"King" Fred gets house smashed...

theGrinch

fred goodwin should be shamed into paying it back regardless of contract. nation has stepped up and saved the bank. its the least he can do.

john_s_2

cocktail wrote: »

regardless of what FRED did the vandals have right to do this, do they?

Not under British law. But how many people shook their head in disbelief when they read this? It's called vengeance. He's scum. End of.

brightonman123

he is a bi of a lightweight too, 'retiring' at just 50? If he does get to keep the pension, I hope it gets frozen til he (and most humans) stop proper work, at 65!

oldagetraveller

He is probably covered by insurance for the damage etc. anyway so it will not affect his pocket.
So who will pay for the damage? You and me through our premiums!

hedger

think they hit the wrong address. 10 Downing Street is where they shoulda been looking. Brown was chancellor (remember the famous no boom and bust here waffle), the gold squandered, no regulation, fat cats gettin away with wrecking peoples lives etc. the buck stops with him and I cant believe he is still in power

JP45

theGrinch wrote: »

fred goodwin should be shamed into paying it back regardless of contract. nation has stepped up and saved the bank. its the least he can do.

He should but he won't because he has no shame.

He is the Donald Rumsfeld of the banking world.

hedger

JP45 wrote: »

He should but he won't because he has no shame.

He is the Donald Rumsfeld of the banking world.

be honest who would pay it back? he gambled and lost but is not unlike thousands of others in governemnt and the financial sector. Ive no sympathy for him but hes bein used as the scapegoat

JP45

hedger wrote: »

be honest who would pay it back? he gambled and lost but is not unlike thousands of others in governemnt and the financial sector. Ive no sympathy for him but hes bein used as the scapegoat

Ok, to be honest, yes I would pay it back, and I don't think I'm alone.

There are still, thank god, a lot of decent people who live by a moral code who could not possibly walk away with a pot of money as Sir Fred has done knowing the harm and misery they had caused as a result of their actions.

You say that he gambled and lost. But he hasn't. RBS shareholders have lost, taxpayers have lost, but Sir Fred hasn't. He's walked away with an annual pension of £700k for the rest of his life, from the age of 50! How can you call that losing. There must be many people reading this forum who would love to lose out in that way.

People seem to overlook the fact that even if he were to give up the entire £700k annual pension, he would still have a vast residual fortune from his previous earnings.

Ironically, given the amount of wealth he's managed to destroy as a result of his actions, it would have been more cost effective if the Board had offered him early retirement the day he arrived at RBS.

adambro

JP45 wrote: »

People seem to overlook the fact that even if he were to give up the entire £700k annual pension, he would still have a vast residual fortune from his previous earnings.

People, whom unfortunately don't get given the full story by the media, also seem to overlook the fact that Sir Fred has already given up £1.29m and share options worth around £300,000 which he was contractually entitled to. Perhaps it is convenient for some to overlook this.

I'm no expert on exactly what it is that Sir Fred is accused of doing or not doing which led the RBS to near failure but just because he was careless or perhaps reckless I don't consider it appropriate for the government to seemingly encourage society to view him as being enemy number one.

The pension arrangements were either given the okay by government or at least not challenged by them and now suddenly the government are being critical of Sir Fred for accepting it and not wishing to give it back because the government see it to be politically beneficial whilst all the while they are encouraging the hatred towards this one individual. It shouldn't be surprising that Goodwin would tell them where to go.

Goodwin is just one of many players of this money game which the government has failed to properly regulate. The government should be the real focus of the criticism about this issue yet they've managed to deflect it on to one individual.

RayWolfe

adambro wrote: »

Goodwin is just one of many players of this money game which the government has failed to properly regulate.

Yea, like when I nicked stuff from TESCO and they failed to stop me. I really took then to task about that.
Regulation cannot, will not and never has stopped anyone without morality.