Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Calls for failed banker Goodwin to be stripped of his knighthood

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Scotland On Sunday site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 01 March 2009
SIR Fred Goodwin was last night facing calls for him to be stripped of his knighthood as the row over his £693,000-a-year pension intensified.
Scottish MP Jim Sheridan said the former RBS chief executive should have his knighthood removed and revealed he had asked the Metropolitan Police to investigate his former activities.

And Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy, asked if Goodwin should lose his knighthood, replied: "He's certainly not behaving like a knight of the realm. I'm not going to get involved in taking their knighthoods… but I do think it is immoral. I think there's been banking vandalism."

Goodwin, who has been widely blamed for the near-collapse of RBS and disastrous losses it suffered, caused outrage when it emerged he had received a £16.9m pension fund on leaving the firm. Goodwin has since resisted demands that he give up the cash.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown insisted yesterday that the Government would now head to the courts to try to claw back some of Goodwin's pension deal. Government sources claimed last night that the deal had not been approved by the full RBS board.

But Goodwin appeared to be continuing to resist the pressure, after arguing last week that he saw no reason to make any further "gesture" to taxpayers and shareholders over his failure at the bank.

Downing Street last night sought to play down speculation that the government had already begun to explore ways of removing his knighthood. Normally, such action is reserved for knights who have gone to jail.

But Sheridan, the Labour MP for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, said: "We should be looking to take the knighthood off him because I think people would have some difficulty referring to him as Sir Fred given what he's done."

He added: "I think it's only right and proper that the police have access to all the transactions to make sure what has happened is either down to bad judgment or incompetence."

Goodwin was given his knighthood for services to banking in the Queen's Birthday Honours list in June 2004.

Scottish LibDem leader Tavish Scott said Brown now had to explain his own role in Goodwin's pension. It comes amid uncertainty over whether Brown's City Minister Lord Myners nodded through Goodwin's deal when it was agreed last year. Myners insisted last week that he had been told about the deal on the grounds that it was non-negotiable. Ministers claim it was only in the last few weeks that they discovered that the deal was "discretionary".

Scott said: "I don't think the country believes them when they said they didn't know what the pension arrangements were.

"They've completely lost credibility on that. I think he should explain why Sir Fred Goodwin was able to stick two fingers up at them when they questioned the money he has received. The country deserves to have back the additional money out of the pension that the Government must have known about."


The full article contains 504 words and appears in Scotland On Sunday newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

RufusT-Firefly,

28/02/2009 20:54:39
How pathetic.

All Labour is doing is looking for a scapegoat to divert attention away from their own inept performance.

I am sure Sir Fred Goodwin will not lose any sleep if he reverts back to being Mr Fred Goodwin.
2

Observer,,

Glasgow 01/03/2009 00:27:19
1 I agree with you completely. Labour are trying to make Goodwin the scapegoat. Weird experience Rufus me agreeing with you an' all, you are obviously being faked.
3

rifkin,

california 01/03/2009 00:28:23
what about all the other "sirs" seems to me this fellow should not be isolated
4

RufusT-Firefly,

01/03/2009 00:29:31
No Observer it is the real me.

If Sir Fred's pension is to be somehow withdrawn, then Brown, Darlings and the rest should have theirs withdrawn too.
5

JohnBowes,

01/03/2009 00:35:12
This man and his family - those who will live off the money - will be hated forever. Whilst people/families are losing thier jobs and houses this man and his family will be lying on some fancy beach with cream around their lips. Whose money will they be spending? WHERE did it come from?

Think of the brave servicemen and women in Afghanistan and think of those who have been killed and badly wounded. And then think of this absolute maggot named Goodwin.
6

RufusT-Firefly,

01/03/2009 00:37:04
4 rifkin,california 01/03/2009 00:28:23
what about all the other "sirs" seems to me this fellow should not be isolated
======================================================

Good Point.

Sean Connery will be next.
7

Castaway™ ,

01/03/2009 00:41:02
Fred and as his £693,000-a-year pension, this pension is not based on his performance at RBS but on the rules of the final salary pension scheme (FSPS) which he didn't set up and he did what anyone would do and try to get the best deal possible within the rules of the FSPS.
If Myners didn't understand what was happening it wasn't Fred's fault and unless Fred or the RBS board's remuneration committee have broken the rules governing the FSPS he should keep his £693,000-a-year pension.

A employment partner at the London law firm Norton Rose, said that the pensions arrangement would have been formally agreed between Sir Fred and the trustees of the RBS pensions fund-which is a separate legal entity.
"In essence the company makes a recommendation to the trustees as to how he should be treated and the trustees accept or reject that recommendation. In that sense Sir Fred has probably been treated no differently to the vast majority of employees who leave over the age of 50," he said. "You can't do anything to change that."

P.S. Our MP's also contribute to a FSPS now is it immoral for some of them to accept this indexed linked pension based on their performance as an MP ?
8

Letters From Muscat,

edinburgh 01/03/2009 00:59:25
Has Fred the Shred

Gone to bed?

With Pension

Jangling in his head?

No said Fred

Not in the red

I've gone to bed

Not lost my Cred.
9

JimboJimbo,

01/03/2009 01:30:12
Surely Myners is the incompetent one and should go!
10

,

01/03/2009 01:45:43
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
11

Observer,,

Glasgow 01/03/2009 01:51:19
5 Still trying to get my head around this Scotsman site. So you ain't Labour then ? So what are you ?

What I would say is that MP's salaries are contractually fixed. In the case of Fred that wasn't the case.
12

Statsman,

Edinburgh 01/03/2009 01:54:09
16 Jwil

From Brown's perspective, it is a great way to divert people away from his own incompetence. £16m is a drop in the ocean compared to his £1tn worth of financial turmoil.
13

Statsman,

Edinburgh 01/03/2009 01:55:34
5 RufusT-Firefly

Fair point about Brown's pension being a reward for bungling incompetence.
14

Ex-Blootooner,

Halifax 01/03/2009 03:02:21
Scapegoat/witch hunt,, whatever.. If I were in Freddie's shoe's I'd tell everyone to go $uck themselves.
He didn't make the pension rules, he only took advantage of them just like all you jealous *astards.
15

Castaway™ ,

01/03/2009 03:13:18
#10 Flywheel, Shyster and Flywheel, WS, SSC & NP, He recently claimed that his ill-gotten retirement gains are derived from a Defined Benefits scheme.

Defined Benefits scheme - The most common type of defined benefit scheme is a final salary scheme where benefits are based on final pensionable earnings and pensionable service.

He didn't receive ill-gotten retirement gains because this is part of the rules governing the final salary pension scheme and he didn't write the rules for the FSPS but used them to his advantage with agreement/approval from the RBS board's remuneration committee.

Sir Fred told them his pension was "determined the same way as anyone else's in a defined benefit scheme". It is much larger.

P.S.#10-I got early retirement at the age of 54 years old with a basic final salary pension ie no added years just a pension based on the number of years that I contributed and my salary at that time which is much, much, much smaller than Fred Goodwin received but the principle was the same the pension trustees had to approve my receiving the pension due to my age otherwise the normal age of retirement would have been when I was .. years old.
16

Jimmy Le Pie,

01/03/2009 04:03:58
I have to laugh at Comrade Broon's mock indignation and empty rhetoric, which is a pathetic attempt to draw the blame for this depression away from himself, and his thoroughly sleazy and corrupt New Labour Sleaze Party, for the mess he has got this rotten union into!!

Has the IMF instructed Broon to sell of the Royal Mail before bailing us out???

What about an election, Comrades????????
17

Mark Renton,

Edinburgh 01/03/2009 04:58:44
HE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN A KNIGHTHOOD IN THE FIRST PLACE!!
18

Charlie Ferrier,

Hamilton 01/03/2009 05:07:04
Get Gordon Brown out of office now - him and the corrupt labour party in government and local councils are to blame for just about every problem the UK is suffering from. They should all loose their gogngs and pensions - so should all the senior civil servants who have been there for any of the labour governements tenure.

They have been firmly in charge for years - they did not govern on our behalf - instead they fed at the pigs trough - thats why Fred has a gong - he earned it and his pension.

Of course he was wrong in buying ABN Ambro but every owner of the bank agreed including the banks own employees through their retirement funds. They appear to have been conned by ABN which it turns out was in far worse shape than anyone thought. Go after the previous owners if you want someone to blame
19

John6,

Calgary 01/03/2009 05:44:34
Forget the knighthood it's only a title and not much of a once at that.....reclaim the pension money.
Even a rich knight seems to apprreciate his pension.
Ask him which he would rather keep his title or his pension, talk about a no brainer....



20

Jack59,

irvine 01/03/2009 05:52:16
Although I don't recognise knighthoods myself, I do think we should be looking a lot closer to the people and the machinations that allowed this (obvious) plonker to operate, excell and be rewarded in this particular fashion.
I mean, where are the checks & balances?
Not a penny should this clown receive and others beside!
21

Forward not Back,

01/03/2009 06:06:48
Goodwin's knighthood is an irrelevance, as is his pension, no matter how morally repugnant the amount of the pension is. The real issue is this desperate government's attempt to pass the buck onto anyone else but themselves, as they are as culpable as the useless bankers.
22

John Cameron,

St Andrews 01/03/2009 06:55:23
Gordon Brown has been at his most loathsome in the farrago concerning the pension of Fred Goodwin. It is grandstanding of the cheapest kind. Here is the clown who destroyed Britain's private pension system with his infamous Robert Maxwell Memorial Budget in 1997 – a tax raid which purloined over £100 billion. Now the Dear Leader of ZANU Labour wants to preach to us on the subject pensions and justice. Pass me the sick bag, Mabel. However, if Treasury lawyers are going to be examining the legality Fred's golden parachute, perhaps they could apply the same level of rigour to the retirement entitlements of this uniquely useless Cabinet including Phony Tony. That cringe worthy Lothario, John Prescott, is demanding that there should be no reward for failure. Absolutely! So can UK taxpayers have a partial refund of his pension pot, worth the equivalent of more than £1.5 million? And as for Bottler Brown – surely the worst PM since Lord North does not merit a pension of £130,000?
23

,

01/03/2009 07:06:44
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
24

Regulator II,

Edinburgh 01/03/2009 07:20:02
I can't help thinking that Sir Fred is being unfairly singled out here (although for 2 grand a day, I wouldn't mind a bit of unfairness myself). Are any other banks in good health just now? Did the government encourage what has been done in the banking system? RBS appeared to be one of the biggest so consequently when the world banking crisis kicked off then RBS would be one of the biggest losers. If we are going after Sir Fred, we shouldn't stop with him. Banking has been government regulated for some time, so as public employees we should be starting with them and the politicians. That would have a better chance of stopping something like this happening in future.
25

For Scotlands Future,

Vote for the SNP 01/03/2009 07:36:27
As i said before Rufus. People are starting to agree with you, and you have repeated my call (#5) that Maggie Brown and Darling should lose their pensions too.

You are in grave danger of losing your Troll status.

CAN ANYONE TELL ME HOW RUFUS MANAGED TO POST #1 AT 20:54 LAST NIGHT WHEN THIS SITE WAS NOT AVAILABLE ON-LINE. I CHECKED MYSELF AFTER 11PM.

HOW DO YOU DO IT RUFUS??

DO YOU KNOW SOMEONE INSIDE THE HOOTSMAN WHO INSERTS YOU FIRST COMMENTS BEFORE THE SITE GOES ON-LINE, OR ARE YOU A HOOTSMAN EMPLOYEE. YOUR POSTS ARE ALWAYS 30 MINUTES OR MORE BEFORE THE SECOND POST. LAST NIGHT YOURS IS 1hr 17mins BEFORE THE NEXT POST, POSTED WHEN THE WEBSITE WAS NOT PUBLICLY AVAILABLE

RUFUS IS NOT ONLY A TROLL, BUT A PLANT TOO.
26

W U Merchant,

Aberdeen 01/03/2009 07:48:35
Just how does a "knight of the realm" behave?
27

Il Penseroso,

Inverurie 01/03/2009 07:55:05
#6 JB You may refer to Fred as a "Maggot" but what has that got to do with soldiers in Afghaistan and Iraq? Now if you had commented on the "MAGGOTS" in New Labour who are responsible for the crimes in these two blighted countries that would have been o.k. Fred is being crucified for manufacturing a few quid for himself. Blair, Brown,Mandelson, Straw, Ingram, Reid, Foulkes, Prescott,Campbell, Hoon, Murphy, Joyce et al have the blood of innocents on their hands. Which is the worse crime?
#30 JC Spot on, and what about the criminals in the Lords?
28

,

01/03/2009 07:58:45
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
29

RufusT-Firefly,

01/03/2009 08:14:19
13 Flywheel, Shyster and Flywheel, WS, SSC & NP,Rufusville 01/03/2009 01:22:08
"If Fred's salary was £1.2m in the end, after ten years in the saddle, how come his pension pot after ten years is £16m?"
Come on, Rufus, pray tell us the answer?!!
====================================================

According to Sir Fred's letter, his pension does not consist only of RBS service. It is made up from employment with other employers as well including Clydesdale Bank.
30

RufusT-Firefly,

01/03/2009 08:21:00
12 Flywheel, Shyster and Flywheel, WS, SSC & NP,Rufusville 01/03/2009 01:14:39
Just a thought:
If Fred's salary was £1.2m in the end, after ten years in the saddle, how come his pension pot after ten years is £16m?
For mere mortals, the LIFETIME limit on pension contributions is £1.75m in the current year.
======================================================

You should not think too much. Your brain is not used to it and it may cause an overload.

Anyway, in answer to your question.

Sir Fred got a full pension at 50. When this happens, it is deemed that you have worked until 60. The calculations are therefore based on 20 years service not 10 years service.
31

RufusT-Firefly,

01/03/2009 08:22:30
17 Observer,,Glasgow 01/03/2009 01:51:19
5 Still trying to get my head around this Scotsman site. So you ain't Labour then ? So what are you ?
======================================================

Simply Anti-SNP.

It does not mean that all the other political parties should not be criticised however.
32

RufusT-Firefly,

01/03/2009 08:24:11
33 For Scotlands Future,Vote for the SNP 01/03/2009 07:36:27
RUFUS IS NOT ONLY A TROLL, BUT A PLANT TOO.
=======================================================

Do you not realise that it is bad manners to shout?
33

RufusT-Firefly,

01/03/2009 08:29:40
23 Salem,01/03/2009 03:54:57
Goodwin, by refusing to even consider a compromise on the issue shows he has no moral worth whatsoever. He has no feeling or sensitivity to the thousands he has brought misery to by his actions.
======================================================
Sir Fred will be well aware that if he agreed to any "tampering" or "changing" conditions of the policy, it could potentially void the whole scheme.

There is no danger he is going to risk that.

No one in their right mind would.
34

Ubi,

Edinburgh 01/03/2009 08:33:47
Laughable humbug from a government which has identified Fred as the scapegoat which might save its neck.
35

keyboard_supporter,

01/03/2009 08:44:12
Again more breathtaking hypocrisy from MPs' who think they somehow have the moral reserves to question fred the shreds knighthood (all the sir stuff is load of phish anyway).

Didn't see all the parasites complaining when the aforementioned shred was earning his nickname by punting thousands on the scrapheap in the "good years.

In any event perhaps we should punish people for past "incompetence" - the line of MSP's & MPs' at the local dole office will be large indeed.
36

AyeWeCan.blogspot.com,

Clackmannanshire 01/03/2009 08:45:50
That would not happen to be Jim Sheridan MP for Paisley and Renfrewshire North - the one next door to wee Dougie's seat and one shared with Wendo the wonder?

Do they not think Fred shoud be stripped of his knighthood, as they woud surely carry more weight with GB and indeed HMQ?

Of couse not - as they put the hapless Jimbo up to this on the approval of GB. Jimbo would not take a og without asking their permission.

The most hated man in Britain - or Paisley for that matter? Well it ain't Fred
37

carrottop,

Dumfries 01/03/2009 08:50:32

We are trying to teach our children to take responsibility, it would be good if 'Sir' Fred was seen to get the same lesson.
38

MNS,

Fife, (Dundee) 01/03/2009 09:04:47
This is a 'repeat' reply and I don't know the 'character' personally but the reality is that (I believe) - as part of the Clydesdale Bank, which he was, he was involved in the ultimate 'demise' of a 50+ year old (successful) business which employed (directly) over 120 people. In my mind the only motivation seemed to be for his own selfish ego. He doesn't deserve any accolades or financial bonus.
39

GrahamH,

Edinburgh 01/03/2009 09:12:10
Fred did not work alone, despite his position at RBS. Labour must be loving the fact that Fred seems to be getting blamed for bringing the economy down, not just RBS with the witch hunt.

Fred lives in town, we'll indirectly benefit from his pension so he is doing his bit for Edinburgh.

Politicians that don't perform get rewarded usually by a huge indirect pension by some posting as ambassador to some obscure sunny country or a seat in the rest home of House of Lords. Given labour relaxed regulation, hypocrisy and scapegoat springs to mind.
40

Daily user,

Queensferry 01/03/2009 09:21:01
What's the point of any comment here? We all know that this issue will just 'fizzle' out when Brown and his henchmen find something else with which to distract us!
41

blackley,

Edinburgh 01/03/2009 11:09:06
Why should he be stripped of his Knighthood? What's that got to do with anything?
42

,

01/03/2009 11:09:31
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
43

,

01/03/2009 11:10:55
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
44

jabberjocky,

edinburgh 01/03/2009 11:12:54
people make mistakes and i'm a bit tired of this witchunt which has gone no further than one person and not included the scotsman or the govt.
45

,

01/03/2009 11:13:16
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
46

TWC,

01/03/2009 11:13:35
You can't blame the Guy for taking his pension since that was what he agreed, but we can review MPs salary & Pensions, Council Exec salaries & pensions plus the Public pensions in general. I believe Council pensions are changing next month to a calculation based on 1/60th rather than that previously of 1/80th.
Who is running this country; more to the point who is paying for it?
47

The Ayrshire Bard,

01/03/2009 11:14:22
#49 Because it was awarded to him for his wonderful work in the banking world. Anyway, if Fred loses his title can Mark Thatcher also have his removed. The pair of them have highlighted the stupidity of the so-called 'honours' system.
It will be interesting to see if Gordon Brown declines his own pension as the cost of his stewardship of our finances becomes more apparent by the day.
48

,

01/03/2009 11:17:16
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
49

BobRob,

Nethy Bridge 01/03/2009 11:18:57
The fault was made by those who allowed Sir Fred to resign. He should have been disciplined and then dismissed in the same manner as a Teller who had pinched one hundred quid from the cash box. The terms of his dismissal including forfeiting pay in lieu of notice, pension rights etc would have been a matter for the disciplinary hearing not a matter of negotiation. The is no reason in law why a director is any differentfrom any other employee when it comes to applying the disciplinary procedure.
50

Bibamus,

01/03/2009 11:19:10
Agree with those calling for a lesser pension and removal of Knighthood [ which Olympic medals did he win by the way ? ] but 'Fred the Shred ' is not alone. There must be a large number of Financial 'Wonder Boys' who have used and abused other people and their money sitting on large unearned pensions - go for the lot of them I say !
51

,

01/03/2009 11:30:15
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
52

Shape to Shoot,

01/03/2009 11:32:20
If I was Goodwin, I'd leave the uk and go and live in the south of France...and do winter in Tunisia.

I don't think the loss of a knighthood would put me off my fois gras. In fact, I'm certain that it wouldn't.
53

Observer,,

Glasgow 01/03/2009 11:39:38
41 Rufus you completely miss the point as usual. Fred was allowed to depart as a ''good leaver''. In return for forfeiting his years salary (contractually an obligation and valued at £1.3 million) he was allowed to draw his pension at 50 (which the bank were NOT contractually obliged to do) thus increasing his pension pot by approximately £8 million, give or take a few. That is not a facility which they offer the average employee.

If Fred had been dismissed for gross misconduct (as he should have been) he would not have been allowed to draw his pension until sixty. If the bank had been nationalised (as it should have been) his pension would have been reduced to £20,000 (which frankly I think most people would find liveable on).

None of these alternative scenarios would have affected any other employee, who must be utterly raging at this outrageous manipulation of the pension policy at the bank to reward this man for his failure, and stich his mouth shut so he can't drop the Labour Govt in it for being complicit in the whole sorry spectacle.
54

TWC,

01/03/2009 11:45:21
61 Observer,,

Surely the Bank needs the approval of the pensions trustees to grand such a pension. ie Paid 10 years early and short 10 years service,
That needs to b reflected in the Trustee minutes!
55

Arthur G,

Glasgow 01/03/2009 11:52:05
Thr article I want to read would be entitled:

"Calls For Unelected PM Brown To Be Stripped Of His Premiership"
56

Observer,,

Glasgow 01/03/2009 11:53:31
62 Yes, the trustees would need to approve because if they pay that extra £8 million to him then they can't pay it to anyone else, so that would affect other employees who might not now get granted an early leaving date for health grounds etc, or not one that goes with a pension at any rate.
57

Highland Mist,

01/03/2009 11:57:12
WITCH HUNT. HUNT DOWN THE REAL WITCH WHO CAUSED THIS BANKING PROBLEM IN THE UK - GORDON BROWN.

Fred Goodwin is a symptom of the system, not the cause of it!
58

Observer,,

Glasgow 01/03/2009 11:57:42
63 You're missing the point too. This is not a witch-hunt. This is a rightful anger at the rules being re-written for Fred, which could have a negative impact on other employees of the bank. Why should he get such favoured treatment at the expense of employees who's very livelihoods he has put at risk ?
59

Observer,,

Glasgow 01/03/2009 11:59:26
63 You are missing the point too. This is not a witch-hunt. Fred is being given a benefit which comes directly at the expense of other employees, who's very livelihoods he has put at risk.
60

Observer,,

Glasgow 01/03/2009 12:00:08
Oops sorry for double post the first one disappeared !
61

Denis,

01/03/2009 12:21:58
Goodwin's pension is being used by the government to divert attention from its "Asset Protection Scheme", a potentially massive fraud on the taxpayer.

How much money is involved in his pension? £16 million, maybe £30 million.

How much money is involved in the Asset Protection Scheme? It could end up being £700 billion or more, and taxpayers could end up losing £200 billion.

For a start, RBS is being allowed to put dodgy assets with a previous book value of £325 billion into this scheme.

Nobody knows what the value of those assets will eventually turn out to be, but for some reason the government has jumped to the conclusion that they will be worth at least £282 billion, ie not less than 87 pence in the pound on the previous book value.

If they turn out to be worth less than £282 billion, the government will pay RBS 90 per cent of the shortfall.

So if they turned out to be worth only 50 pence in the pound, which is by no means impossible, the taxpayer would be handing over about £108 billion to compensate RBS for its own past stupidity, in return for a £6.5 billion "insurance fee" - net cost to taxpayer, about £100 billion.

It could be less than that, but it could also be more, basically up to a maximum of £247 billion net if it turned out that all the assets were totally worthless.

If Alistair Darling was running a real insurance company and took on such massive risks for such small premiums, it would quickly go to the wall.

And that's just for RBS, and maybe just for a first tranche of assets held by RBS - there's another lot, present book value £215bn, that RBS might like to dump on us later.

Three questions:

Why is there no provision in this scheme to ensure that taxpayers' money given to banks will be clawed back, with interest, over say 10 years?

Why doesn't the government insist on taking a first charge on their assets, to guarantee recovery of taxpayers' money even if a bank fails?

And why is the Official Op
62

Denis,

01/03/2009 12:23:29
And why is the Official Opposition adopting such a supine attitude on this?
63

ecosseman,

facts not propaganda 01/03/2009 12:31:16
FREDS-PENSION

SURELY AT THE MOMENT HE GETS PAID MONTHLY OR QUARTERLY OR EVEN YEARLY BY THE RBS STATE OWNED BANK,WHY NOT HOLD BACK PAYMENTS AND LET HIM SUE.
IAM SURE THAT WHEN ALL THE FACTS ARE LAID BARE IN COURT THE CORRECT OUTCOME WILL PREVAIL.

THE OFT SAY-IRRESPONSABLE LENDING IS AN OFFENCE AND IF THE OFT IS DISSATISFIED WITH ANY ASPECT OF THE BUSINESS,THEY CAN IMPOSE A FINE OF UP TO £50,000 WHERE A REQUIREMENT IS NOT MET.

THE SCOTSMAN SHOULD READ-OFT-INFORMATION SHEET-APRIL 2008
CONSUMER CREDIT LICENSING REFORMS

MY QUESTION IS THIS-CAN THIS MAN GOODWIN SAY HAND ON HEART THAT NO IRRESPONSIBLE LENDING TOOK PLACE UNDER HIS TIME AT RBS.
I WONDER?

LET HIM TAKE THE PEOPLE TO COURT,PAY HIM NOTHING TILL THEN.

ROLL ON THE ELECTION.
64

Dijit,

glasgow 01/03/2009 12:35:42
Public outrage over Fred's pension? Nonsense! This is simply a great government hyped smokecreen to hide things behind. We've endured 12 years of hype and lies. When will it stop?

Fred ran one bank with the full approval of the board and in the case of the ABN Amro takeover, got the approval of the shareholders. If he hadn't bought it, Barclay's John Varley certainly would have.
He was not responsible for regulatory failure worldwide. In fact he did a damn good job at taking a 5th rate bank & turning it into a great success with all the attendant rewards both financial for its shareholders and in terms of job creation.
Is Gordon Brown going to relinquish his 50% index linked final salary for screwing the British public, and destroying pension value with his £5Bn windfall taxes?
Will he undertake to not cash in like Blair who apparently earned £14m last year telling the world how clever he was? Answer the questions Gordie.
Lord Watson is still racking up expenses in the house of Lords despite trying to burn a hotel down. That is simply criminal. Gordon has not tried to remove his unearned and undeserved title.
Fred is not a criminal. Why do we love to bash people who try but fail?
Should we never get out of our beds in the morning? Surely it is better to have tried and failed than never to try at all.
Gordon you know and understand nothing. Your interference in Lloyds/HBOS screwed the former into the ground faster than any other bank. Explain that before casting stones.
You shamelessly hop from foot to foot explaining how it was nothing to do with you. Everything you touch turns to dust but "it wisnae me."
For once do an honest and honourable deed. RESIGN. Let that be the content of your Sunday call to Robert Peston who can spread the joyful news tonight.
65

Observer,,

Glasgow 01/03/2009 12:56:09
73 You seem to have missed the somewhat salient point that Fred's pension is at the expense of other people. It shouldn't be ignored because it is a perfect illustration of New Labour's ''intensely relaxed about being filthy rich'' attitude to the economy. They are and always have been looking after the interests of the rich, and expect the rest of us to pay for it.

Labour are not responsible for the world-wide depression - they ARE responsible for taking the brakes off the machine that was supposed to control it. Fred is an inherent part of the machine, as a snap-shot with what is wrong with the Labour Party he is as perfect an example as you are ever going to get. He has been gifted with millions of pounds of other people's money.
66

BIG EYE,

Paisley 01/03/2009 12:58:30
95% of RBS shareholders voted in FAVOUR of the takeover of the Dutch Bank which accounts for the vast majority of the RBS losses. Should they lose their pensions as well. What about every other director who did the same?

This is a stupid diversionary witch hunt disguised and devised to take action away from the real culprits who are Brown and Darling.

It will fizzle out as soon as Labour feel it has served its purpose. Don't worry Fred you will be getting your full pension..even though you probably don't deserve it!
67

Observer,,

Glasgow 01/03/2009 13:01:33
75 I find this cavalier attitude to the fact that Fred has been gifted 8 million quid out of the communal pension pot for ALL the RBS workers very bizarre.
68

jkr,

Lochwinnoch Greater Glasgow 01/03/2009 13:03:31
Of course Goodwin's title should be cancelled. So should the whole honours system. It should have been abolished years ago. I thought a Labour government would have done this when it was elected but then it found there were too many of their rich friends who would be upset if they did not become lords or sirs.etc.
69

Ewan Oosami,

01/03/2009 13:04:16
A knighthood for 'services to banking'? by the same token perhaps we should give Hitler a posthumus one for services to Zionism
70

Gabriel,

edinburgh 01/03/2009 13:13:04
Th Knighthood is neaningless in this day and age. What counts is money.
71

tommy,

belfast uk 01/03/2009 13:16:48
Lord ahmed should be stripped of his title for threatening to bring 10,000 muslims to protest at Geert Wilders movie and then going to pakistan and slabbering about a muslim victory
never mind those other eminent peers cash for questions/laws

Sir Fred is by no means the worst but good for a diversion
72

Charlie Ferrier,

Hamilton 01/03/2009 13:42:34
61 observer - i think you have missed the point - they should not nationalize the banks at all - let them fall - any toxic debt would vaporize in shareholder bankrupsies and the remaining good debt would be bought up by better managed banks - we the taxpayer would just be better off that way.

Incicdentally that would also have taken care of the Goddwin pension position. If anyone is to blame for that it is the board of directors and the pension fund trustees - not Goodwin

70 Denis - very good point - this bail out money would be better accounted for if it was in the nature of a loan secured against assets the banks have - 1st mortagee basis - this way the shareholders might be a bit more responsible about how their assets are managed.
73

Observer,,

Glasgow 01/03/2009 13:57:27
81 I envisage the banks as being nationalised after they have failed. Ground zero. That's what I want.
74

Charlie Ferrier,

Hamilton 01/03/2009 14:01:44
82 You can pay for it then - personally i dont want to use tax payers money to save some shareholders their fortunes. Better to let the banks go to the wall and the government starts a new bank with clean and availible credit - run in a conservative and responsible manner - which being any government you would not get
75

,

01/03/2009 14:17:23
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
76

Rock Lobster,

01/03/2009 14:21:42

Harman is going to pass laws in order to take Sir Freds pension back, she says its what the public want.

I take it that these new laws will also cover bogus expenses claims by MPs.
77

,

01/03/2009 14:22:17
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
78

,

01/03/2009 14:23:10
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
79

Maurice,

01/03/2009 14:51:00
This is typical britain. The man has a contract. Irrespective of his performance, if the government wants to reduce the pension that was agreed on then they are forcing the bank to be in breach of contract. This is against the law so the government would be responsible for that. It doesnt matter what the public think. They should never have been dragged into this communist bailout in the 1st place. Capitalism should have run its course then there'd be no money to pay for a pension anyhow so the only loser would be the banks shareholders (and sadly the staff) who were equally guilty of taking a financial risk that failed. These shareholders scored bi-time. After the bailout their shares were worth a fraction of the previous values. No bail-out meant they'd be worth nothing. But as a non-risk taker with the bank I am now one of their financiers. I bet the lawyers are queuing to handle his case. Why do the brits go against their word so religously?
80

John S,

01/03/2009 14:59:25
#81 Charlie Ferrier: I agree - If anyone is to blame for that it is the board of directors and the pension fund trustees - not Goodwin.

Fred could have had a RBS final salary pension agreement that would have paid him a pension of half his final salary after 20 years ie when he reached 60 years old, however as he was only 10 years with RBS up until 2008, the RBS pension trustess could have given him the extra 10 years allowing him to draw half final salary pension when he was 50 years old, depends on his contract with RBS.

Top bosses have amassed pension pots that average £3m each, providing an annual pension of more than £200,000, a survey has revealed.Some directors have average pension funds of £5.2m - with an annual pension forecast of £333,400.
Three-quarters of the directors surveyed were on defined benefit schemes, with the majority retiring at 60. But the survey claimed a lack of transparency in the reporting of directors' pension arrangements. Of the 19 financial sector companies analysed - 18 of which offered defined benefit schemes to at least one director - just four companies disclosed the accrual rate they use to calculate pension benefits. 02 September 2008::http://tinyurl.com/cbskha
81

Charlie Ferrier,

Hamilton 01/03/2009 15:01:35
84 &86 - obviously not much brain power to contribute then.

Clearly the government is going to bail out the banks with future tax income which it will hope to get assuming the country does not go bankrupt - but who will it get it from - our kids and their kids probably.

It would have been nice for the governement to let nature take its course with these institutions and let them fail. Capitalism is about letting the strong survive. This shows the sham of runing marxist policies alongside capitalist markets with no effective regulation
82

Dr Mike,

Edinburgh 01/03/2009 15:19:22
I don't think anyone, least of all the journalist or editor reads these comments. Or The Government. Strangely however, much of what I have said about RBS has come true. A year ago I wrote and questioned how a bank so heavily involved in the US could a) avoid the inevtiable downturn and b) simultaneously report £10BN profit????

Anyway, I refer to a poem I wrote on the 15th Feb in the Scotland on Sunday:


http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/13999/Economy-on-the-brink-as.4887469.jp

(If you google the words "Scotland on Sunday trouser millions" it comes up...for posterity)

and point out that, according to Radio 4, Fred Goodwin's annuity would cost the equivalent of £30M to buy at today's prices.



83

Dr Mike,

Edinburgh 01/03/2009 15:30:35
The future:

Stripped of his knighthood and his pension, Fred Goodwin will be a disgraced bad boy and so win a mega contract with the BBC to begin presenting "Have I Got News For You". It will also gain him an appearance in The Celebrity Big Brother House. After breaking down in the hot tub and admitting he's been a complete dick, he will win the nations heart and he will become a top celebrity. His new career will mean he starts his own media company and he will even star in a Harry Potter movie. This will make him millions and he will be knighted for services to entertainment. Such is the amnesia of public life. The future year is 2010.
84

Alasdair Roy,

Aberdeen 01/03/2009 15:34:16
This is getting ugly. The weight of the State is being used to monster and to whip up hate against one private citizen who as far as we know is not accused of any crime. He has certainly been more nimble footed than most in snatching an enhanced pension from the debris of his organisation. This happens all the time in the public sector with all kinds of time servers being speeded on their way with golden handshakes and additional years of service lacquered on to their already gilded, inflation proof, final salary pension schemes. Goodwin's case is only slightly more egregious than most.

It's a grisly sight to see Brown orchestrating hate sessions on the line of 1984, with poor Goodwin cast in the role of the renegade Emmanuel Goldstein. Very useful for New Labour to have such a scapegoat --- he's white and British and so he's a safe scapegoat. He can be trundled out for years to come whenever the ghouls of New Labour need a Two Minute Hate Session
85

Kobi.,

01/03/2009 15:35:20
Well said #93

Harriet Harman today:

"Sir Fred should not be counting on being £650,000 a year better off as a result of this because it is not going to happen," she said.

"The Prime Minister has said it is not acceptable and therefore it will not be accepted.

"It might be enforceable in a court of law this contract, but it's not enforceable in the court of public opinion and that's where the Government steps in."

It is official. We are now living in a fascist state where the rule of law means nothing and pandering to the mob is the basis for democracy. Harman is the most disgusting politician I have ever seen. Can you imagine the rightful outcry if Thatcher had said that?

If they do legislate to remove Goodwin's legal rights, then I am going to sue every last Cabinet minister to stop their pension. They are the biggest and most corrupt failures in UK history.

Mind you, we are all idiots, as we are being suckered into focusing on Goodwin when the UK national debt soared to over £2.5 trillion, and the furore started on the day that Jack Straw had to admit he lied to Parliament about the rendition of prisoners for the purposes of torture. All spin and bluster and we, and the dummies in the media, are falling for it.
86

RufusT-Firefly,

01/03/2009 15:45:39
61 Observer,,Glasgow 01/03/2009 11:39:38
"Rufus you completely miss the point as usual"

67 Observer,,Glasgow 01/03/2009 11:57:42
"You're missing the point too"

74 Observer,,Glasgow 01/03/2009 12:56:09
"You seem to have missed the somewhat salient point"

=====================================================

It would seem that the only person around here that gets the point is Observer.

Funny that.

87

,

01/03/2009 15:49:19
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
88

,

01/03/2009 15:51:39
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
89

Kobi.,

01/03/2009 15:55:22
#97

I thought the Scotsman was gutter press?
90

RufusT-Firefly,

01/03/2009 15:57:10
#93 Alasdair Roy,Aberdeen

Excellent point Alasdair.

Sir Fred's treatment is an absolute disgrace

What has happened to this country?

Everybody bends over backwards to preserve the human rights of Abu Qatada and Binyam Mohamed whilst at the same time vilifying easy target Sir Fred Goodwin.

Our politicians should hang their heads in shame.

Absolutely disgusting behaviour by

91

Observer,,

Glasgow 01/03/2009 16:00:41
83 You appear to be a dunderheid. Nationalisation is not about saving shareholders profit, or indeed allowing Fred Goodwin to depart as a ''good leaver'' trousering 8 million quid of other people's money in the process.
92

Observer,,

Glasgow 01/03/2009 16:02:01
95 Yes but do you get my point Rufus ? Surely someone does.
93

RufusT-Firefly,

01/03/2009 16:05:51
101 Observer, when you eventually make a point on these forums I will let you know.
94

Observer,,

Glasgow 01/03/2009 16:08:30
102 Ooooh. I'm gutted. Anyway rufus do you think it's right that Fred should be able to trouser 8 million quid of other people's money ?
95

,

01/03/2009 16:09:03
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
96

,

01/03/2009 16:10:58
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
97

Observer,,

Glasgow 01/03/2009 16:14:25
105 It's a blatant example of one rule for him, and another rule for everyone else. People wish to avoid that by saying that's there's a wider issue, which indeed there is. But a lot of folks are going to lose their jobs in the banking sector and are they going to be given this favourable treatment ? Are they hell.
98

Kobi.,

01/03/2009 16:16:48
#104

I saw Harman speak those words (the ones in quotation marks) this morning on TV. They were reported on the Sky news website accurately.

The rest is opinion, which I believe to be correct. Not nonsense. You might like to specify what bits you consider to be nonsense.

99

,

01/03/2009 16:17:57
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
100

,

01/03/2009 16:19:29
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
101

,

01/03/2009 16:26:36
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
102

Kobi.,

01/03/2009 16:27:19
So, by declining to be more specific, I can only take it that you disagree, and believe that:

1) legislating retrospectively to attack one person is acceptable in a democracy;

2) it is better to be governed by what the tabloids and the uninformed mob says, rather than the rule of law;

3) the government did not deliberately stir up the story about Goodwin on the same day that Straw had to admit lying to Parliament;

4) the Government is not focusing on Goodwin and his £16 million to deflect attention from the £300bn+ they underwrote this week, and the complete failure of the regulatory regime that Brown set up to prevent the banking collapse?

Me, I prefer my laughable, dramatic, low intelligence, gutter press guff.
103

,

01/03/2009 16:30:36
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
104

Kobi.,

01/03/2009 16:34:31
#110

It is official. We are now living in a fascist state where the rule of law means nothing and pandering to the mob is the basis for democracy. WRONG.

I am CORRECT, you just have not realised it yet.


Harman is the most disgusting politician I have ever seen. YOUR OPINION - BUT RATHER SILLY.



Can you imagine the rightful outcry if Thatcher had said that? OH, SHE SAID & DID MUCH WORSE.

Not on this type of thing she did not. You are LYING.


If they do legislate to remove Goodwin's legal rights then I am going to sue every last Cabinet minister to stop their pension. MAYBE TIME FOR YOU TO GROW UP, KOBI?


Maybe time for you wake up to the threat that this
bunch of fools are proving to be towards our democracy
and civil liberties.

They are the biggest and most corrupt failures in UK history. OH DEAR DEAR DEAR...THEY'RE NOT REMOTELY CLOSE TO THE THATCHER\MAJOR TORY BOYS FOR CORRUPTION. THOSE BOYS WERE MASTERS OF IT.


Don't remember Thatcher/Major racking up UK debt to
over £2.5 trillion because of their incompetence


Mind you, we are all idiots, WELL, YOU CERTAINLY ARE KOBI

I am aware of that. You clearly are deluding yourself.


as we are being suckered into focusing on Goodwin when the UK national debt soared to over £2.5 trillion, and the furore started on the day that Jack Straw had to admit he lied to Parliament about the rendition of prisoners for the purposes of torture. THAT'S A LIE, KOBI. YOU ARE LYING.


Just a poor naive sucker, that's all.

All spin and bluster and we, and the dummies in the media, are falling for it. SPEAK FOR YOURSELF, FOOL.

Part of the Labour lie machine are you?
105

Ronald Telfer,

Oak Bay, BC, Canada. 01/03/2009 16:35:38
Parliament is supreme, if the Government wants to take away the man's pension all they have to do is pass an Act of Parliament.
After all look what Clement Attlee's socialist Government did for Queen Victoria's socialist grandson Louis Mountbatten/Battenberg, in that case they allowed him to get his hands on money (Receipt in anticipation bill) and pass on his acquired title to his daughter.
106

Kobi.,

01/03/2009 16:36:46
#112

"In which post did I "decline" to be more specific?"

Post #109

So do you believe the opinions I attributed to you at #111 or not?
107

,

01/03/2009 16:42:23
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
108

,

01/03/2009 16:44:15
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
109

RufusT-Firefly,

01/03/2009 16:46:03
3 Observer,,Glasgow 01/03/2009 16:08:30
102 Ooooh. I'm gutted. Anyway rufus do you think it's right that Fred should be able to trouser 8 million quid of other people's money ?
=========================================================

What £8 million of other people's money?
110

,

01/03/2009 16:46:32
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
111

Kobi.,

01/03/2009 16:46:53
#114

Parliament has not been supreme in many a year.
112

,

01/03/2009 16:48:04
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
113

Kobi.,

01/03/2009 16:54:10
#119

I have been a visitor and occasional contributor to this forum for many years.

I also know that a favoured tactic of those who want to avoid a real argument about specific issues is to attack views submitted in good faith in derogatory terms e.g. as "laughable, dramatic, low intelligence, gutter press guff" without offering any reasoning or specifics why. Then when the original poster tries to clarify why, accusations of "straw man" are always thrown up, rather than putting forward specific reasons for disagreement and being forced to justify their position.

Oh, and name calling like "*rse" and "pr*ck" always helps move the debate forward.
114

,

01/03/2009 16:54:18
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
115

,

01/03/2009 16:56:06
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
116

Kobi.,

01/03/2009 16:59:52
#124

Before responding to your specifics, I await the courtesy of you responding to mine. I asked at #107 and you still have not answered.
117

,

01/03/2009 17:02:23
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
118

Kobi.,

01/03/2009 17:13:41
#126

Oh, so that qualifies as an answer in your world. OK, in the same manner:

"1/ In which post did I "decline" to be more specific?" OH YES YOU DID

"2/ I do feel sure that had Jack Straw lied to Parliament it would be reported widely. Agreed? Well, can you please provide a link to a BBC website report just confirming your claim that: "Jack Straw had to admit he lied to Parliament about the rendition of prisoners for the purposes of torture""

YOUR OPINION - BUT RATHER SILLY.

119

whomthegodswishtodestroytheyfirstmakemad,

01/03/2009 17:15:09
Goodwin was simply carrying out the Governments wishes, they allowed it, they encouraged it and they ultimately are responsible for the complete collapse of the Banking system. No amount of spin By Brown and co can hide this from the electorate. Labour are Finished, Brown is a busted flush, his so called economic miracle was a sham we know it, they know it . Call an election !
120

whomthegodswishtodestroytheyfirstmakemad,

01/03/2009 17:24:49
They are the biggest and most corrupt failures in UK history. OH DEAR DEAR DEAR...THEY'RE NOT REMOTELY CLOSE TO THE THATCHER\MAJOR TORY BOYS FOR CORRUPTION. THOSE BOYS WERE MASTERS OF IT.


Whether or not this administration are more corrupt than the last lot is debatable but ultimately academic. The fact remains this lot are riddled with sleaze.

And another thing those of you fon of diverting attention from present day misdemeanors by harking back 15-20 years think on this.
Yes there was corruption and sleaze in the Conservative government examples include Archer he went to Jail, Aitken he also went to Jail, The whole cash for questions debacle yep a few MP's lost their seats over it and were hounded ( rightly so) from office.In fact the cumulative effect on the Conservative party itself resulted in them being cast into the political wilderness for almost two decades . Theres a significant difference here because when I last looked no one implicated in the present day sleaze fest are ever punished never mind imprisoned. What does that tell you ?
121

,

01/03/2009 17:30:01
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
122

bully wee alba,

Edinburgh 01/03/2009 17:30:22
The Goodwin story is a complete red herring.

He was initially knighted by the Labour Government, who then insisted upon his early removal as a condition of them bailing out the failed RBS back in October 2008, whilst at the same time agreeing to his rather generous severance package.

Now that the details of this severance package have for some reason been leaked to the press, the Labourtories are full of faux indignation because their stupidity and incompetence has now been exposed to public scrutiny.

They no doubt believed that they had bought Goodwin’s eternal silence on the role of Government and the regulatory authority’s role in the demise of RBS, and are now engaged in a damage limitation exercise in order to discredit anything Goodwin might have to say on the subject.

This could be a rather interesting subject for a book by a clever investigative journo.

Scotsman employees need not apply.
123

,

01/03/2009 17:33:13
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
124

,

01/03/2009 17:40:08
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
125

weh,

01/03/2009 17:40:44
This could be a rather interesting subject for a book by a clever investigative journo.

Scotsman employees need not apply. "

Yes-they needn't apply cos they wouldn't have a clue what the words INVESTIGATIVE and JOURNALISM mean!

The words QUISLINGS and NEULIEBOUR LICKSPITTLES however, should be better known to them!
126

,

01/03/2009 17:45:25
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
127

Kobi.,

01/03/2009 17:51:24
#130

If you have not declined, where have you been more specific? My on-line dictionary defines "decline" as "to refuse to undertake, undergo, engage in or comply with." When I posted at #111, you had not done been more specific. (You still have not).

The fact of Straw lying was over every newspaper, TV station and news web-site on Thursday, albeit buried by the Goodwin sideshow (as was planned). "Inaccurate information on this particular issue has been given to the house by my department", is the polite term for lying to Parliament.

Back to the real story of this thread, and why are you trying to deflect the issue from the Labour Government so strongly, when even a child can see that a scapegoating exercise is going on for political reasons?
128

Kobi.,

01/03/2009 17:54:05
#130

If you have not declined, where had you been more specific? My on-line dictionary defines "decline" as "to refuse to undertake, undergo, engage in or comply with." When I posted at #111, you had not been more specific. (You still have not).

The fact of Straw lying was over every newspaper, TV station and news web-site on Thursday, albeit buried by the Goodwin sideshow (as was planned). "Inaccurate information on this particular issue has been given to the house by my department", is the polite term for lying to Parliament.

Back to the real story of this thread, and why are you trying to deflect the issue from the Labour Government so strongly, when even a child can see that a scapegoating exercise is going on for political reasons?
129

weh,

01/03/2009 17:56:38
Scotsman jouirnos are too busy with news to go off investigating some half baked paranoia."

The only "NEWS" the hootson prints is recycled from radio 4 and two days old!- and is usually of little relevance to Scots!

To find out what is REALLY going on here, it saddens me to say it, but you have to read the english papers-now thats REAL journalism for you!

130

,

01/03/2009 17:59:49
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
131

,

01/03/2009 18:00:46
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
132

Scottyt,

Saint Paul, 01/03/2009 18:01:39
Freddie SHOULD lose his pension; it should go back to the taxpayers.
I wonder how long he would try to live on my reduced pension since the stock markets collapsed??!!!!!!
His monthly pension amount would last me a LIFETIME.
AND, he should go to jail for his crimes; they ARE crimes.
What a joke the knighthood is in this case.
133

,

01/03/2009 18:05:00
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
134

,

01/03/2009 18:06:53
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
135

weh,

01/03/2009 18:07:27
then why do you come to their site?"

God question veritas-and the answer is simply that I do not actually READ the articles themselves(life is too short to read the ramblings of tenth rate hootsman personnel)but I AM interested in the thoughts of fellow Scots in the forums.
136

bully wee alba,

Edinburgh 01/03/2009 18:08:07
#135 Veritas (?)
It is mildly curious that the Scotsman “newshounds” managed to miss this story.
Perhaps this is another example of my “paranoia”

Sunday Herald (today).
“Cronyism claims over top Labour figure’s new job

City Building appoint former Labour general secretary to new senior management post

By Tom Gordon and Paul Hutcheon

ONE OF Scotland's biggest quangos is at the centre of a cronyism row after it appointed Scottish Labour's former general secretary to a newly-created post.
City Building, an offshoot of Labour-run Glasgow City Council, recruited Lesley Quinn late last year as its first business development manager.

Labour sources told the Sunday Herald the post was not advertised openly and Quinn's selection was made by a "head hunter", then signed off by management.

Senior staff at the quango, which employs 2200 people in the construction trade and has a turnover of more than £150 million, are paid at least £50,000, according to its annual accounts.

Created in 2006 from Glasgow's building services department and known officially as City Building (Glasgow) LLP, the quango has numerous ties to Labour.”

137

,

01/03/2009 18:12:51
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
138

,

01/03/2009 18:14:27
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
139

bully wee alba,

Edinburgh 01/03/2009 18:20:16
#147

There are none as blind as those who will not see.

Does the sand not irritate your nostrils when you spend so much time with your head buried under it?
140

,

01/03/2009 18:32:27
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
141

bully wee alba,

Edinburgh 01/03/2009 18:58:50
#149
I see.
Yet another unionist not up to the task of engaging in dialectic discourse in support of your stated position.

However, don’t worry about it.
You are not alone, there has yet to have been a unionist protagonist on these threads who has been able to make a robust, coherent and acceptable defence of either the sleaze ridden and corrupt Labourtories or even of the Union itself.

Basically you have all been found out!

Goodbye.
142

,

01/03/2009 19:07:29
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
143

Keith Lagden,

01/03/2009 19:08:28
wot lot o' tossers
144

,

01/03/2009 19:10:29
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
145

Observer,,

Glasgow 01/03/2009 19:36:55
118 Rufus - he isn't being paid put of the tax-payers money which has been lavished on RBS. It's coming out of the pension pot which ALL contribute to. That's other people's money he has been awarded, which is sickening when you consider that his actions have put other contributors to the pension scheme's livelihoods at risk. I would like to know on what basis that decision was made.
146

Observer,,

Glasgow 01/03/2009 19:41:25
131 Bully wee alba, I agree with you 100% the severence package was a buy-off for Fred to shut his mouth. The fact that Labour are using it as a diversionary tactic shouldn't make us lose sight of that.
147

Observer,,

Glasgow 01/03/2009 19:45:52
136 Kobi - the government have APOLOGISED for colluding with rendition. I think that's all the proof we need that at one point they lied, ie did not speak the truth. You don't usually apologise for what you haven't done. To me it is no co-incidence that this carry on has happened at precisely the time that the Straw man refused the information commissioners request for the Cabinet minutes re: Iraq either, but that might leave me open to accusations of paranoia. Well, sometimes your paranoia is real.
148

Harbinger,

Cayman Islands 01/03/2009 19:49:09
Dear Gordon,

Here is my address on Grand Cayman....have a nice life,

Your old mate Fred
149

lulach mac gille coemgain,

01/03/2009 19:49:42
King Gordo and the sh¡tes o the roond table eh?

Throw the lot o thum in the lake!
150

Observer,,

Glasgow 01/03/2009 19:53:00
145 Bully wee alba - that story is a bloody scandal. City building were only privatised because Labour privatised the housing stock in Glasgow, thus making the maintenance dept privatise too. Of course all the assurances under the sun were given about TUPE and all the rest of that rubbish, which was a lie. About a third of them are due to be made redundant - that is why they have brough in Lelsey Quinn to organise that and try and keep the Glasgow Councillors and Trade Unions quiet.
151

Observer,,

Glasgow 01/03/2009 19:58:18
151 Bully wee alba - Dialectic discourse and unionist in the same sentence is an oxymoron. We can back up what we say with facts, they have to revert to ''paranoia''.
152

,

01/03/2009 20:00:18
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
153

,

01/03/2009 20:01:10
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
154

,

01/03/2009 20:01:20
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
155

Observer,,

Glasgow 01/03/2009 20:02:13
162 Jeezo Veritas it was only 21 Feb that the apology was issued. I would have thought that a clued-up dude like you would have remembered that.
156

Observer,,

Glasgow 01/03/2009 20:03:35
163 What facts do you want me to back up ? The rendition flights or the City Building issue ?
157

Kobi.,

01/03/2009 20:18:01
#139

"Thanks for your dictionary definition of "decline". I was already aware of the meaning of the word - thanks."

Clearly you are not. Either you have not declined (so where are the specific points?) or you have declined. No inbetween position.

"Yet again - I ask you to tell in which post I declined. You CANNOT."

You do not have to have declined in a post for you to have actually declined.

"Are you seriously asking us to believe that the Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain and Secretary of State for Justice "had to admit he lied to Parliament about the rendition of prisoners for the purposes of torture" but that his lying was not reported on the BBC News website? Really?"

In Straw's own words: "Unless we all start to believe in conspiracy theories and that the officials are lying, that I am lying, that behind this there is some kind of secret state which is in league with some dark forces in the United States, and also let me say, we believe that Secretary Rice is lying, there simply is no truth in the claims that the United Kingdom has been involved in rendition" December 13 2005 (evidence to Foreign Affairs Committee).

Dress it up how you want, call it what you want, but he lied to Parliament and has been caught. He was made aware of it at least by 2006, his officials of the time say, and he should have immediately come back to Parliament to apologise and set the record straight as soon as he was aware of the lying. The only difference from previous administrations from all parties, is that no-one in this government ever resigns over lying to Parliament, as there would be a revolving door in Cabinet.

The question is, why are you trying to deflect attention away from Labour's culpability?

158

Stan Butler,

01/03/2009 20:27:15

One interesting aspect of the banking crisis and the recession generally is that the gnats have nothing worthwhile to contribute.

Their simplistic, monotonous refrain of 'everything will be better if we are indapindunt' doesn't really cut the mustard does it?
159

,

01/03/2009 20:29:21
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
160

,

01/03/2009 20:36:08
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
161

,

01/03/2009 20:37:14
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
162

Observer,,

Glasgow 01/03/2009 20:39:15
169 You will see from my post that I qualified lying as saying ''did not speak the truth''. Now either they are monumantally stupid and don't have a scooby about what's going on and don't know what day of the week it is and can't tie their own shoe laces, in which case they may have been uunaware of the facts and made a statement in error, or they were lying. Your call.
163

,

01/03/2009 20:44:29
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
164

Observer,,

Glasgow 01/03/2009 20:45:43
172 Sadly for Stan Eck wasn't running the show so he isn't culpable. Brown was and is.

A poster called Publius, who is no nat, got this whole thing summed up in a single sentence. He said that capitalism is a roller-coaster ride, but Labour's special contribution was to take the bolts out of the machinery. How right was he.
165

Observer,,

Glasgow 01/03/2009 20:47:01
173 Fact the govt have apologised for rendition flights. They did it, were caught, and had to apologise. End of.
166

ecosseman,

facts not propaganda 01/03/2009 20:48:42
#168
YOU AND YOUR LOT TALK NON STOP RUBBISH.

FACT-
OFT STATE THAT IT IS ILLEGAL TO OFFER IRRESPONIBLE LENDING,IT CARRIES UPTO £50,000 FINE WHERE A REQUIREMENT IS NOT MET.

WHY NO RESPONSE FROM THE LOONY LEFT ON THIS MATTER?

I WANT TO KNOW HOW MANY TIMES THIS ACT HAS BEEN BREACHED.

THE LABOUR PARTY ARE NO BETTER THAN THE TORIES,WITH THEIR LIES AND CORRUPT SO CALLED LEADERS.

SCOTLAND WILL BLOW YOU LOT AWAY IN THE NEXT ELECTION.

ROLL ON THE ELECTION!
167

,

01/03/2009 20:55:00
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
168

Observer,,

Glasgow 01/03/2009 20:55:29
176 You can explain you who looney left are another time I'm off g'nite. Fight with you another time Veritas, adios.
169

,

01/03/2009 20:55:40
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
170

,

01/03/2009 20:58:40
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
171

ecosseman,

facts not propaganda 01/03/2009 21:01:26
#179

yes illegal.
please refer to OFT-INFORMATION SHEET APRIL 2008
CONSUMER CREDIT LICENSING REFORMS.
IT WILL GIVE YOU THE FACTS.

ROLL ON THE ELECTION!
172

,

01/03/2009 21:05:55
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
173

ecosseman,

facts not propaganda 01/03/2009 21:18:24
#182

yes,check it out and report back.

roll on the election.
174

,

01/03/2009 21:21:10
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
175

weh,

01/03/2009 21:23:42
Oh, my vision is 20\20.

I see straight through the gutter press sourced drivel posted by certain visitors."

Veritas-well at least we both agree that this rag is "the gutter press"
176

,

01/03/2009 21:25:31
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
177

Kobi.,

01/03/2009 21:27:47
#170

"In 111 you said: "So, by declining to be more specific..."

In 112 I said: In which post did I "decline" to be more specific?

It's really NOT complicated, Kobi. Can I have an answer, please?"

So where in post #111 did I say that IN A POST you had declined to be specific? Fact is, I did not say any such thing in post #111. You are creating a straw argument. Fact is you did not provide specifics, so you declined to do so. It really is not that difficult.

As for "lying", Straw himself in the quote I gave you effectively said that if rendition was taking place (as it was, there is no doubt about that) he was lying.
178

,

01/03/2009 21:41:49
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
179

Beachcomber,

Edinburgh 01/03/2009 23:30:32
Another nice little earner..John 2 Jags,2 Pads, 2 Pension Prescott

Order Order

http://www.order-order.com/2009/02/prescotts-pension-hypocrisy.html
180

Kobi.,

02/03/2009 00:50:28
#188

"I have consistently asked you the same question: In which post did I "decline" to be more specific? You have consistently failed to provide an answer."

As I have repeatedly stated, you do not need to put in a post "I decline to be more specific" for you to actually decline to be more specific, by the sheer act of you not being more specific. Is that so difficult for you to understand?

"Repeatedly I have asked you to provide a link to a BBC website report just confirming your claim that: "Jack Straw had to admit he lied to Parliament about the rendition of prisoners for the purposes of torture""

I have answered that question on several occasions, but for the particularly slow amongst us: "Lying" - "creating a false or misleading impression" That's exactly what Straw did, and he failed to correct that in 2006 when he had the opportunity to do so. By his own definition, quoted above, he was lying.

Straw is a liar and has been caught. Associate yourself with him and his torture and his lies if you want.

You still refuse to:

1) be more specific

2) explain why you are deliberately diverting attention away from the Labour Government and what they have done wrong in this way.

However, in the same way that the Labour Government is trying to divert us away from the real issues of:

1) increasing the amount of UK indebtedness to over £2.5 trillion;
2) getting the taxpayer last week on the hook for £300 billion+ of RBS debts;
3) admitting to having assisted in the rendition of prisoners; and
4) Gordon Brown setting up a completely ineffective system of regulation of the banks and financial services industry and refusing to admit it;

by making us all focus on the £16 million pension pot allegedly to be paid to Fred Goodwin, you are trying to divert our attention on this forum away from Labour's culpability in all this, by focusing on pedantic points of who said what.

Well done. Mandelson and Campbell would be very proud of you
181

MattyMat,

So Cal 02/03/2009 23:23:48
He should be thrown off a cliff--- call him "Sir Bounce-a-lot".
182

Billiam Wallace,

07/03/2009 15:48:28
Too many posts to read them all. Has anyone suggested that Baron FFFFFooulkes-sake and Lady Mandy also be stripped of their nauseating titles? Ooh, I do hope so.
This clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5AeEqlwFmk&feature=related

always reminds me of thicky thick Gudrun Broon-Pants as Prince George and the Machiavelian Lady Mandy as Blackadder.

Saor Alba

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.