Comments on: Sir Fred’s pension – protected by Human Rights?

By: The Rule of Law at Usefully Employed

The Rule of Law at Usefully Employed — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 10:14:17 +0000

[...] of course, couldn’t help but refer back to Harriet Harman’s evocation of the dreaded Court of Public Opinion… Share this [...]

By: stunned

stunned — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 15:32:55 +0000

simply wondered is a frikking genius.

By: Issue #6: 8th March 2009 « Insitelaw magazine

Issue #6: 8th March 2009 « Insitelaw magazine — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 06:23:22 +0000

[...] Usefully Employed: Sir Fred’s pension – protected by Human Rights? [...]

By: Usefully Employed

Usefully Employed — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 22:09:40 +0000

Check out Head of Legal's opinion that we can take his pension: Grabbing Sir Fred Goodwin's pension

By: simply wondered

simply wondered — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 16:54:56 +0000

‘So… what would you see done, and by what means?’

oh belling the cat!!!! that’s a bit of a bugger.
i personally would acknowledge that banks are now nationalised and bollocks to the daily male. i would work out what is due to whom and on what terms. i would accept that as they signed contracts for various things they can thumb their noses at us and we have to hold ours. they will get what they signed up for – but i would put some bloody bright people onto working out what we do and don’t have to give them and make sure we give them no more than is in their contract (the pound of flesh without the scruple of blood).
i would attempt to change the culture of these bodies. it won’t win me any votes and it will make these every rich and powerful people squeal, but as i’m not real i can’t be hoofed out of office by the backlash. where legal i will seek to renegotiate what can be renegotiated (limited probably) and take out incentives for the kind of behaviour. i will abnadon the notion that to get the best you have to give them topo whack and allow them to rape virgins on the sly. if they can find jobs that pay better they can go and do them. they will still be well rewarded. if there is scaremongering of the brightest and best will flee to where they can rape virgins then i will comfort myself with the fact that the second-best and second brightest can probably not make more of a mess than they had and that we will at least be losing the greediest and most myopic from our society and a bloody good thing too. but greed won’t be muzzled overnight. will it send our economy down the pan? how will we notice?

i know it’s short on detail but i’m not an economist (had you noticed? i’m shocked!). i will in general do things that are prospective; i will not use the law to serve short term aims; i will attempt to incentivise behaviour that can build rather than break. and all tories will be shot – natch.

what would you do? we need people to start believing in something beyond the self and that is a big ask. because even today when lots of people have lost lots of money, we are still largely too bloody rich in material things and too slow to think beyond that.

By: Usefully Employed

Usefully Employed — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 11:48:35 +0000

So… what would you see done, and by what means?

By: simply wondered

simply wondered — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 11:04:54 +0000

actually i think finkelstein has it entirely arse about face. i agree rather with the commenter who says that he would be rather more ‘populist’ in his views if it was some dodgy member of the working class who had done this.
the real point (god i mistrust people who say that!) is that we know he has done stuff we don’t like and on the facts we know it looks like nothing can be done about it legally. so we vent and want to do illegal stuff like take things that are contractually his. while harman put it dreadfully (‘we’re the govt we can break the law’ doesn’t really cut it) it is clear the court of public opinion does want something done, and they are right to want it done. the challenge is to avoid ‘something must be done’ mentality and appraoch the problem in the round and uninfluenced by the particular instance (goodwin) that has triggered our very proper ire.
finkelstein doesn’t address that and my knee-jerk reaction is that of course he wouldn’t as he is of the banker class and why would he turn on his own. once we break down these stupid lines we can make the law and society more responsive to genuine desires for honesty and fairness. cos one thing this whole fracas ain’t, is fair. and upon a general belief in fairness, i submit, sits the whole rule of law.

By: Usefully Employed

Usefully Employed — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 16:56:45 +0000

See Daniel Finkelstein's column, which words the whole thing rather well.

By: simply wondered

simply wondered — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 14:23:47 +0000

sadly, nemo, the first one actually meant it.

By: Brown seeks Obama lift as markets nosedive « Insitelaw magazine

Brown seeks Obama lift as markets nosedive « Insitelaw magazine — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 07:38:30 +0000

[...] Usefully Employed: Sir Fred’s pension – protected by Human Rights? [...]