Anarchists warn. "This is just the start"

treliac

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

But of course it is Brown's and his cronies' ignorance of economics, finance, and business, their stupidity, short-termism, and self-delusion, and their prioritising of political calculation (ie winning two elections on the back of the false, debt-ridden boom) over all else that allowed Goodwin and those like him to con them as they did.

Don't forget their over-riding and total ignorance of human nature; the effect of which shines through so many of their policies. e.g. 24 hour licensing might create a cafe society. :rolleyes:

The upper echelons of companies are indeed well populated by sociopaths, but so are the upper echelons of government

Too true, much to our detriment and why we need to have good regulation in place.

bluey890

mewbie wrote: »

Perhaps the News of the World can start printing pictures and addresses - "is there a banker in your street?".

Is this not the result of people watching Deal or No Deal and assuming they must therefore hate all bankers.

Except for Merve. We all love Merve. But he's a banker. Oh no. What to do?

We don't love Merve. he goes in whichever direction the wind is blowing.
Too little far too late from Merveyboy.

Next you'll be saying Fred Goodwin was a success, what do you mean you already did?

mewbie_2

bluey890 wrote: »

Next you'll be saying Fred Goodwin was a success, what do you mean you already did?

Retires at 50, loads of money, Mercedes. I'd call that success. And he's Sir Fred, not just Mr. Fred.

Meanwhile the rest of us losers, ie. not successes, spend our time wandering the forums.

bluey890

mewbie wrote: »

Retires at 50, loads of money, Mercedes. I'd call that success. And he's Sir Fred, not just Mr. Fred.

Meanwhile the rest of us losers, ie. not successes, spend our time wandering the forums.

he's plane old Fred Goodwin to me.

you think someone who has screwed the taxpayer is a success - i'm starting to see why this countries in the mess it's in.

mewbie_2

bluey890 wrote: »

you think someone who has screwed the taxpayer is a success - i'm starting to see why this countries in the mess it's in.

There's not one person on this forum who wouldn't like a big fat pension, who wouldn't try to hide income from the tax man given the opportunity. Who wouldn't do exactly the same as Sir Fred.

Would you give back some money if someone asked for it, when they had no legal right? I wouldn't.

bluey890

mewbie wrote: »

There's not one person on this forum who wouldn't like a big fat pension, who wouldn't try to hide income from the tax man given the opportunity. Who wouldn't do exactly the same as Sir Fred.

Would you give back some money if someone asked for it, when they had no legal right? I wouldn't.

i feel sorry for you mewbie, you have no morality.

zhe zeng wouldn't try to hide income.

mewbie_2

bluey890 wrote: »

i feel sorry for you mewbie, you have no morality.

I feel your sorrow brother. Can you lend me a fiver?

treliac

mewbie wrote: »

There's not one person on this forum who wouldn't like a big fat pension, who wouldn't try to hide income from the tax man given the opportunity. Who wouldn't do exactly the same as Sir Fred.

Would you give back some money if someone asked for it, when they had no legal right? I wouldn't.

You keep adding reinforcement to the case for good strong, clear and transparent regulation. We just cannot trust each other (or ourselves).

itsnever2lateisit?

bluey890 wrote: »

he's plane old Fred Goodwin to me.

you think someone who has screwed the taxpayer is a success - i'm starting to see why this countries in the mess it's in.

But did he screw the taxpayer? He screwed his employer and the shareholders that he represented. Had convention been followed RBS would have been in the hands of administrators, just like Dunfermline BS might be by Monday. These bailouts will all end in tears just like British Leyland did.

vivatifosi

itsnever2lateisit? wrote: »

But did he screw the taxpayer? He screwed his employer and the shareholders that he represented.

I don't agree with the bricks through the window thing, but I do think that the government owes a duty to the tax payer to fully investigate whether any illegal activity has taken place in the RBS fiasco.

This may be that some directors could be viewed as negligent in failing to acting in the long term interest of the company. It could be that officers in lower places in the business have committed fraud along the line of the case against Nat West employees involved in the Enron collapse. It could be that the payment of such a high sum to a failing director is not in line with the new Companies Act which states that the needs of the company comes first.

It may be that none of these would apply and the company was squeaky clean, but I'd have much more confidence in the system if I knew someone very competent was looking into it. It just feels a bit brushed under the carpet at the moment.