Options
The Official Protest Against Goodwin's Pension Thread
GwrxVurfer
Posts: 5,359 Forum Member
✭
"Sign" the petition by posting here,
Shouldn't the fund be taken away, and him given a 1 bedroom flat, a BT Phone, and a JobCentre advert?
By the way, is anyone "in the know" as to how the legal injunction thing is going against him?
Shouldn't the fund be taken away, and him given a 1 bedroom flat, a BT Phone, and a JobCentre advert?
By the way, is anyone "in the know" as to how the legal injunction thing is going against him?
0
Comments
But that would probably mean Rolls Royce and Bentley (luxury products) employees would loose their jobs.
£26bn extra ploughed in by the govt to RBS - equivalent to the entire English schools budget for one year. This is on top of the £20bn paid to them in December.
The Government has agreed to insure £325bn:eek: of RBS's troubled assets against default. Under the deal, RBS will suffer the first 6 per cent of any losses, with the Government taking on the risk for 90 per cent of the remainder:mad:
The taxpayer now owns effectively 95% of this bank.
That's £375bn of taxpayer support for ONE BANK - and you are stressing about some guy's £16m pension pot.
Get real and wake up and smell the coffee. Our grandkids will be paying for this mess!
Using similar logic could the whole lot of them not have been sacked for 'not paying attention'.
In the first instance a life/lives are lost. In the 2nd no one dies but thousands of lives are decimated.
Personally I would jail most of those at the top. This includes many of our ministers.
It has been used effectively to minimise the amount of publicity given to the mauling of Government by both Mervyn King and Lord Adair Turner over the past couple of days.
You could quite easily replace "Fred Goodwin" with "Gordon Brown" in this post.
I wonder if Brown and his pals will be surrendering their pensions?
Of course not.
But this is one of the main people who got us into this mess and was paid very, very well for taking our money and throwing it away.
And now he thinks he's entitled to a pension based on a salary he clearly didn't deserve or earn.
Scapegoat? Who exactly do you think was "unchecked" by the Govt? This man!
It's only a "much wider problem" because he has so many equally greedy and incompetent colleagues.
Would you let a teenage knife murderer go free just because it's a "much wider problem" or a drunk driver?
It won't teach the government anything. Do you think this affects their pensions? Or that they'd ever admit any degree of culpability in any case? Nope, it's the tax payer who'll bear the full brunt of this when the invitable cuts in public services are made, or taxes increased, in order to fund these ridiculous - and so far, useless - payouts to the banks and the greedy parasites who work(ed) for them.
The payouts so far have stopped the banks going bust, which would make the whole situation worse. Look at how much chaos was caused by Lehmans going into administration.
Its not like any other country has managed to come up with a bailout plan theat has worked any better.
Are you saying that we shouldn't be "stressing" about his huge pension? And that it's ok for him to contribute massively to bringing this country's financial system to its knees and yet still be rewarded?
Perhaps we should put that to the pensioners of this country who now have reduced pensions and are earning insignificant interest on their savings.
As ano poster said though it is small beer compared to the sums bailing out RBS and Lloyds are reported to be in talks with the Treasury on a deal that would see taxpayers taking on the liability for around £250bn of HBOS toxic loans and investments. It is like monopoly money and it will be rolling off the presses anytime soon.
Whilst this is very true, it does not justify ignoring huge payouts to the unethical risky businessmen who largely caused all this in first place.With considerable help from their friends in Government who cashed in too when they could.
I'm no expert but why not let them go bust. Then set up a new government bank, buy all of the ordinary account holder accounts and transfer them in to the new bank. The new bank would be free of debt and can be privatised when the market is better.
As for the original bank its the creditors shareholders and staff who are screwed. The new bank can simply employ the ordinary branch staff.
All new contracts will be tightly written to require genuine quantifiable performance before bonus are given out. How can you have a bonus written in to your contract? If the bank makes a profit you get one if it makes a loss they should take it out of their wages.
The government has messed up when it bailed them out and is now desperate to get out of this political trap.
Yes the extra money is important but the public don't really understand finance. They do understand incompetence, greed and people helping themselves to their hard earned tax's. If your struggling to pay your mortgage and feed your family and still paying your tax how would you feel about some greedy banker helping himself to it?
It hasn't actually 'worked' yet though - it just seems to be stalling the inevitable. There's still a good chance the banks may go completely bust. Giving millions/billions in taxpayer's money to these greedy individual parasites who still believe they're entitled to bonuses/pensions is only likely to accelerate that very real possibility.
Because it is an excellent illustration of how the government's talk is empty and its actions are incompetent.
The govt did not ask how old the CEO was on 'retirement', he's only just turned 50, were he 60 that would be more reasonable. They did not ask what he was legally entitled to or when these arrangements were drawn up. They then 'negotiated' with Sir F to cut his notice and shares etc. while he just clawed it back with the other hand and all under the auspices of Lord Mynes and the board of RBS, the latter having drawn this up hastily.
So if they ran rings round Lord M on this one and he didn't understand this simple bit, what else have they hoodwinked him on? He's charged with spending billions of our money, he has to account for it down to the last penny.
It shows that Lord Mynes and his team did not do due diligence. £16m is not a lot in the total of funds to the bank, but it is not going to the bank it is going to an individual who has put 20,000 people out of work and added 1p to everyone in the country's taxes for the next 10 years. It is clearly a political mistake to give it to him and Lord M is so removed from reality that he doesn't realise most people are lucky after 40 years of work at 65 to have £300K in their pension. This was bound to be explosive and he's too inept to have thought of it. He should have said, look mate, you're £24bn in the red, I think you should leave now with the skin on your back and your eyes still in their sockets before the public find out and count yourself lucky.
IMO the govt should declare a funding crisis and say all people on the public payroll cannot retire with more than £1m in their pension. BBC execs are sitting on £5m each in their pension pots, this is public money. If they want to have goldplated pensions let them buy them out of their income like everyone else and have the money on the stock market rollercoaster. The govt taxes people on low incomes and old age pensioners' savings in order to pay these pensions. The poor are being robbed to allow the idle rich to live in sumptuous retirement. It doesn't stack up.
Also, SIR Fred??? Why is this guy who has destroyed a great international institution, put thousands out of work and caused misery for the whole country allowed to line his pockets and keep a title. He should be stripped of it.
It's a bit like that scoundrel in the US.
Madoff pronounced Madeoff who made off with billions except he got caught.
Vince Cable said on the BBC , with the Government virtually running the banks on behalf of the tax payer the Government should have put Government directors on the bank boards to make sure the banks were behaving properly with tax payers money.
WHAT? :eek:
Now I am aghast that the Government did not do this from the start. I cannot believe what is going on.
In other words, these bankers are continuing carrying on as normal with tax payers money, after losing billions of customers money and still awarding themselves bonus's, high wages and high pensions.
This has got to be criminal.
We even have expert pension lawyers saying on tv, nothing can be done about it.
How come?
If the bankers failed their banks, then they should be sacked and lose all perks etc. How can these people be allowed to carry on as normal with money that has been used which they have no right to touch.
The money which they normally get their perks from no longer exists.
I don't understand this 'nothing can be done about it' attitude either. The government makes the laws of this land, it can remake them if necessary. I think it's indicative of the fact that, despite the havoc they've wreaked, the money men are STILL running the show!
Duncann - I agree, it sounds like the government did not read the small print that night they did that hasty deal with RBS! Schoolboy error - shame we're the ones who'll have to pay for it. And I love your take on what Lord M should have said to Goodwin - ha ha, that's awesome!
Like who, the government don't have anyone who knows anything about banking including it seems the BoE, the FSA, Brown and Darling. They would simply have parachuted in ano set of bankers and in any case it is like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.
The government are as much to blame for this guy getting his pension as RBS management are.
Why do they have to be bankers who oversee our money?
Why not accountants, financial experts and lawyers who could sit on the boards to make sure any bankers did not misuse tax payers money?
I must say I'm quite disturbed to read on the net that the bankers planned this. It is someone's opinion of course. But it went something like this.
In 1997, when the Government created the Tripartite system, bankers decided to repackage mortgages to take them out of their protected regulation. They did this by repackaging mortgages and sell them on as Collateral Loan Obligations (CLOs). These were traded through institutions who were able to operate outside strict bank regulations. They were gambled on Wall Street and lost them.
Very weird.
Just to add, I'm not sure if this is simply an opinion, as the person who wrote it seems to know a lot about something.
http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/featuresopinon/display.var.2492037.0.There_may_be_more_rocks_waiting_to_wreck_the_Royal.php