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

[turbobloke]

odyssey2200 said:

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.

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.

It sure is wrong, and informed folk interviewed about this say that any such legal challenge to Fred's pension is very likely to fail. Not that this will stop Mandy and his Chums from wasting more public money in the attempt to prolong the deflection of blame from their own sorry nulabian asses.

[Road Pest]

odyssey2200 said:

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.

It's almost vengeful, like the government are pissed at him for what he negotiated with them originally and now they look like idiots they're going to change the rules to suit themselves. When will this government ever not fk something up?

[10 Pence Short]

Road Pest said:

odyssey2200 said:

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.

It's almost vengeful, like the government are pissed at him for what he negotiated with them originally and now they look like idiots they're going to change the rules to suit themselves. When will this government ever not fk something up?

It's only like the government telling the police that their new pay deal will be decided by arbitration, then when the arbitrator makes a deal the government don't like, they refuse to honour it.

[Road Pest]

What, they are that st they can't even get the arbitrator in their pocket!

[anonymous-user]

I say good luck to him. The government did more than him to get us into this mess. Doing their best to deflect the blame to him. Not a chance!

[Tom55]

but surely as a public sector employee he is entitled to his gold plated pension?

Edited by Tom55 on Sunday 1st March 13:30

[turbobloke]

Tom55 said:

but surely as a public sector employee he is entitled to his gold plated pension?

Gordon Brown?

[Tom55]

turbobloke said:

Tom55 said:

but surely as a public sector employee he is entitled to his gold plated pension?

Gordon Brown?

Goodwin, now that the government owns so much of RBS

[turbobloke]

Tom55 said:

turbobloke said:

Tom55 said:

but surely as a public sector employee he is entitled to his gold plated pension?

Gordon Brown?

Goodwin, now that the government owns so much of RBS

Ah OK, maybe he stayed around long enough for whatever fraction is now public sector to boost his pension...or, then again, after agreeing to forego share entitlement and pay in lieu of notice etc as (in his words) a significant gesture, he may well have negotiated with the Bank and Ministers a doubling of his pension pot, only for Mandy and the Clown and Slugbrows to get uppity after the fact.

[Hedders]

turbobloke said:

Tom55 said:

turbobloke said:

Tom55 said:

but surely as a public sector employee he is entitled to his gold plated pension?

Gordon Brown?

Goodwin, now that the government owns so much of RBS

Ah OK, maybe he stayed around long enough for whatever fraction is now public sector to boost his pension...or, then again, after agreeing to forego share entitlement and pay in lieu of notice etc as (in his words) a significant gesture, he may well have negotiated with the Bank and Ministers a doubling of his pension pot, only for Mandy and the Clown and Slugbrows to get uppity after the fact.

Is it that suprising he opted for cash and to forgo shares in the business he ran into the ground?

You can have a million shares at 17p each or £700k a year for 30 years. Tough one.

[turbobloke]

Hedders said:

turbobloke said:

Tom55 said:

turbobloke said:

Tom55 said:

but surely as a public sector employee he is entitled to his gold plated pension?

Gordon Brown?

Goodwin, now that the government owns so much of RBS

Ah OK, maybe he stayed around long enough for whatever fraction is now public sector to boost his pension...or, then again, after agreeing to forego share entitlement and pay in lieu of notice etc as (in his words) a significant gesture, he may well have negotiated with the Bank and Ministers a doubling of his pension pot, only for Mandy and the Clown and Slugbrows to get uppity after the fact.

Is it that suprising he opted for cash and to forgo shares in the business he ran into the ground?

You can have a million shares at 17p each or £700k a year for 30 years. Tough one.

Agreed, I mentioned in a previous post that the shares option could only possibly be significant in the long-term.

You think he'll live to 80 with Mandy sticking all those pins in his effigy?!

[mdm123]

no doubt Goodwin will end up committing suicide like Dr David Kelly.

[Hedders]

mdm123 said:

no doubt Goodwin will end up committing suicide like Dr David Kelly.

[turbobloke]

Hedders said:

mdm123 said:

no doubt Goodwin will end up committing suicide like Dr David Kelly.

With Paul Moore propped up on the other side of the tree after their countryside stroll

[Hedders]

turbobloke said:

You think he'll live to 80 with Mandy sticking all those pins in his effigy?!

I imagine he will be emigrating soon and living in luxury in the sun, so yes i am sure he will live to a ripe old age!

[Guybrush]

It's probably been mentioned already, but don't get too distracted from the fact that Labour has blown £100 billion of our money propping up that bank. I'm sure Labour are happy to have this fact buried by the fuss over one person.

[turbobloke]

Hedders said:

turbobloke said:

You think he'll live to 80 with Mandy sticking all those pins in his effigy?!

I imagine he will be emigrating soon and living in luxury in the sun, so yes i am sure he will live to a ripe old age!

And with the stress of recent publicity balanced by the thought of fg over Mandy & Co, you could be right. Not that he's right. Nor Clown's muppets.

[madala]

HundredthIdiot said:

From what I've read it only has to be paid out until he dies.

I imagine there will be few nutcases in those 20,000 with enough time on their hands...

......Oh I do hope so.....

[MGJohn]

odyssey2200 said:

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.

In the final analysis, nothing wrong in being wrong provided measures are taken to rectify ~ even retrospectively.

There should be a law about it .... That means entrusting our interests to 'learned' types, many so learned I would not entrust them to give a decision on the correct time of day..... M'Lud.
..

Only in the UK!

Edited by MGJohn on Monday 2nd March 13:59

[DJFish]

So a massive pensions scandal has erupted, and for the first time the majority of the general public is behind the govt. in baying for the blood of a dyed in the wool, bang to rights scapegoat.

Does no-one else think, and I may be reaching for my tin-foil hate here, that this is a very convenient way for the govt. to push through legislation that will make it easier to screw people (and by people I mean you and me, not just evil boogieman bankers) out of their hard earned pensions whenever they feel like it?