Advertisements

Peter Reynolds

The life and times of Peter Reynolds

Posts Tagged ‘Fred Goodwin

What’s The Difference Between A Looter And A Banker?

with 6 comments

Who is the odd one out?

Bob Diamond, Eric Daniels, Fred Goodwin, Stuart Gulliver, Stephen Hester, a random looter

The random looter of course.  He’s just a petty thief.

Advertisements

Written by Peter Reynolds

August 10, 2011 at 7:55 pm

World’s Worst Banker

leave a comment »

http://www.worldsworstbanker.com/

I urge you to go to this site and sign the two petitions listed there.

The first is about the reduction of his pension.  Personally, I think he should lose it all.  I would have no objection to the introduction of the Fred Goodwin Pension Confiscation Act 2009.  As the Prime Minister endlessly repeats: “These are extraordinary times…”worldsworstbanker1

The second is on the Number 10 website and calls for the removal of his knighthood “for services to banking”… cough, cough, choke, gag, choke, cough…

Pundits talk about whether the future of democracy is in online participation.  There’s no doubt that it is worth making the effort and signing these two petitions.

Written by Peter Reynolds

March 9, 2009 at 5:55 pm

Criminal Deception

with one comment

In a cold hearted, clinical and utterly callous way, we must bring “Sir” Fred Goodwin to heel, to the gutter, to grovel and to ignominy as he richly and deeply deserves.

There are many ways that the government can do this.  I suggest that the most effective is simply not to pay him and let him sue.  This is a shred2pragmatic and commercial approach but, irrespective of its outcome, simultaneously we must prosecute this fundamentally evil individual with all the vigour that honourable and decent society can muster.

If we force him to sue for the rewards of failure then he will have to make his case and I do not believe he wil be able to under the overriding doctrine of “reasonableness”.

However, in the interests of justice, denying him money is insufficient.  Nothing less than criminal punishment will suffice.  Surely,  if our tradition of common law has any relevance, it must be able to sanction his behaviour.

Lawyers must consider whether there is a case for criminal negligence, for conspiracy, for perjury or for any derivative of theft.  Our Judges must package his offences in a way that can produce serious and effective penalties.

Without doubt though this “man”, this “Sir” has deceived.  He lied to the Select Committee saying that he had received no compensation for loss of office.  He has cheated us all.  Whether he retains his obscene pension or not he must be jailed.  Only then will justice be done.