Beheading after a short spell in the tower?

Lord or Sir, I am sure there are quite a few "Sirs" who have retained their title despite a criminal conviction.

If Shred wasn't pulling a pension of £342,500 a year or so, I might even start to feel sorry for him. As it is, the taxpayer is paying him six-and-a-half-grand a week, and will do for the rest of his life, for "services rendered" so pardon me if I keep my handkerchief firmly in my pocket, in favour of my sickbag.

The point about Shred being some sort of sacrificial lamb is actually the reverse of the truth. Which is that even though the FSA largely held him personally responsible for the biggest and most damaging UK bank failure ever, there has been no action, disciplinary or otherwise, ever taken against him. Same with Hornby, or Crosby, when they could have faced huge fies adn a ban on working in the finance game. Instead, no recourse at all, and off to new jobs for the boys. He, and they, have got away with it. What is sicker, having got away with it and having the gall to keep taking the obscene "pension" for life, people on here seem to be sticking up for him as if he's somehow being bullied or something.

Allow me to clarify my position.
He's a tw@.

But Cameron is nonetheless using Shred's disgrace as a smokescreen to disguise his total inaction about banking and director fatcattery.

Wot he said.

And also, methinks, to try to deflect blame from the financial sector at large for the financial crisis onto one rather useful scapegoat. He'll probably follow this shortly with another announcement about it being time to stop bashing the bankers.

Undoubtedly so, but either the numerous commentators across the press, and Shred's supporters in and out of the industry, have fallen for it or, more likely the faux indignation is just a devious rearguard action.

... and given his current travails in the Upper House, start bashing the bishops?

~s~

No people are just pointing out it is a smokescreen and a bit of tokenism when what really needs to happen is a reform of the bonus system which is why Milliband is right to say that Goodwin being stripped of his Knighthood should only be the start of what gets done.

I certainly do not feel sorry for him losing his Knighhood and it may well be right and proper he has done but by the same token its about time we removed honours from others as a matter of course not let them keep them when they have been sent to prison for perjury as Archer was for example.

So if at the end of the day Goodwin being removed of his Knightood signals the start of something whereby other Knights and Peers are liable to lose their titles then all well and good however it is far, far more important that there is real reform of the bonus culture and that bankers are weaned off it.

It remains to be seen if the PM thinks it all stops here or does as Labour wants and institutes real reform of the bonus system. Given he didn't want to intervene in Hester's bonus and doesn't want to interfere with other RBS exec's upcoming bonuses I think the chances of Cameron acting are close to zero.

But where does this all stop??....Somebody gets an award for being successful, then as it taken away when things go awry?

As far as I'm aware, Goodwin isn't a criminal, so I'm thinking he has had his title removed for being a failure?....With this in mind, what about the England Ashes winning side of 2005 who all got honours for their acheivement?....18 months later, they got humiliated 5-0 in Oz....Surely, using this latest policy, all those honours should be taken back?

Its a joke (a lot like the whole Honours system)......Politicians once more pandering to media hysteria....I thought after the whole News International thing, politics was, once and for all, going to do its own thing and not be influenced by barmy tabloid headline-makers?

Do you think it will reduce his 'employability' within the shark pool, FFS he is a hero to these 'b'ankers.

Somebody asked me if I had been affected by or new anyone affected by the Brinks Mat robbery, to which I said 'no', they then said 'I bet you know loads affected by the bankers greed'

His argument was, Fred and his cronies were worse than criminal robbers as their actions have cause untold suffering, all for personal greed.

Hard to disagree, but I wouldn't advise anyone to take up robbery.

Things went more than awry. He almost single handedly caused the UK part of the global banking crisis requiring a £45bn bail out for his bank.



The analogy is not applicable and I think you know that really. As to criminal charges for Fred, why not? Directors are as far as I know liable for prosecution for various reasons to do with mismanaging their business. For example if you continue to run a business knowing it is unsustainable financially you can be prosecuted. He basically got off scot free for what he did and while I do think this is tokenism and politically motived to deflect from the real issues I can't say he didn't deserve to lose his Knighthood. Quite a few other people should have been stripped of titles as well which is another reason why this has been mishandled.

[url=http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-why-should-we-stop-with-fred-goodwin-6297577.htmlForm an orderly queue please[/url