The Kintyre Forum

Whilst there is a groundswell of public opinion against the phenomenal pension given to Goodwin by RBS, and people are finding it unacceptable, I feel that the passing of legislation with retrospective effect in order to cancel one individual's established legal rights would set a very sinister precedent. This should also be seen as unacceptable.

http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/article.aspx? ... d=14690744

Today it may be Sir Fred Goodwin, tomorrow, who else could lose legal rights?

And Harriet Harman is a QC?

That is very alarming. No matter how obscene and repugnant this pension is, it was approved by the Government and retrospective legislation is surely a dangerous precedent. I also don't like her comment about the 'court of public opinion' - that's chilling if she thinks it's above the court of law.

"The court of public opinion"? Is that another way of saying trial by media?

I watched an interview with Aaron Russo (he made "Trading Places", "The Rose" ... was an entertainment indusrty mogul type,) ...where he mentioned getting into trouble with the IRS in the late 80s. They made certain aspects of commodities trading illegal retrospectively and fined him almost a million dollars !!! ..... the point being, he wasnt doing anything illegal since it was before they passed the law.

It's a very worrying precedent.

.... but Joe Public will DEMAND it !!!! Those robbing banking fatcats that they are ..... spin spin spin

Good post EMDEE ...

hugh wrote:"The court of public opinion"? Is that another way of saying trial by media?

Aye, it is. As if we didn't have enough of that already

Since the Government are determined to strip Sir Fred of his pension, which they approved, or at least failed to question in the first place, because of his alleged incompetence, then surely the same argument could be applied to Gordon Brown and Co. Gordon removed the power to regulate the banking system from the Bank of England and set up the Financial Services Authority to specifically do that job and as we all know now it was as much use as a chocolate teapot. It's been a spectacular,mind numbing failure. The least Gordon and his cohorts could do is give back their huge publicly funded, gold plated pensions. I'm not holding my breath.

The only reason this useless government is going after Sir Fred now is because the media have whipped up a storm of public opinion and the politicians see it as a chance to grab some votes. If they had done their jobs properly in the first place this would never have happened.

Stuff the morality or ethics.Let him keep the money.Some pillock made the decision to let him have it.If I were in his shoes I would take the money and run.

giantredwood wrote:Since the Government are determined to strip Sir Fred of his pension, which they approved, or at least failed to question in the first place, because of his alleged incompetence, then surely the same argument could be applied to Gordon Brown and Co. Gordon removed the power to regulate the banking system from the Bank of England and set up the Financial Services Authority to specifically do that job and as we all know now it was as much use as a chocolate teapot. It's been a spectacular,mind numbing failure. The least Gordon and his cohorts could do is give back their huge publicly funded, gold plated pensions. I'm not holding my breath.

The only reason this useless government is going after Sir Fred now is because the media have whipped up a storm of public opinion and the politicians see it as a chance to grab some votes. If they had done their jobs properly in the first place this would never have happened.

100% bang on to the very last comma.

The only thing that surprises me is that people are surprised that one of the most skilled negotiators this country has produced managed to negotiate himself a good severance package

Gordon Brown's criticism of Fred Goodwin is surely an example of the kettle calling the pot black.(no racial slur intended.)

Even if legislation is passed to stop pensions being paid to persons accussed of failings in their employment, the law would not and cannot apply to Fred Goodwin, since his pension agreement pre-dates the proposed law. No court in the land would uphold a decision to remove his pension, no matter how much he deserves to have it removed. The new law would serve to remove pensions from working class people who have worked for companies who can't afford to pay them. Mind you, if Gordon Brown (equally blameworthy) was to offer to give his pension and additional benefits up, maybe Sir Fred would follow suit, but I doubt that on both counts.

The removal of Sir Fred's peerage and the benefits that go with it, is a far more appropriate course of action. It makes more sense to remove this man and his contribution to society, than it is to try in vain to grab back money he is entitled to as part of his employment contract. In any case, you don't think for one minute that removing his pension will in anyway hurt this man, who is likely to have saved up a nice little tax-free nest egg, whilst he was gambling with our money?

In any case, this is a good example of a labour government too long in power, who think they can get away with destroying the British legal system whilst slowly turning it into an Americanised version that borders on the ridiculous.

42 days detention without charge, non-investigation into the legality of the Iraq war, Greg Dykes sacking as BBC director, etc, etc.

Double standards have plagued the labour government from day 1. If it continues much longer, labour won't be in power after the next election. It'll be the tories....standby for privatisation, massive tax hikes in Scotland and the removal of national assemblies.

If he was told we would stop calling hi "the worst banker in the world" if he gave up a decent proportion of his pension I bet he would agree to tit......he must HATE being referred to as that

LANDROVER ROGER wrote:Stuff the morality or ethics.Let him keep the money.Some pillock made the decision to let him have it.If I were in his shoes I would take the money and run.

Ditto. The man has done nothing illegal and is only raking in what he invested.

Yup. Got to agree, I cant see any circunstance in which I would say "No, you are paying me far too much, I will never be able to spend all that." Yes it is an obscene amount of cash but he isnt alone in that.