Fred Goodwin...sir

[david_carnell]

BrandNewGuy nails it. A purely cynical political act by a government desperate to add meat to the bare bones of its attempts to rebrand itself as the compassionate face of "responsible capitalism".

Why Mr Goodwin and not anyone else? Because he's THE name, THE face of this crisis more than anyone else. Whether that's right or wrong, I'm not informed enough on the economics to say. But politically, this reeks of Steve Hilton's influence at No10.

The dark arts never went away, they just have a new master.

Labour will need to tread carefully if they want to make political capital out of this. I would begin by asking by what criteria the government made this decision and when can we look forward to seeing many other knights of the realm being stripped of their honours for acts committed. It should, logically, be a thin end of a wedge. Instead it will be a damp squib of populism to quell dissent amongst the masses who are clamouring for "something" to be done and seen to be done.

If Cameron plays his cards right it will be a political masterstroke.

[Parkdrive]

Damian H

But what about the millions of 'Ordinary Joes' who lied through their teeth to get mortgages and cynically exploited a lax financial system to get hands on properties they knew they could not afford to pay for? What about them? I am sure each of them would say they are small fry - too insignificant to have had any impact. Yet they lied and falisifed declarations of income nonetheless, significantly contributing en masse to the collapse of the sub-prime market which was the catalyst for the global financial collapse.

First of all why was such a lax system allowed to be implemented? Probably because those that implemented it thought there was money to be made from the poor sods who saw this as the only way on to to the property ladder. As for the comments on here that many of us are jealous of these high earners, yes probably. But it doesn't alter the fact that the culture of paying people for failure HAS to end. Are these people vilified unjustly? Perhaps, but then I'm sure their salaries will more then compensate for the grief and I'm sure it goes with the territory.

[Huguenot]

Aha - well let's hope Hilton never goes for an honour himself considering his criminal record after abusing station staff after the Tory conference.

Those arguments sound like far more plausible reasons for Goodwin's defenestration than performance problems.

[Chippy Minton]

Huguenot - I'm aware you don't like my politics, especially with regard to industrial relations. That's fine. Many don't! I'm also aware you like to goad, bait and troll here, which I think most people can see through, most of the time.

I never realised you were so sensitive though!

Complaining about a personal attack! Come on...people in glass houses! The very first time you and I engaged on this forum was on thread where you ended up calling me "enfeebled and snot-nosed" and that I should "get a life" http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?27,669569,671405#msg-671405 (the latter of these personnal attacks I find to be one of the most ironic things you've ever written on this forum).

And to top it all off, you say if you launched a personnal attack you'd "probably do it better" which kinda proves my point that you need to get over yourself in the first place!

[Huguenot]

I didn't call you enfeebled and snot nosed - it was a description of your smart alec post.

But what the hell eh? A union rep being economical with the truth? Who'da thunk it?

[Chippy Minton]

My apologies - you called what I'd written, rather than me, that. Fine.

Who'da thunk it though - Huguenot suddenly gets a selective memory.

[Huguenot]

*sighs*

Whatever.

As you can see from the other responses, it seems I am not the only one who sees this as a politically motivated exercise.

Should they all 'get over themselves' too?

[Chippy Minton]

Quite right Huguenot, let's back back on topic and ignore your personal attacks and forget about the irony of you telling someone to get a life.

Should others get over themselves? No - they don't have a massively inflated opinion of themselves.

[steveo]

Bundle

[Huguenot]

You're entitled to your opinion - however it has nothing to do with what I posted, and the point I made in the post was taken up and reinforced by others.

So in effect you're saying that you came on to this thread with the single objective of insulting me?

You'd have to decide whether that behaviour was enfeebled and snot-nosed yourself, right?

Either way, to interrupt other people's conversations by loudly braying about your personal issues over the top is really the ultimate in egotistical behaviour. Pots and kettles here Chippy.

Look, why don't you just leave the thread alone and stop interrupting a perfectly good conversation about Fred Goodwin by indulging your self-loathing? I'm sure you're a nice bloke.

[MrBen]

KidKruger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Wow that's a bold pledge !

> Easy to pledge things that are not yours and never

> will be, 'as if' they were yours.

>

> Everyone suddenly seems to know how wrong

> (ex-)Sir-Fred was in running the bank, a lot of

> experts, who weren't posting a jot about him

> during his successful and golden period as he grew

> and merged banks, but, having read the papers

> suddenly have a heap of after-the-fact moral

> guidance to spew, very evangelic, like.

>

> The guy took risks and he got knighted for his

> success and the good it did the country and

> banking industry. There's no man here who can

> honestly say he would have run the RBSG group any

> differently or 'better' than Fred Goodwin.

>

> I'm sure theres plenty EDF posters working in

> banking or related positions who have seen the

> strategies adopted by banks (domestic and

> international) chasing ever decreasing margins in

> an increasingly difficult, complex and hostile

> sector, ungoverned by financial and Governmental

> authorities.

>

> Who was Prime Minister at the time that

> regulations were failed to be derived and applied

> ?

> Well sack him too eh ? And if it's been a problem

> of flawed governance let's strip the previous

> 30-40 years' ex-Prime-Ministers of their

> Lord/Ladyships too ?!

>

> Knee-jerk pointless gesture in stripping Fred.

> Solves nowt, worse, allows other seniors who

> contributed (across the industry and Government)

> to step back and look on with disdain as if it was

> all done by one man.

> Seems a really pathetic gesture, one that's all

> too easy to jump on and shout "yeah, right that'll

> teach him".

>

> Farm ? New Zealand ?!! Huh ?

All said tongue in cheek KK. I agree with what you say, the sometimes medieval vilification and wider systemic failure. The FSA have a lot to answer for as do the ratings agencies who are still, remarkably, viewed as a voice of sensibility. They all fucked up.

BUT...that doesn't take away from the reality of what's happened to Fred. He can't show face in an Edinburgh street without getting it. So yes, rightly or wrongly, New Zealand would be a smart move. OR he now opens the gates and figures whom in the establishment he can take down with him. Stripping the knighthood has set a dangerous precedent - Lord Ashcroft anyone?

[maxxi]

Seems to me the K has been removed so the govt. can be SEEN to be tackling debt and the causes of debt - which they're not - but in tabloid-speak they are - so we'll all sleep a little safer.

Will Sir Ian McKellen lose his if he's in a spectacularly shit play? Or Sir Brucie if he fluffs his gags one more time?

[Damian H]

Parkdrive Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Damian H

> But what about the millions of 'Ordinary Joes' who

> lied through their teeth to get mortgages and

> cynically exploited a lax financial system to get

> hands on properties they knew they could not

> afford to pay for? What about them? I am sure each

> of them would say they are small fry - too

> insignificant to have had any impact. Yet they

> lied and falisifed declarations of income

> nonetheless, significantly contributing en masse

> to the collapse of the sub-prime market which was

> the catalyst for the global financial collapse.

>

> First of all why was such a lax system allowed to

> be implemented? Probably because those that

> implemented it thought there was money to be made

> from the poor sods who saw this as the only way on

> to to the property ladder. As for the comments on

> here that many of us are jealous of these high

> earners, yes probably. But it doesn't alter the

> fact that the culture of paying people for failure

> HAS to end. Are these people vilified unjustly?

> Perhaps, but then I'm sure their salaries will

> more then compensate for the grief and I'm sure it

> goes with the territory.

Parkdrive,

Your response buys into exactly the scapegoating mentality that has been described and that I challenged. Effectively you are saying that the 'poor sods' are so desperate that no-one can expect them to behave honestly when they are given the opportunity to engage in a scam. This completely absolves those who lied and cheated from any moral culpability for their actions and blames those they lied to. That is absurd! It is the same mentality that says we should write-off third world debt as it's unreasonable to expect such countries to repay the loans they took out and promised to repay. It's the same mentality that says it's ok for people to shoplift from Sainsburys because its a victimless crime and Sainsburys are a b****rd corporate so they deserve it.

Yes, I have no doubt that banks entered the sub-prime market in order to make money. In fact, of course they did, they are commercial organisations. That does NOT excuse the exploitation of their products by dishonest people. If we take this sort of mentality of allowing people to shrug off any responsibility for their actions and simply claim 'victim' status there are going to be consequences (apart from the obvious financial meltdown). One, if we write-off third world debt there is just about zero prospect of anyone lending these countries a penny in future. They have got out of their current obligations but have made themselves credit pariahs in the eyes of the world. In terms of sub-prime defaulters - go ahead, blame the banks and march on Wall Street. The fact is that no financial institution will touch the sub-prime market ever again so those who wanted to get on the property market will be shafted.

If people act as if they cannot be held accountable or behave responsibility, if they default to 'victim' status the moment things go wrong, they will not be given responsibility (in this case that means credit opportunities).

It's one reason why I can't stand this 99% movement that emerged from Occupy Wall Street. The message from that is "we, the 99%, are wonderful, decent, honest people and the 1% are villians who should be hung by their own intestines from a lamp-post." It's claptrap. I have no doubt that a great many of the 99% had their snouts in the trough as much as anyone, just on a smaller scale per individual.

I have no problem with bonuses being tied to achievements - that is as it should be, but a great many people simply don't want to see bonuses to bankers AT ALL. Full stop!

In terms of whether people should take vilification if they are paid enough - I don't think that is anyone's job description. People should be held reasonably accountable, certainly, whatever their level in society. When someone is used as a political football and has their property attacked as an act of scapegoating for others to conceal their culpability that is unacceptable.

[MGolden]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Am I alone in thinking this all sounds deperately

> improbable?

>

> A hate figure from yesteryear is hauled out of

> retirement in order to be stripped of a knighthood

> for doing what everybody else did?

>

> I don't reckon so.

>

> There's something else going on here. Criminal

> charges pending? Threatening to tak another high

> profile job? An oustanding grudge that took a

> while to mature for doing something he was told

> not to do?

It may be quite simple really - Hester said he was happy to forfeit his bonus but only if Goodwin was stripped of his knighthood - let's face it Osborne isn't going to take any money off Goodwin so Hester wanted something and stipping him of the knighthood may have been all it took!

[Undisputedtruth]

Damian H Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

But what about the millions of 'Ordinary Joes' who lied through their teeth to get mortgages and cynically exploited a lax financial system to get hands on properties they knew they could not afford to pay for? What about them? I am sure each of them would say they are small fry - too insignificant to have had any impact. Yet they lied and falisifed declarations of income nonetheless, significantly contributing en masse to the collapse of the sub-prime market which was the catalyst for the global financial collapse.

I disagree. The 'Ordinary Joes' are the victims in this whole matter. Most of them barely able to read or write much less able to commit fraud on a massive level that caused a financial crisis not seen since the 1930s.

The Bankers and Credit Raters did not carry out their full 'due intelligence' checks. Mortgage companies mis-sold their products in order to get their commissions. Why they didn't do they jobs properly? Because they were too frickin' greedy.

Personally, the banks, credit rating companies and mortgage companies should all be investigated for fraud and forced to payback their ill gotten gains including bonuses. Blaming 'Ordinary people' is just plain disgraceful.

[Damian H]

Undisputedtruth Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Damian H Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> But what about the millions of 'Ordinary Joes' who

> lied through their teeth to get mortgages and

> cynically exploited a lax financial system to get

> hands on properties they knew they could not

> afford to pay for? What about them? I am sure each

> of them would say they are small fry - too

> insignificant to have had any impact. Yet they

> lied and falisifed declarations of income

> nonetheless, significantly contributing en masse

> to the collapse of the sub-prime market which was

> the catalyst for the global financial collapse.

>

> I disagree. The 'Ordinary Joes' are the victims in

> this whole matter. Most of them barely able to

> read or write much less able to commit fraud on a

> massive level that caused a financial crisis not

> seen since the 1930s.

>

> The Bankers and Credit Raters did not carry out

> their full 'due intelligence' checks. Mortgage

> companies mis-sold their products in order to get

> their commissions. Why they didn't do they jobs

> properly? Because they were too frickin' greedy.

>

> Personally, the banks, credit rating companies and

> mortgage companies should all be investigated for

> fraud and forced to payback their ill gotten gains

> including bonuses. Blaming 'Ordinary people' is

> just plain disgraceful.

Your comments are risible. Are you actually saying that all those with sub-prime status who took out mortgages are illiterate and didn't appreciate that when you take out a loan you have to pay it back???? Have you the slightest evidence whatsoever to back up that position??? Or any of the statements you make? Has it not occurred to you that when a large number of small scale deceptions and defaults add up you have a major problem such as the sub-prime crisis? And the allegation of 'greedy'? No 'greed' on the part of those who said "Sod thbis, I can fiddle a mortgage, get a house and worry about paying for it later."???

You say bankers should be investigated for fraud. What fraud specifically? Do you actually know the meaning of the word fraud? Let me give you something that would fit the definition - falsely claiming a level of income you don't actually earn in order to deceive a lender into giving you a mortgage. THAT is fraud!

You clearly have a need to engage in exactly the type of scapegoating I have discussed in order to exonerate the 'ordinary Joe' fom any sort of accountability for his/her behaviour and and THAT is plain disgraceful.

You really should change your Username, you know.

[indiepanda]

maxxi Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Seems to me the K has been removed so the govt.

> can be SEEN to be tackling debt and the causes of

> debt - which they're not - but in tabloid-speak

> they are - so we'll all sleep a little safer.

>

> Will Sir Ian McKellen lose his if he's in a

> spectacularly shit play? Or Sir Brucie if he

> fluffs his gags one more time?

While I agree that removing Fred's knighthood is hardly solving the banking industries problem, I think comparing the mess he presided over and was handsomely remunerated for to a poor play is an unfair comparison (to be fair - I suspect you were being a flippant!)

If I see McKellen in a rubbish play I've lost an evening of my life and the cost of the ticket / travel etc. But the costs of bailing out RBS has hit all of us whether we have done business with them or not.

To be honest I think the whole honours system is crazy. I'd like to see people rewarded through for doing something other than a job that they are already well rewarded for - people who have done great work for charity for example.

How people life Jeffery Archer kept their knighthoods after being to prison is beyond me, Goodwin's far from the only one to have brought the system into disrepute....

[Damian H]

indiepanda Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> maxxi Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Seems to me the K has been removed so the govt.

> > can be SEEN to be tackling debt and the causes

> of

> > debt - which they're not - but in tabloid-speak

> > they are - so we'll all sleep a little safer.

> >

> > Will Sir Ian McKellen lose his if he's in a

> > spectacularly shit play? Or Sir Brucie if he

> > fluffs his gags one more time?

>

> While I agree that removing Fred's knighthood is

> hardly solving the banking industries problem, I

> think comparing the mess he presided over and was

> handsomely remunerated for to a poor play is an

> unfair comparison (to be fair - I suspect you were

> being a flippant!)

>

> If I see McKellen in a rubbish play I've lost an

> evening of my life and the cost of the ticket /

> travel etc. But the costs of bailing out RBS has

> hit all of us whether we have done business with

> them or not.

>

> To be honest I think the whole honours system is

> crazy. I'd like to see people rewarded through for

> doing something other than a job that they are

> already well rewarded for - people who have done

> great work for charity for example.

>

> How people life Jeffery Archer kept their

> knighthoods after being to prison is beyond me,

> Goodwin's far from the only one to have brought

> the system into disrepute....

Probably a wiser alternative would have been not to bail ANY of the banks out at all and let them go down the tubes. That really would be the only way for the market to correct itself and for an appropriately salutary warning to be given to those who take excessive risk.

[Damian H]

Undisputedtruth Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Damian H Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> But what about the millions of 'Ordinary Joes' who

> lied through their teeth to get mortgages and

> cynically exploited a lax financial system to get

> hands on properties they knew they could not

> afford to pay for? What about them? I am sure each

> of them would say they are small fry - too

> insignificant to have had any impact. Yet they

> lied and falisifed declarations of income

> nonetheless, significantly contributing en masse

> to the collapse of the sub-prime market which was

> the catalyst for the global financial collapse.

>

> I disagree. The 'Ordinary Joes' are the victims in

> this whole matter. Most of them barely able to

> read or write much less able to commit fraud on a

> massive level that caused a financial crisis not

> seen since the 1930s.

>

> The Bankers and Credit Raters did not carry out

> their full 'due intelligence' checks. Mortgage

> companies mis-sold their products in order to get

> their commissions. Why they didn't do they jobs

> properly? Because they were too frickin' greedy.

>

> Personally, the banks, credit rating companies and

> mortgage companies should all be investigated for

> fraud and forced to payback their ill gotten gains

> including bonuses. Blaming 'Ordinary people' is

> just plain disgraceful.

And if you want to talk about 'greed' perhaps you should consider that the sub-prime catastrophe was significantly influenced by the huge increase of 'Ordinary Joes' taking our mortgages, not to buy a primary place of residence, but as investment properties because they thought the house-price bubble would continue to grow and they could make money for nothing by buying and then flipping their properties for profit. If a financial company behaved like that you would doubtless describe it as 'frickin gree' but when it is an OrdinaryJoe they are....a victim????

And I suppose you would have us believe that these Ordinary Joes who were amateur DIY property speculators were all illiterate and ddn't know what they were doing? That an evil mortgage salesman put a gun to their head and said "I know you already have a home but why not go out and buy more properties for rental or for flipping?"

EVERYONE was looking to make money and the OrdinaryJoe was just as 'gredy' and irresponsible and ofen downright fraudulently dishonest as any bank, but you have a need to get them off the hook and scapegoat the faceless corporations.

[maxxi]

indiepanda Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I suspect you were

> being a flippant!

>

Damn you Poirot!

I'd like to see people rewarded through for

> doing something other than a job that they are

> already well rewarded for - people who have done

> great work for charity for example.

Yes but what happens if they start acting like arseholes and make life a misery for people without actually breaking any laws - do they lose theirs too? Is that the criteria?

Knighthoods are sweeties given out by the govt. to either:

sad little men and women who believe their lives are enriched by having one and so bribe, fawn, blackmail and grovel, their way to one

OR: People who have achieved something out-of-the-ordinary or committed themselves selflessly to some cause or other (or are seen as VERY popular by the govt. by dint of having achieved something which attracts wide acclaim) so that they are rewarded in the hope that the affection people feel for this person or the knowledge of their good deeds will promote a feeling of beneficence which will rub off on parliament.

>

> How people life Jeffery Archer kept their

> knighthoods after being to prison is beyond me,

> Goodwin's far from the only one to have brought

> the system into disrepute....

Because no one really cared about knighthoods at the time and it is only now that we are all wondering what Cameron and his chums are going to DO about the mess their mates got us into that straws are being grabbed at, camels crippled and headlines manufactured.

Goodwin loses Knighthood?! Phew, that's alright then.

[ibilly99]

Wouldn't p*ss on him if he was on fire may he rot in hell with the rest of the venal b*stards - hats off to the Jimmy who did this ...

http://images.mirror.co.uk/upl/m4/mar2009/2/0/sir-fred-goodwin-s-house-vandalised-pic-getty-image-1-860305500.jpg

[Jeremy]

DamianH, you are right in that people taking out unrealistic mortgages were a part of the problem, but financial institutions have an obligation (moral and legal) to provide products/services that are suitable for the customer.

[Mick Mac]

Sir Sub Prime (US citizen) should have lost his knighthood. It's all his fault.

[Annette Curtain]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> BrandNewGuy nails it. A purely cynical political

> act by a government desperate to add meat to the

> bare bones of its attempts to rebrand itself as

> the compassionate face of "responsible

> capitalism".

>

> Why Mr Goodwin and not anyone else? Because he's

> THE name, THE face of this crisis more than anyone

> else. Whether that's right or wrong, I'm not

> informed enough on the economics to say. But

> politically, this reeks of Steve Hilton's

> influence at No10.

>

> The dark arts never went away, they just have a

> new master.

>

> Labour will need to tread carefully if they want

> to make political capital out of this. I would

> begin by asking by what criteria the government

> made this decision and when can we look forward to

> seeing many other knights of the realm being

> stripped of their honours for acts committed. It

> should, logically, be a thin end of a wedge.

> Instead it will be a damp squib of populism to

> quell dissent amongst the masses who are

> clamouring for "something" to be done and seen to

> be done.

>

> If Cameron plays his cards right it will be a

> political masterstroke.

If not..

"It's Clegg's fault"

So win-win all round for Dave.

Anyway, this is all a smoke-screen for the reforms to welfare, by using the litte known parliamentary procedure device, the coalition have effectively wrenched the arms up the back of the Lords.

Getting the Queen to stab ol' DEAD FRED in the face was a theatrical device of little merit, like a little pyrotechnics while they move the set.

"Ooooo look at the pretty sparks"

NETTE:-S

( oh and while we're at it, give Mervin King a front wedgie )

[Undisputedtruth]

Innocent victims of the subprime crisis