RBS Fred Goodwin and 650k p.a pension at 50!

[fido]

Engineer1 said:

Listening to Radio 4 earlier they where discussing the idea of the government insuring toxic debt, the speaker then pointed out that if the government can't spot a clause in an employment contract will they spot any dodgy moves in relation to the toxic debt?

I think they are employing the services of Credit Suisse to determine the fair premia to be paid per chunk of toxic debt (though not sure i like the idea of a potential rival to some of the UK banks determining how much they cough up!) Anyway, the idea of the insurance scheme is to promote inter-bank lending and instill confidence in more general terms .. if it ever gets to the point that one of the banks has to make a claim, then the scheme hasn't worked, and UK plc will be fubar'd.

[Randy Winkman]

Road Pest said:

turbobloke said:

The point remains that the 'government' via ministers approved Fred's exit package and timing including pension arrangements, so wtf are they doing whining about it at this stage? Making such a fuss when it's their fault can only be a combination of incompetence, arrogance, hypocrisy and blame transfer. If some on here consider that Fred's waiving of rights to elements of hi contractual severance rights was insufficient penance then G Brown @ 10 Downing St is where the buck stops. Not least because what the bank execs (plural) did was within Gordon Clown's own regulatory framework. Double whammy for the Velcro Varmint - fortunately he's nowhere near as slippery as Teflon Tony was - but another question is how much of his pension will G Brown be waiving? Any bets for zero? Slugbrows has said that failure must not be rewarded, so he and his boss should be working for free by now, and in light of what's unfolding across the nation, paying the electorate for years to come.

Same way I read it. Government want Fred out, Fred says OK I'll forgo a years salary (his notice period) if my pension is amended to account for an extra 10 years retirement (circa 8mil). Pension pot doubled pretty much, ministers signed off on it.

The point is that the government signed off on this crazy pension fund, fair play to Fred for negotiating it, [wishful thinking on] I just hope he has the sense to do some good with it all. [wishful thinking off/]

Strange the way the fella is so good at lining his own pockets but utterly useless at running RBS as a whole.

[turbobloke]

Randy Winkman said:

Road Pest said:

turbobloke said:

The point remains that the 'government' via ministers approved Fred's exit package and timing including pension arrangements, so wtf are they doing whining about it at this stage? Making such a fuss when it's their fault can only be a combination of incompetence, arrogance, hypocrisy and blame transfer. If some on here consider that Fred's waiving of rights to elements of hi contractual severance rights was insufficient penance then G Brown @ 10 Downing St is where the buck stops. Not least because what the bank execs (plural) did was within Gordon Clown's own regulatory framework. Double whammy for the Velcro Varmint - fortunately he's nowhere near as slippery as Teflon Tony was - but another question is how much of his pension will G Brown be waiving? Any bets for zero? Slugbrows has said that failure must not be rewarded, so he and his boss should be working for free by now, and in light of what's unfolding across the nation, paying the electorate for years to come.

Same way I read it. Government want Fred out, Fred says OK I'll forgo a years salary (his notice period) if my pension is amended to account for an extra 10 years retirement (circa 8mil). Pension pot doubled pretty much, ministers signed off on it.

The point is that the government signed off on this crazy pension fund, fair play to Fred for negotiating it, [wishful thinking on] I just hope he has the sense to do some good with it all. [wishful thinking off/]

Strange the way the fella is so good at lining his own pockets but utterly useless at running RBS as a whole.

Strange perhaps, but as yet not unlawful and all within Brown's regulatory framework and under his prostituted politics.

[Randy Winkman]

turbobloke said:

Randy Winkman said:

Road Pest said:

turbobloke said:

The point remains that the 'government' via ministers approved Fred's exit package and timing including pension arrangements, so wtf are they doing whining about it at this stage? Making such a fuss when it's their fault can only be a combination of incompetence, arrogance, hypocrisy and blame transfer. If some on here consider that Fred's waiving of rights to elements of hi contractual severance rights was insufficient penance then G Brown @ 10 Downing St is where the buck stops. Not least because what the bank execs (plural) did was within Gordon Clown's own regulatory framework. Double whammy for the Velcro Varmint - fortunately he's nowhere near as slippery as Teflon Tony was - but another question is how much of his pension will G Brown be waiving? Any bets for zero? Slugbrows has said that failure must not be rewarded, so he and his boss should be working for free by now, and in light of what's unfolding across the nation, paying the electorate for years to come.

Same way I read it. Government want Fred out, Fred says OK I'll forgo a years salary (his notice period) if my pension is amended to account for an extra 10 years retirement (circa 8mil). Pension pot doubled pretty much, ministers signed off on it.

The point is that the government signed off on this crazy pension fund, fair play to Fred for negotiating it, [wishful thinking on] I just hope he has the sense to do some good with it all. [wishful thinking off/]

Strange the way the fella is so good at lining his own pockets but utterly useless at running RBS as a whole.

Strange perhaps, but as yet not unlawful and all within Brown's regulatory framework and under his prostituted politics.

I'd have thought that someone being paid millions to run a multi-billion pound business would be judged by rather higher standards. I can get through a working day without breaking the law or any Government regulations - I regard those things as pretty basic achievements like turning up at the right office and remembering to wear my trousers. So what is his excuse for RBS's failure? "Gordon let me do it."?

[turbobloke]

Randy Winkman said:

turbobloke said:

Randy Winkman said:

Road Pest said:

turbobloke said:

The point remains that the 'government' via ministers approved Fred's exit package and timing including pension arrangements, so wtf are they doing whining about it at this stage? Making such a fuss when it's their fault can only be a combination of incompetence, arrogance, hypocrisy and blame transfer. If some on here consider that Fred's waiving of rights to elements of hi contractual severance rights was insufficient penance then G Brown @ 10 Downing St is where the buck stops. Not least because what the bank execs (plural) did was within Gordon Clown's own regulatory framework. Double whammy for the Velcro Varmint - fortunately he's nowhere near as slippery as Teflon Tony was - but another question is how much of his pension will G Brown be waiving? Any bets for zero? Slugbrows has said that failure must not be rewarded, so he and his boss should be working for free by now, and in light of what's unfolding across the nation, paying the electorate for years to come.

Same way I read it. Government want Fred out, Fred says OK I'll forgo a years salary (his notice period) if my pension is amended to account for an extra 10 years retirement (circa 8mil). Pension pot doubled pretty much, ministers signed off on it.

The point is that the government signed off on this crazy pension fund, fair play to Fred for negotiating it, [wishful thinking on] I just hope he has the sense to do some good with it all. [wishful thinking off/]

Strange the way the fella is so good at lining his own pockets but utterly useless at running RBS as a whole.

Strange perhaps, but as yet not unlawful and all within Brown's regulatory framework and under his prostituted politics.

I'd have thought that someone being paid millions to run a multi-billion pound business would be judged by rather higher standards. I can get through a working day without breaking the law or any Government regulations - I regard those things as pretty basic achievements like turning up at the right office and remembering to wear my trousers. So what is his excuse for RBS's failure? "Gordon let me do it."?

Judgement calls by Fred & Co are what you seem to be disputing rather than standards, even then only with hindsight. Your workplace snafus (probably) don't have the international visibility and £multi-billion cost attached that Fred's did, and Brown's still do. That's not a comparison of competency, I can accept you're highly competent at whatever you do and as a result snafus are conspicuouly absent (but possible) - it's a comparison of magnitude and visibility of outcomes that rest on judgement calls. Those are what businesses of any kind are about at executive level. Such calls are influenced very strongly by any relevant regulatory frameworks, in a lawful situation. I'm not excusing Fred, or Brown, I'm describing the context as known to outsiders from interviews and articles, so your final remark misses its target.

[alfabadass]

Bottom line is...there's stloads of people in all walks of life that are crap at their jobs, fk up, make mistakes etc.

Should they all have their pensions confiscated and dropped off at Cardboard city on retirement?

It's a lot of cash but he was a highly paid worker. Instead of moaning, go to school, get qualifications and get a good job with benefits.

When I retire, my pension is going to be a £120'000 lump sum and something like 20k a year. Other people doing the same job will get the same. Some worked harder than me, others less so, and some fk all. It's the way of the world I'm afraid.

Common sense lecture over!

[Randy Winkman]

turbobloke said:

Randy Winkman said:

turbobloke said:

Randy Winkman said:

Road Pest said:

turbobloke said:

The point remains that the 'government' via ministers approved Fred's exit package and timing including pension arrangements, so wtf are they doing whining about it at this stage? Making such a fuss when it's their fault can only be a combination of incompetence, arrogance, hypocrisy and blame transfer. If some on here consider that Fred's waiving of rights to elements of hi contractual severance rights was insufficient penance then G Brown @ 10 Downing St is where the buck stops. Not least because what the bank execs (plural) did was within Gordon Clown's own regulatory framework. Double whammy for the Velcro Varmint - fortunately he's nowhere near as slippery as Teflon Tony was - but another question is how much of his pension will G Brown be waiving? Any bets for zero? Slugbrows has said that failure must not be rewarded, so he and his boss should be working for free by now, and in light of what's unfolding across the nation, paying the electorate for years to come.

Same way I read it. Government want Fred out, Fred says OK I'll forgo a years salary (his notice period) if my pension is amended to account for an extra 10 years retirement (circa 8mil). Pension pot doubled pretty much, ministers signed off on it.

The point is that the government signed off on this crazy pension fund, fair play to Fred for negotiating it, [wishful thinking on] I just hope he has the sense to do some good with it all. [wishful thinking off/]

Strange the way the fella is so good at lining his own pockets but utterly useless at running RBS as a whole.

Strange perhaps, but as yet not unlawful and all within Brown's regulatory framework and under his prostituted politics.

I'd have thought that someone being paid millions to run a multi-billion pound business would be judged by rather higher standards. I can get through a working day without breaking the law or any Government regulations - I regard those things as pretty basic achievements like turning up at the right office and remembering to wear my trousers. So what is his excuse for RBS's failure? "Gordon let me do it."?

Judgement calls by Fred & Co are what you seem to be disputing rather than standards, even then only with hindsight. Your workplace snafus (probably) don't have the international visibility and £multi-billion cost attached that Fred's did, and Brown's still do. That's not a comparison of competency, I can accept you're highly competent at whatever you do and as a result snafus are conspicuouly absent (but possible) - it's a comparison of magnitude and visibility of outcomes that rest on judgement calls. Those are what businesses of any kind are about at executive level. Such calls are influenced very strongly by any relevant regulatory frameworks, in a lawful situation. I'm not excusing Fred, or Brown, I'm describing the context as known to outsiders from interviews and articles, so your final remark misses its target.

And because the whole country knows how much he has earned, and how badly RBS has done, and how hard so many other people are being hit by the current financial situation, I would have thought that he would want to be seen to be compromising quite significantly with regard his legal rights to take even more money. Doesn't he want to be able to walk down the street and face the public? Or perhaps once he's fronted out the current situation he's going to pack up and leave the country so he can spend his cash in peace and not have to face the proles.

[turbobloke]

Randy Winkman said:

turbobloke said:

Randy Winkman said:

turbobloke said:

Randy Winkman said:

Road Pest said:

turbobloke said:

The point remains that the 'government' via ministers approved Fred's exit package and timing including pension arrangements, so wtf are they doing whining about it at this stage? Making such a fuss when it's their fault can only be a combination of incompetence, arrogance, hypocrisy and blame transfer. If some on here consider that Fred's waiving of rights to elements of hi contractual severance rights was insufficient penance then G Brown @ 10 Downing St is where the buck stops. Not least because what the bank execs (plural) did was within Gordon Clown's own regulatory framework. Double whammy for the Velcro Varmint - fortunately he's nowhere near as slippery as Teflon Tony was - but another question is how much of his pension will G Brown be waiving? Any bets for zero? Slugbrows has said that failure must not be rewarded, so he and his boss should be working for free by now, and in light of what's unfolding across the nation, paying the electorate for years to come.

Same way I read it. Government want Fred out, Fred says OK I'll forgo a years salary (his notice period) if my pension is amended to account for an extra 10 years retirement (circa 8mil). Pension pot doubled pretty much, ministers signed off on it.

The point is that the government signed off on this crazy pension fund, fair play to Fred for negotiating it, [wishful thinking on] I just hope he has the sense to do some good with it all. [wishful thinking off/]

Strange the way the fella is so good at lining his own pockets but utterly useless at running RBS as a whole.

Strange perhaps, but as yet not unlawful and all within Brown's regulatory framework and under his prostituted politics.

I'd have thought that someone being paid millions to run a multi-billion pound business would be judged by rather higher standards. I can get through a working day without breaking the law or any Government regulations - I regard those things as pretty basic achievements like turning up at the right office and remembering to wear my trousers. So what is his excuse for RBS's failure? "Gordon let me do it."?

Judgement calls by Fred & Co are what you seem to be disputing rather than standards, even then only with hindsight. Your workplace snafus (probably) don't have the international visibility and £multi-billion cost attached that Fred's did, and Brown's still do. That's not a comparison of competency, I can accept you're highly competent at whatever you do and as a result snafus are conspicuouly absent (but possible) - it's a comparison of magnitude and visibility of outcomes that rest on judgement calls. Those are what businesses of any kind are about at executive level. Such calls are influenced very strongly by any relevant regulatory frameworks, in a lawful situation. I'm not excusing Fred, or Brown, I'm describing the context as known to outsiders from interviews and articles, so your final remark misses its target.

And because the whole country knows how much he has earned, and how badly RBS has done, and how hard so many other people are being hit by the current financial situation, I would have thought that he would want to be seen to be compromising quite significantly with regard his legal rights to take even more money.

Which he did, significantly (acccording to him) and what's more HM Government agreed it all. No notice period / pay in lieu, share option waived, possibly more as I only got to know about that due to a letter from Fred which was read on BBC Radio. Whatever the total sum waived turns out to be, the pension entitlement you've taken issue with for whatever reason has been agreed by Ministers on behalf of HM Government and therefore G Brown Esq as PM, so taking issue now is a waste of time: if Brown and Slugbrows waste money on an almost certainly pointless legal pursuit, as part of some incompetent disinformation and diversion strategy, they are even bigger fools than the unbelievably, grotesquely foolish individuals they now appear to be.

[Randy Winkman]

turbobloke said:

Randy Winkman said:

turbobloke said:

Randy Winkman said:

turbobloke said:

Randy Winkman said:

Road Pest said:

turbobloke said:

The point remains that the 'government' via ministers approved Fred's exit package and timing including pension arrangements, so wtf are they doing whining about it at this stage? Making such a fuss when it's their fault can only be a combination of incompetence, arrogance, hypocrisy and blame transfer. If some on here consider that Fred's waiving of rights to elements of hi contractual severance rights was insufficient penance then G Brown @ 10 Downing St is where the buck stops. Not least because what the bank execs (plural) did was within Gordon Clown's own regulatory framework. Double whammy for the Velcro Varmint - fortunately he's nowhere near as slippery as Teflon Tony was - but another question is how much of his pension will G Brown be waiving? Any bets for zero? Slugbrows has said that failure must not be rewarded, so he and his boss should be working for free by now, and in light of what's unfolding across the nation, paying the electorate for years to come.

Same way I read it. Government want Fred out, Fred says OK I'll forgo a years salary (his notice period) if my pension is amended to account for an extra 10 years retirement (circa 8mil). Pension pot doubled pretty much, ministers signed off on it.

The point is that the government signed off on this crazy pension fund, fair play to Fred for negotiating it, [wishful thinking on] I just hope he has the sense to do some good with it all. [wishful thinking off/]

Strange the way the fella is so good at lining his own pockets but utterly useless at running RBS as a whole.

Strange perhaps, but as yet not unlawful and all within Brown's regulatory framework and under his prostituted politics.

I'd have thought that someone being paid millions to run a multi-billion pound business would be judged by rather higher standards. I can get through a working day without breaking the law or any Government regulations - I regard those things as pretty basic achievements like turning up at the right office and remembering to wear my trousers. So what is his excuse for RBS's failure? "Gordon let me do it."?

Judgement calls by Fred & Co are what you seem to be disputing rather than standards, even then only with hindsight. Your workplace snafus (probably) don't have the international visibility and £multi-billion cost attached that Fred's did, and Brown's still do. That's not a comparison of competency, I can accept you're highly competent at whatever you do and as a result snafus are conspicuouly absent (but possible) - it's a comparison of magnitude and visibility of outcomes that rest on judgement calls. Those are what businesses of any kind are about at executive level. Such calls are influenced very strongly by any relevant regulatory frameworks, in a lawful situation. I'm not excusing Fred, or Brown, I'm describing the context as known to outsiders from interviews and articles, so your final remark misses its target.

And because the whole country knows how much he has earned, and how badly RBS has done, and how hard so many other people are being hit by the current financial situation, I would have thought that he would want to be seen to be compromising quite significantly with regard his legal rights to take even more money.

Which he did, significantly (acccording to him) and what's more HM Government agreed it all. No notice period / pay in lieu, share option waived, possibly more as I only got to know about that due to a letter from Fred which was read on BBC Radio. Whatever the total sum waived turns out to be, the pension entitlement you've taken issue with for whatever reason has been agreed by Ministers on behalf of HM Government and therefore G Brown Esq as PM, so taking issue now is a waste of time: if Brown and Slugbrows waste money on an almost certainly pointless legal pursuit, as part of some incompetent disinformation and diversion strategy, they are even bigger fools than the unbelievably, grotesquely foolish individuals they now appear to be.

Perhaps we need to raise PM's and Minister's salaries in order to attract better quality people. Perhaps even people of Sir Fred's abilities.

[turbobloke]

Randy Winkman said:

Perhaps we need to raise PM's and Minister's salaries in order to attract better quality people. Perhaps even people of Sir Fred's abilities.

There's little to choose between Brown & Co and some bank Execs, as both have exercised poor judgement, though in terms of the - what is it by now - £trillion of taxpayers' money being thrown around by Brown on a judgement call, compared to 'merely' £tens of billions lost so far by any one UK bank on other judgement calls, the Ditherer at Number 10 may turn out to be the biggest loser the UK has ever seen.

We'll then pay for it, as we're doing now on a growing scale as time goes by.

Politicians' remuneration (increase) is an option, but as mentioned many times on threads of that nature, eligibility and the selection system needs reform before the pay goes up, just as public services needed reform before Brown p!ssed away the same sums of money as Fred's former bank.

[AlexKP]

turbobloke said:

There's little to choose between Brown & Co and some bank Execs, as both have exercised poor judgement, though in terms of the - what is it by now - £trillion of taxpayers' money being thrown around by Brown on a judgement call, compared to 'merely' £tens of billions lost so far by any one UK bank on other judgement calls, the Ditherer at Number 10 may turn out to be the biggest loser the UK has ever seen.

You know TB it is this comment and many others that seem to form a common theme throughout your posts. I'm beginning to think you aren't a fan of the Prime Minister...

[turbobloke]

If Brown had done overall good, the situation would be different in the country (important) and my posts (not important). As it is, evidence shows Meltdown to have been underwhelmingly useless as a Chancellor and equally disastrous as a PM.

[Pesty]

Anybody catch the show this morning With Harriet Harmen on?

She said repeatedly " it was not acceptable for goodwin to get his pension, therefore the Primeinister would not accept it" and

Harmen said:

"Sir Fred Goodwin should not count on being £650,000 a year better off because it is not going to happen," she told BBC One's Andrew Marr show.

So if they have no leg to stand on legally they will change the laws.

I am not a fan of these bankers of the ridiculas ammounts of money they get but this is sinister.

All this focus on one man is just distraction away from all the cock ups by the government. It is aimed at their core vote.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7917361.stm

Harmen said:

"The prime minister has said that it is not acceptable and therefore it will not be accepted,"

"And it might be enforceable in a court of law, this contract, but it is not enforceable in the court of public opinion and that is where the government steps in."

Thats tough talk

Edited by Pesty on Sunday 1st March 11:48

[Mojocvh]

Pesty said:

Anybody catch the show this morning With Harriet Harmen on?

She said repeatedly " it was not acceptable for goodwin to get his pension, therefore the Primeinister would not accept it" and " He will not be getting his 650k a year"

So if they have no leg to stand on legally they will change the laws.

I am not a fan of these bankers of the ridiculas ammounts of money they get but this is sinister.

All this focus on one man is just distraction away from all the cock ups by the government. It is aimed at their core vote.

yes indeed.

[turbobloke]

Mojocvh said:

Pesty said:

Anybody catch the show this morning With Harriet Harmen on?

She said repeatedly " it was not acceptable for goodwin to get his pension, therefore the Primeinister would not accept it" and " He will not be getting his 650k a year"

So if they have no leg to stand on legally they will change the laws.

I am not a fan of these bankers of the ridiculas ammounts of money they get but this is sinister.

All this focus on one man is just distraction away from all the cock ups by the government. It is aimed at their core vote.

yes indeed.

So now seconded and thirded

[Road Pest]

Los Angeles said:

Randy Winkman said:

Perhaps we need to raise PM's and Minister's salaries in order to attract better quality people. Perhaps even people of Sir Fred's abilities.

You see it's all a question of attitude. I run a QC department for a sales force. For the most part there are clean cut rules for the sales force to follow but there are also grey areas. These grey areas are constantly tested by the sales force who are hungry to make more money and be the best salesperson. So they try and push the boundaries. We wouldn't want it any other way as it is a trait of a good salesperson to think on their feet and be a bit cheeky in their approach sometimes. They effectively work for themselves, similar to how the businesses in the UK compete and strive to be the best.

The QC department is there to ensure that the grey areas are not exploited and the rules are followed. They are incentivised by the companies success and not the gain of an individual salesperson. if you like the regulatory body. They raise issues where the salesperson appears to break the rules and close loopholes that appear, which do not benefit the company as a whole, UK PLC if you like.

Now the attitudes between the two departments vary massively and this is where the success of the company comes from. Over the years I've seen sales people come across into QC and within a week there is a very marked change in their approach and attitude. Things that I have seen them try on, they are suddenly infuriated by their co-workers doing the same. And likewise these same people move back to sales and again they change as they are effectively working for themselves.

In the distant past I recall sales people trying to influence people in QC in different ways similar to how businesses may try and influence politicians. It is this fundamental difference between regulator and business, QC and salesperson that can either make or break a system. If a politician's focus is the same as the businesses, i.e. make as much money as possible then the system/people are wrong. If businesses have politician's in their pocket then the system won't work. If the FSA is targeted or focussed incorrectly then it won't work.

Historically the QC department does not pick up the same wages as the sales force. They are always lower, the individual's money isn't the number one priority over the success of the business.

So would Fred make a good minister or PM? I think in theory it depends on whether his attitude would change from businessman to regulator. At those high levels with the sort of monetary numbers involved it takes people with bigger balls to be the regulator than the businessman/woman and for less reward. Currently I don't think we have those people. Fred's pension is the perfect example of this. He apparently effortlessly negotiated compensation that has outraged people, but the government didn't have the foresight/the balls to stop him. The "cheeky salesperson" gets one over the "QC Agent", the result of this happening regularly is temporary success and long term failure and it is quite apparent what has happened here.

Edited by Road Pest on Sunday 1st March 12:29

[odyssey2200]

turbobloke said:

Mojocvh said:

Pesty said:

Anybody catch the show this morning With Harriet Harmen on?

She said repeatedly " it was not acceptable for goodwin to get his pension, therefore the Primeinister would not accept it" and " He will not be getting his 650k a year"

So if they have no leg to stand on legally they will change the laws.

I am not a fan of these bankers of the ridiculas ammounts of money they get but this is sinister.

All this focus on one man is just distraction away from all the cock ups by the government. It is aimed at their core vote.

yes indeed.

So now seconded and thirded

Forthded!

Edited by odyssey2200 on Sunday 1st March 12:37

[10 Pence Short]

Would anyone be surprised if law was changed over one specific incident? They've done it before, take hand guns, for example.

We all know Labour have little respect for Parliament- look at the time spent on fox hunting and also the use of the Parliament Act when the Lords didn't agree with the lower house.

On a positive note, Labour must really know they are in the sh*t if they're putting so much attention on one scapegoat.

Edited by 10 Pence Short on Sunday 1st March 12:34

[chris watton]

odyssey2200 said:

turbobloke said:

Mojocvh said:

Pesty said:

Anybody catch the show this morning With Harriet Harmen on?

She said repeatedly " it was not acceptable for goodwin to get his pension, therefore the Primeinister would not accept it" and " He will not be getting his 650k a year"

So if they have no leg to stand on legally they will change the laws.

I am not a fan of these bankers of the ridiculas ammounts of money they get but this is sinister.

All this focus on one man is just distraction away from all the cock ups by the government. It is aimed at their core vote.

yes indeed.

Fithed(ed)

I thought what she said was very sinister - they really are power crazed, and will sell their souls if they think the 'mob' will give them an ovation.

So now seconded and thirded

Fourthded!

[odyssey2200]

10 Pence Short said:

Would anyone be surprised if law was changed over one specific incident? They've done it before, take hand guns, for example.

We all know Labour have little respect for Parliament- look at the time spent on fox hunting and also the use of the Parliament Act when the Lords didn't agree with the lower house.

On a positive note, Labour must really know they are in the sh*t if they're putting so much attention on one scapegoat.

Edited by 10 Pence Short on Sunday 1st March 12:34

I have no problem with changing the law going forward to ensure some sensible controls but applying those changes retrospectively to focus on one man after the Government failed in its due diligence is just wrong.