"King" Fred gets house smashed...

whiteflag_3

adambro wrote: »

one.

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.

Having worked for the Clydesdale and knowing many people who worked there when Godwin was there, nothing I read surprises me. He was a two faced ego maniac who simply could not bear to be challenged by anybody.

He was running RBS, his actions nearly brought the country down, he deserves no sympathy. The government doesnt need to use him as a scapegoat, he is personally responsible for the situation he finds himself in now.

agsnu

whiteflag wrote: »

He was running RBS, his actions nearly brought the country down, he deserves no sympathy. The government doesnt need to use him as a scapegoat, he is personally responsible for the situation he finds himself in now.

Whilst that may be true, he was one of Brown's favourite bankers until quite recently. It's disingenuous for the Government to make him public enemy number one and accept no culpability themselves.

Also, the media whipping up public opinion to the point where it's going to cause angry mobs taking the law into their own hands is not helpful to a modern society.

Oh, and the prospect of introducing retrospective taxation is scary beyond belief.

ninky_2

I love this article. The attention to detail is Dickensian in nature. Even if it's not true, I really want to believe it is. "Rogue biscuits" - genius!

Fred the Shred looks set to be an icon for Greed and Corruption for a very very long time.

JP45

adambro wrote: »

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.

I agree with your first point. He is indeed just one of many bankers who have earnt vast sums over recent years on the (erroneous) assumption that he, and others like him, had generated real wealth and real profits.

As to your second point, of course the government should have done more to regulate the system. They, and their counterparts in the US and elsewhere (Canada being a notable exception), clearly failed to adequately regulate the financial world. I don't think anybody could dispute that point.

But to argue that the government should be the real focus of criticism is akin to arguing that the Police force's failure to apprehend criminals means that we should focus our anger on the Police rather than the criminals. Of course in such circumstances we should criticise the Police, but they are hardly the real culprits.

If the banking community devise a system of remuneration which provides massive bonus payments for taking excessive risks, yet fails to claw back those payments when the deals turn sour, then the primary responsibility lies with the banking elite.

So it seems to me perfectly reasonable for people to feel aggrieved at the way bankers such as Sir Fred have behaved. Sure, he's not alone. There are plently of others who should hold their heads in shame - Applegarth, Fuld etc. And of course the government are also to blame, but to argue that they are somehow more to blame than the bankers themselves seems absurd.

GeorgeHowell

It is not established that Goodwin has committed any crime in the legal sense. Sure he is a greedy, unscrupulous, arrogant, exploitative piece of ****. But what he did was effectively encouraged by the Blair/Brown government, who were desperate to prove their new found 'business friendly' credentials, and especially to ingratiate themselves with the city and the financial sector. It was a classic Blairism to dismantle the long proven and tried and tested regulation of banks by the Bank of England and replace it with something novel but completely ineffective, ie the FSA. To make matters worse the FSA was given the brief to operate with a "light touch". When Goodwin had to be got rid of they appointed the city crony Lord Myners to handle it from the government's side. We don't know for sure and probably never will, but I suspect that everyone from Brown downwards was tacitly accepting of the fact that Goodwin must not be punished financially as well as his loss of kudos, and that every effort should be made to soften his blow. It's the way things work in this country -- the establishment and the old boy network rules, including in government. When they say 'no reward for failure' it makes me laugh. If they took that to heart they could not in all conscience draw their own parliamentary and ministerial salaries and perks.

Despite all that, to excuse or vindicate in any way those who ever turn to violence of any kind, other than in self defence, is terrible folly. Minor vandalism of property is the thin end of the wedge. This is how the dross who murdered the soldiers and policeman in Northern Ireland justify themselves -- the end justifies the means for their "cause" and there is no other way to bring about change. Think it through -- if everyone who has a grievance or grudge of any kind starts smashing things or people up, or worse, where will it take us ? So if the idiots who broke Goodwin's windows end up doing time, but he doesn't, that's fine by me, despite what he is.

nrsql

The government was relying on short term unsupportable prosperity and now that it's fallen apart they want to keep their culpability under wraps. Hence the big payouts to anyone who could rock the boat.
They might come out with impressive soundbites but it will be meaningless. Might be a few scapegoats but no one whose story could carry any weight.

nrsql

JP45 wrote: »

But to argue that the government should be the real focus of criticism is akin to arguing that the Police force's failure to apprehend criminals means that we should focus our anger on the Police rather than the criminals. Of course in such circumstances we should criticise the Police, but they are hardly the real culprits.

What if the police force told people to turn off their burglar alarms (oops that has happened) and praised the criminals for their enterprise and said they weren't going to try and catch them?

adambro

nrsql wrote: »

What if the police force told people to turn off their burglar alarms (oops that has happened) and praised the criminals for their enterprise and said they weren't going to try and catch them?

Indeed. We don't expect the police to be able to stop all crimes from happening but we do expect them to make a reasonable effort to do so. Just like the situation with the FSA and the government, it would be quite right for us to be very critical of the police if they failed to provide an adequate level of protection.

If Sir Fred has broken any laws or industry regulations then he should be punished appropriately. If he hasn't then it would seem to suggest, based upon the level of disruption that he has caused, that the system has failed.

RBS could have dismissed Sir Fred rather than letting him take early retirement and so stopped him from receiving such a large pension but it would appear the government didn't step in to make sure this happened. They were either happy with the arrangement or failed to ask the right questions and so were oblivious. This issue should quite rightly be open to scrutiny but vigilantism is indefensible; breaking the law in an apparent protest against an individual who it seems at the moment didn't actually break any laws himself.

It does nothing to help resolve the situation either, it is just pointless self-gratification for those who don't like Sir Fred for whatever reasons but many of us don't like what he has done but are able to express that a bit more articulately than through mindless vandalism.

whiteflag_3

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

.its the way things work in this country -- the establishment and the old boy network rules, including in government. When they say 'no reward for failure' it makes me laugh. If they took that to heart they could not in all conscience draw their own parliamentary and ministerial salaries and perks.

I agree with your comments , but do you really think we would be in a better position just now in the Tories had been in power? Cant see that they would have been different, as most of the bankers are part of their old boy network arnt they?

GeorgeHowell

whiteflag wrote: »

I agree with your comments , but do you really think we would be in a better position just now in the Tories had been in power? Cant see that they would have been different, as most of the bankers are part of their old boy network arnt they?

In terms of the old boy network, no, But I do think that they understand business and finance better than Labour does. They would not have been conned into this 'light touch' regulation (ie no regulation) business to the same extent, and would not have demasculated the Bank of England in favour of the farcical FSA. To those who seem to be saying that politics in this country is effectively a question of choosing the lesser of the evils -- I agree.