanly could'nt afford it then the banks wouldnt be in this mess.

[Andy74]

:top marks

The Government should be taking full responsibility for this vadalism. Its them that instigated this hate campaign.

Does this mean at the end of each month, if we have performed poorly in our jobs we should be handing our salary back to our employer? AOB would be due Hibs a fortune :agree:

If the FSA werent so caught up with investgating small brokers and fineing the wee mortgage broker in leith for not keeping 4 copies of a reasons why letter and spent more time regulating the big banks and preventing them from offering 125% mortgages/secured loans to folk who blatanly could'nt afford it then the banks wouldnt be in this mess.

The press and the government have allowed the public to believe that these individuals should be demonised.

They made bad business decisions eventually, although it wasn't clear to them that they were going to be bad when made and it was a global problem.

When the likes of RBS were making billions for the ecomony no-one said too much.

I know Fred and he was a hard guy but the majority of the stories about him are ridiculous. It's pretty pathetic saying he'll be fine as he has his cash. That doesn't excuse being worried about you or your family's safety just because you were doing your job and it didn't turn out well. Unless anyone can show otherwise he's not a criminal, he's worked hard to get what he has, he's lost a lot of it, but then again he was the man at the top and responsible for certain things. He's lost me plenty of cash but i don't want to see this sort of thing.

The hate campaign always was dangerous and iresponsible and hopefully a bit of vandalsim is as far as this goes.

[steakbake]

:top marks

The Government should be taking full responsibility for this vadalism. Its them that instigated this hate campaign.



Fred is a scapegoat.

Albeit he ought to be looking a bit sheepish with his enormous pension and pay off from a bank left in ruins because of his wrecklessness/lack of oversight, the way the government have targetted one individual to carry the can for the wider UK banking sector is symptomatic of this government's arrogance and their adeptness at being completely opportunistic.

Even though I am hardly dancing in glee at the thought of the Tories getting back in, I am very much going to enjoy watching heads roll come election night.

[Gatecrasher]

OK for his kids to be bullied at school as well is it?Let's send somebody along to give them a doing.All the columnists in the newspapers who are having a go have spent the last 10 years crawling up his backside.It's amazing that these people coming out of the woodwork at RBS about bullying(diddums)are not actually the ones who were bullied.Most of the stories belong on the same level as"I've got a mate who knows somebody at the club and he says Mixu...."He made one bad mistake in takingover ABN Amro otherwise success all the way.How about having a go at the guy who has just wasted £3billionon the NHS computer system-oh we don't knowwho he is-the big difference between the private and the public sector.
:top marks

[hibsdaft]

OK for his kids to be bullied at school as well is it? Let's send somebody along to give them a doing.

don't put words in my mouth or make out thats where i am coming from, thats really out of order. they have no responsibility for any of this.



All the columnists in the newspapers who are having a go have spent the last 10 years crawling up his backside..


screw the columnists, i've not spent 10 years crawling up the "shreds" arse neither has anyone i know including plenty low or average paid RBS workers whose livelehoods are now in danger.



oh we don't knowwho he is-the big difference between the private and the public sector.

lol, yeah the arrogant tit cultivated his image and aura in the press, that was his choice again.

of course he's become the scapegoats in all this and theres plenty more guilty out there, deffo, but i didn't get any cut of the wealth of the last decade like he has even now, but i am expected to spend the next 20 years paying for it, and i'm supposed to just just take that on the chin too.

this morning was nothing - as the US senator pointed out last week the Japanese bankers who bankrupted their countries jumped off the 21st floor because of their guilt. in the UK they get paid off with a £3m lump sum - and we're not allowed to be pissed off apparently because he might be upset.

[Pete]

I don't think these people sticking up for these bank bosses live on the same planet as the rest of us.

Take a step into the real world and look at the misery THEY have caused with their wild ideas. Egos like Fred Goodwins were the problem.

Some bankers kid might get bullied or his windows might get tanned...so what?

They don't know the meaning of the word misery.


I'm actually glad that someone is showing them that the general public isn't happy. Whatever this group puts them through is nothing compared to what a lot of us are going through.

If this is the only way that karma happens then so be it. They're not going to do anything other than say sorry and live the same lifestyle.

[Dashing Bob S]

Okay, let's roll with the sympathy vote: poor Sir Fred.

[Tomsk]

I went to the sympathy bank this morning but I couldn't remember my pin number.

[Andy74]

i didn't get any cut of the wealth of the last decade like he has even now, but i am expected to spend the next 20 years paying for it, and i'm supposed to just just take that on the chin too.



Axctually, you did. RBS were the biggest payer of corporation tax in the country and have paid billions into the public coffers over the years, as well as contributing to he economy overall. I'm sure you have also benefitted from there being a banking system and having access to those facilities.

Yes, there's now a period where tax payers are covering losses, and then in the future again there will be a time when the taxpayers see that investment turn positive.

We do a lot of complaining about having to deal with downside but not a lot of being grateful when company profits are underpinning the economy for countless years.

Even so, these guys are making genuine business decisions, you can't say anyone deserves damage to property or threats to them or their family for that. Not unless you can show there has been some deliberate fraud.

[Tomsk]

Axctually, you did. RBS were the biggest payer of corporation tax in the country and have paid billions into the public coffers over the years, as well as contributing to he economy overall. I'm sure you have also benefitted from there being a banking system and having access to those facilities.

Yes, there's now a period where tax payers are covering losses, and then in the future again there will be a time when the taxpayers see that investment turn positive.

We do a lot of complaining about having to deal with downside but not a lot of being grateful when company profits are underpinning the economy for countless years.

Even so, these guys are making genuine business decisions, you can't say anyone deserves damage to property or threats to them or their family for that. Not unless you can show there has been some deliberate fraud.

But the one person who scored both times is Fred Goodwin. And being that his incompetence is responsible for our current blight that is what is making a lot of people very angry -- irrationally so, as it happens on this occasion. We all enjoyed the good times, but we are not all paying for the bad times.

Attacks on his home are out of order. Threats to his family are totally unacceptable. But people's anger is real and borne out of a frustration that he is getting away with it. I can empathise with that.

[CropleyWasGod]

Axctually, you did. RBS were the biggest payer of corporation tax in the country and have paid billions into the public coffers over the years, as well as contributing to he economy overall. I'm sure you have also benefitted from there being a banking system and having access to those facilities.

Yes, there's now a period where tax payers are covering losses, and then in the future again there will be a time when the taxpayers see that investment turn positive.

We do a lot of complaining about having to deal with downside but not a lot of being grateful when company profits are underpinning the economy for countless years.

Even so, these guys are making genuine business decisions, you can't say anyone deserves damage to property or threats to them or their family for that. Not unless you can show there has been some deliberate fraud.

... and let's not forget that, in the case of the ABN Amro takeover (as has been stated, RBS' major cock-up), Barclays were also in for it. They were on the brink of paying the same sort of money, but lost out. Result? RBS go south, and Barclay's have just recorded massive profits.

Had RBS lost out on that deal, Sir Fred would still have been king.

[ancient hibee]

I don't think these people sticking up for these bank bosses live on the same planet as the rest of us.

Take a step into the real world and look at the misery THEY have caused with their wild ideas. Egos like Fred Goodwins were the problem.

Some bankers kid might get bullied or his windows might get tanned...so what?

They don't know the meaning of the word misery.


I'm actually glad that someone is showing them that the general public isn't happy. Whatever this group puts them through is nothing compared to what a lot of us are going through.

If this is the only way that karma happens then so be it. They're not going to do anything other than say sorry and live the same lifestyle.
What level of kids bullying is OK.A good doing-go too far put somebody in hospital-maybe set fire to the house-oh there's somebody in it what a shame.

Needless to say nobody realised that the general public wasn't happy until now.Who's next?

Gordon Brown ruined pension schemes to the tune of £5billion a year-let's all get over to North Queensferry with the torches.

[Killiehibbie]

What level of kids bullying is OK.A good doing-go too far put somebody in hospital-maybe set fire to the house-oh there's somebody in it what a shame.

Needless to say nobody realised that the general public wasn't happy until now.Who's next?

Gordon Brown ruined pension schemes to the tune of £5billion a year-let's all get over to North Queensferry with the torches.

Let the revolution start here. Probably a bit safer here went past Downing St on Sunday a big scary polisman was there with a gun.

[givescotlandfreedom]

He is a scapegoat but that doesn't mean he should take any less of the blame, only others should take responsibility. I do find it ironic that people are sticking up for this vile, greedy individual but few voiced concerns for those he was quite happily exploiting whilst putting poorer people into traps of endless debt, culminating in home repossession, poverty and bankruptcy. Fred the Shred (so named for all the jobs HE got rid of) should consider himself extremely lucky this is all that has happened as those who threw a brick through his window can never be anywhere near as bad bullies as him!

[Andy74]

But the one person who scored both times is Fred Goodwin. And being that his incompetence is responsible for our current blight that is what is making a lot of people very angry -- irrationally so, as it happens on this occasion. We all enjoyed the good times, but we are not all paying for the bad times.

Attacks on his home are out of order. Threats to his family are totally unacceptable. But people's anger is real and borne out of a frustration that he is getting away with it. I can empathise with that.

Getting away with what?

He was responsible and he lost his job and whatever pay outs he was entitled to as a result. Yes, he has pension arrangements but they are not performance realted and they have been earned throughout a career of over 30 years where he has been at the top of his profession.

Guys who have achieved over their life get rewarded, that's the way of it. Yes, mistakes were made at the end but that was in keeping with the rest of the word.

He had more than the rest of us, probably, to start with but he's also lost about £5 million in the value of his shares and is also a tax payer so let's not think that it's just poor old us that are losing lots of money and that he's fine as he's minted, it's all realtive of course but then if we'd achieved with our lives what he had up to now we'd be fine too.

[Andy74]

... and let's not forget that, in the case of the ABN Amro takeover (as has been stated, RBS' major cock-up), Barclays were also in for it. They were on the brink of paying the same sort of money, but lost out. Result? RBS go south, and Barclay's have just recorded massive profits.

Had RBS lost out on that deal, Sir Fred would still have been king.

Plus the main factor here is that the ABN ARO deal was concluded a full year before the real extent of how bad this was going to be was known. Yes, poeple were saying it was going to be bad but it wasn't anywhere close to what actually happened.

Do all those blaming Fred actually think they know what it is he has done wrong or are they just taking lines like greedy and a bully thinking that is the whole story?

Barlcays by the way have been a little creative on the valuation of assets that they hold in the same way as others who have written them all off. We'll see what the future brings for them but they are not quite in the rosy place that they suggest.

[Tomsk]

Getting away with what?

He was responsible and he lost his job and whatever pay outs he was entitled to as a result. Yes, he has pension arrangements but they are not performance realted and they have been earned throughout a career of over 30 years where he has been at the top of his profession.

Guys who have achieved over their life get rewarded, that's the way of it. Yes, mistakes were made at the end but that was in keeping with the rest of the word.

He had more than the rest of us, probably, to start with but he's also lost about £5 million in the value of his shares and is also a tax payer so let's not think that it's just poor old us that are losing lots of money and that he's fine as he's minted, it's all realtive of course but then if we'd achieved with our lives what he had up to now we'd be fine too.


By getting away with it I mean his not being subject to criminal proceedings.

And his taking of his pension is nothing short of a disgrace.

[CropleyWasGod]

By getting away with it I mean his not being subject to criminal proceedings.

And his taking of his pension is nothing short of a disgrace.

Criminal proceedings for what? Bad decision-making in his business life? Were that a crime, all of us would be in the dock at some point.

[Andy74]

By getting away with it I mean his not being subject to criminal proceedings.

And his taking of his pension is nothing short of a disgrace.

What exactly was actually criminal??

The majority of the loss of value has been from assets originating in ABN AMRO which were purchased a year bfore most the problems took place.

Shareholders approved the purchase by about 97% and the prospectus was based on all available information at the time and was approved by external advisers, the FSa and the auditors.

This is what I don't get - do the lynch mob actually know what they are accusing anyone of here?? It doesn't look like it.

[Sergio sledge]

By getting away with it I mean his not being subject to criminal proceedings.

And his taking of his pension is nothing short of a disgrace.

Where do you draw the line? At what level is taking a pension after years of hard work and contributions not a disgrace? Am I allowed to take my pension when I retire? Or will I be labelled a disgrace because I made some mistakes in my career?

Whatever anyone says, there have been no substantiated claims of any criminal wrong doings, and until there is, it was simply bad business decisions in hindsight.

Apparently in the world of hibs.net two wrongs do make a right....and causing criminal damage is to be celebrated.

[Arch Stanton]

What exactly was actually criminal??

The majority of the loss of value has been from assets originating in ABN AMRO which were purchased a year bfore most the problems took place.

Shareholders approved the purchase by about 97% and the prospectus was based on all available information at the time and was approved by external advisers, the FSa and the auditors.

This is what I don't get - do the lynch mob actually know what they are accusing anyone of here?? It doesn't look like it.

As I recall the sale went ahead AFTER ABN Amro had sold off it's American assets, removing any attractiveness in buying that bank, and AFTER global banking share prices had started to tumble. Nothing illegal as you say and maybe even some plus points for having the leadership skills to pull the RBS board and the consortium through the deal.

What may become a legal case against him though is the fact he claimed RBS had NO dealings in the sub-prime market. Now, given that ABN Amro accounts for only 13 of the actual 25 billion exposure this can now be seen to have been a lie.

[fergal7]

How come when CR Smith went to replace the broken windows in his house they sent a squad of guys dressed in brand new uniforms, hard hats etc?

When they did mine they sent a couple of scruffy herberts who did nowt but argue with eachother.

[dHFCe]

Good hope this keeps up for the foreseeable future. If he is wanting to do the right thing he knows he can give back some/most of his pension but, despite the fact he is already incredibly wealthy, he feels he somehow deserves this huge sum of money. **** him is what I say.

[Pete]

What level of kids bullying is OK.A good doing-go too far put somebody in hospital-maybe set fire to the house-oh there's somebody in it what a shame.

Needless to say nobody realised that the general public wasn't happy until now.Who's next?

Gordon Brown ruined pension schemes to the tune of £5billion a year-let's all get over to North Queensferry with the torches.

His kids might not get bullied if their Dad had just a little humility.

He's 50 year old and retiring on £13k a week...yet he lets a company that is effectively owned by the taxpayer fork out for his security!!

I don't think there's ground for criminal proceedings but was this man not in charge when the damage was done? Surely he should be given a pension equivelant to one if the RBS had been allowed to go.

It's his smug "**** you, I'm not involved anymore" attitude that does it for me.

In fact, every time I see his face on the telly I feel like going round to his house and doing something very similar to what has happened.


And I think your sympathy for his kids is wasted. Save it for those kids whos parents can't afford to get them privately educated. If it was that bad he can easily get them educated in the comfort of one of their many residences.

Have any of those sticking up for this man or any other of these people who have overseen this actually been effected by any of this?
Again...some people must live on a different ****ing planet.

[ancient hibee]

His kids might not get bullied if their Dad had just a little humility.

He's 50 year old and retiring on £13k a week...yet he lets a company that is effectively owned by the taxpayer fork out for his security!!

I don't think there's ground for criminal proceedings but was this man not in charge when the damage was done? Surely he should be given a pension equivelant to one if the RBS had been allowed to go.

It's his smug "**** you, I'm not involved anymore" attitude that does it for me.

In fact, every time I see his face on the telly I feel like going round to his house and doing something very similar to what has happened.


And I think your sympathy for his kids is wasted. Save it for those kids whos parents can't afford to get them privately educated. If it was that bad he can easily get them educated in the comfort of one of their many residences.

Have any of those sticking up for this man or any other of these people who have overseen this actually been effected by any of this?
Again...some people must live on a different ****ing planet.
I have certainly been severely affected but that does not excuse criminal behaviour or seemingly respectable people like you thinking I should not be sympathetic about the bullying of totally innocent children.

[Barney McGrew]

I have certainly been severely affected but that does not excuse criminal behaviour or seemingly respectable people like you thinking I should not be sympathetic about the bullying of totally innocent children.

I quite agree, no matter what he's done it's sod all to do with his family and in particular his kids.

Despite everything, I can't believe that people's anger is directed at Goodwin rather than the donuts that agreed to his pension in the first place.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I can't believe anyone is feeling sorry for this piece of cr*p. As another poster pointed out, Fred was quite happy to stick the vickies up at society when he was ripping us off wholescale*. However, now the boot is on the other foot, then it's "mammy, daddy, polis".

This reminds me of when the FTB was brought into the real world, after a few bomb threats. It sometimes takes extreme measures to remind these people they are mortal. As for his family, I'm sure they'll get over it, unlike the people that banks have destroyed through their irresponsible lending.

He's lucky it was only his window. Why his serfs at the RBS haven't turned on him is beyond me.

* see £35 fee for going a penny overdrawn, see threats to move his operation out of Edinburgh if he didn't get his own way on planning, see his alleged petulant behaviour after being blackballed by an Edinburgh golf club.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I quite agree, no matter what he's done it's sod all to do with his family and in particular his kids.

Despite everything, I can't believe that people's anger is directed at Goodwin rather than the donuts that agreed to his pension in the first place.

You fly with the crows, you get shot with the crows.

[Barney McGrew]

You fly with the crows, you get shot with the crows.

I hardly think his kids have much choice in the matter.

[hibsdaft]

A MUM whose car windscreen was smashed for a second time in three months today hit out at police for taking eight hours to arrive at her home.
Janet Langlands, 51, a customer adviser for Standard Life, said it was unfair that police arrived at the home of Sir Fred Goodwin within minutes but yet left her – an "ordinary member of the public" – waiting for hours

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Mother-blasts-police-after-eighthour.5124077.jp

[Andy74]

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Mother-blasts-police-after-eighthour.5124077.jp

Not really the same though it? Somebody high profile who has a real threat surrounding him and his family and some random vandalism only involving a car window.

The Sir Fred thing is now public hysteria led by the politicans and the media.

Will the chief Exec of the Dunfermline get the same thing?

[Killiehibbie]

Not really the same though it? Somebody high profile who has a real threat surrounding him and his family and some random vandalism only involving a car window.

The Sir Fred thing is now public hysteria led by the politicans and the media.

Will the chief Exec of the Dunfermline get the same thing?

Who deserves quicker police attention fred,was he even there, or a woman confronted by a burglar in her house? I know of a woman who phoned 999 at 4.30am on the Monday police arrived at 7pm on Tuesday to take a note of stolen items and give crime report number for insurers. No apologies for not attending right away and maybe even catching thief.

[Betty Boop]

RBS branch in Threadneedle Street totalled.

[Killiehibbie]

RBS branch in Threadneedle Street totalled.
A few broken windows is hardly totalled. Police should turn water cannon on them a lot of them could do with a wash.

[Andy74]

Chairman's speech for the RBS AGM today: (1 of 3)

"I want to begin by offering my own perspective on where the Company is and what we must try to do now. The past is done, we cannot change it. We must recognise what has happened and why, identify lessons and learn them. But most of all, right now, we must focus on our potential and deliver it. RBS has excellent businesses at our core which can be the foundation of future success.

Since I and, in particular Stephen Hester, joined the Board I don't think we would describe any of our experiences as a 'honeymoon period'. But we have joined recently enough, I hope, to remain objective about the past while focussed firmly - as we must be - on the future.


2008 was almost certainly the most difficult year in the Group's long history. Our financial results were very poor, with a post tax loss of £7.9bn on a pro forma basis. On top of that, we also wrote off £16.2bn of goodwill relating to previous acquisitions, most notably ABN AMRO. Stephen Hester will review our performance shortly along with an outline of the Placing and Open Offer we will vote on at the General Meeting, the initial results of the Strategic Review he is leading and the implications of the UK Government's Asset Protection Scheme.

I know you will understand that, in the light of our 2008 results and our capital position, it would not be appropriate to pay any dividend on the ordinary shares. However, I would like to assure you that the Board is very aware of how important dividends are for our shareholders. It is our intention to return to paying dividends as soon as practicable, taking account of the Group's financial position and prospects and all other relevant constraints.

My predecessor, Sir Tom McKillop, spoke at the General Meeting in November and apologised to you very sincerely on behalf of the Board for the situation the Company was in. He was the first bank leader to do so and although many banks have performed badly, it is important that RBS as an institution accepts full responsibility for our part in the current financial crisis. We do.

Accountability has been allocated and accepted and there is a new leadership for this Group. We have a clear and agreed roadmap to return the Company to standalone strength in the next three to five years.

I know that many shareholders are quite shocked at the performance of the business and in many cases the losses have had a marked impact on people's lives.

[Andy74]

(2 of 3)

Many of our employees are shareholders, and our people are, of course, the heart of our Group. They share the financial pain while also having to face a difficult period in their working lives. Like too many people right now, they are worried for their jobs and have seen the reputation of their industry and profession attacked.

The majority of RBS staff in the UK earn less than 21 thousand pounds a year. They are not fat-cats or City Slickers, they work in branches, call-centres and offices in every community in the country serving our customers to a standard of service that is amongst the best in the industry.

They deserve better from their top management, and they do not deserve to share the worst of the criticisms being laid at the door of their employer and their industry.

Only a tiny minority of staff in RBS were in any way responsible for the major credit market losses we suffered in 2008. It is remarkable that there were only a few hundred people responsible in the relevant segments of our businesses chiefly in the financial centres of London, Amsterdam and New York, most of whom have now left the Group. And this is out of a global population of around 180,000 employees.

The following observation should also be striking for those who are as yet unaware of it:

Given the complexity of the Group and the progress of integrating the ABN AMRO businesses, it is impossible to unpick the ABN AMRO and RBS results with complete accuracy. However, that said, our estimation is that even after including the impact of credit market write-downs and other asset impairments, RBS excluding our share of ABN AMRO would have made an operating profit before tax and goodwill impairment in 2008.

In other words I don't think there can be any doubt that the key decision that led RBS to its difficulties was the acquisition of ABN AMRO. That is the painful reality that we can now do nothing to change. With the benefit of hindsight it can now be seen as the wrong price, the wrong way to pay, at the wrong time and the wrong deal.

It also highlights, however, that there is enduring quality, strength and potential within the core businesses of RBS. And while the deal was clearly bad for RBS there are a number of attractive assets and businesses in ABN AMRO which are being integrated into the Group. It is important we do not allow any of this to be obscured.

[Andy74]

(3 of 3)

We are, however, in a privileged position being able to restructure the Company with the support of the UK taxpayer behind us. We only enjoy that support because of our central role in the UK economy and society, serving our 25 million customers the length and breadth of the country. With that privilege and support comes our responsibility to repay the support of the taxpayer and in doing so, return the Group to full private ownership.

We need to concentrate on those core businesses, both in the UK and internationally, where we have the potential to make sustainable returns for all our shareholders. We can generate returns from strong customer businesses as an internationally important bank. That is critical to all our shareholders and is the focus of the Strategic Review which Stephen will summarise shortly.

The advantage we have is that the Strategic Review does not have to invent good businesses but we do have to allow them to re-emerge and assert themselves:

We have over 15 million UK retail customers and are the number 1 bank for small business and corporates.
In GBM we are top six in the world for Foreign Exchange, top ten for International Bonds.
We are a top five global transactions services provider
Ulster and Citizens are top three and top 10 in Ireland and the US respectively.
We are number one in the UK for Private Banking and are well positioned in wealth management in international markets.
Our general insurance businesses just had a record year and retain some of the strongest brands in their market.
We need to have a complete focus on executing a careful, sensible plan to allow these core businesses to get us back on track to full standalone strength in public markets. That is the imperative that now over-rides all others.

Most of the key aspects of our strategy are, rightly, sharply defined. The major decisions have already been taken and we must execute them purposefully.

But of course the way we do business, as well as the business we do, is vital. Our reform of pay and bonuses policy is a substantial example of this.

It was as clear to the Board, as it was to everyone else, that a fundamental reform was needed to reflect the reality of the situation the industry is in.

Reforms have been made and more will follow as we undertake a comprehensive review of all remuneration policies in 2009. The new approach we announced in February and which has been outlined in the Remuneration Report, will I think be seen by most reasonable observers to have balanced the difficult conflicting issues we face.

We need to retain, motivate and attract talented people to restore the fortunes of the Company. We will try to do that whilst being amongst those banks leading the industry in changing the way we operate.

Reward will be longer term and more directly aligned to shareholder interest rather than short-term return. In addition our new Chief Executive has, at his own insistence, a clause in his contract ensuring that he will receive no reward if he leaves the company for reasons of his own failure.
I do understand that many shareholders will wish to vote against or abstain on the advisory vote on the Remuneration Report to register their strong disapproval of the pension arrangements of our former Chief Executive.

I think there is little more that can be said here that isn't already in the public domain. Clearly, this is an issue of significant political and public concern and we all fully understand that.

Legal advice is being taken about whether the decision that was reached can be revisited. Whatever the outcome of that advice, it is in no-one's interest, least of all RBS Group's, for this issue to go on and on. The current Board are doing all that we can to bring this subject to a conclusion.

We must make other changes. In particular our risk processes and aspects of our management culture must change and will.


Key lessons have been identified and will be learned. Stephen will talk more about this shortly.

And in a more symbolic way some of the practices that were accepted at the height of a boom when the Bank was recording £10bn profits, cannot be acceptable now if indeed they ever really were.


Stories have emerged that are embarrassing for this Company. Some have substance, some have none, but all are distracting us from our core mission and we must put them behind us.

Stephen and his team are moving quickly to do what we can to demonstrate that the Company recognises its position and is changing.


Would we choose Formula 1 sponsorship if we were starting from here? No.

Should we retain a corporate jet? Of course not and Stephen Hester put it up for sale immediately on taking up his post.

When Margo MacDonald MSP wrote asking the Company to handover our sponsored scanner in full to the NHS in Edinburgh, rather than retain part of its use for RBS staff as originally announced, Stephen decided immediately to do so. A small gesture, but an important one nonetheless.

We do accept the rightful scrutiny of shareholders, the media and of politicians held accountable by the voters for the massive taxpayer support for banks in the UK and elsewhere.


However, too much is at stake to allow today's storms to restrain tomorrow's potential. This is a business with a long and successful past and I believe we have the potential for a very successful future.

However, I believe we should bring an end to the public flogging and focus on the good and enduring people and businesses of RBS and allow them to earn our way back to success.

The Chancellor recognised this in his public statements recently and the Business Secretary has made the same point.


We have suffered a major financial hit and continued collateral damage from public criticism will compound the problem not resolve it.

The operating environment is as tough as any of us have ever known and we are asking our staff to knuckle down for a three to five year project. We can only ask you, our shareholders, for the same perseverance. Many difficult decisions lie ahead. Chief among these will be the need to achieve the annual cost reduction targets of £2.5bn that we have set within the next three years. All costs will be scrutinised from our back offices to our highest offices.

Clearly this will mean that some of our people will lose their jobs. As so many of our customers make tough decisions in the face of the worst global recession in decades we have no option but to do the same.

We can't yet know how many will lose their jobs or where. This is for two main reasons.

The first is that every business has been empowered to determine how it will meet its own cost target.

The second is that when any of our businesses have decided how many roles will go they will communicate this first to their staff and their representatives. Where possible they will then offer their employees the chance to be redeployed to a new job elsewhere in the Group or to choose voluntary redundancy. Moreover, a significant portion of staff leave every year by natural turnover as they do in any business. It is therefore only when this process ends that we will know the actual number of redundancies involved. And of course we agree with the Unite union that we will do all we can to keep Compulsory Redundancies to an absolute minimum.

In the UK this year so far we have announced around 2,700 posts will go. We can only be honest and say that this will not be the end of the story and more are expected in the UK and internationally in the period ahead. We will, however, remain one of the largest employers in the country.

I would repeat however that we cannot know the detail of where and how many redundancies there will be until the process is worked through fully.

All of the difficult decisions we take will be underpinned by our imperative to get the Company into a position of strength again so the support of taxpayers and shareholders can be repaid.

The UK Government has made clear that it means to ensure its investment in us is managed at arm's length by UKFI. The intention is to ensure that the taxpayers' long-term interest is held paramount which means the Group will continue to be run on commercial grounds and therefore private and public shareholders' interests will be aligned.

We have nevertheless agreed lending commitments in common with banks elsewhere in the world as a result of the capital support we have received and under the proposed Asset Protection Scheme. The intent is to produce a clear and definable benefit to the UK economy from the risk the UK taxpayer is taking by standing behind us.

It is plainly in our own commercial interests to support our customers on commercial terms. Un-commercial lending is both unsound and a breach of duty and we clearly cannot do it. Where the demand exists and the risks are appropriate we will be able to help fill the gap left in the UK market by the exit of international banks.

The task before us is therefore one that should unite the Company and all of our shareholders; government, institutions and individuals.


We all have a huge challenge here but one I believe we have the capability to meet if we focus on the future and pull together towards our common goals.


The past is done but this company is not. The legacy of the last year will stay with us but now is the time to look forward. We have the foundations in place to rebuild the Group to standalone strength and everyone at RBS is committed now to doing just that."

[Betty Boop]

Fred the Shred refuses to give back part of his pension http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Business/RBS-Annual-Meeting-Shareholders-To-Voice-Anger-Over-Sir-Fred-Goodwin-Pension-UKFI-To-Vote-Against/Article/200904115254918?f=rss :rolleyes:

[Woody1985]

The guy just looks like a smug prick. I definitely agree that he should have got a pension that would be associated with a company going bust.

At the same time, thank you Fred for your part in ****ing up the economy. I've got shares in RBS at 23p and will sit on them for a couple of years and hopefully make a tidy profit. Selfish, I know, but Fred's got a 700k pension which is more than I'll ever have.

[Andy74]

Fred's got a 700k pension which is more than I'll ever have.

I keep hearing this but to be fair, have you had a hugely successful career for over 30 years?

From the above speech you will note that RBS was still a profit making business had it not been for what was lurking in ABN AMRO when it was purchased. It was also purchased a year before it was know how truly bad things had gotten.

I've asked before but do those slating Fred actually think they know what they are slating him for?

Being responsible for a bad decision is business life, he lost his job, the value of his shares and waived his right to pay out.

Being able to keep a pension he has built up over 30 previously successful years is fair enough and he'd be right to stick to his guns on it.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I hardly think his kids have much choice in the matter.

But they will have choices, unlike very many children growing up and suffering from capitalist greed. It's terrible if the kids were scared, but maybe it'll alert the fat cats to the fact that they cannot behave the way they do, without some sort of reaction.

I'm sure that the kids will get over it, and having daddy's money to add to their privilidged up bringing - they will learn from the experience, and maybe they will be more socially responsible when they are adults.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I keep hearing this but to be fair, have you had a hugely successful career for over 30 years?

From the above speech you will note that RBS was still a profit making business had it not been for what was lurking in ABN AMRO when it was purchased. It was also purchased a year before it was know how truly bad things had gotten.

I've asked before but do those slating Fred actually think they know what they are slating him for?

Being responsible for a bad decision is business life, he lost his job, the value of his shares and waived his right to pay out.

Being able to keep a pension he has built up over 30 previously successful years is fair enough and he'd be right to stick to his guns on it.

I think we're getting to the heart of the matter here. Fred's pension is based on the salary he built up, stealing money from ordinary people. The pension isn't the obscenity, it is the salary he was paid in the first place. No one is worth that much money, nor do they need that much money.

Fred's hugely successful career was built on what now appears to be dodgy behaviour - such as not disclosing the extent of RBS problems at last year's rights issue. Not to mention illegally deducting money from current accounts (RBS not Fred) and illegally refusing to release people's funds - eg when a cheque is clearing.

The Krays were hugely successful as well, I don't recall anyone worrying about their pensions.

[Hibs Class]

I keep hearing this but to be fair, have you had a hugely successful career for over 30 years?

From the above speech you will note that RBS was still a profit making business had it not been for what was lurking in ABN AMRO when it was purchased. It was also purchased a year before it was know how truly bad things had gotten.

I've asked before but do those slating Fred actually think they know what they are slating him for?

Being responsible for a bad decision is business life, he lost his job, the value of his shares and waived his right to pay out.

Being able to keep a pension he has built up over 30 previously successful years is fair enough and he'd be right to stick to his guns on it.

To be honest, Andy, that argument does hold some water, and may be reasonable if that was the extent to which his pension was being paid. However, your typical bank employee who retires early would expect to see some reduction in their annual pension to reflect the fact they have retired early. For someone going at 50 this would reduce the amount due by around 30%. What seems to be rewarding failure here is that the opposite happened with Goodwin, i.e. he retired and his pension pot was enhanced - near doubled according to some reports. Can you justify or explain that?

[Andy74]

To be honest, Andy, that argument does hold some water, and may be reasonable if that was the extent to which his pension was being paid. However, your typical bank employee who retires early would expect to see some reduction in their annual pension to reflect the fact they have retired early. For someone going at 50 this would reduce the amount due by around 30%. What seems to be rewarding failure here is that the opposite happened with Goodwin, i.e. he retired and his pension pot was enhanced - near doubled according to some reports. Can you justify or explain that?

He wasn't your typical employee, he was not part of the main Group pension shceme, he had his own pension scheme or arrangement which had been agreed back in 1999.

He wasn't sacked either, you have to seperate what followed with what happened in October. It was clear that things in the market had got worse and that RBS would need to rely on government funding. At that time the Government said that things needed to change and it was agreed that Sir Fred would leave some months later in Janaury but would stay on to ensure a handover when the new Chief Exec joined in November.

Under that agreement he retired early so the arrangements we now know about kicked in in January.

Yesm the ABN AMRO deal proved disastrous but it was completed a ful year before all of this was known so calling for a guy to lose the pension he had a right to for about 30 years service at the top of his profession is not realistic. I'ts just a media and politically fuelled bit of hysteria really.

I've lost more than most on here probably due to it all but I can see past the fact that this was all Sir Fred's fault.

[Hibs Class]

The attached story provides some explanation as to how the pension amount was arrived at.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7949929.stm

There are some dubious practices referred to, such as RBS deciding to treat Fred as if he had joined them / the pension scheme at age 20, when in fact he joined at age 40. That immediately gave him a notional service of 20 years. It also appears he was allowed to accrue further entitlement at double the rate of other employees. That, too, is generous but as you point out he had his own pension scheme. This was all geared around enabling him to retire at age 60 on a full pension of 2/3 of his final salary. All these arrangements were historic and were entered into when RBS was doing well. During 2008, however, his pension pot increased from c.£8m to c.£16m, and that presumably was because of the enhancement that enabled him to retire on 2/3 10 years early - that is the aspect that is most galling.

I don't blame him for what has happened either, I've also lost out on bank shares, and I also deplore the media frenzy and political duplicity. Do you support the c.£8m enhancement that allowed him to avoid any reduction for going 10 years early?

[Andy74]

The attached story provides some explanation as to how the pension amount was arrived at.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7949929.stm

There are some dubious practices referred to, such as RBS deciding to treat Fred as if he had joined them / the pension scheme at age 20, when in fact he joined at age 40. That immediately gave him a notional service of 20 years. It also appears he was allowed to accrue further entitlement at double the rate of other employees. That, too, is generous but as you point out he had his own pension scheme. This was all geared around enabling him to retire at age 60 on a full pension of 2/3 of his final salary. All these arrangements were historic and were entered into when RBS was doing well. During 2008, however, his pension pot increased from c.£8m to c.£16m, and that presumably was because of the enhancement that enabled him to retire on 2/3 10 years early - that is the aspect that is most galling.

I don't blame him for what has happened either, I've also lost out on bank shares, and I also deplore the media frenzy and political duplicity. Do you support the c.£8m enhancement that allowed him to avoid any reduction for going 10 years early?

I would take some of the BBC detail with a slight pinch of salt but it's not far away.

In terms of accruing service this is very normal for exec positions and tidies up and arrangements they have. They essentially take over the previous pension arrangements from other roles. This is why it relates to his whole working life, not just the work done at RBS.

The enhancement was contractual. You'd have to suppose in normal cicumstances it would benefit the company because if a CEO decides to retire early it is usually cheaper that the salary they could have earned in that time.

I'm not going to get too concenred about it, it's a normal exec pension scheme and he did retire early, he was not sacked.

[Woody1985]

I keep hearing this but to be fair, have you had a hugely successful career for over 30 years?

From the above speech you will note that RBS was still a profit making business had it not been for what was lurking in ABN AMRO when it was purchased. It was also purchased a year before it was know how truly bad things had gotten.

I've asked before but do those slating Fred actually think they know what they are slating him for?

Being responsible for a bad decision is business life, he lost his job, the value of his shares and waived his right to pay out.

Being able to keep a pension he has built up over 30 previously successful years is fair enough and he'd be right to stick to his guns on it.

Given that I'm 23, no.

I know that he purchased a duff business that put us in deep ****. If the ABN AMBRO deal was so good why were they selling?

Fair enough, I appreciate the pension he's built up prior to RBS he should keep but for the RBS aspect he should be getting the equivelent of when a company goes bust for his time there. If I start my own business tomorrow and do brilliant for the next ten years and then **** it all up and lose everything I can't go crying to someone saying 'well I did well for most of the time so can I please keep all my money'.

He walked away and waived his shares / pay off so that he could still keep a wedge.

He still looks like a smug prick and I've never seen one bit of remorse from him. Fred and his cronies can **** off as far as I'm concerned. He may be your mate or business associate but he seems like a complete tosser.

Has he even apologised for his part in the ABN deal?!

I wouldn't mind that much to be honest if he had come out and said 'fair enough, I've ****ed up. I'm really sorry, I'll give a little back' It doesn't mean much cash wise in the grand scheme of things but at least it would show some compassion for the people he's contributed towards losing their livelihoods.

Wouldn't it be great if Karma bites him in the ass.

[Andy74]

Given that I'm 23, no.

I know that he purchased a duff business that put us in deep ****. If the ABN AMBRO deal was so good why were they selling?

Fair enough, I appreciate the pension he's built up prior to RBS he should keep but for the RBS aspect he should be getting the equivelent of when a company goes bust for his time there. If I start my own business tomorrow and do brilliant for the next ten years and then **** it all up and lose everything I can't go crying to someone saying 'well I did well for most of the time so can I please keep all my money'.

He walked away and waived his shares / pay off so that he could still keep a wedge.

He still looks like a smug prick and I've never seen one bit of remorse from him. Fred and his cronies can **** off as far as I'm concerned. He may be your mate or business associate but he seems like a complete tosser.

Has he even apologised for his part in the ABN deal?!

I wouldn't mind that much to be honest if he had come out and said 'fair enough, I've ****ed up. I'm really sorry, I'll give a little back' It doesn't mean much cash wise in the grand scheme of things but at least it would show some compassion for the people he's contributed towards losing their livelihoods.

Wouldn't it be great if Karma bites him in the ass.

ABN AMRO weren't selling, it was a hostile take-over. The original offer was from Barclays and RBS and a consortium beat them to it.

It's not quite as simple as whether it was a good business or not. There were good businesses within it, they were in areas that fitted with the strategies of the consortium but they were very badly run so there was an oportunity for someone to integrate into their business and make significant savings.

Of course, the toxic stuff in there came out over a year later.

If you do start you own business and lose it all then yes, tough. Fred didn't do that, he was emplotyed and had a pension schme that he knew would pay out a particular sum at the end of it. If you were to organise something like that the fair play.

So what if he 'seems' like a complete tosser. That's a press thing because he was never open to them and as ever people don't really like people that are successful. He was of course hard but also very, very good at what he did.

The country benefitted from RBS being taken from a regional bank to a major owrld player and the biggest corporate tax pauer in the UK. Now it has gone wrong the country are paying but as noted above RBS is a good profit making business underneath all the toxic stuff that mainly came with the ABN AMRO purchase.

Sir Fred has actually apologised a number of times now and he is genuine in that but having already paid for the bad decision he was a part of that doesn't have top extend to ever penny he has.

[ancient hibee]

With the fall of RBS and HBOS the Treasury will be short of about £7billion a year corporation tax-so when I hear a "what did greedy bankers ever do for us"question I have a wry smile.

[Phil D. Rolls]

With the fall of RBS and HBOS the Treasury will be short of about £7billion a year corporation tax-so when I hear a "what did greedy bankers ever do for us"question I have a wry smile.

I have a wry smile every time I look at a place like Muirhouse, and consider how different things could be for the people there if the wealth in our society was distributed more fairly.

I think greedy is a fair description of the banks. They didn't pay all the tax they had to, they provided the most basic service they could for the highest price, and they started robbing ordinary punters through stealth charges.

The bankers never acted for society, they acted for their shareholders (including themselves). They hid behind their wealth, and pretended to themselves that everything was OK in the world, and now they are so hurt that everyone else didn't share their view of things.

[Woody1985]

I have a wry smile every time I look at a place like Muirhouse, and consider how different things could be for the people there if the wealth in our society was distributed more fairly.

I think greedy is a fair description of the banks. They didn't pay all the tax they had to, they provided the most basic service they could for the highest price, and they started robbing ordinary punters through stealth charges.

The bankers never acted for society, they acted for their shareholders (including themselves). They hid behind their wealth, and pretended to themselves that everything was OK in the world, and now they are so hurt that everyone else didn't share their view of things.

:top marks

Re the point around run down areas, although nothing to do with the banks, think of how much worse they are going to be now without all the magical bank money.

Rather than being 7 billion down a year if the banks had have ran a tight steady ship and provided say 3 billion in taxes to the exchequer they'd still be running pretty and everyone would be consistently better off than under the boom and bust scenario driven by greed.

There are so many factors though including the lax regulation, exploitation of the lax regulation, lack of morals, greed etc etc. We all know this isn't one mans fault but all the people who have been involved should be punished in some way for effectively playing with peoples lives. We're going to be paying taxes for another generation for this, reduced public services, no doubt reduction in health care due to less taxes through less jobs etc etc etc.

[Killiehibbie]

I have a wry smile every time I look at a place like Muirhouse, and consider how different things could be for the people there if the wealth in our society was distributed more fairly.

I think greedy is a fair description of the banks. They didn't pay all the tax they had to, they provided the most basic service they could for the highest price, and they started robbing ordinary punters through stealth charges.

The bankers never acted for society, they acted for their shareholders (including themselves). They hid behind their wealth, and pretended to themselves that everything was OK in the world, and now they are so hurt that everyone else didn't share their view of things.

Is there not a theory if all the worlds wealth was evenly redistributed tomorrow it would all end up back where it is today within a year?

[Arch Stanton]

Of course, the toxic stuff in there came out over a year later.

He was of course hard but also very, very good at what he did.



I can't believe you are still trying to paint FG in a good light.

It may have taken him a year to realise that purchasing a bank at that time wasn't the brightest thing to have done but I am sure the punters already queuing up to get their money out of Nothern Rock would have kept him right on that score.

Whatever FG was good at, his obsession with takeovers certainly wasn't looking after shareholders' interests. He was rightly panned for investing in Bank of China but his apology and promise not to make any further purchases just goes to prove how good a liar he is.

[Andy74]

I can't believe you are still trying to paint FG in a good light.

It may have taken him a year to realise that purchasing a bank at that time wasn't the brightest thing to have done but I am sure the punters already queuing up to get their money out of Nothern Rock would have kept him right on that score.

Whatever FG was good at, his obsession with takeovers certainly wasn't looking after shareholders' interests. He was rightly panned for investing in Bank of China but his apology and promise not to make any further purchases just goes to prove how good a liar he is.

See, this is the problem, so many people seem to think that because some of the problem was known the whole thing could be forseen.

Northern Rock had specific issues which were pretty unrealted to the issues that emerged at ABN AMRO. The severity of what was to come was not known until October 2008.

Why was he rightly panned for investing in Bank of China? - RBS made a great deal of money on that investment.

And there was no promise not to purchase anything else, just a message that there was no need to or no plans to. The ABN AMRO was an opporunity that at the time seemed the right thing to do.

So many experts from the outside and with the benefit of hindsight!

[Arch Stanton]

We're going to be paying taxes for another generation for this, reduced public services, no doubt reduction in health care due to less taxes through less jobs etc etc etc.

I'm not too sure about that. RBS shares have doubled in value since the government took a stake so I would assume they could actually make a decent profit when the time is right to sell.

[Arch Stanton]

See, this is the problem, so many people seem to think that because some of the problem was known the whole thing could be forseen.

Northern Rock had specific issues which were pretty unrealted to the issues that emerged at ABN AMRO. The severity of what was to come was not known until October 2008.

Why was he rightly panned for investing in Bank of China? - RBS made a great deal of money on that investment.

And there was no promise not to purchase anything else, just a message that there was no need to or no plans to. The ABN AMRO was an opporunity that at the time seemed the right thing to do.

So many experts from the outside and with the benefit of hindsight!

How much fiction can one poster come up with I wonder?

Northern Rock's demise was a direct result of the sub-prime problem coming to light and the fact that it was not known how many, and by how much, banks were exposed to this.

The upshot of this was that banks stopped making loans to each other on the currency markets.

Since NR was using the money markets to fund it's loan book it became insolvent!

And yet you maintain that he could not have foreseen any risk in purchasing ABN Amro!

And as regards Bank of China - he was panned because his purchasing was depriving shareholders of realising value. In any case, if RBS shareholders had used their own money to buy shares in BoC then they would not have seen them sold at the bottom of the market - profit or no profit. And the fact is he did promise not to make further purchases!

[ancienthibby]

ABN AMRO weren't selling, it was a hostile take-over. The original offer was from Barclays and RBS and a consortium beat them to it.

It's not quite as simple as whether it was a good business or not. There were good businesses within it, they were in areas that fitted with the strategies of the consortium but they were very badly run so there was an oportunity for someone to integrate into their business and make significant savings.

Of course, the toxic stuff in there came out over a year later.

If you do start you own business and lose it all then yes, tough. Fred didn't do that, he was emplotyed and had a pension schme that he knew would pay out a particular sum at the end of it. If you were to organise something like that the fair play.

So what if he 'seems' like a complete tosser. That's a press thing because he was never open to them and as ever people don't really like people that are successful. He was of course hard but also very, very good at what he did.

The country benefitted from RBS being taken from a regional bank to a major owrld player and the biggest corporate tax pauer in the UK. Now it has gone wrong the country are paying but as noted above RBS is a good profit making business underneath all the toxic stuff that mainly came with the ABN AMRO purchase.

Sir Fred has actually apologised a number of times now and he is genuine in that but having already paid for the bad decision he was a part of that doesn't have top extend to ever penny he has.

You just don't know where to stop do you, man??!!

Your never-ending defense of Freddie the Freeloader on this thread mainly proves one thing: that when you are in a deep hole you should stop digging.

Here's a few points:

While you are correct to say FF 'resigned', this is only a legal nicety, as company law requires that a departing director resigns from his position. But this (for you) neatly glosses over the fact that FF was fired from his executive position within the bank. New money coming in requires this, though the well-paid legals in Edinburgh would ensure that the Compromise Agreement never included the word 'fired'. The message from the rescuer was clear: No new money, if FF stays; money in, FF out!! (Or you go under!). Dress it up any way you like, but FF was fired!!

And what is this crap about a highly successful career over 30 years?? Whatever FF might have done in the accountancy profession or at Clydesdale has all been wiped out by his catastrophic failure at RBS. Writers of financial history will devote 99% of their time to FF's failure at RBS; anything else will be a mere footnote. (By the way, I doubt if he's even old enough to be in the workforce for 30 years!!)

Again, why do you bleat on about his earning of a pension over 30 years(?) and being entitled to keep it. The item that sticks in peoples' craws is the apparent addition of £8 million to the pot in the last month or two of his service at RBS - nothing at all to do with what happened over the previous 29.9 years!!

[Phil D. Rolls]

Is there not a theory if all the worlds wealth was evenly redistributed tomorrow it would all end up back where it is today within a year?

Why is that though? I reckon it could be down to the greed of individuals such as Goodwin, who want more wealth than they can ever spend.

I'm not saying that socialism is the answer, only that capitalism isn't. The misery this system inflicts on the vast majority of society (unemployment, stress through overwork, the law being skewed to favour property owners etc), for the benefit of a few, says to me that there has to be another way.

We have to accept that we have a problem, we have to see that people who have taken from others, whether legally or illegally, are acting immorally. We have to get away from calling people who have failed successes, because they got everything right up until there last move. If we believe that we would be saying that Hitler and his pals didn't deserve what they got, because they'd got it right up until that decision to invade Russia instead of Britain.

I wish people would stop feeling sorry for the Goodwin's of the world. They have played the dog eat dog system, and surely if they have any morals they have to accept that sometimes the other dog wins. I read a book once, "The Dear Green Place", by George Friel, one of the characters in it says "the socialist revolution could never take place in Scotland because the minute the rich people complained about losing their wealth we'd feel sorry for them and give them it back".

We've got to get a bit tougher with people who shaft us, and when the boot's on the other foot we stick it in, in the same way that they have been doing to us.

[Betty Boop]

Why is that though? I reckon it could be down to the greed of individuals such as Goodwin, who want more wealth than they can ever spend.

I'm not saying that socialism is the answer, only that capitalism isn't. The misery this system inflicts on the vast majority of society (unemployment, stress through overwork, the law being skewed to favour property owners etc), for the benefit of a few, says to me that there has to be another way.

We have to accept that we have a problem, we have to stop saying that people who have taken from others, whether legally or illegally, are acting immorally. We have to get away from calling people who have failed successes, because they got everything right up until there last move. If we believe that we would be saying that Hitler and his pals didn't deserve what they got, because they'd got it right up until that decision to invade Russia instead of Britain.

I wish people would stop feeling sorry for the Goodwin's of the world. They have played the dog eat dog system, and surely if they have any morals they have to accept that sometimes the other dog wins. I read a book once, "The Dear Green Place", by George Friel, one of the characters in it says "the socialist revolution could never take place in Scotland because the minute the rich people complained about losing their wealth we'd feel sorry for them and give them it back".

We've got to get a bit tougher with people who shaft us, and when the boot's on the other foot we stick it in, in the same way that they have been doing to us. :top marks

[Woody1985]

I'm not too sure about that. RBS shares have doubled in value since the government took a stake so I would assume they could actually make a decent profit when the time is right to sell.

The only reason the SP is 2.5 times it was is because of government investment. Not much else.

No doubt they will turn a profit but as soon as the exchequer get their money back it will be sold to the private sector. We might make a bit of profit but by that time taxes will already be higher and I'm pretty certain the government won't be reducing them as soon as that happens.

I'm guessing that they will increase VAT above the 17.5% it was previously when all this is over. Petrol has already gone up 2p this month when the government said last June that it wouldn't go up for the full year. He meant the financial year and not a full year. The government are full of **** and will be fleecing us for a while yet.

[ancient hibee]

The only reason the SP is 2.5 times it was is because of government investment. Not much else.

No doubt they will turn a profit but as soon as the exchequer get their money back it will be sold to the private sector. We might make a bit of profit but by that time taxes will already be higher and I'm pretty certain the government won't be reducing them as soon as that happens.

I'm guessing that they will increase VAT above the 17.5% it was previously when all this is over. Petrol has already gone up 2p this month when the government said last June that it wouldn't go up for the full year. He meant the financial year and not a full year. The government are full of **** and will be fleecing us for a while yet.
If we want government expenditure we have to have taxes or borrowing which we have to pay back.The government doesn't have any money.

[Phil D. Rolls]

If we want government expenditure we have to have taxes or borrowing which we have to pay back.The government doesn't have any money.

Or we could just take back the excessive wealth of individuals who have gained it immorally. If Goodwin and the rest had made his money through dealing drugs there wouldn't be a problem.

When you have high ranking officials in HBOS driving their Bentley to the take away at Barnton to collect there chinese, then you have to start wondering what sort of guttersnipes are running the economy.

[--------]

Why is that though? I reckon it could be down to the greed of individuals such as Goodwin, who want more wealth than they can ever spend.

I'm not saying that socialism is the answer, only that capitalism isn't. The misery this system inflicts on the vast majority of society (unemployment, stress through overwork, the law being skewed to favour property owners etc), for the benefit of a few, says to me that there has to be another way.

We have to accept that we have a problem, we have to see that people who have taken from others, whether legally or illegally, are acting immorally. We have to get away from calling people who have failed successes, because they got everything right up until there last move. If we believe that we would be saying that Hitler and his pals didn't deserve what they got, because they'd got it right up until that decision to invade Russia instead of Britain.

I wish people would stop feeling sorry for the Goodwin's of the world. They have played the dog eat dog system, and surely if they have any morals they have to accept that sometimes the other dog wins. I read a book once, "The Dear Green Place", by George Friel, one of the characters in it says "the socialist revolution could never take place in Scotland because the minute the rich people complained about losing their wealth we'd feel sorry for them and give them it back".

We've got to get a bit tougher with people who shaft us, and when the boot's on the other foot we stick it in, in the same way that they have been doing to us.


:agree:

[ancienthibby]

Why is that though? I reckon it could be down to the greed of individuals such as Goodwin, who want more wealth than they can ever spend.

I'm not saying that socialism is the answer, only that capitalism isn't. The misery this system inflicts on the vast majority of society (unemployment, stress through overwork, the law being skewed to favour property owners etc), for the benefit of a few, says to me that there has to be another way.

We have to accept that we have a problem, we have to see that people who have taken from others, whether legally or illegally, are acting immorally. We have to get away from calling people who have failed successes, because they got everything right up until there last move. If we believe that we would be saying that Hitler and his pals didn't deserve what they got, because they'd got it right up until that decision to invade Russia instead of Britain.

I wish people would stop feeling sorry for the Goodwin's of the world. They have played the dog eat dog system, and surely if they have any morals they have to accept that sometimes the other dog wins. I read a book once, "The Dear Green Place", by George Friel, one of the characters in it says "the socialist revolution could never take place in Scotland because the minute the rich people complained about losing their wealth we'd feel sorry for them and give them it back".

We've got to get a bit tougher with people who shaft us, and when the boot's on the other foot we stick it in, in the same way that they have been doing to us.

Archie Hind, perhaps??:agree:

[Arch Stanton]

The only reason the SP is 2.5 times it was is because of government investment. Not much else.

Nope - following the government's purchase the share price went down to 11p, or whatever it was, to reflect the share issue for the government - since then the price has risen with the market.

[Woody1985]

Nope - following the government's purchase the share price went down to 11p, or whatever it was, to reflect the share issue for the government - since then the price has risen with the market.

Yes, it dropped to 10.3p when the government got involved due to fears over N.

The government has propped up RBS so Hester and co can stabalise and get rid of the non core assets and raised some cash.

All the factors are linked but without the government backing it wouldn't be in the market to rise with it. The government backing has given investors confidence. Everyone knows the government don't want to N the beast because it would be too much for them to handle. They'd also lose investor confidence and the markets would drop further than they already have.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Archie Hind, perhaps??:agree:

Yep - got mixed up with the Boy Who Wanted Peace.

[ancient hibee]

Or we could just take back the excessive wealth of individuals who have gained it immorally. If Goodwin and the rest had made his money through dealing drugs there wouldn't be a problem.

When you have high ranking officials in HBOS driving their Bentley to the take away at Barnton to collect there chinese, then you have to start wondering what sort of guttersnipes are running the economy.

Who are the "we"that you're always talking about taking money off people "we"decide don't deserve it.The big difference between here and in the States is that when they see someone driving a Bentley they all want one whereas "we"assume they don't deserveto have one.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Who are the "we"that you're always talking about taking money off people "we"decide don't deserve it.The big difference between here and in the States is that when they see someone driving a Bentley they all want one whereas "we"assume they don't deserveto have one.

The States is a really good example of a society that is working, eh?

"We" are people who can see that unfair distribution of wealth is a root cause of a lot of human misery. Fair enough though, if you think that people who have gained money by what is conventionally termed "immoral means" deserve everything they have, who can argue?

Personally, I am not against people having a happy lifestyle, I am against people living without any hope of ever achieving anything, and having to deal with the problems that hopelessness creates.

I'm not jealous of someone in a Bentley. I am sceptical about how much class someone who drives a Bentley has, if they use it to collect a Chinese takeaway. Suggests to me that it is someone that doesn't really know the value of things.

Guttersnipe is my word of the week.

[Hibs Class]

The States is a really good example of a society that is working, eh?

"We" are people who can see that unfair distribution of wealth is a root cause of a lot of human misery. Fair enough though, if you think that people who have gained money by what is conventionally termed "immoral means" deserve everything they have, who can argue?

Personally, I am not against people having a happy lifestyle, I am against people living without any hope of ever achieving anything, and having to deal with the problems that hopelessness creates.

I'm not jealous of someone in a Bentley. I am sceptical about how much class someone who drives a Bentley has, if they use it to collect a Chinese takeaway. Suggests to me that it is someone that doesn't really know the value of things.

Guttersnipe is my word of the week.

I agree with much of your post, but I'm also lost on the Bentley point. Should said individual a) take a taxi to to the takeaway, b) walk to the takeaway, c) own a separate more discreet type of vehicle for takeaway journeys, d) not eat takeaway food in the first place? :confused:

[Killiehibbie]

I agree with much of your post, but I'm also lost on the Bentley point. Should said individual a) take a taxi to to the takeaway, b) walk to the takeaway, c) own a separate more discreet type of vehicle for takeaway journeys, d) not eat takeaway food in the first place? :confused:

It must be cheaper to get meal delivered for 30 bob than get the Bentley out. Personally I would send the butler as I would be too busy for such a lowly task.

[Woody1985]

It must be cheaper to get meal delivered for 30 bob than get the Bentley out. Personally I would send the butler as I would be too busy for such a lowly task.

:tsk tsk: You wouldn't want those pesky delivery drivers standing outside the gates to your mansion. :greengrin

[Killiehibbie]

:tsk tsk: You wouldn't want those pesky delivery drivers standing outside the gates to your mansion. :greengrin

Ok as long as they go round the back

[Andy74]

The States is a really good example of a society that is working, eh?

"We" are people who can see that unfair distribution of wealth is a root cause of a lot of human misery. Fair enough though, if you think that people who have gained money by what is conventionally termed "immoral means" deserve everything they have, who can argue?

Personally, I am not against people having a happy lifestyle, I am against people living without any hope of ever achieving anything, and having to deal with the problems that hopelessness creates.

I'm not jealous of someone in a Bentley. I am sceptical about how much class someone who drives a Bentley has, if they use it to collect a Chinese takeaway. Suggests to me that it is someone that doesn't really know the value of things.

Guttersnipe is my word of the week.


You evidently have enough cash for a PC and internet access whilst there are people starving in the world.

Do you draw the line at your level of comfort as acceptable?

[ancient hibee]

The States is a really good example of a society that is working, eh?

"We" are people who can see that unfair distribution of wealth is a root cause of a lot of human misery. Fair enough though, if you think that people who have gained money by what is conventionally termed "immoral means" deserve everything they have, who can argue?

Personally, I am not against people having a happy lifestyle, I am against people living without any hope of ever achieving anything, and having to deal with the problems that hopelessness creates.

I'm not jealous of someone in a Bentley. I am sceptical about how much class someone who drives a Bentley has, if they use it to collect a Chinese takeaway. Suggests to me that it is someone that doesn't really know the value of things.

Guttersnipe is my word of the week.
Don't understand what you mean by immoral means-is that anyone who has an occupation that you don't agree with?For example I worked for a bank for nearly 40 years-is that what is"conventionally termed immoral" and if so by whom?(other than your goodself of course)

[Ed De Gramo]

Who gets the most sympathy....

Fred Goodwin or Jade Goody....

There's only one way to find out...

FIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT!

:duck::greengrin:cool2:

[Phil D. Rolls]

You evidently have enough cash for a PC and internet access whilst there are people starving in the world.

Do you draw the line at your level of comfort as acceptable?

Actually, I was using a computer at University. My wealth isn't the issue anyway. The point is there is enough to go round, so that people aren't ending up physically and mentally ill through the hopelessness of poverty. You don't have to be rich or poor to want things to be fair.

A lot of people are missing the point about the ercholes who ran the banks. One guy said that they had worked hard. I know people who work hard in care homes for minimum wage, sometimes 60 a hours a week to make ends meet. How does that impact on their well being, and by extension, the well being of society?

Setting that aside, if they do something wrong, no-one says - hey that's OK, here's a year's salary for pay off.

The Bentley thing, is a personal observation. My feeling is that if the people who ran the banks had a bit more class, they might have had a bit more morality. To me, if you have class you don't drive your Bentley to the take away. Not logical I agree, but let's be honest - a heck of a lot of these people were clearly out of their depth.

And that's the whole issue - these guys screwed it up. I could work just as hard as them and get the same result. They weren't very good. They were incompetent - otherwise they wouldn't have broken the rules about how to run a bank.

The alternative is that they knew exactly what they were doing, and chose to go against what was prudent. Either way, I don't think these guys deserve anything other than complete contempt. As do the lackeys who are now trying to prop them up, in the hope that the system might still work.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Don't understand what you mean by immoral means-is that anyone who has an occupation that you don't agree with?For example I worked for a bank for nearly 40 years-is that what is"conventionally termed immoral" and if so by whom?(other than your goodself of course)

I don't think banks are immoral. per se. what I think is that they fell into the hands of immoral people who went way over the score. It has to be immoral to charge £35 for someone going 1p overdrawn doesn't it?

[Chez]

I don't think banks are immoral. per se. what I think is that they fell into the hands of immoral people who went way over the score. It has to be immoral to charge £35 for someone going 1p overdrawn doesn't it?

:agree: Strangely enough, the people who these charges are mostly occuring on are those on low incomes/welfare benefits with a limited amount to live off :agree:

[Woody1985]

:agree: Strangely enough, the people who these charges are mostly occuring on are those on low incomes/welfare benefits with a limited amount to live off :agree:

:agree: :top marks

My mate is on disability for mental illness and gets in the region of £120 a fortnight. He saved up and bought a computer and had broadband put in as he doesn't get out that much.

His broadband came off and he was around £4 overdrawn and ended up with bank charges of £80+ in total. He's not the sharpest when it comes to banking so he didn't know what to do, who to complain to, basically who to get help from and was left skint because of it. When I gave him the info and what he needed to do to at least attempt to get the money back they refused.

Another mate of mine runs his own business and has a business account at RBS. He also has a personal accounts plus ISAs etc. He opened an extra current account for direct debits so he could split that from his main current account. It went overdrawn in error on his part. He asked for the funds to be recredited and they duly obliged given that he had 10s of thousands of £s with them.

[--------]

:agree: :top marks

My mate is on disability for mental illness and gets in the region of £120 a fortnight. He saved up and bought a computer and had broadband put in as he doesn't get out that much.

His broadband came off and he was around £4 overdrawn and ended up with bank charges of £80+ in total. He's not the sharpest when it comes to banking so he didn't know what to do, who to complain to, basically who to get help from and was left skint because of it. When I gave him the info and what he needed to do to at least attempt to get the money back they refused.

Another mate of mine runs his own business and has a business account at RBS. He also has a personal accounts plus ISAs etc. He opened an extra current account for direct debits so he could split that from his main current account. It went overdrawn in error on his part. He asked for the funds to be recredited and they duly obliged given that he had 10s of thousands of £s with them.


They would be concerned yur second mate might take his business (including ISAs) away from them. So they would be much more obliging to him than to your first mate, who had no other business with them.

We had a meeting with an 'adviser' at our HBoS branch, who was very insistent that the only thing for us to do was to leave everything as it was and wait for the market to rise and make our losses good.

We later confirmed what we had suspected from the off, that all these advisers are under instructions to do everything they can to prevent folks removing their business from the banks - not for the customers' sakes, but for the sake of the bank concerned.

The market will rise, I'd guess, and when it does I have a strong inclination to go down and withdraw the lot and put it into something else.

[Woody1985]

They would be concerned yur second mate might take his business (including ISAs) away from them. So they would be much more obliging to him than to your first mate, who had no other business with them.

We had a meeting with an 'adviser' at our HBoS branch, who was very insistent that the only thing for us to do was to leave everything as it was and wait for the market to rise and make our losses good.

We later confirmed what we had suspected from the off, that all these advisers are under instructions to do everything they can to prevent folks removing their business from the banks - not for the customers' sakes, but for the sake of the bank concerned.

The market will rise, I'd guess, and when it does I have a strong inclination to go down and withdraw the lot and put it into something else.

I'm under no illiusions that that's not the reason for mate with the business having his charges waived (I've worked in a bank for 6.5 years). I was just confirming the point above about the people who need it most are the ones who suffer the most.

Someone who has a couple of k every month into his account gets a charge of £35 which is less than 2% of his monthly income. He gets it back. A guy who gets £240 a month gets penalties totalling £80 has 33% of his income. For comparison at £35 it's around 15% of his monthly income and he gets shafted for the sake of £4.

I actually find RBS really good as I tend not to go overdrawn and make my payments on time. Their on-line service is top notch and I never have any trouble calling the branch or the 0845 7 242424 number.

[Chez]

:agree: :top marks

My mate is on disability for mental illness and gets in the region of £120 a fortnight. He saved up and bought a computer and had broadband put in as he doesn't get out that much.

His broadband came off and he was around £4 overdrawn and ended up with bank charges of £80+ in total. He's not the sharpest when it comes to banking so he didn't know what to do, who to complain to, basically who to get help from and was left skint because of it. When I gave him the info and what he needed to do to at least attempt to get the money back they refused.

Another mate of mine runs his own business and has a business account at RBS. He also has a personal accounts plus ISAs etc. He opened an extra current account for direct debits so he could split that from his main current account. It went overdrawn in error on his part. He asked for the funds to be recredited and they duly obliged given that he had 10s of thousands of £s with them.

:agree:Just before Christmas there, I had been 4p overdrawn and faced a £35 overdrawn fee and interest charges for being overdrawn as well £5.60 - totalling £40.60 off a £83 a week benefit. The banks couldnae care how anyone else's christmas is gonna be as long as their own is going to be fine:agree:

Many people in such circumstances, even pensioners I know, have at least faced one charge like this within a year.

[ancienthibby]

It fair broke my wee heart, so it did, to see that Freddie Freeloader's former employers have just systematically trashed his old office!!

http://business.scotsman.com/royalbankofscotland/Royal-Banks-new-regime-.5184527.jp

[Phil D. Rolls]

It fair broke my wee heart, so it did, to see that Freddie Freeloader's former employers have just systematically trashed his old office!!

http://business.scotsman.com/royalbankofscotland/Royal-Banks-new-regime-.5184527.jp

Kind of reminds me of those people looting Markos' palace in the Phillipines. If there are a lot of HR officers in RBS walking around in new shoes today, we'll know why.