Now that Fred the Shred has lost his gong, who else should and why?
Follow this topic
Q&A » Rip offs
Retweet
Comments (
FacebookComments (37)
-
174JoeEasedale postedFollow this topicFollowing this topic Q&A » Rip offs
Now that Fred the Shred has lost his gong, who else should and why?
-----------------------------
Hi Mike,
All the people who reccomended the shred in the first place, and Broon should be especially denied his automatic elevation to the House of Lords for presiding over no more boom and bust.
Posted on 01 February 2012 |
Love 1 love
Report
-
30John Fitzsimons posted
Do we even need an honours system anyway?
Posted on 01 February 2012 | Love 0 loves
Report
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
77
-
8
-
2
-
2
-
6
-
4starseed posted
so why pick on Fred alone,
he was reckless aided by lax governments, who were even more reckless with their borrowings than him who caused the problem we have today , re Brown etc who will receive indexed linked pensions at your expense .
it ain,t the banks / bonuses it,s the assholes who ru(i)n the country namely politicians
Posted on 01 February 2012 | Love 2 loves
Report
-
51Ben Hall posted
I'm all for recognizing those who have made worthy contributions to society...I draw the line at rock 'n' roll singers like Mick Jagger, though, and creatures like Blair and Brown who are just as guilty of gross mismanagement as Fred Goodwin.
Posted on 01 February 2012 | Love 1 love
Report
-
643electricblue posted
All the useless champagne Socialists such as Blair and Prescott should be first in line. Whatever your view on politics and politicians the hypocrisy of those claiming to be representing the working classes and yet devoting a whole political career to simultaneously lining their own and their family pockets while slagging off the 'rich' has to be the biggest crime against the population of the UK.
Posted on 01 February 2012 | Love 3 loves
Report
-
17Ripped off posted
Ok now the nighthood farce is sorted what about the fat pension he rigged up. That should be next. Then if it can be proved he was in on the downfall of the bank, Goodwin and all his oppo's should have all their assets taken as a warning to other get rich quick shysters no longer will they be tolorated.
Posted on 01 February 2012 | Love 2 loves
Report
-
4marcus1 posted
Clydesdale staff ‘celebrated for three days’ when Goodwin left for RBS
IN MY OPINION (AND MY FAMILY BUSINESS - SUCCESSFUL FOR OVER 50 YEARS) MY FATHER FOUGHT IN WW2 - THE COMPANY WENT OUT OF BUSINESS DUE TO GOODWIN'S 'HOSTILITY' AND 'MISTAKEN DECISIONS TO FORWARD HIS 'OWN' BLOODY CAREER - HE SHOULD BE 'JAILED'!!!!
Posted on 01 February 2012 | Love 4 loves
Report
-
4marcus1 posted
Clydesdale staff ‘celebrated for three days’ when Goodwin left for RBS
IN MY OPINION (AND MY FAMILY BUSINESS - SUCCESSFUL FOR OVER 50 YEARS) MY FATHER FOUGHT IN WW2 - THE COMPANY WENT OUT OF BUSINESS DUE TO GOODWIN'S 'HOSTILITY' AND 'MISTAKEN DECISIONS TO FORWARD HIS 'OWN' BLOODY CAREER - HE SHOULD BE 'JAILED'!!!!
Posted on 01 February 2012 | Love 0 loves
Report
-
54sludgeguts posted
They should stop handing out accolades to people who are simply doing their job. Medals etc should only be given to those who volunteer, those who go above and beyond the norm.
Posted on 01 February 2012 | Love 6 loves
Report
-
124nosbort posted
Goodwin is a convenient but deserving scapegoat, however, he was just doing Brown's bidding. It is Brown, Blair, Balls, Darling, Mandelson and Prescott who should be stripped of honours (or disbarred from receiving them in the future) as it was they who were the architects of the financial disaster that consumed the banks.
Posted on 01 February 2012 | Love 3 loves
Report
-
3timjoe333 posted
Ok now the nighthood farce is sorted what about the fat pension he rigged up. That should be next. Then if it can be proved he was in on the downfall of the bank, Goodwin and all his oppo's should have all their assets taken as a warning to other get rich quick shysters no longer will they be tolorated.
__________________________________________________________________
The poor spelling and awful grammar used tells an awful lot about the individual writing this.
I think Goodwin is being made a scapegoat for the whole banking collapse. He was not solely responsible for the financial problems around the world. Lest people forget it was the sub prime market in the USA which triggered everything.
Goodwin's biggest error would appear to have been the decision to purchase AB Amro for 350billion in 2007. However they acted after taking advice from Merril Lynch, who in turn pocketed £83m in fees.
Remember also Goodwin and his team had built RBS up to become one of the biggest banks in the world.
Now I thoroughly agree that bonuses in the City need to be looked at, however when someone is head of an organisation which is worth as much as the GDP of most western countries then remuneration should reflect this surely?
As for the comment that he "rigged" his own pension. The individual obviously does not have a clue how remuneration bodies work. Goodwin will have had nothing to do with this process and it will have factored in many key performance indicators that would have to be delivered.
I for one, and I have nothing to do with either banking nor politics, am very nervous about the rational behind stripping Goodwin of his knighthood, to me it smacks of revenge and possibly an effort to encourage people to think that politicians had no part to play in the financial crash! We of course know differently!!
Posted on 01 February 2012 | Love 3 loves
Report
-
5Mark Vickery posted
We should make sure the 'Right Honorable' Blair and Brown don't get any perks for presiding over their receptive screw ups. Blair for Irak and brown for his Golden rule/No more boom and bust.
I am still amazed how short terms many people are when they are blaming the current government for the mess being sorted out right now. Labor must be glad they lost the election and can heckle for the sidelines, pretending to have nothing to do with it.
Posted on 01 February 2012 | Love 0 loves
Report
-
878MikeGG1 posted
Thanks for the responses, guys. I thought it would provoke a few answers.
My opinion on honours is that no one should get them for doing their job. It is the volunteers and those who go above and beyond what they are paid for who deserve the recognition.
Fred instituted a culture that led to the problems. The real culprits were the ratings agencies who slapped AAA ratings on bundles of sub-prime mortgages and they have got away scot-free. However, under Fred, due diligence went out of the window in chasing a fast buck.
He deserved his come-uppance because he received the award for services to the banking industry and then proceeded to bring it to its knees. But he shouldn't be the only one to suffer the consequence of his actions. They have stripped him of his title because he has been censured by his regulator. Others should follow.
Mike
Posted on 01 February 2012 | Love 2 loves
Report
-
37Meanmachine2 posted
Add Brown to the hit list for selling off our Gold at a knock down price.
Posted on 01 February 2012 | Love 0 loves
Report
-
6spanmik posted
Greed, pure and simple, lots of bankers making it! How many, however, have a banking qualification?
I, retired now, with a hard earned pension which has been ravaged by the greed of a few. Would not want to try and borrow today, as I did successfully in the 80's and 90's when you knew the local bank manager and he certainly knew you.
Brown also took away a tax benefit enjoyed by pension funds.
Posted on 01 February 2012 | Love 1 love
Report
-
43hopefultom posted
@MikeGG1
"my opinion on honours is that no-one should get them for doing their job."
I totally agree, but would add bonuses to that statement. most of the rest of our society seem content to work for wages. Why do bankers/financiers need an extra piece of cake ?
I am also in agreement with treating Blair & Brown the same way as Goodwin, but would also include Lord Adonis who, I believe was the last person who could have stopped his obscene pension being signed off.
@Ben Hall
You are probably right about Mick Jagger,but not because he is a " rock & roll " singer.
I recall when the Beatles were awarded MBEs, many people were up in arms because they failed to grasp the reason for the award. It was nothing to do with the music, but because of the much needed foreign earnings that they were bringing in to this Country.
Posted on 01 February 2012 | Love 0 loves
Report
-
35isobelsgrandma posted
@timjoe333, why pick on @Ripped off? Apart from the missed "k" and question mark, in comparative terms his post is quite well written. You have missed the "e" from rationale; nobody's perfect. Fred is only receiving half the pension he originally negotiated but it's still pretty obscene. The knighthood was stripped for the censure his actions generated; let's hope that this particular criterion will be applied more rigorously in future. Too many fat cats are receiving far more than their fair share. Some expert on the Jeremy Vine Show last week suggested that £79,000 per annum was a fair salary for an oncology consultant who spent his working day giving bad news and making decisions about patients' potential survival because he has job satisfaction; absolutely outrageous but that's what we're dealing with here: complete disparity between the amoral finance-generating sector and people who do a worthwhile job.
Posted on 01 February 2012 | Love 1 love
Report
-
1joolskye posted
Fred was not deserving of a gong and it was right to remove this unearned accolade. It would look better if honours were removed from other miscreants such as those members of the House of Lords whose names escape me but whose crimes included arson(curtains in an Edinburgh hotel) and fraud(Labour peeress who has still to repay monies owing)
Joolskye
Posted on 01 February 2012 | Love 1 love
Report
-
35isobelsgrandma posted
Oops! Missed "tolorated" (tolerated, @Ripped off)
John, we do need an honours system but, as @sludgeguts suggests, it should be reserved for those who do something for no financial gain.
Posted on 01 February 2012 | Love 0 loves
Report
-
31
-
140MK22 posted
If, as a result of Fred, the current corrupt banking system gets reformed, then Fred should be given his knighthood back. Sadly with the far right bunch of hypocrites currently in power, reform of the banking system will never happen. Come back Ted, all is forgiven....
Posted on 01 February 2012 | Love 0 loves
Report
-
643electricblue posted
@timjoe333 - Yes you are correct. Your poor spelling and grammar do indeed tell us a lot about you, as you drew attention to your supposed expertise in the matter. When I was at school, the use of 'and' after a comma was regarded bad punctuation. It should also be 'EITHER banking OR politics' in the context of your negative statement.
Posted on 01 February 2012 | Love 0 loves
Report
-
878MikeGG1 posted
Electricblue, I don't know what school you went to but that comma was perfectly correct in the circumstances. The sentence would not have been read as intended without the comma. In English there are many exceptions to most of the general rules. In this particular example, the reason for the comma is to pair up with the next comma to create a phrase which serves as a useful aside but which would not change the sentence if the whole phrase were to be omitted.
I was taught that commas are there to create places where a reader can pause for a breath without affecting the meaning of the sentence.
You were, however, correct about the the use of either/nor. It should be either/or or neither/nor depending upon a positive or negative was required.
Having said that, there are so few people responding to questions, generally, that I would not discourage them by drawing attention to deviations from correct grammar or spelling.
My question was intended to prompt as many people as possible to respond as there was no need for technical expertise to produce an answer. As there have been more than 30 replies so far, it has demonstrated that Q&A has more readers than was apparent from the low number of responses that most questions get.
It is also encouraging that there have been more 'Loves' registered on this question than for all the questions for the last few months. Responders need to know whether, or not, their answers have been of any value. It used to be the case that the questioner was supposed to indicate the best answer. However that was changed so that all helpful replies could receive acknowledgement.
For the record, I have no connection with this site. I just like it.
Mike
Posted on 01 February 2012 | Love 0 loves
Report
-
61coloratura posted
I know of someone who was awarded an MBE (the lowest gong I believe) last year and she had spent 20 years working for a number of charities - out every Saturday on their behalf come rain or shine with no remuneration at all. She also acts as a volunteer at a school for young children - again with no remuneration and she does not come from a wealthy family. She deserves a gong. I have worked for some 46 years now but I am paid for most of the work I do. I do not expect or deserve a gong. If I don't expect anything, and I doubt if I have earned £1,000,000 over the 46 years, nevermind as a BONUS, why should anyone else. I am fed up with hearing that we need to pay enormous salaries to "attract the best people otherwise they will go somewhere else". If this is the case let them go and we can give other people the opportunity - up and coming talent - why not? Nobody is indispensible. If I earned £1,000,000 a year I would consider that I could live more than happily on a tenth of it and give the rest to deserving cases and I am not having a go at the rich. If someone earns a large salary and decides that they need to keep it for themselves that is fine but they DON'T need a bonus on top for doing their job and they DON'T need a gong either. Let a salary be a salary otherwise why not a bonus for the nurses, dustmen, teachers, plumbers, builders...need I go on.
Posted on 02 February 2012 | Love 1 love
Report
-
0Deepestbluetoo posted
Should a Peer, convicted of perjury, be stripped of his\her title.
Posted on 02 February 2012 | Love 0 loves
Report
-
878MikeGG1 posted
I think that the 'misdemeanours', whatever they are, should relate to the reason for receipt of the honour and be sufficient to negate the award.
Fred the Shred received his for services to banking and then proceeded to bring the banking system in this country to its knees. The 2 are definitely related, so his downfall was justified. However, it would not be right for him to be the only one.
If the reason is totally unconnected, I don't think it should negate the award.
Perjury is a criminal offence and so is in a different category which has been used before. My question was intended to relate to this first example of a non-criminal offence bringing about someone's downfall.
Mike
Posted on 02 February 2012 | Love 0 loves
Report
-
58bobmattfran posted
Honours system? Absolute humbug. Just another method of control. The more the sheep worship at the base of the corrupt pyramid, the longer the pyramid will continue to flourish. We live in the 21st century, about time to ditch the medieval practice of the "Lord" bestowing an honour. Knighthoods for banking was always going to be a mistake, would have been far better to have given Fred an annual subscription to Gamblers Anonymous.
Fred had no banking qualifications and an ego which allowed him to destroy a perfectly good bank. The man should not only be censored, he should be prosecuted for fraud.
Please do not use the worn out argument "We have to pay the best to attract the best", we did, and just look at the result worldwide? No bonuses for the financial sector should be the norm, otherwise they take unnecessary risks to achieve a bonus at the expense of the shareholders, clients and ultimately the taxpayers.
Posted on 03 February 2012 | Love 0 loves
Report
-
0shiredell posted
Gordon Brown should never receive any honours after he sold Great Britain's gold reserves for a silly knock down price. He cost our country billions of pounds of lost capital. In many countries he would have been put against a wall and shot.
Posted on 04 February 2012 | Love 0 loves
Report
-
0
Post an answer
Sign in or register to post an answer.
Something you're dying to ask... or answer?
Register with lovemoney.com to start asking and answering questions on Q&A.
Get started nowSign in for a better Q&A
Registered already? Great! You can just sign in to ask and answer questions.
Sign in