Peter Reynolds

The life and times of Peter Reynolds

Who Is The Unfairest Of Them All?

with 3 comments

Amidst the roar of gunfire from the deliberate, calculated massacre by evil Israeli stormtroopers and the tragedy of a crazed lunatic in Cumbria, there is yet another political scandal that cannot be allowed to pass.

Overpaid, Incompetent And Unfair

John Fingleton, Chief Executive of the Office Of Fair Trading, the man who let the British banks off the £40 billion they stole from British consumers, turns out to be the highest paid civil servant in the country.  See here.  This is the most unfair trading of all and makes a mockery of any concept of “fairness”.

He is responsible for the disastrous failure to protect British consumers from the greedy banker robbers who plundered their accounts with outrageous and illegal charges.  He led the badly organised legal challenge to the banks thievery which the Supreme Court turned away as misdirected.  The Supreme Court then invited the OFT to revert to them on a different basis but for reasons that have never been properly explained, Fingleton just gave up.  See here for the full story.

This man is not only unfair but incompetent.  No one is responsible for more unfair treatment of British consumers than he.  It is a scandal that he is even still in his job let alone paid at such an exorbitant rate.

3 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. FYI: John Fingleton Chief Executive, Office of Fair Trading, Salary £275,000.

    Do you really expect a bunch of millionaires to put the public’s interests before theirs, in my opinion this body exists only to take kickbacks from big business and corrupt MPs and share them amongst themselves. This would explain why they seem unable/unwilling to apply any pressure to the oil and airline industries (or should I say cartels). If you think I am cynical then you are most likely naive and partly responsible for the state the country is in. Personally I think I would trust the organisation more if they paid 10 people £27,500 each to collectively do his job and democratically reach a consensus on any decision.

    I believe the phrase “OFT are not fit for purpose” which I have seen used, does not go far enough, as it does not make clear that the negligence / incompetence / corruption of the OFT is harmful to the economy and indeed the planet while supportive of monopolies and cartels. Oh well, I am sure we will be seeing a lot more corruption now the Con-Dem party is in power. The cash pyramid will get more top heavy as the OFT sees record kickbacks reach their pockets.

    Good luck everyone – you’ll need it.


    June 5, 2010 at 7:19 pm

    • I admire your incisive analysis but I fear your cynicism.

      I think you are right, the OFT is a sop to public opinion and concern. There are undoubtedly – still – corrupt MPs and kickbacks from business and there are, undoubtedly, cartels… but next we’ll be on to 911 conspiracy theories, the “faked” Apollo moon landing, the idea that Masons subvert the whole of the civil service, parliament and the police, etc, etc. (some of these, if not all, are probably true).

      I don’t think I am naive but that doesn’t mean I can’t be fooled. I think your idea of 10 people at £27,500 each might work BUT I prefer the idea of one unimpeachable individual with integrity, passion and guts at £500,000 per annum to do a proper job. Maybe you’ll think I’m being naive again?

      “Not fit for purpose” describes the OFT perfectly. In itself that is enough to make a fresh start essential. I am sure that there is negligence and incompetence. I would suspect corruption as well but shout too loud, accuse too strongly, indict too completely and you will scare away support.

      I honestly think there is integrity and hope in the ConLib coalition, perhaps enough to turn round an idea like the OFT and make it real.

      For now we should concentrate on getting John Fingleton sacked. With his record, he can never make it work.

      Thank you for your contribution.

      Peter Reynolds

      June 5, 2010 at 8:31 pm

      • How can you even justify ANYONE earning that kind of money at the “top” end of the scale when there are people earning £12k P.A? It used to be around 10 * the lowest salary was the dif between top and bottom only 15 years ago.. But then again, I guess you earn over 100k PA and are quite happy that the gap between the top earners and the lowest is growing (rich and poor!) All i can say to you is GET A GRIP and Get real.

        ed mitchell

        June 30, 2010 at 4:12 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: