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
Hand back my pension? Piss off, says disgraced ex-banker
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
I had better explain what I'm referring to before Thunderstruck gets a heart attack. 
Says the Beeb: "Ex-Royal Bank of Scotland boss Sir Fred Goodwin has rejected calls to give up his £650,000-a-year pension. Chancellor Alistair Darling had asked him to hand back his £16m pension pot amid anger about rewards for failure. But Sir Fred rejected that request in a letter to the Treasury in which he also says ministers agreed to the deal. Mr Darling says that the government had thought the deal was legally binding when it was agreed in October, but now realised they could have blocked it."
Darling, you incompetent boob. That was my first reaction. My second was asking - why should Goodwin give up his pension? Yes, it's true that he well and truly left RBS in deep shit. No, he doesn't deserve his pension money. However, would you honestly give up part or all of your pension entitlement if you were asked to? I sure as hell wouldn't. When you consider also that the government wants you to give up your pension simply to cover up their own incompetence, all the more reason for Goodwin to tell his fellow countryman at the Treasury to get lost.
And you've got to laugh at the idea of Gordon Brown - he who stole billions from the pensions system whilst Chancellor in a scam that would have made Robert Maxwell blush with embarrassment - saying "nobody could support" Goodwin getting such lavish pension entitlements. Aren't politicians the group in society that get the best pensions nowadays? Where else can you get a final-salary scheme pension - certainly not in the private sector, very rarely in the public sector. Never thought I'd say this, but I support Fred The Shred on this one.
Over to you...
Says the Beeb: "Ex-Royal Bank of Scotland boss Sir Fred Goodwin has rejected calls to give up his £650,000-a-year pension. Chancellor Alistair Darling had asked him to hand back his £16m pension pot amid anger about rewards for failure. But Sir Fred rejected that request in a letter to the Treasury in which he also says ministers agreed to the deal. Mr Darling says that the government had thought the deal was legally binding when it was agreed in October, but now realised they could have blocked it."
Darling, you incompetent boob. That was my first reaction. My second was asking - why should Goodwin give up his pension? Yes, it's true that he well and truly left RBS in deep shit. No, he doesn't deserve his pension money. However, would you honestly give up part or all of your pension entitlement if you were asked to? I sure as hell wouldn't. When you consider also that the government wants you to give up your pension simply to cover up their own incompetence, all the more reason for Goodwin to tell his fellow countryman at the Treasury to get lost.
And you've got to laugh at the idea of Gordon Brown - he who stole billions from the pensions system whilst Chancellor in a scam that would have made Robert Maxwell blush with embarrassment - saying "nobody could support" Goodwin getting such lavish pension entitlements. Aren't politicians the group in society that get the best pensions nowadays? Where else can you get a final-salary scheme pension - certainly not in the private sector, very rarely in the public sector. Never thought I'd say this, but I support Fred The Shred on this one.
Over to you...
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
What is wrong with people!!!
the guy also passed up on his 1 years notice as well which would have netted him another 1.5m, surely this is enough
Its not like Mr Goodwin is going to be on the breadline, this guy is already very wealthy and can live a very comfortable life without £650,000 a year from our taxes. I wouldn't want to see the guy penniless in his retirement, but thats not going to happen.
Once RBS pays every penny back to the government it can pay what the fuck it likes to whoever it likes, thats then none of our business.
He should not get £650,000 unless tax laws radically change any time soon. £613,000 of that figure will be subject to 40% tax.
If the bank had been allowed to fail, it is highly likely he would not have received a penny.
(A couple of posters have said the amount is obscene. I cannot help wondering what figure is not obscene ? And how do you arrive at that figure ?)
If I had that money, and the government tried to take it I'd sue the fuck out of them.
Besides, they'll be getting nearly half of it back every year anyway.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7914000/7914254.stm
I'm not defending the useless banker boss, just wondering whether we can expect GB to practice what he preaches...
I quite like Hazel "Save me 'ospital" Blears nowadays, though. She's getting into a habit of criticising career politicians, like my own MP, who used to work for her until he was replaced by Sadiq Khan.
She wants to lose that Michael Myers mask, though...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7916215.stm
Anyway I don't blame our Prime Minister - he's not been in the job that long ... I blame the chap who was Chancellor of the Exchequer for over 10 years ... what was his name again ... :chin:
"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. 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 looks like the law isn't going to allow his pension to be taken away. Rightly so. So New Labour's favourite hag wants to have the law changed on the grounds of "public opinion". Funny how this Darien government only pays attention to "public opinion" when it's convenient, isn't it? If public opinion was the criteria, the likes of Harman would be burnt at the stake - which is not a bad thing at all when you think about it.
Then again, what else can we expect from a government which took us into an illegal war on the basis of lies, killing hundreds of thousands of people whilst at it?
And do you have no objection to the government vindictively wanting to change the law simply to claw back money from ONE person? I do - and I think it's utterly disgusting.
Just because the government fucked up the terms of the takeover, doesn't mean that the 'legal binding contract' is right. It's like saying that someone who gets a life sentence for something they didn't commit, should not be allowed to appeal because being found guilty was the decision at the time of the sentence and should stand.
The overpayment of his pension is more a fault of the governments than of the guy himself - but it doesn't mean its right.
So you think that the breathtaking incompetence of Sir Fred is acceptable to steal the RBS-accrued part of his pension?
The City Minister's attempts in the House of Lords yesterday to claim that he didn't know how much money was involved are laughable. If his version of events is true - that he didn't bother to ask how much Goodwin was actually going to get in his pension - then the minister has been completely incompetent and should resign.
UPDATE: Dizzy Thinks explains it a lot better than I ever could.
- Blair would be in jail for war crimes
- Brown would be in jail for raiding over £100bn from the UKs pension funds (Goodwin's sort of pales in comparison wouldn't it...)
- Jacqui Smith would be in jail for fraud after claiming over £100k for her 'second home' which actually belongs to her sister
- Prescott would have done time for assault
What Harman is effectively doing is trying to rush through legislation that would make a legally binding contract null and void, all in the name of 'justice'.
I don't disagree with you on most of what you say, SG. But you used the words that the government should not be able to 'steal' his pension. In my view, Sir Fred has 'stolen' his pension because he must know he did not deserve a payout on the RBS pension. Obviously, it doesn't look like there is any legal avenue to claw any money back but it doesn't detract from the fact that Sir Fred is a bit of a low life.
Not true - he was knighted for services to banking. Lying to the House of Commons now, Harriet? Not good.