Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
Fred the Shred
23 Answers
It appears that Fres the Shred has finally had some cumuppance.
Given that the law and the Government appear powerless to deal with this piece of scum is it right for this to happen?
Is this the start of things to come ?
And given that the git has just ripped of the state for millions should the taxpayer be paying to defend his property? I doubt the old bill would post someone outside my home.
Given that the law and the Government appear powerless to deal with this piece of scum is it right for this to happen?
Is this the start of things to come ?
And given that the git has just ripped of the state for millions should the taxpayer be paying to defend his property? I doubt the old bill would post someone outside my home.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Agree with Rollo. Fred lacks some conscience/common decency + people like this make me very cross ( we pay for their mistakes while they bathe in vast sums of money + have a title before their name to boot) yet even people like Fred do not deserve this kind of vigilante criminal behaviour directed towards them- that is for sure. Yes he ripped off the state + tax payer for millions yet attacking people's property is not to be revelled in( 2 wrongs do not make a right). Fred will face the music at some point- whether it be on equitable justice onearth or justice from heaven- so do not dismay. Yet we cannot tolerate these kind of criminal actions even to individuals like Fred. Agree with R1 Geezer, too!
No decent person can condone this, but for the RBS to pay for full time security for this bloke is just not on, given the fact we, the tax-payer own bloody 70% of it, I'm afraid veiled threats like "This is just the start" should be classed as criminal too, it's possible it will be some yobs jumping on the bandwagon and in their amoeba type brains, they will think they have done everyone a favour! as an earlier post read, Sir Fred the Shed will most definatley run out of luck sooner or later
-- answer removed --
He's a bit of a scapegoat - All business leaders of recent years have been very aggresive and many to the point of recklessness - maybe he was one of the most aggressive.
But any banker who'd turned to his shareholders 2 years ago and said "This is all too risky we should be more circumspect" would have been lynched.
While everybodys concentrating on convenient scapegoats the more difficult questions about market reform and reducing speculative trading is being ignored.
I guess that suits the City just fine
But any banker who'd turned to his shareholders 2 years ago and said "This is all too risky we should be more circumspect" would have been lynched.
While everybodys concentrating on convenient scapegoats the more difficult questions about market reform and reducing speculative trading is being ignored.
I guess that suits the City just fine
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Yes, it is a sign of things to come, unless the Government shoulders its responsibilities, stops protecting city and other fraudsters (in their own image) and introduces basic fairness to the application and enforcement of all law.
It's called vigilantism and has its roots in frontier times and also the pre-victorian era.
The basic principle of a civilised society is a contract between the government and its citizens. You give up the right to enforce the law and exact retribution in exchange for the government�s promise to do it for you. You no longer need your weapons or your "gang" of like-minded friends, and the government, in the form of the criminal justice system, will protect you in a fair and measured way.
When that contract fails, continually, you may take the view that if the authorities cannot protect me I am entitled to protect myself.
This sets a dangerous precedent, in effect allowing individual citizens to decide when they are entitled to engage in that type of behaviour .... not assisted by allowing attacks on individuals (the fact that it was the hateful Peter Mandelson, notwithstanding) and then taking no action, thus providing the catalyst for others to follow with apparent impunity.
We might think that the criminal justice system is rooted in reality through the law and courts system but, the fact is, it is rooted in perception and trust. Once the people no longer believe that it works, it no longer works.
It's called vigilantism and has its roots in frontier times and also the pre-victorian era.
The basic principle of a civilised society is a contract between the government and its citizens. You give up the right to enforce the law and exact retribution in exchange for the government�s promise to do it for you. You no longer need your weapons or your "gang" of like-minded friends, and the government, in the form of the criminal justice system, will protect you in a fair and measured way.
When that contract fails, continually, you may take the view that if the authorities cannot protect me I am entitled to protect myself.
This sets a dangerous precedent, in effect allowing individual citizens to decide when they are entitled to engage in that type of behaviour .... not assisted by allowing attacks on individuals (the fact that it was the hateful Peter Mandelson, notwithstanding) and then taking no action, thus providing the catalyst for others to follow with apparent impunity.
We might think that the criminal justice system is rooted in reality through the law and courts system but, the fact is, it is rooted in perception and trust. Once the people no longer believe that it works, it no longer works.
These top bank bosses are all as bad as each other.
Did you know that Bob Diamond, head of Barclays Bank, was paid 21 MILLION POUNDS in 2007.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business /industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article5 971164.ece
It reminds me of the days of the tzar in Russia who thought he was above the law and could live in riches while the peasants starved.
The peasants soon revolted and put him in his place.
These bank bosses are the same as the tzars of old. Pay themselves huge salaries and huge pensions while the "peasants" lose their jobs and their houses.
So if a few people "revolt" it is not surprising.
If you have just lost your business or house or job while seeing this person get a �700,000 a YEAR pension I think you may be a bit upset.
Not condoning it, but tryng to understand it.
Did you know that Bob Diamond, head of Barclays Bank, was paid 21 MILLION POUNDS in 2007.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business /industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article5 971164.ece
It reminds me of the days of the tzar in Russia who thought he was above the law and could live in riches while the peasants starved.
The peasants soon revolted and put him in his place.
These bank bosses are the same as the tzars of old. Pay themselves huge salaries and huge pensions while the "peasants" lose their jobs and their houses.
So if a few people "revolt" it is not surprising.
If you have just lost your business or house or job while seeing this person get a �700,000 a YEAR pension I think you may be a bit upset.
Not condoning it, but tryng to understand it.
Totally agree wth uno.who
The best post in this thread
The bankers, the politicians, the FSA etc. are all immune from "moral justice" under the status quo of the establishment and its laws.
No meaningful effective sanctions exist to deal with those - who have been so grossly negligent - who have so adversely affected (on a mass scale) the jobs, housing, health and wealth of ordinary people
The best post in this thread
The bankers, the politicians, the FSA etc. are all immune from "moral justice" under the status quo of the establishment and its laws.
No meaningful effective sanctions exist to deal with those - who have been so grossly negligent - who have so adversely affected (on a mass scale) the jobs, housing, health and wealth of ordinary people
Regardless of the morality involved in tgakng his bonus, as has been pointed out, this individual, in common with all the bank execs. in these situations, are taking their legal entitlements as they are entitled to do.
The fault lies with the culture which has allowed this type of contract to exisist, and grow.
The oft-repeated phrase used is that 'these salaries and bonuses are needed to attract the right calibre of applicant ...' even though time and again it is proved that this attituded is a spectacular failure.
I work for BT, and the boss of BT Global - the only area of the company to make a loss - was paid off with a bonus which it woud take me forty years to earn 75% of - and this year I am not getting a payrise.
The notion of built-in failure payoffs, which is what these people receive, seems tro me to be a complete nonsense. If a company needs to guarentee an eight-figure payoff if the eomployee fails to perform as contracted, then surely they are singularly failing to attract the 'right calibre' of applicants.
But to return to the point - wheras the public feel very aggrieved at Sir Fred's approach, the fact remains that he has not broken the law, and is fully entitled to protection from mindless yobbery.
The fault lies with the culture which has allowed this type of contract to exisist, and grow.
The oft-repeated phrase used is that 'these salaries and bonuses are needed to attract the right calibre of applicant ...' even though time and again it is proved that this attituded is a spectacular failure.
I work for BT, and the boss of BT Global - the only area of the company to make a loss - was paid off with a bonus which it woud take me forty years to earn 75% of - and this year I am not getting a payrise.
The notion of built-in failure payoffs, which is what these people receive, seems tro me to be a complete nonsense. If a company needs to guarentee an eight-figure payoff if the eomployee fails to perform as contracted, then surely they are singularly failing to attract the 'right calibre' of applicants.
But to return to the point - wheras the public feel very aggrieved at Sir Fred's approach, the fact remains that he has not broken the law, and is fully entitled to protection from mindless yobbery.
I'd be surprised if he ever reaches 55. The thought that �750,000 he is being paid every year from the taxpayer will be a constant reminder to unfortunate souls losing their jobs and homes. Vigilanties have promised to increase the pressure on these bankers so maybe he will return it as they have done in the USA.
