Whaddaya think the real story is with Goodwin's pension

Anyone with a brain knows this controversy about Goodwin's pension is being stage managed, so what do you reckon the end game is? A few theories:

1. Push through badly worded legislation allowing pensions to be stolen, then steal everyone else's pension - this is my preferred theory
2. Distraction from government's mismanagement
3. Warning to everyone else about to collect a big pension
4. Implement wage controls
5. Revenge for something or other Goodwin did

Thoughts?

Legally, I think that the government could be on a sticky wicket with this one.

Pension funds come out of wages and it depends how much he paid in as a percentage over the time that he was employed there. It's different to bonuses. Cutting his pension could be against his rights and Brussels may have something to say about that.

I don't like the size of his pension pot anymore than anyone else, but they may not be able to touch it.

It's perfectly simple.

Public opinion has for a very long time been shifting away from legalised robbery that takes many forms.

Goodwin, once he knew he was for the chop, has decided to get others ( chums ) to sign off enhanced pension rights ahead of his departure.

The man is a blatant crook and is not alone as this kind of practice has been going on for years...amongst those who are "more equal than others" .

If the govt cannot stop this within existing legal frameworks....then they damm well will with retrospective legislation....either way...he's fkt.

Govt by the way has no choice....if they don't act....there will be riots.

It''s only in the news because they decided to make a fuss about it.

There is an ulterior motive.

The guy knows where the skeletons are buried and 650K a year is a small enough price to pay to keep em burried

Deals already done, Gordons seen to get tough, Sir Fred backs down, and behind the scenes he gets a nice kickback. Its just theatre

I'm not defending the govt either...they are all equally useless...and will be chopped at the next election...if not before.

The UK government is showing itself to be increasingly willing to act illegally. Whether it chooses to change the law to bring its own actions within any ‘new arrangement’ is a moot point – as who will bring them to book? And the process they are using is to break the law – then change it to accommodate their actions. I thought the Lords/Commons/Judiciary was at one time sufficient in terms of checks & balances to ensure at least an ‘acceptable’ degree of democracy. But laws are being pushed through, which undermine the basis upon which that democracy was founded and erode the basis for those vitally necessary checks & balances.

As for Fred the Shred – yeah, but I think the basis for this is the one would most associate with government – lack of intelligence (of the data kind). I doubt anyone really had their finger on the pulse at that specific time. There was too much else going on and ‘minor’ deals about pensions were probably not on anyone’s radar. Fred waived his rights to a 12 month notice period and shares worth about another 3 months salary. The pension was discretionary and not a mandatory, legally binding agreement. Whether it legally binding now that it’s been OK-ed is a separate issue and the one which Gordo will have his legal hounds focus on I’m sure.

It wouldn’t surprise me if legislation were pushed through to give government rights to change remuneration packages post hoc, but that wouldn’t just apply to big names – nobody would be safe from any whim the government might have in the future.

I had to laugh at Telegraph headline recently. ‘Taxpayers to won 95% of RBS”. LOL. Makes it seem like each and every UK taxpayer is going to get a sheaf of shares through the letter-box any old day now. Dividends and all. How will they divvy them up – fixed number per taxpayer or based upon tax paid? Hmmm…actually – none of the above. The UK government have stolen tax from the taxpayer to bail-out this bank and the UK taxpayer will NOT see any benefit of this. Nor will they get ‘their money’ back. In fact, the government will have to raise additional taxes to cover this bail-out in order to pay for the things it had already stolen money for from the UK taxpayer to buy in the first place.

Revolution brought about the current Parliament. It’ll take another one to replace it. The longer it is left to go on – the tougher it will be to accomplish.

counter_violent said:

It's perfectly simple.

Public opinion has for a very long time been shifting away from legalised robbery that takes many forms.

Goodwin, once he knew he was for the chop, has decided to get others ( chums ) to sign off enhanced pension rights ahead of his departure.

The man is a blatant crook and is not alone as this kind of practice has been going on for years...amongst those who are "more equal than others" .

If the govt cannot stop this within existing legal frameworks....then they damm well will with retrospective legislation....either way...he's fkt.

Govt by the way has no choice....if they don't act....there will be riots.

Click to expand...

I agree with you 100%, I forecast a hell of a row, but like everything else, the government is being outwitted by crooks who know loopholes in the law and, with the money they earn, they can afford lawyers that you and I could not. It is a disgusting amount of money and it seems to me that he is rubbing our noses right in the ****.

Split

It's not a 'disgusting' amount of money really, sure it's quite a bit more than I earn but I bloody well hope I retire on more than that (although of course the inflation in a couple of years time means that will just be enough to buy a curry)... In any case it's definitely absolutely zilch compared to the total money thrown at the banks...

Something like this arabian?

YouTube - Whitest Kids You Know - Moon Bears

been done, I'm off to mars

During the boom years everyone wanted to take away banks bonuses etc as it was profiteering, now it's a different reason same story.

If RBS had made £billions would the Gov't be demanding he be given a bigger pension? I think not.

This was only leaked to the papers because RBS figures were out last week and somebody reading them would've found the pension details so Brown and his cronies decided to try and put some spin on it beforehand.

Woops.

In reality what difference would it make if he gave back his pension, maybe each taxpayer would get back 0.0002p of the money paid in to RBS over the next 20 years...WOW.

Is Gordon Brown going to give up any of his pension since this **** up was on his watch (much like Sir Fred)?

foredog said:

Is Gordon Brown going to give up any of his pension since this **** up was on his watch (much like Sir Fred)?

Click to expand...

No Brown's reward for fred's kickback will be a bunch of non executive directorships in the city.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the Government started making a big deal out of this (a story that the public/media will love) at the same time as shafting the taxpayer on the RBS insurance scheme. What better way of distracting people from the fact that you just wasted billions, than pointing at a villain who's running away with millions?

Something tangentially related from my favourite magazine:

Features: 'What is a banker worth?' by Michael Prest | Prospect Magazine March 2009 issue 156

I think there are two:

The main one is to distract the taxpayers from the incompetence (politicos, regulation and bankers) and the huge £325bn transfer of toxic securities from the banks to the taxpayers.
The furore over Sir Fred Goodwin's massive pension worked as an effective smokescreen for far worse financial news that the Government was happy to keep out of the public eye

The second one is where the population is beginning to be subjected to "PSYOP" concerning pensions. I hope I'm wrong.

"Pension funds come out of wages "
My understanding is that a substantial part of Goodwin's pension was non-contributory.
I'm really not sure why anyone would think the law and morality have much of a relationship, and neither with this particular government.

Anyway, I'm all for Goodwin getting that money.
After all it's a damn sight better than him staying in position and losing RBS another £20bn in 2009.
Cheap at the price.

Richard

A CEO whose company loses 24 billion, the largest loss in British corporate history and you are in favour of him receiving 640,000 quid pension, the argument being that it is only peanuts in comparison?

I do not understand what is going on with the British public, these days. Well, they say that every country has the government it deserves.

Split, I was being facetious !
Richard

Splitlink said:

A CEO whose company loses 24 billion, the largest loss in British corporate history and you are in favour of him receiving 640,000 quid pension, the argument being that it is only peanuts in comparison?

I do not understand what is going on with the British public, these days. Well, they say that every country has the government it deserves.

Click to expand...

kinda depends on what the consequences of him not getting the pension are, eh? It's very unlikely there will be no other consequences...