Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options

Commons launches ANOTHER bid to hide expenses claims

13»

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote: »
    Like I said you wouldn't care if it weren't a bank that was bailed out by the government.
    yOUR NOT MAKING SENSE.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm just saying, people who're are crap at their jobs are given obscence severance all the time. It's only "news" because there was an attempted bailout by the government. I bet kermit would have an example.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote: »
    I'm just saying, people who're are crap at their jobs are given obscence severance all the time. It's only "news" because there was an attempted bailout by the government. I bet kermit would have an example.

    so just because it happens all the time thats fine with you ? huh great now I come to realize why people get away with murder and these things go on people don't really care, its sad when people are afraid or can't be bothered to have opinions its so easy to say "oh it happens all the time so what" thats how dictatorships get a hold by people not caring
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yeah, salt & vinegar on your fish and chip?

    I didn't say anything about fine with me. What I'm saying is that it only bothers you because of the bank in question. It has been demonstrated that you don't care about context earlier this thread by Kermit comparing wages. Either it's ok, or it's not ok, it should make any difference because it's the government or not.

    What you're saying, or have been strongly implying, is that because it's the government, no-one should get paid anything...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    what I'm saying is its time all these low perfoming and highly paid people that are highly paid just because of their position should be paid what they are worth and they should be dealt with when they step out of line, if a private company wants to pay someone more than they are worth thats their problem I don't neccesarily have to use them but if the goverment or goverment paid people behaves in this way then I have no choice but see a portion of my hard earned cash go to these suckers. the bank failed our money is keeping it running and out of this money the guy is given a payoff thats enough to buy my house 5-6 times over thats great.

    the goverment is basically saying hey people want to rip everyone off and get rich doing nothing ? come to the top with us and your free, if you can get to the top....
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I wouldn't have called £60 grand rich. It's pretty good going, but it's nothing amazing, as Kermit has already pointed out. It's only about 3 times more than my expect starting salary and about what I could expect to earn in maybe 10 years if I'm not to great at my job. If I'm good at my job I could easily be looking at 4 or 5 times that. I certainly wouldn't have said they do nothing.

    As for the banking payoff, I'd bet that decision was nothing do to with the government, and everything to do with the way private companies work.

    Edit: Did you ever watch The Office? If not, sorry to wreck it, but at the end of series 2 brent gets sacked, he's incompetent, and a fucking joke (great tv though). He sues and gets a fair lump sum, for being a middle-management is a mid-sized company. You can't sack people anymore, because no-one can keep up with the paperwork to make it legal.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There are such things as contracts you know...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Even so, my understanding is that they don't actually help when you want to fire someone for being crap. You have to prove they're crap, and no-one does that amount of paperwork. Even if the crap-ness is mind-blowingly obvious. Like the company fell over. You say "that's your fucking fault" the crap person says "prove it" and you can't.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Not aimed at you Fiend ;)

    Point is that there are contractual obligations on employers. If this was one then there is no point harping on about the performace issue.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Not aimed at you Fiend ;)

    Point is that there are contractual obligations on employers. If this was one then there is no point harping on about the performace issue.

    so he doesn't go under for fucking the job up and gets pay off at that and at the same time 1/3 of northern rocks staff is being thrown out, I'm sure all that money he is getting would be of great help to those people that will be without work because of his cockup. if he had a half concience he would give the payoff to the employers whos life he has turned upside down, there are more things to decency and honesty than sticking to the rules by the letter.... very convenient. I'm sure that if built a building and it collapsed I would have something to answer for and some damages to pay for. if his contract states that even cocking the job up entitles him to the payoff then its a very biased contract oh but as long as its in the contract its ok with you, thats how dictators got power slipping in little things that giive them more and more power.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The rules that mean he gets severance pay are the same ones that protect the people getting sacked. They'll get severance too, or redundancy as it's more likely called.

    Or are you saying that as soon as someone earns "too much" then they don't get the same rules?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I say its time people take responsability for their actions, how can you get a heafty pay off apart from and already abundant pention for fucking up a job and costing the country over 50 billion pounds I think I will put in to be a bank manager
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I say its time people take responsability for their actions, how can you get a heafty pay off apart from and already abundant pention for fucking up a job and costing the country over 50 billion pounds I think I will put in to be a bank manager

    First of all there are a number of government ministers, plus the FSA that should have noticed this!

    And its not his fault that there has been this credit crunch, would have been able to carry on as normal had it not being for the crunch.

    You cant have people complaining about having payouts like this, then also saying tis wrong to have different rules for different people, when the rules that enable this payout to happen, keep the little guy safe, like has been stated previously.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The politics of envy are not something to be proud of.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MrG wrote: »
    First of all there are a number of government ministers, plus the FSA that should have noticed this!
    Yes, but they weren't the ones making the decisions at Northern Rock, weren't they? Applegrath was the head honcho at the time - he's the one who chose the business model that Northern Rock would follow, so when it led the company to disaster, it was HIS own fault.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jeez, that doesn't negate contractual obligations though.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    Yes, but they weren't the ones making the decisions at Northern Rock, weren't they? Applegrath was the head honcho at the time - he's the one who chose the business model that Northern Rock would follow, so when it led the company to disaster, it was HIS own fault.

    yes and he wrecked the company but gets a pay off, any contract giving you such sums of money after causing such a disaster to my mond is imoral, and to those who say ooh the workers will get redundancy pay, I say well guess whos paying for that, the bank has no money any money spent on the bank its workers or directors is our tax money, so didn't he have any contractual obligations to make sure the business stayed out of trouble I mean I just can't beleive it he totaly fucked the job up gets away scott free and gets enough money to set him up for life (assuming he can manage not to go bankrupt :chin: ) and people trhink he's in his rights, whats the mater ? do your own jobs pay you too much or something ?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Prove that it's his fault.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    well if your bank is giving away loans to people that can't afford it and you know and you do nothing ? worse you don't know because your not doing your job proporley. I mean after aguing that hes intitled for it for all this time now all of a sudden you think it might not be his fault after all. Well I'm sure a number of individuals are at fault but its his job to see that things stay in line.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So can your prove it's his fault?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Actually, the Northern Rock failed because the FSA didn't do its job properly. If it had done its job properly there wouldn't have been a run and the Rock would have been fine.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    thats as good as saying that crimes commited are the fault of the police because they don't put people in prison because they know they are bad, why does it have to be the fault of the people that were supposed to monitor them instead of themselves that knowingly did stupid things to make more money the concept of not giving a loan to someone that possibly/probably can't pay up goes back to 10'000 years ago but it seems that the rock has not learnt this basic principle of money lending
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Go and read some basic economics before you start mouthing off about things you don't understand. You just make yourself look like a cretin.

    The Government's own watchdog blames the FSA for not helping the Rock unwind its positions in secrecy. If they'd been left to unwind their exposure quietly there would have been no run on the bank and the Rock would not have become insolvent.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    Go and read some basic economics before you start mouthing off about things you don't understand. You just make yourself look like a cretin.

    The Government's own watchdog blames the FSA for not helping the Rock unwind its positions in secrecy. If they'd been left to unwind their exposure quietly there would have been no run on the bank and the Rock would not have become insolvent.

    yea a bank is supposed to know how to run itself you mean its normal a bank don't know when its lending too much ? I guess the guys are in the wrong business true the FSA didn't do its job but in a system that is even remotly close to perfect things should not get to this extreme, else please explain how it works
Sign In or Register to comment.