Sir Fred Goodwin's Home Attacked

Barks · 25 Mar 2009 at 23:56

The government are partially responsible for the economic environment within a country.

They thus have a powerful influence on banking decisions and everything else that branches off that.

If Brown knew this was going to happen back in 1997 he could have prevented the extent of the damage by adopting more successful policies and implementing sufficient regulation. Our country is not immune to the global slowdown but had Brown played the right cards, things would be a lot more optimistic and the UK economy would have been a lot more resilient.

A minority of them have, by no means a majority. At all. Not even close.

It didn't take a genius to see it coming. An economy heavily reliant on domestic consumption with consumer and government debt levels increasing by the day, and a sensitivity far too high to global and external markets. It was bound to end in disaster sooner or later.

Chimerical · 26 Mar 2009 at 00:13

scott212 said:
It didn't take a genius to see it coming. An economy heavily reliant on domestic consumption with consumer and government debt levels increasing by the day, and a sensitivity far too high to global and external markets. It was bound to end in disaster sooner or later.

Shame how no-one ever seemed to mention it though.

Barks · 26 Mar 2009 at 00:16

Chimerical said:
Shame how no-one ever seemed to mention it though.

I reckon the majority of economists knew it would happen but didn't expect it to happen as quickly as it did. I studied an Economics A level course 4 years ago and I remember reading countless articles on how our economy was far too consumption/debt reliant. Clearly it's not just a case of saying what happened was unpredictable and nobody saw it coming.

rypt · 26 Mar 2009 at 01:08

At least in the 30s the bankers had the decency to jump

Hatter The Mad · 26 Mar 2009 at 01:13

scott212 said:
The government are partially responsible for the economic environment within a country.

Umm, maybe get your angle straight. Then we can have a productive debate

scott212 said:
The banking collapse is entirely Labour's fault due to their ridiculous policies and deregulation.

scott212 said:
It is entirely their fault.

If Brown knew this was going to happen back in 1997 he could have prevented the extent of the damage by adopting more successful policies and implementing sufficient regulation.

If Brown knew this was going to happen in 1997, then he'd be ruling the world; he'd have powers to see into the future. There was no way to predict this in 1997.

Our country is not immune to the global slowdown but had Brown played the right cards,

Ok, wise one, what cards were those? Don't just say "More regulation". You're saying that with 20/20 hindsight.

It didn't take a genius to see it coming.

If you saw it coming, why didn't you do something about it? Considering the majority of people in economics and the finance industry - people so much smarter than you or I, it is incomprehensible - I think you're talking out of your arse.

It was bound to end in disaster sooner or later.

If you knew it was coming, why didn't you take out CFDs on all the major financial institutions? You'd probably be a millionaire by now, many times over

Intuition tells me you don't know what a CFD is, though.

Hatter The Mad · 26 Mar 2009 at 01:14

rypt said:
At least in the 30s the bankers had the decency to jump

A couple did, but not lots. It is an urban myth that stock brokers fell from the skies in the crash.

scott212 said:
Economics A level course 4 years ago

lol, bow down to his mighty economics knowledge.

Greebo · 26 Mar 2009 at 01:28

Dolph said:
It's good to know where we are. So far jealously has been presented as a valid reason here for (a) ignoring agreed terms (b) advocating that some people are undeserving of the same employment rights as everyone else and so on.

Now we have that it's ok for vandals to attack people...

Except that the terms were agreed as part of his settlement to resign to avoid the embarrassment of him being sacked when normal people would have been sacked.

He did not get paid it as part of his employment rights, it was not written into his contract that he would get it. It was a pay off which normally happens in big organisations when somebody deserves to be sacked at the top.

Hell if I ****** up as bad as him in my job then I wouldn't expect anything when I got sacked.

So I blame the board for striking the deal, not the man for taking it. Let's face it, if we were about to be sacked in our jobs and were offfered £350,000 a year to leave quietly, who wouldn't except it?

muon · 26 Mar 2009 at 01:30

The guy is probably insured by a bailed out bank. So the people who are actually paying are ...

Pestilence · 26 Mar 2009 at 01:53

Strife212 said:
The police arrived in massive force 3 minutes after they were called to an incident of vandalism on an empty house.

Would probably take them 10 minutes to show up here if I was being murdered.

Lucky you.

My wife would probably have to ask when they're coming to collect my body when they rang to give her a crime reference the next week.

Dolph · 26 Mar 2009 at 07:45

Greebo said:
Except that the terms were agreed as part of his settlement to resign to avoid the embarrassment of him being sacked when normal people would have been sacked.

What act of misconduct or failure of capability (from an employment law perspective) did Goodwin demonstrate? (Hint, you cannot be held punished for decisions made with full support of colleagues/shareholders that turn out in hindsight to be bad).

There is a reason why executive contracts have severance clauses, because they do have the same employment rights as the rest of us

He did not get paid it as part of his employment rights, it was not written into his contract that he would get it. It was a pay off which normally happens in big organisations when somebody deserves to be sacked at the top.

Hell if I ****** up as bad as him in my job then I wouldn't expect anything when I got sacked.

If you were acting in good faith with full support of the board/shareholders, you could not be sacked under employment law without triggering a massive constructive dismissal claim.

So I blame the board for striking the deal, not the man for taking it. Let's face it, if we were about to be sacked in our jobs and were offfered £350,000 a year to leave quietly, who wouldn't except it?

I blame people who rant about things they don't understand.

AJUK · 26 Mar 2009 at 07:46

Whilst I cannot condone violence, I will admit that hearing about this did raise a smile.

Of course, the police will fully investigate and have even posted guards at his home. My mum's house was attacked (for no apparent reason), windows smashed, car vandalised etc. but she didn't get a police guard! Why not, she is a citizen just like that ******** Goodwin. :mad:

Cosimo · 26 Mar 2009 at 08:11

Strife212 said:
The police arrived in massive force 3 minutes after they were called to an incident of vandalism on an empty house.

Would probably take them 10 minutes to show up here if I was being murdered.

You should be so lucky, they would come at least a day later.

The Mad Rapper · 26 Mar 2009 at 08:40

Bless.

Perhaps he should use some of his huge fortune to hire some ex-SAS guards and a few dogs. Or some killer bees. Or some dogs with killer bees in their mouths.

dowie · 26 Mar 2009 at 10:34

NathanE said:
Fred Goodwin was just doing what all the other bankers have been doing for the past 12 years

^^^ this tbh...

you can criticize him for being overly aggressive in lending - I mean HSBC is doing pretty well relatively so management does have some responsibility but this whole 'greedy bankers' BS is getting a bit silly.

The government are also to blame as are all the ****** who took out loans/mortgages they couldn't afford to pay back in the first place.

Greedy working class people caused the crisis as much as greedy bankers did tbh...

Gepetto · 26 Mar 2009 at 10:47

Hatter The Mad said:
Haha, I don't know where you get your ideas from. So it is entirely Labour's fault, despite the majority of the world and America failing to see it happen?

Do you think that the Labour Government was unhappy about the endless growth, year on year, and therefore did everything they could to discourage irresponsible lending?

Barks · 26 Mar 2009 at 12:38

Hatter The Mad said:
lol, bow down to his mighty economics knowledge.

Grow up.

That has no bearing whatosever on my ability to debate economics.

Knowing it was going to happen is one thing. Knowing when it was going to happen is another.

scorza · 26 Mar 2009 at 13:39

Evangelion said:
There is no justification for this attack, and no justification for supporting it.

This, and there's no justification for Goodwin's obscene reward for failure either.

Funny how no-one complains when it's government minister's houses being vandalised though.

RDM · 26 Mar 2009 at 13:48

scorza said:
Funny how no-one complains when it's government minister's houses being vandalised though.

I would find it just as wrong regardless of whose house it was.

Sankari · 26 Mar 2009 at 14:21

scorza said:
This, and there's no justification for Goodwin's obscene reward for failure either.

+1

Funny how no-one complains when it's government minister's houses being vandalised though.

Has this happened recently? I'd hate to think I'd missed a bit of drama.

Gepetto · 26 Mar 2009 at 14:32

scorza said:
This, and there's no justification for Goodwin's obscene reward for failure either.

You'd regard Gordon Brown as a success?

Funny how no-one complains when it's government minister's houses being vandalised though.

Where? When? :confused: