observer Posted February 27, 2009 Report Share Posted February 27, 2009 Well with all the huffing and puffing by Brown and the hand wringing by this Government over Sir Fred's pension - you'd actually believe they could/are going to do something about it. But no: his ?650k pa pension was awarded by the RBS Board (one of whom was allegedly a Labour Peer) - so, as the major shareholder, surely this Government can now sack the whole Board for this obscene abuse of taxpayer's bail out money? Or is all the fury aimed at Sir Fred, merely intended to divert public anger away from this Government? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
safeway56 Posted February 27, 2009 Report Share Posted February 27, 2009 Hasn't poor Fred suffered enough already ? The poor man's reputation is in tatters and he's lost one of bankings top jobs. He's lost the salary of millions and now has to eke out an existence on a pittance of a mere 12 grand a week. We should start a distress fund for poor old Fred. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted February 27, 2009 Report Share Posted February 27, 2009 Given the financial pain that Fred has caused people, it's a good job for him that we are a civilised country where folk thankfully, by and large, don't take vigilante actions against individuals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdrianR Posted February 27, 2009 Report Share Posted February 27, 2009 Read robert pestons blog about this on the BBC website. Â The government knew and still let him have it. Legally i dont think they have a leg to stand on and as such I suspect the government are using the media to presurise him to give in as they know they dont have a leg to stand on. Â Whilst i agree the same is obscence, it was agreed by a then independent bank (timing is crucial on this as UK Plc wasnt a shareholder until after agreement had been reached), he has gioven up 12 months salary and share optiosn and was assured he woudlnt have to conceed anything more. Â Smells of stable door and horse methinks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted February 27, 2009 Report Share Posted February 27, 2009 If it was me, I'd be sticking two fingers up at Bluster Brown as well. See you in court sucker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted February 27, 2009 Report Share Posted February 27, 2009 an uncivilised country he would get the knock on the door from a hooded assassin. BANG BANG BANG no more pension to pay out!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted February 27, 2009 Report Share Posted February 27, 2009 If you were lucky enought to have an agreed huge pension pay off ... would you simply hand it back or give it up willingly if it transpired that you had made some 'mistakes' along the way  Of course you wouldn't Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted February 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2009 This is an example and admission by Government, that they are not in control, have no systems or ideas for control of the cash binge by fat cats. The horse has indeed bolted on this one, but Brown should be bringing in comprehensive controls over these institutions, a pay and pensions freeze for starters, plus some power and motivation to Regulators - but all he can do, is wring his hands - total waste of space. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted February 28, 2009 Report Share Posted February 28, 2009 Force all the fat cats to have their pension funds invested exclusively in the sector of the economy where they work. Â That'll sharpen their focus! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted February 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2009 To do anything, they need the necessary legal powers, and as parliament make the laws they need to stop huffing and puffing and devise the necessary legislation to deal with these cases. I recall Maggie had no problem seizing assets from the NUM, by the use of an archaic legal mechanism called "sequestration". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted February 28, 2009 Report Share Posted February 28, 2009 As I understand it the only part of Fred's pension pot that is questionable is the ?8 million "top up"when he was sacked. His pension is certainly not moral, but from what I can tell it isn't illegal and he has done nothing illegal in acquiring it. My guess is unless the ?8 million top up can be reclaimed, nothing more will be done....unless behind the scenes it is traded for him to continue to have a Knighthood. Â On the subject of pension rights being withdrawn from those who have failed, will the same apply to Government Ministers. Â Guess Fred could always set up a charitable fund and give some of the pension to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted February 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2009 It's the system to blame - problem is, there is no system, no rules - these guys are a law`unto themselves: and laughing at the rest of us. I notice a court ruling has decided, that moneys paid in benefits "by mistake" can be legally "clawed back" - so, as always, one law`for the rich and one law for the poor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted March 1, 2009 Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 But it isn't really one law for the rich and one for the poor Obs..... Fred had his pension entitlements agreed, regardless of what everyone thinks of it, he IS entitled to it. Someone who gets more benefits than they are entitled to should give them back  Personally I think Fred should have all the pension taken off him because he will never need a pension with all the money he has amassed over the years; but short of Brown actually doing something he says he will do, nothing will happen and the story will quietly slip away.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 According to Gov Ministers Baz: (if you believe them!) the pay out to Sir Fred was based on a "mistake", a misunderstanding! The difference is: that he could survive quite comfortanly even if they could "claw back" the money; unfortunately those on benefit can't, and this Gov has put many poverty stricken folk into debts they can't afford through civil service "mistakes" - incompetance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted March 2, 2009 Report Share Posted March 2, 2009 From the reports that I'm reading it seems that Mr Brown has realised that there is nothing that can be done to take Fred's pension off him, whilst at the sametime he has been able to discredit his Deputy, Mrs Dromey ....who from all reports has been mounting a leadership campaign. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 2, 2009 Mrs Dromey seems to believe, that Parliament will change the law, in order to deal with Sir Frank's specific case - perhaps while she's at it, she could widen the net of such anti-troughing legislation to include politicians?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted March 3, 2009 Report Share Posted March 3, 2009 I refer the honourable gentleman to the remarks I have just posted in another thread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 3, 2009 In reply to the Noble Lord, I noticed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.