Tag Archives: Fred Goodwin

FRED GOODWIN no longer “Sir”

It is amazing what happens and who crawls from the undergrowth when the “establishment” is attacked.

In order to gain the favour of the public, the very people who were courting the Bankers, the city and large corporations, are now falling over themselves to nail a banker to the wall and then take the plaudits.

It is all very amusing.  However, we now have the “backlash”, saying politicians and the general public are using “Fred the Shred” as a scapegoat.

Even, the ultra left wing 80’s politician turned new labour “Darling”, Alistair Darling, (seriously no pun intended), is now voicing concern that people who manage to obtain an honour bestowed on them by the state may refuse their honour, because the “people” may wish to hold them to account for their behaviour following their receipt of this honour.

God forbid you may say.  For then we may ask Lord Archer to leave the House of Lords and not allow proven liars, nay, even a perjurer, to make laws in this land.  A ridiculous constitutional arrangement where no matter what a Lord does, we cannot get rid of them.

Or if we give a Knighthood to a dedicated member of the community, who is then found to be a paedophile, should we not take away the honour?

The very argument that we should not take away an honour because some may think twice about accepting it; or that this will just open the flood gates to taking back honours from others that have fallen from grace, is pathetic in the extreme.

I say, let the flood gates open, and let the great and the good and yes the “not so good”, think twice before taking an honour.  They should know full well that if they behave in such a disgraceful manner that society deems it necessary to take back that honour, that this is exactly what we should do.  Not to gain a percentage point in the polls, but on principle and because it is right.

SUPER INJUNCTION MADNESS CONTINUES: Ryan Giggs named in Parliament

After Parliamentary privilege upset Fred Goodwin’s retirement party back in March, the debate over super injunctions has gathered pace. The role of Free Speech VS family privacy; freedom of the press; Parliament VS Judiciary over law making have continued to ramp up in intensity.

I have to admit to being a little uneasy over the whole thing.  I am in, shall we say two minds over the issue.

What is for certain however, is the law as it stands is ridiculous and is being made an ass of.  Which in one respect makes me belly laugh, but on the other hand is rather disconcerting.

John Hemmings has just been told off in Parliament for using his Parliamentary privilege to name Ryan Giggs, making even the BBC to discuss if they can name him in their reports which they have decided so far not to do since the Sunday Herald published his picture on the front page yesterday.

The immediate problem is how the law is completely useless because anyone who really wants to know, can find out about the juicier of the super injunctions. The internet and social media have usurped the courts and the law in this regard.

The fundamentals however, have not changed.  It is still up to the courts to decide the balance between freedom of speech and privacy as laid down in the human rights act.  If they cannot use a super injunction, what are they to do?

Some say that anyone in the public eye should just deal with it.  Some celebrities take the view that you take the rough with the smooth.  However, when I hear the likes of Kelvin Mackenzie going through the motions basically arguing the great freedom of the press line, when actually we are talking about, on the whole, tabloids making money out of peoples private lives – who shagged who – and in many cases simply lies to sell newspapers, is it really about freedom of the press?

There is a certain section of the press who will stop at nothing to get a story regardless of who it hurts or the lies it tells.  This part of the press gives everyone else a bad name and encourages those in the public eye to seek these injunctions.  In some ways I don’t blame them.

Then this leads to another problem.  Only the rich can do this, which means, as with Imogen Thomas, that can take the flak, while the rich celebrity is protected.  This leads to other aspects of the law, where you need masses amount of money to sue the newspapers.  There is redress and privacy for the rich and not for ordinary mortals.

Then there is the problem outlined by many Parliamentarians stating that the courts should not be bringing in a privacy law.  Yet this is the fault of the very same Parliamentarians who have refused to face up to this problem by passing a human rights act and leaving it to the courts to interpret the law.  In effect, Parliament has passed legislation and considered the implications, they just didn’t consider it very well! Who’d of thunk it.

Then there are those like Ian Hislop who think that judges being a part of the establishment will more than likely impose an injunction and are not the best to adjudicate on the problem.  If the Judges are not the ones who should adjudicate then who should? If we cannot trust judges should we trust Parliament to bring in a privacy law?

Could you imagine anything worse than politicians deciding what should remain private, especially after what they would see as being victimised by the press over the expenses scandal.

The whole thing is a mess, and the law is about 30 years behind the times.

The press often cite the Trafigura incident and the super injunction obtained.  A disgrace that put into jeopardy the public interest.  But does that justify a free for all on the private lives of anyone who ends up in a newspaper?

I don’t think anyone has an answer, maybe a free for all is all we can have, but this will rumble on as the courts seem determined to at least try to maintain their authority on this matter.  The sad truth however, is that the rest of us living in the 21st Century have realised that they don’t really have any.

FRED GOODWIN and OTHER BANKER JOKES

Due to the Super-Injunction:
You can call him a tosser, You can call him a wanker, But whatever you do, Don’t call him a banker
Fred Goodwin:
WAS a Banker … now he’s a laughing stock.

Breaking News: It can now be revealed why the Super-injunction does not allow us to refer to Fred the Shed as a banker:

Film News: Fred Goodwin rumoured to be next Bond Villain.

I say I say I say:

A banker, a Daily Mail reader and a benefit claimant are sitting at a table sharing 12 biscuits. The banker takes 11 and says to the Daily Mail reader: “Watch out for the benefit claimant, he wants your biscuit”

Guess the odd one out:
Lord Stevenson, former chairman, HBOS Bank
Andy Hornby, former CEO, HBOS Bank
Sir Fred Goodwin, former CEO, RBS Bank
Sir Tom McKillup, former chairman, RBS Bank
John McFall MP, chairman, Treasury Select Committee
Alistair Darling, Chancellor of the Exchequer
Sir terry wogan, presenter of the BBC Radio 2 Breakfast Show

It’s terry wogan, the only one with a banking qualification.

Remember folks: banker will lend you his umbrella when the sun is shining, but will want it back the minute it starts raining

Other Jokes Bankers don’t find funny:-  https://extranea.wordpress.com/2011/01/31/jokes-about-bankers-they-dont-find-funny/

FRED THE SHRED, FRED GOODWIN THE BANKER AND SUPER-INJUNCTIONS: There are many worse names he is called!!

For the article on Fred Goodwin losing his Knighthood see here

So here we go, this may end up being a rant on a Thursday afternoon, but why not?

According to the Guardian article here http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/mar/10/fred-goodwin-superinjunction-banking the Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming has used his Parliamentary privilege to announce that Fred Goodwin has applied for and . . . er . . . . yes been granted a Super-Injunction to prevent him from amongst other things being identified as a Banker!

Has the world gone completely mad, or am I turning into a middle aged Daily Mail reader all of a sudden?

So now the press is not allowed to call him a banker, or report on the fact he has an injunction preventing him from being identified as one.  The full details of this particular injunction obviously cannot be discussed, so we don’t know what indiscretions he wishes people not to know.

Not content with contributing to the near complete collapse of the financial sector of the UK economy; or indeed the entire UK economy; and causing thousands of redundancies; public sector pay freezes and billions of pounds of public sector cuts that will harm the economy and harm the most vulnerable in our society – apparently this is all a trifle and he needs to spend MORE of our money, taking up the judiciaries time to allow a super injunction for the super rich to not be called by his previous profession.

Some have called this “absurd”, I would use slightly stronger language than that.  It certainly shows how certain people in our society who have all the privileges in the world, show how detached from reality they really are.

This comes after more news this week showed a massive gap between bonuses for bankers in the UK and the profits obtained by their institutions, see http://bit.ly/fugCbd. After Mervyn King confirmed how detached from reality the Bankers are, see http://bit.ly/h9YW2X.

Today the chat on the likes of Twitter is of Bankers waving pound notes at the save the NHS protests, just another insult to many already received.

Super-injunctions are:

An injunction obtained in a secret convening of the court where in the result, the court file, the names of the parties and even the terms of the injunction order are secret except as between parties, counsel, the judge and court staff.

They prevent the disclosure of the identities of those involved and the disclosure that an injunction exists at all. They tend to be used by the rich and famous to prevent their “dirty linen” being aired in public.  But more insidiously  can be used by multinational companies to prevent the reporting of disgusting acts of corporate vandalism as with the oil trading firm Trafigura gagging the Guardian over its reporting of the dumping of toxic waste being in Ivory Coast.

The UK is a laughing stock throughout the world as we are used as a libel tourist destination.  When newspapers dig around for a story somewhere in the world, they are told to stop digging or they will “see them in court”, in the UK that is.

The government is so keen, like many previous governments to pass as many laws as possible, to carry through an agenda before they lose an election. Maybe they should spend a little time to deal with the misuse of laws first before labouring us under the weight of yet more.

As asked by the Liberal Democrat MP in Parliament today –  is it that “there’s one rule for the rich like Fred Goodwin and one rule for the poor?”.  I think we all know the answer to this sadly.