brianthedog Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 The whole Sir Fred saga amuses me. On the one hand we have Gordon Brown desperate to claim that the financial crisis is global, but still keen to point a finger at Goodwin if it gets him out of the spotlight. Then we have the FSA. A body established in 1997 by the Treasury on Brown's watch. Their job was to oversee the operation of the financial services, but were told by the Government to under regulate. There was Goodwin's knighthood. It was given by this Government for Sir Fred's services to the country's financial institutions. Next we have his resignation from the bank. This was negociated by RBS along with a Government minister. The terms were agreed before Goodwin agreed to step down. In the circumstances I don't blame him for wanting to hang on to a pension that was part of his severance deal. Would you willing give up your pension that you had just won? There is one man who has had a finger in every part of this sad saga. It is Gordon Brown. When he is forced out of his job next May, does anyone think he will give up his own pension because of the part he played in bankrupting the entire country? Hurrah! Spot on post. Well done Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treatment Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 So where was Harriet Harman at the time? Was a feminist looking woman in her 50s spotted hanging around Sir Fred the Shred's mansion at around the time looking furtive? I nearly wet myself at Harriet Harman's comment the other Sunday that his pension was '' . . .not going to happen . . .''. Yes it is going to happen Harriet. As a QC you should understand what a Contractual Entitlement is, unless the QC refers to a type of Sherry that you had been at before you made that silly statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treatment Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Also well played to Paul Myners, who produced the seminal report in 2001 - on Corporate Governance. Those who can do, those who can't teach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianthedog Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Harriet Harman is cringe worthy. What was she thinking? I can't help but think she should be getting a bit more stick for that comment than she is. I suppose all she's done is high-lighted the flacid government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treatment Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Harriet Harman is cringe worthy. What was she thinking? I can't help but think she should be getting a bit more stick for that comment than she is. I suppose all she's done is high-lighted the flacid government. Her husband has had a spot of trouble as well, bruised fingers can be very painful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 The whole Sir Fred saga amuses me. <etc.> Spot on post, indeed. But the issue of the thread is in relation to this 'revenge attack' by that new-fangled 'Bank Bosses Are Criminals' movement. So, Goodwin first ...who's next? And, indeed, are Blair, Gordon, Darling and Co. in the firing line too? I do wonder if the same super-strength brand of investigative powers and justice cooked up by NuLab to deal with islamist terrorists, will be used to deal with these idiots? I bet not, and state sponsorship is an altogether not-entirely-unbelievable proposal... wonder if Harriet is in on it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrNM Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Yay wonderful response, and the Americans can send theirs to prison. Boo no deal. There is only one penalty fitting for this man, and that is to cut his pension short one way or another. If someone offered me a mil a year pension I'd take it. (The difference is I'd get it reduced greatly in the public interest if the economy went tits up just after) Which silly **** offered it him. He's not stolen the money, he's took the p*ss! It's the system. We can't do him for not being charitable and doing whats right retrospectively. We can't do him for being a greedy scumbag. Fact! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 "The police should treat this case as they would any other crime." And ignore it.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkey Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Millionnaire or pauper, the Law is the same for all. How spectacularly naive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomataheeed Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 The whole Sir Fred saga amuses me. On the one hand we have Gordon Brown desperate to claim that the financial crisis is global, but still keen to point a finger at Goodwin if it gets him out of the spotlight. Then we have the FSA. A body established in 1997 by the Treasury on Brown's watch. Their job was to oversee the operation of the financial services, but were told by the Government to under regulate. There was Goodwin's knighthood. It was given by this Government for Sir Fred's services to the country's financial institutions. Next we have his resignation from the bank. This was negociated by RBS along with a Government minister. The terms were agreed before Goodwin agreed to step down. In the circumstances I don't blame him for wanting to hang on to a pension that was part of his severance deal. Would you willing give up your pension that you had just won? There is one man who has had a finger in every part of this sad saga. It is Gordon Brown. When he is forced out of his job next May, does anyone think he will give up his own pension because of the part he played in bankrupting the entire country? One part of this whole saga has been confusing me. Its all very well complaining about Goodwin and Brown....clowns that they are, but the rating agencies seem to have committed some of the worst crimes, and no one is after them...they seem to be in a business no one understands, so they are ignored. These are the people that were supposed to evaluate these bundled financial products, and they just flat lied about them. How come they aren't all in court? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.