Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lizzie_Zoom]

Harriet Harman MP, Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, along with other posts, this morning stated on the Andrew Marr Show that even if it was ruled in a court of law that Sir Fred "The Shred" Goodwin, former head of the RBS, was entitled to his lifelong £650K a year pension, the Government was determined to ensure he would not retain it!!  

She continually quoted Gordon Brown that it was "unacceptable", and his determination to ensure Sir Fred "The Shred" Goodwin could not "bank on receiving  the £650K a year".  

No matter what we believe about this (obscene?) "pension", is the Government right to over-rule the legal rights of Sir Goodwin who has apparently a legally binding commercial (not civil service!) contract? :-? :-?

If so, where does this end? :-? :-?

[Auto Addict]

Especially as this Government approved it in the first place, good luck to him.

[willyboy]

I think its Fred v The Country almost really YUP ! take some of it back for me  his company money as lost billions whilst hes been at the helm feathering his nest..so he gets a minus pension for me

[Kevin Wood]

It would set a worrying precedent if the govt succeeded.

As for as I'm concerned this is a total lack of due dilligence by an incompetent government, nothing more. If they had investigated the liabilities that they would inherit before chucking a load of our cash at the problem, as would have happened with any commercial buyout, maybe they could have avoided this mess.

As it is, as usual, they assume they can make a knee jerk reaction to a little bit of bad press and in doing so cover up their own incompetence.

Kevin

[philhoward]

Well, he did managed to achieve something that noone else would be able to - the largest loss in corporate history.

Will he swap it for a line in the Guiness Book of Records though?  Guess not..

Yes, it sound scandalous, but if they tried to remove his pension then they would be in breach of contract and he'd be within his rights to sue them (and probably get more).

Not sticking up for the bloke - just if it was one rule etc...then how many more employers would try and stop pensions because a retired employee didn't do a good job in their final year?

Don't know the full story - so apologies if i got any of the above wrong..

[Nickbat]

It would set a worrying precedent if the govt succeeded.

As for as I'm concerned this is a total lack of due dilligence by an incompetent government, nothing more. If they had investigated the liabilities that they would inherit before chucking a load of our cash at the problem, as would have happened with any commercial buyout, maybe they could have avoided this mess.

As it is, as usual, they assume they can make a knee jerk reaction to a little bit of bad press and in doing so cover up their own incompetence.

Kevin

Quite right, Kevin. No matter how odious the amounts involved, the real question is the principle. If the Law of Contract can be retrospectively overridden for moral reasons, that would be unacceptable. How would you like it if your company turned round and told you to give back your pension because they were have financial problems?

It's the government's fault.  

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

Harriet Harman MP, Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, along with other posts, this morning stated on the Andrew Marr Show that even if it was ruled in a court of law that Sir Fred "The Shred" Goodwin, former head of the RBS, was entitled to his lifelong £650K a year pension, the Government was determined to ensure he would not retain it!!  

She continually quoted Gordon Brown that it was "unacceptable", and his determination to ensure Sir Fred "The Shred" Goodwin could not "bank on receiving  the £650K a year".  

No matter what we believe about this (obscene?) "pension", is the Government right to over-rule the legal rights of Sir Goodwin who has apparently a legally binding commercial (not civil service!) contract? :-? :-?

If so, where does this end? :-? :-?

Under any normal circumstances Lizzie...............I would agree that we do not want or need any government meddling in these matters. but really in this case I believe that a stand should be made ...........to deter future incidents ....such as this.

Let's be clear about good old Freddie................This privileged ....inept .........greedy .......selfish .........buffoon presided over the largest corporate loss in British history.

He was paid millions of pounds for his part in destroying much of the British economy.

To add insult to injury ....................this chancer (with other peoples money)............is set to receive £13000..........each and every week of his life .....................from age FIFTY.

I do not believe it to be fair .............that every one ......................and especially people on minimum wage (cooks and cleaners etc...etc).............will have to pay higher taxes for decades to come in order to help pay back the billions of pounds that the likes of parasites like good old Freddie have lost the country.

[willyboy]

I think he managed to mislead the government on what he could & couldn't have ............You & me do that & they come after you for it no matter how small the amounts..

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

It does not sit easy with me .............on what looks like retrospective government action .............over what appears to be an agreed pension payout.

But...sadly.........in this case I think that because of the magnitude of the problems caused by Fred Goodwin and other inept bankers...........I think that principle has to take a back seat on this rare occasion.

There are two ways this pensions fiasco could have been avoided
1. That the Government had got its act together more quickly and it had nipped this in the bud..............my understanding is that part of Goodwins' pension was discretionary

2. Fred Goodwin had the decency to offer not to take the pension (even if he is entitled to it legally, he is not entitled to it morally)

[Varche]

Total lack of due diligence. One of the conditions of receiving governement cash should have been to change the conditions of every bank employee (except those in barclays of course) to capped bonuses and a apply a cut of a minimum of 10% across the company. That way they would appreciate the pain incurred by joe public.

There is no chance of Fred giving up his money.On the positive side think of how much tax he will pay on all that money.

Rearrange this well known phrase. HORSE DOOR STABLE CLOSE.

varche

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

Total lack of due diligence. One of the conditions of receiving governement cash should have been to change the conditions of every bank employee (except those in barclays of course) to capped bonuses and a apply a cut of a minimum of 10% across the company. That way they would appreciate the pain incurred by joe public.

There is no chance of Fred giving up his money.On the positive side think of how much tax he will pay on all that money.
Rearrange this well known phrase. HORSE DOOR STABLE CLOSE.

varche

You can bet that he has the best Accountant available.................He won't pay much tax.........................the very wealthy rarely do. :-/ .

[AllanGlasgow]

I agree with you Lizzie, it is an obscene amount of money for someone who has made such a mess with so many people's lives to receive. I don't know how much I will be affected by him as I have 2 bank accounts, a loan and an investment plan with RBS, and a bank account with Nat West.

However, I don't think it is the place of the government to interfere in this matter. The pension fiasco should have been sorted out long before it came to this stage, and taking action now coukd set a dangerous precedent in the future. If the government are allowed to meddle in this case, what is to stop them stepping in in other cases, as and when it pleases them.

Much as it pains me to say it, I think we just have to swallow this, and hope that the banks don't allow it to reach this stage again in the future.

[LaserLance]

As someone said on radio last week ,what is the difference between Fred the Shred and Nick Leeson ,both bankrupted their respective companys buy playing the markets for gain.One ends up inside doing a bit of time ( Yes I know it was in Singapore) the other one walks away with a whacking great pension, whilst we the taxpayers bail his ineptitude out to the the tune of billions Some maybe instead of £13 k a week he should get a few years at her majestys pleasure to think it over >Just a thought  

[Nickbat]

The pension is certainly excessive and certainly undeserved. HOWEVER, take a read of this link and it pretty well sums up the situation for me:

http://devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/02/my-gob-is-smacked.html

"A senior minister of the government [Harriet Harperson] is brushing aside the rule of law and opening the door to the rule of the wishes of the Prime Minister and / or that of the baying mob...

...Is this what has come of more than two thousand years of British history? A bunch of spivs have walked in, brushed aside centuries-old rights and turned us into some sort of bizarre feral tyranny ... is that really it?"

It seems it is.  

[Grumpy]

With ref to the poem I put on the other 'Fred' thread, ref retrospective
action by the government, looks like Fred beat them to it. Have a read
of today's Observer.

Perhaps we should call him Janus Goodwin.

With ref to your pension, in the immortal words of 'Dirty Harry':

"Do yer feel lucky, punk?"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/mar/01/rbs-company-pensions

Former Royal Bank of Scotland employees will have their company pension payments slashed when they get to state retirement age - and Sir Fred Goodwin, the bank's richest pensioner, personally rejected union pleas for leniency over the so-called "clawback" provisions.

It has also emerged that Goodwin altered the arrangements for early retirement three years ago, raising the minimum age at which employees could take it from 50 to 55 - and then only if pensions were cut by between 20% and 40%.