I'm fully expecting the result of the rabble rousing by the government and media to a Danny Dyer show called Bwitain Naughtiest Bankers
Danny would trudge up to Sir Fred's mansion at dusk and reveal factoids for the masses to get over excited about until the next THING TO WORRY ABOUT is spoon fed to them "Sir Fwed is a evvyweight in the naughty banking game. After wecording record losses he agreed to leave with a pension that vat ver gavvement soined awff. When asked to pay some of iback 'ee, declined.
Oggy, quite take the political point you are trying to make. Would the be Tories any different? I don't think so, you may think differently but I hope not.
Bottom line is this kind of thing built up under successive governments, and has now come to a head under this one.
All the time lefties are blaming tories and tories are blaming lefties, nothing will get sorted, you just get the same person in charge wearing a different coloured rosette depending on what suits him/her at the time. Virtually no-one outside the tiny percentage of people in Britain who control the money has been totally happy with any government in my lifetime, but we still keep playing the little game they call democracy, and they keep getting rich, and making their friends rich, while telling the rest of us we should either tighten our belts or be grateful for the crumbs we get when times are good.
Sir Fred is bulletproof, his mates will be exactly like him, not one of them will pull him up and put him straight, in fact they will be giving him a shoulder to cry on whilst sipping his Dom Pom. Then they will sit and have a good laugh at the latest round of redundancies, because the "oiks are getting what they deserve"...
[cite]Posted By: Algarveaddick[/cite]Oggy, quite take the political point you are trying to make. Would the be Tories any different? I don't think so, you may think differently but I hope not.
Bottom line is this kind of thing built up under successive governments, and has now come to a head under this one.
All the time lefties are blaming tories and tories are blaming lefties, nothing will get sorted, you just get the same person in charge wearing a different coloured rosette depending on what suits him/her at the time. Virtually no-one outside the tiny percentage of people in Britain who control the money has been totally happy with any government in my lifetime, but we still keep playing the little gametheycall democracy, and they keep getting rich, and making their friends rich, while telling the rest of us we should either tighten our belts or be grateful for the crumbs we get when times are good.
Sir Fred is bulletproof, his mates will be exactly like him, not one of them will pull him up and put him straight, in fact they will be giving him a shoulder to cry on whilst sipping his Dom Pom. Then they will sit and have a good laugh at the latest round of redundancies, because the "oiks are getting what they deserve"...
Some nails hit on the head there, Algarve.
No mention of retired senior civil servants who also draw six-figure pensions.
I wonder who pays Civil Service pensions - Father Christmas?
But my point is not whether the Tories would be any different - and it's certainly not meant to be a debate whether Labour or Tories has the greatest virtue or the lousiest morals. We all know, regardless of party, many leading politicians are wolves in sheeps clothing and their main concern is to protect or project their own self interest.
It's simply a comment on how this particular government has handled this particular issue - especially as the whole thing appears as nothing more than a publicity stunt to gain desperately needed public support and future votes.
And surely we do need to protect the privacy rights of the individual .....?
I've written about this higher up the thread but a further thought that occurs is that nobody is discussing the EU ordered Post Office Privatisation Bill Mandelson kicked of in the Lords round about the time Goodwin's pension got announced.
Why is everyone only twittering on about all this? The French had a revolution to get rid of the fat cats...about time everyone stopped talking and did something, like rise up. No-one could create a mess worse than the one we're in so why not take action and start all over again. If you aren't prepared to do something, stop talking about it. Actions speak louder than words!
Um because the French are a shower of chunts who would have a revolution over someone selling lamb cheaper than their farmers. Indeed if anyone feel's there's suitable and justified reason to go and murder people because they're getting paid more than you feel is reasonable, then it would be a bit of a laugh if they just did it.
If I was him I'd reply saying that I would give back half the pension if the cabinet did he same with their 2nd home expenses - esp Jackie Smih who has claimed over £20k a year for staying with her sister.
Does anyone know how long Sir Fred has worked for RBS? I dont know how the £650k per year is made up but its quite possible its part funded by previous contracts.
Ironic to me that Lord Myners was the chap who chaired a report a few years back on Pension Regulation in the UK.
Its all a fat cats club.
The trouble is (as is pointed out earlier in the thread) compared to equivalent US businesses some of these packages are modest.
I think the current Govt, the Thatcher era of de regulation and overseas govts have led us very badly on these matters. Sir Fred isnt the only one to have acted very badly in the public interest.
Sir Fred has acted in his own interest ...... same as most people would.
No doubt, with a company pension, he's receiving the percentage of final salary - same as anybody else entitled to a company pension.
So he probably considers he's done nothing wrong in drawing his pension entitlement.
And legally, he probably hasn't.
It's not enough on it's own to say he was inefficient at his job, and therefore should offer to reduce his pension payments.
That would set a precedent where everybody from the top to the typist, would have to reduce pension payments if they had made a mistake or messed up while in their job.
Now if the Government really want to set an example and save taxpayers money, they could start with their own wanton expenses and erm ..... priveleges.
I'm sure that would save the taxpayer far more than what the Government are trying to take back from any fatcat bloodsucker.
And don't forget, it's just a chirade, a publicity stunt. A smokescreen to push through the EU ordered Post Office Privatisation Bill - and get it through under the radar, while everybody is knee-jerking and shouting 'obscene'.
[cite]Posted By: Oggy Red[/cite]inefficient at his job,
Blimey Oggy, this is a bloke whom has been described as the worst banker in the world so to say he's just a bit out of his depth is pushing it a bit. He should have realised what was going on and got out before he was pushed. Rather than that his greed and self interest blinded him to the effects of his organisations mismanagement.
I'm not saying he's not a useful diversion for the government at the moment but please don't expect us to believe what's going is likely to lead to some grey suited, middle manager losing half his pension because he over-ordered on the staples and post-it's a year before he retired...
I'm not disagreeing with what you say, M. Les Addick.
He might be the worst banker in the world, but there's plenty of others who deserve to snatch that title.
I'm not standing up for him, he's just yet another over-hyped, overpaid leech who bumbled from one cock-up to another.
There are plenty of companies, Civil Service, Councils, NHS, etc full of them.
And all look to cover their arse long enough to get a decent payout. It's the name of the game for some, unfortunately.
But we can't be having a witch hunt on just one individual, without creating a precident for everyone, from top to bottom.
And there's the civil rights issue too. That needs protecting before it is lost completely.
Anyway, the Government win - while everybody is fluffing about 'obscene' pensions, they get the public support they wouldn't otherwise get/deserve and the Post Office privatisation bill gets pushed through under the radar while nobody is looking.
[cite]Posted By: Oggy Red[/cite]I'm not disagreeing with what you say, M. Les Addick.
He might be the worst banker in the world, but there's plenty of others who deserve to snatch that title.
I'm not standing up for him, he's just yet another over-hyped, overpaid leech who bumbled from one cock-up to another.
There are plenty of companies, Civil Service, Councils, NHS, etc full of them.
And all look to cover their arse long enough to get a decent payout. It's the name of the game for some, unfortunately.
But we can't be having a witch hunt on just one individual, without creating a precident for everyone, from top to bottom.
And there's the civil rights issue too. That needs protecting before it is lost completely.
Anyway, the Government win - while everybody is fluffing about 'obscene' pensions, they get the public support they wouldn't otherwise get/deserveandthe Post Office privatisation bill gets pushed through under the radar while nobody is looking.
Fair enough, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one Oggy.
Vince Cable has made a very good point in my opinion.
If the Govt hadnt stepped in with our cash RBS would have gone bust and Sir Fred would have got £27k pa out of the pension protection scheme. So let the Fund pay out that and let him sue for the difference.
It also now appears that his pension pot doubled last year in a year when most Funds declined by 20 to 30%. Something very odd going on. Why cant we have an enquiry which also reviews the govts own role in this as well. It stinks.
There are some very creative businessmen who deserve high rewards but not this shower.
Should be locked up IMO. The guy has made many, many people redundant in his career withut the slightest empathy, even before the Credit Crunch started. I would love to see all his assets taken away and given to charity with him locked up for his negligence in running one of the UK's largest companies.
[cite]Posted By: valleyman[/cite]Should be locked up IMO. The guy has made many, many people redundant in his career withut the slightest empathy, even before the Credit Crunch started. I would love to see all his assets taken away and given to charity with him locked up for his negligence in running one of the UK's largest companies.
Perhaps the same ethic should be applied to Gordon Brown, Tony B Liar, cabinet ministers, the one politician that fiddles his expenses, various other company directors, the abusive manager that tried to abuse GHE ...... not forgetting Simon Jordan?
His crime? He's chair at Cripple Paralysis - and acts like a complete tosser.
[quote][cite]Posted By: Oggy Red[/cite][quote][cite]Posted By: valleyman[/cite]Should be locked up IMO. The guy has made many, many people redundant in his career withut the slightest empathy, even before the Credit Crunch started. I would love to see all his assets taken away and given to charity with him locked up for his negligence in running one of the UK's largest companies.[/quote]
Perhaps the same ethic should be applied to Gordon Brown, Tony B Liar, cabinet ministers, the one politician that fiddles his expenses, various other company directors, the abusive manager that tried to abuse GHE ...... not forgetting Simon Jordan?
His crime? He's chair at Cripple Paralysis - and acts like a complete tosser.
;o)[/quote]
Fiddling expenses & an abusive manager are clearly wrong but there is no comparison with this man who's actions have caused misery to millions, IMO he is the worst of all the bank bosses and that is saying soething.
As for Gordon Brown, I'd put him in the same cell and throw the key away, he has led this country into one of the worst recessions of all time through his actions of Chancellor and is now trying to claim he is saving the world by chucking good money after bad...£100bn to RBS who have assets of £4.3Trillion is I fear a drop in the ocean.
As for Simon Jordon, Community Service would suffice for all his wrongs, 200 hours as Mr Murray's personal scivy should do it! ;-)
I was just making the point that Sir Fred is not the only one out there.
He just happens to be the subject of the witch hunt.
If RBS hadn't asked for Government assistance, then nobody would have given a toss about him.
And he's not the only one whose actions have caused untold misery to millions.
There's plenty of others out there, doing the same thing - and we're all paying for them, one way or another.
As the Government calculated, voters are only upset by the degree of his payments.
Because legally he's probably entitled to draw his company pension, under the same terms as anybody else on a company pension scheme.
And, as you say, then there is Gordon Brown .......!
Anyway, as we've discovered - it's all just a smokescreen.
I was just making the point that Sir Fred is not the only one out there.
He just happens to be the subject of the witch hunt.
If RBS hadn't asked for Government assistance, then nobody would have given a toss about him.
............
If RBS hadn't asked for government help they'd have gone bankrupt, thousands more would be on the dole, the knock-on would be that small businesses might have gone bust, as would anyone relying on RBS to guarantee loans/overdrafts etc.
Fred Goodwin was known as "Fred the Shred" for his ability to buy businesses, strip out the assets, making hundreds of people redundant in the process.
If he's being villified then it's because he deserves it and in buying ABN Amro on disastrous terms and sailing close to the wind with other dodgy accounting/loans then he is the architect of his own downfall. While the economy was going well his mistakes and business practices looked like acceptable risks and he paid himself handsomely for his corporate endeavours - over £4m a year, but as soon as the credit crunch happened and people stopped being able to pay back their loans then the house of cards he constructed came crashing down. The pension deal he secured relates to the time when he was feted as a corporate hero and given the misery he's caused and that tax payers revenues are bailing out his mistakes then in my opinion he doesn't deserve anything more than the statuary minimum pension. This schmuck it has to be remembered is already a very rich man - so he does not need the £700K a year pension.
Witch hunt ???? good they used to burn witches didnt they ? so burn him and the rest of the greedy scum bags.
People should answer and PAY for the shambles the world is in-----for the millions who are loosing their jobs------for the businesses who are going to the wall because they cant get loans for the fact that we the TAX payers will be paying 100z of billions fr the next decade to shore up these banks who couldnt give a monkeys flying f**k about the chaos they have caused.
couldnt agree more. Al qaeda have done less damage and yet they have their assets frozen and armies sent against them around the world. this banking vermin get away scot free.
the army and police would not defend the establishment this time if a real leader could be found to end all this
[cite]Posted By: kentred2[/cite]couldnt agree more. Al qaeda have done less damage and yet they have their assets frozen and armies sent against them around the world. this banking vermin get away scot free.
the army and police would not defend the establishment this time if a real leader could be found to end all this
Tell that to the families of the thousands killed by AL Qaeda.
Goodwin and the rest of his ilk are scum but keep a sense of proportion please.
But there are many issues around the way the Government has conducted itself here - and no doubt implications that could ultimately affect us all personally.
[cite]Posted By: carly burn[/cite]Anybody defending this plank wants their head read.
They've fu#k*d this,and many other,countries up good and proper.
If the tax payers money was so good to bail them out of the shit ,let them come cap in hand to us for their bloody pension i say.
He did - he agreed the pension with the board of RBS and the goverment when he left - a fair part of it he'd paid into during a long working period with the company. Surely it's not his fault that he doesn't want to "give" back what he'd agreed (and he took a hit of several hundred large off his due severance). I agree he shouldn't have 100% of what he got, but you're getting yourself worked up at the wrong target. The amount should have been tied into no more skeletons falling out of the RBS closet and a recovery for the company, but they failed to do that. To start going on about changing the law to allow the government to steal assets from an individual who hasn't committed any actual crime, is just mental. Blame the game, not the player.
If a bunch of people working generally on tabloid witch hunt hype decided that you should have to give back money you felt you'd saved and worked for, you'd probably not be in a big rush to do the "right thing".
[cite]Posted By: McLovin[/cite] To start going on about changing the law to allow the government to steal assets from an individual who hasn't committed any actual crime, is just mental. Blame the game, not the player.
If a bunch of people working generally on tabloid witch hunt hype decided that you should have to give back money you felt you'd saved and worked for, you'd probably not be in a big rush to do the "right thing".
Good points, McLovin.
Really we need to separate our emotion from the facts.
Doesn't matter how odorous we think the man is or how undeserved his pension payments ...... he doesn't appear to have broken the law.
But on this particular issue, has the Government conducted itself properly.....?
Generally, we're seeing the civil rights of the individual gradually eroded ...... and this case could easily accelerate this happening. And that will effect us all too.
If everyone is so intent on a witch hunt and finding people to blame for the global economic problems, why not blame the people who took out loans which they obviously have no chance of repaying, defaulted on their mortgages and which then lead to a big black hole of bad debt.
I assume we ignore them because its the banks fault for giving them the money in the first place. These will also be the same people who complain about a nanny state. And who read sensationalist newspapers.
[cite]Posted By: Centenary_Shirt[/cite]
I assume we ignore them because its the banks fault for giving them the money in the first place.
Totally.The banks have a huge responsibility to check Who and how much they are lending to certain individuals.Afterall,it's not their money is it.
They could have stopped all this years ago.
Comments
I'm fully expecting the result of the rabble rousing by the government and media to a Danny Dyer show called Bwitain Naughtiest Bankers
Danny would trudge up to Sir Fred's mansion at dusk and reveal factoids for the masses to get over excited about until the next THING TO WORRY ABOUT is spoon fed to them "Sir Fwed is a evvyweight in the naughty banking game. After wecording record losses he agreed to leave with a pension that vat ver gavvement soined awff. When asked to pay some of iback 'ee, declined.
Pwappa facking nawty.
DOWN WITH THIS KIND OF STUFF!
Bottom line is this kind of thing built up under successive governments, and has now come to a head under this one.
All the time lefties are blaming tories and tories are blaming lefties, nothing will get sorted, you just get the same person in charge wearing a different coloured rosette depending on what suits him/her at the time. Virtually no-one outside the tiny percentage of people in Britain who control the money has been totally happy with any government in my lifetime, but we still keep playing the little game they call democracy, and they keep getting rich, and making their friends rich, while telling the rest of us we should either tighten our belts or be grateful for the crumbs we get when times are good.
Sir Fred is bulletproof, his mates will be exactly like him, not one of them will pull him up and put him straight, in fact they will be giving him a shoulder to cry on whilst sipping his Dom Pom. Then they will sit and have a good laugh at the latest round of redundancies, because the "oiks are getting what they deserve"...
Some nails hit on the head there, Algarve.
No mention of retired senior civil servants who also draw six-figure pensions.
I wonder who pays Civil Service pensions - Father Christmas?
But my point is not whether the Tories would be any different - and it's certainly not meant to be a debate whether Labour or Tories has the greatest virtue or the lousiest morals. We all know, regardless of party, many leading politicians are wolves in sheeps clothing and their main concern is to protect or project their own self interest.
It's simply a comment on how this particular government has handled this particular issue - especially as the whole thing appears as nothing more than a publicity stunt to gain desperately needed public support and future votes.
And surely we do need to protect the privacy rights of the individual .....?
Coincidence or Conspiracy. You decide.
So it's all a smokescreen, eh ....... ?
Devious, bastard self-serving reptiles.
;o)
bet you wouldn't hear another word.
Ironic to me that Lord Myners was the chap who chaired a report a few years back on Pension Regulation in the UK.
Its all a fat cats club.
The trouble is (as is pointed out earlier in the thread) compared to equivalent US businesses some of these packages are modest.
I think the current Govt, the Thatcher era of de regulation and overseas govts have led us very badly on these matters. Sir Fred isnt the only one to have acted very badly in the public interest.
No doubt, with a company pension, he's receiving the percentage of final salary - same as anybody else entitled to a company pension.
So he probably considers he's done nothing wrong in drawing his pension entitlement.
And legally, he probably hasn't.
It's not enough on it's own to say he was inefficient at his job, and therefore should offer to reduce his pension payments.
That would set a precedent where everybody from the top to the typist, would have to reduce pension payments if they had made a mistake or messed up while in their job.
Now if the Government really want to set an example and save taxpayers money, they could start with their own wanton expenses and erm ..... priveleges.
I'm sure that would save the taxpayer far more than what the Government are trying to take back from any fatcat bloodsucker.
And don't forget, it's just a chirade, a publicity stunt. A smokescreen to push through the EU ordered Post Office Privatisation Bill - and get it through under the radar, while everybody is knee-jerking and shouting 'obscene'.
Blimey Oggy, this is a bloke whom has been described as the worst banker in the world so to say he's just a bit out of his depth is pushing it a bit. He should have realised what was going on and got out before he was pushed. Rather than that his greed and self interest blinded him to the effects of his organisations mismanagement.
I'm not saying he's not a useful diversion for the government at the moment but please don't expect us to believe what's going is likely to lead to some grey suited, middle manager losing half his pension because he over-ordered on the staples and post-it's a year before he retired...
He might be the worst banker in the world, but there's plenty of others who deserve to snatch that title.
I'm not standing up for him, he's just yet another over-hyped, overpaid leech who bumbled from one cock-up to another.
There are plenty of companies, Civil Service, Councils, NHS, etc full of them.
And all look to cover their arse long enough to get a decent payout. It's the name of the game for some, unfortunately.
But we can't be having a witch hunt on just one individual, without creating a precident for everyone, from top to bottom.
And there's the civil rights issue too. That needs protecting before it is lost completely.
Anyway, the Government win - while everybody is fluffing about 'obscene' pensions, they get the public support they wouldn't otherwise get/deserve and the Post Office privatisation bill gets pushed through under the radar while nobody is looking.
Fair enough, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one Oggy.
If the Govt hadnt stepped in with our cash RBS would have gone bust and Sir Fred would have got £27k pa out of the pension protection scheme. So let the Fund pay out that and let him sue for the difference.
It also now appears that his pension pot doubled last year in a year when most Funds declined by 20 to 30%. Something very odd going on. Why cant we have an enquiry which also reviews the govts own role in this as well. It stinks.
There are some very creative businessmen who deserve high rewards but not this shower.
Perhaps the same ethic should be applied to Gordon Brown, Tony B Liar, cabinet ministers, the one politician that fiddles his expenses, various other company directors, the abusive manager that tried to abuse GHE ...... not forgetting Simon Jordan?
His crime? He's chair at Cripple Paralysis - and acts like a complete tosser.
;o)
Perhaps the same ethic should be applied to Gordon Brown, Tony B Liar, cabinet ministers, the one politician that fiddles his expenses, various other company directors, the abusive manager that tried to abuse GHE ...... not forgetting Simon Jordan?
His crime? He's chair at Cripple Paralysis - and acts like a complete tosser.
;o)[/quote]
Fiddling expenses & an abusive manager are clearly wrong but there is no comparison with this man who's actions have caused misery to millions, IMO he is the worst of all the bank bosses and that is saying soething.
As for Gordon Brown, I'd put him in the same cell and throw the key away, he has led this country into one of the worst recessions of all time through his actions of Chancellor and is now trying to claim he is saving the world by chucking good money after bad...£100bn to RBS who have assets of £4.3Trillion is I fear a drop in the ocean.
As for Simon Jordon, Community Service would suffice for all his wrongs, 200 hours as Mr Murray's personal scivy should do it! ;-)
I was just making the point that Sir Fred is not the only one out there.
He just happens to be the subject of the witch hunt.
If RBS hadn't asked for Government assistance, then nobody would have given a toss about him.
And he's not the only one whose actions have caused untold misery to millions.
There's plenty of others out there, doing the same thing - and we're all paying for them, one way or another.
As the Government calculated, voters are only upset by the degree of his payments.
Because legally he's probably entitled to draw his company pension, under the same terms as anybody else on a company pension scheme.
And, as you say, then there is Gordon Brown .......!
Anyway, as we've discovered - it's all just a smokescreen.
He just happens to be the subject of the witch hunt.
If RBS hadn't asked for Government assistance, then nobody would have given a toss about him.
............
If RBS hadn't asked for government help they'd have gone bankrupt, thousands more would be on the dole, the knock-on would be that small businesses might have gone bust, as would anyone relying on RBS to guarantee loans/overdrafts etc.
Fred Goodwin was known as "Fred the Shred" for his ability to buy businesses, strip out the assets, making hundreds of people redundant in the process.
If he's being villified then it's because he deserves it and in buying ABN Amro on disastrous terms and sailing close to the wind with other dodgy accounting/loans then he is the architect of his own downfall. While the economy was going well his mistakes and business practices looked like acceptable risks and he paid himself handsomely for his corporate endeavours - over £4m a year, but as soon as the credit crunch happened and people stopped being able to pay back their loans then the house of cards he constructed came crashing down. The pension deal he secured relates to the time when he was feted as a corporate hero and given the misery he's caused and that tax payers revenues are bailing out his mistakes then in my opinion he doesn't deserve anything more than the statuary minimum pension. This schmuck it has to be remembered is already a very rich man - so he does not need the £700K a year pension.
People should answer and PAY for the shambles the world is in-----for the millions who are loosing their jobs------for the businesses who are going to the wall because they cant get loans for the fact that we the TAX payers will be paying 100z of billions fr the next decade to shore up these banks who couldnt give a monkeys flying f**k about the chaos they have caused.
the army and police would not defend the establishment this time if a real leader could be found to end all this
Tell that to the families of the thousands killed by AL Qaeda.
Goodwin and the rest of his ilk are scum but keep a sense of proportion please.
They've fu#k*d this,and many other,countries up good and proper.
If the tax payers money was so good to bail them out of the shit ,let them come cap in hand to us for their bloody pension i say.
But there are many issues around the way the Government has conducted itself here - and no doubt implications that could ultimately affect us all personally.
you have to ask who agreed the deal in Government , they need shooting.
He did - he agreed the pension with the board of RBS and the goverment when he left - a fair part of it he'd paid into during a long working period with the company. Surely it's not his fault that he doesn't want to "give" back what he'd agreed (and he took a hit of several hundred large off his due severance). I agree he shouldn't have 100% of what he got, but you're getting yourself worked up at the wrong target. The amount should have been tied into no more skeletons falling out of the RBS closet and a recovery for the company, but they failed to do that. To start going on about changing the law to allow the government to steal assets from an individual who hasn't committed any actual crime, is just mental. Blame the game, not the player.
If a bunch of people working generally on tabloid witch hunt hype decided that you should have to give back money you felt you'd saved and worked for, you'd probably not be in a big rush to do the "right thing".
Good points, McLovin.
Really we need to separate our emotion from the facts.
Doesn't matter how odorous we think the man is or how undeserved his pension payments ...... he doesn't appear to have broken the law.
But on this particular issue, has the Government conducted itself properly.....?
Generally, we're seeing the civil rights of the individual gradually eroded ...... and this case could easily accelerate this happening. And that will effect us all too.
I assume we ignore them because its the banks fault for giving them the money in the first place. These will also be the same people who complain about a nanny state. And who read sensationalist newspapers.
Totally.The banks have a huge responsibility to check Who and how much they are lending to certain individuals.Afterall,it's not their money is it.
They could have stopped all this years ago.