[DaveO]

Re: Sir Fred Goodwin : Wed Feb 01, 2012 9:39 pm  

Dita's Slot Meter wrote:

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

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.

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?

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.

Re: Sir Fred Goodwin : Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:42 am  

Form an orderly queue please

Form an orderly queue please

Re: Sir Fred Goodwin : Thu Feb 02, 2012 11:09 am  

DaveO wrote:

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.

I disagree. One perfect example is the legendary Lester Piggott. His tax related conviction was absolutely nothing to do with the reasons he was given an OBE, he was the greatest jockey there had ever been, he gave untold pleasure and won not a few bob for millions, and was a hero of the working classes amongst others. The fact that he was then prosecuted for tax matters had no bearing on, nor did it in any way detract from, his unbelievable and legendary achievements. It was therefore totally wrong and out of order to strip him of the poxy OBE (?) which was in any event hardly much recognition for his lifetime achievements.

In Goodwin's case he was knighted on the basis he was doing a great job, when in fact he was almost bringing down the economy. One at least comparable scenario would be if Piggott had for example been proved to have won every race while on drugs, then yes strip him of his award, but not in these circumstances.

Also, Sir Lester did bird for his tax offences. What penalty has Shred suffered?

[DaveO]

Re: Sir Fred Goodwin : Thu Feb 02, 2012 1:05 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

I disagree. One perfect example is the legendary Lester Piggott. His tax related conviction was absolutely nothing to do with the reasons he was given an OBE, he was the greatest jockey there had ever been, he gave untold pleasure and won not a few bob for millions, and was a hero of the working classes amongst others. The fact that he was then prosecuted for tax matters had no bearing on, nor did it in any way detract from, his unbelievable and legendary achievements. It was therefore totally wrong and out of order to strip him of the poxy OBE (?) which was in any event hardly much recognition for his lifetime achievements.

The fact you can be brilliant at one thing and so that should be ignored if you then go on to become a convicted criminal is not right IMO. Do you think if he had gone to prison before he was honoured he would still have been honoured? I certainly don't. Likewise Archer would not have been ennobled if he had been convicted for perjury beforehand. When you become a Knight or are honoured it may well be for a specific thing but that should not mean you can then go an break the law without fear of losing your title. It should be par for the course that serious breaches of the law should put your title or honour at risk. I think it is perverse to do otherwise but unfortunately we do, which is why I can see where A Darling is coming from when he says Fred losing his Knighthood is tawdry and it is politically motivated.

In Goodwin's case he was knighted on the basis he was doing a great job, when in fact he was almost bringing down the economy. One at least comparable scenario would be if Piggott had for example been proved to have won every race while on drugs, then yes strip him of his award, but not in these circumstances.

I don't agree. You should not be expected to keep a title no matter what it was given to you for if you go on to be a convicted criminal.

Also, Sir Lester did bird for his tax offences. What penalty has Shred suffered?

I think Shred and other bankers responsible for the banking crash should face prosecution. It has been treated from their point of view as if they were just the ones running any old business that unfortunately went bust when in fact the the consequences of their actions are greater than just about any bit of organised crime I can think of bar drugs. People have lost jobs, are having money taken off them in the form of higher taxes, support for vulnerable people is being screwed over and so on. All because of this idiot and his ilk. However the fact we just let them move on and in Fred's case even gave him a £350K a year pension does not, in my opinion, mean he should not be stripped of his title.

My issue with all this is that I reckon that is all that is going to happen.

Re: Sir Fred Goodwin : Thu Feb 02, 2012 1:09 pm  

The honours system is riddled with hypocrisy anyway.
Many of the so-called great and good go through life feathering their own nests and satisfying their own egos and then get a knighthood or peerage for it, providing they have supported the right party with a judicious donation here and there.

Meanwhile, people who have devoted their lives to making things better for others get tossed into the hat for a random and token OBE.

It certainly serves its purpose, which is to reinforce the establishment link between cash and authority.

Re: Sir Fred Goodwin : Thu Feb 02, 2012 1:37 pm  

DaveO wrote:

The fact you can be brilliant at one thing and so that should be ignored if you then go on to become a convicted criminal is not right IMO. Do you think if he had gone to prison before he was honoured he would still have been honoured? I certainly don't.

He wouldn't have been, but I don't see why he shouldn't have been. But it's beside the point. he had paid the price and been punished for his offence, Why should he be further punished by having his OBE, for achievements totally unrelated to his offending, taken off him?

DaveO wrote:

Likewise Archer would not have been ennobled if he had been convicted for perjury beforehand. When you become a Knight or are honoured it may well be for a specific thing but that should not mean you can then go an break the law without fear of losing your title.

I would agree, but whereas Archer has a title, Piggott has not. He received a prize, if you like, for what he'd done, and I really don't see why he deserves to have the honour withdrawn. I mean, why not strip him of his Derby wins, then? They are no more relevant, and a damn sight more prestigious than some OBE.

DaveO wrote:

I think Shred and other bankers responsible for the banking crash should face prosecution.

Again, I agree.

DaveO wrote:

However the fact we just let them move on and in Fred's case even gave him a £350K a year pension does not, in my opinion, mean he should not be stripped of his title.

My issue with all this is that I reckon that is all that is going to happen.

I entirely agree, but his case is quite different, it would be absurd for him to retain a knighthood for services to banking; in the same way as it would be absurd for Piggott to retain a knighthood for services to Revenue collection.

Re: Sir Fred Goodwin : Thu Feb 02, 2012 3:24 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

The honours system is riddled with hypocrisy anyway.
Many of the so-called great and good go through life feathering their own nests and satisfying their own egos and then get a knighthood or peerage for it, providing they have supported the right party with a judicious donation here and there.

Meanwhile, people who have devoted their lives to making things better for others get tossed into the hat for a random and token OBE.

It certainly serves its purpose, which is to reinforce the establishment link between cash and authority.

I love LS Lowry's work.

But I love him even more as a man when I found out the other week that he had turned down the Queens Honours list FIVE TIMES in his lifetime, an OBE, CBE, a Knighthood, and twice turned down a Companion of Honour.

I bet that Betty doesn't have any of his paintings on her wall, I bet she's got a twitch when you mention his name as well.

Re: Sir Fred Goodwin : Thu Feb 02, 2012 3:31 pm  

Is there any rule or even law that prevents an honours recipient from flogging his little badge on eBay?

Re: Sir Fred Goodwin : Thu Feb 02, 2012 4:08 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

Is there any rule or even law that prevents an honours recipient from flogging his little badge on eBay?

Don't think so, there seem to be several medal dealers that have all sorts of stock, and I'm sure I've heard of VC's going for many tens of thousands of squids at auction.

But if you buy one, I don't think it really counts

Re: Sir Fred Goodwin : Thu Feb 02, 2012 4:57 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

But if you buy one, I don't think it really counts

That CBE is going back to Oxfam then...