Sir Fred Goodwin's House attacked

[donkey]

That point does not need making. It is a statement of fact, not a subjective or rethorical question.

 

The extent to which a person will be penalised for breaching the law will vary, in no small proportion, in dependence on the quality of legal advice they are able to afford. An that's saying nothing of any 'influence' affecting the enforcement in the first place, of course - and that only matters for people in position of influence indeed.

 

In that respect, legal practice and enforcement makes a difference. It doesn't chage the fact that a person, pauper or millionaire, would have to infract the same Law in the first place, for these issues to arise.

 

So. Your stance appears to be that you believe Goodwin is somehow 'above the law'. Prove that, and I might actually start to take you seriously.

 

Until then, to my knowledge, the only people who have broken any laws are those idiots who saw fit to resort to vandalism.

 

Prove something you are telling me I said, as opposed to something I actually said? I don't think so.

 

In case you've forgotten, what I actually said was that I thought it naive of you to state ''the law is the same for all'' - a statement which you have since qualified as meaning that the same laws are applied to everyone, which is an entirely different matter, and if that is what you meant, I find it strange, because it has no relevance whatsoever in the context in which you originally wrote it.

[green]

I'm sort of puzzled as to why you accuse Goodwin of robbing anyone. His pension was negotiated by a Government appointee and the banks board as a severance deal. Goodwin gave up his right to a years salary and lucrative share options as part of the deal. It might seem that a pension of £700K is an awful lot of money in the circumstances, but it was all legally obtained, and no amount of gesture politics from Harriet Harman will alter that.

 

Erm let me see....Whilst as CEO of RBS; purchasing ABN AMRO without due diligence, buying bad debts, buying his own companies bad debts thanks to AAA, allowing RBS to have less leverage, and then to cap it all, getting them to agree to his pension and benefits after a bail out.

 

Legally or not, its immoral.

[L00b]

In case you've forgotten, what I actually said was that I thought it naive of you to state ''the law is the same for all'' - a statement which you have since qualified as meaning that the same laws are applied to everyone, which is an entirely different matter, and if that is what you meant, I find it strange, because it has no relevance whatsoever in the context in which you originally wrote it.

 

How does ''the law is the same for all'' differ in meaning from "the same laws are applied to everyone", pray tell?

 

As regards the context of my post, I'll rephrase it nice and simple, so you're not left trying to second-guess its (obviously subjective) meaning:

 

Millionnaire or pauper, the Law is the same for all, and criminal damage is criminal damage.

There is never any justification for it.

End of.

 

= The Law defines what 'criminal damage' is*

= The Law makes no legal exception for people based on any notion of wealth threshold*

= There is no legal justification for perpetrating any criminal damage (and IMHO, there is no moral justification either)*

 

*Disclaimer: use of the very best legal team as a result of wealth and influence may seriously improve your chances of getting away with it.

 

Better now?

 

Don't confuse law and equity, or law and morality for that matter.

[Scabbydog]

Erm let me see....Whilst as CEO of RBS; purchasing ABN AMRO without due diligence, buying bad debts, buying his own companies bad debts thanks to AAA, allowing RBS to have less leverage, and then to cap it all, getting them to agree to his pension and benefits after a bail out.

 

Legally or not, its immoral.

 

But you did previously call it robbery. Make up your mind.

[green]

But you did previously call it robbery. Make up your mind.

 

Do you honestly believe that a person whom this Government knighted has actually not robbed the state back? Theres picky, and theres ridiculous....

[Conker2]

A futile gesture. Pathetic really. Envy, pure and simple.

 

I think it's definitely anger, not envy. Some people are convinced that anyone who has less money than themselves (or anyone else) is full of envy, and that if anyone ever complains about anyone who happens to have more money than them, they are only motivated by envy.

 

He played his part but it's the hoi polloi who are to blame for swallowing the "live now pay later" mentality hook, line and sinker.

 

This is partly right but it isn't just the hoi polloi. The people at the top who should have known better were living now and paying later in a much bigger way and with other people's money, and they were promoting this attitute to those who didn't know better.

[donkey]

Some people are convinced that anyone who has less money than themselves (or anyone else) is full of envy, and that if anyone ever complains about anyone who happens to have more money than them, they are only motivated by envy.

 

 

 

Yes, I've noticed that too. Many people are more interested in justice and social harmony than obsessively chasing wealth at all costs in an attempt to satisfy an insatiable greed.

[mancom]

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?

 

I think it serves him right. That man is partly responsible for many people losing everything and whenever i see that smug grin of his i get the urge to throw something at the tv.

And i havent lost anything because of him so i can only imagine who his victims feel.

Hes such an arrogant **** too!!!

 

You have to be arrogant when you're earning that sort of money!

[mancom]

Either RBS protect him and his property or the police do it - both ways it's the taxpayer who ultimately pays.

 

I hope that the RBS-funded security guards around his house get killed for protecting this man's revenue. He cannot get away with earning those sums of money because there should be a legal maximum for how much one is allowed to earn.

[green]

If, there was any democracy in this country, or our politicians had any sense of what is right and proper, or our monarchy had any decency....

 

Sir Fred would be stripped of his title!

 

The fact he still has it and he still takes a pension from us, stinks more than anything else in this whole sorry affair.

 

I even read recently that the report into what happened for RBS to fail, was continually delayed as Sir Freds lawyers were busy putting black marks through what we are allowed to read.

 

Democracy my ass!