Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Harriet has says that even if Fred The Shed's obscenely large pension is legal and was signed off by Ministers (probably including the Chancellor) the Prime Minister will ensure he doesn't get the full sum of ?693,000 pa, she implies that the government / Gordon will enact legislation to enable it to recover the pension fund from Fred.


Harriet Speaks


I have no wish, or inclination, to defend Fred's pension but I find Harriet's statement profoundly disturbing. Retrospective legislation should never be condoned - no matter what the purpose.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/5495-freds-pension-harriet-harman/
Share on other sites

I don't find Harman's mitherings to do with anything other than the usual kowtowing to the press.

It's all blather and flummery and will possibly lead to an 'enquiry', maybe resulting in a lot of arsewind and a rich Fred.

It wouldn't be this way if Tony Soprano was running the country.

And I don't consider myself a cynic.

AllforNun Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> yer what a balls up ? did you not think to buy a

> house in ED/DV/WD/NH/Pecknarm sometime back ?

>

> if the other parties had been in charge it would

> be UK KFC by now !


Jesus AFN, just because you own the Talking Heads LP 'Stop making Sense', it doesn't mean you have to live your life by it.

Well, yes but...


If it's a private traded company he can pay himself what he wants.


If it's a public traded company then he can pay himself what the shareholders agree to, but this presupposes that they're both consulted and educated.


If it's a publicly owned company then he gets paid what politicians feels is the minimum necessary whilst still retaining the vote. This presupposes that the public are educated sufficiently well to use their vote wisely.

Harriet said: "it might be enforceable in a court of law, this contract, but it is not enforceable in the court of public opinion and that is where the government steps in."


Now, this court of public opinion sounds like a good thing to me - how did the jury of this court find the defendant, one Mr T Blair, when he was accused, with multiple accomplices, of acting in bad faith in taking the UK into a war (or two)? For these wars there appeared to be no mandate or justification - either ahead of time with regard to any resolution/vote in the UN, or through any credible intelligence on weapons of mass destruction, or retrospectively through what was found in Iraq and Afghanistan. And what did the judge of this court of public opinion do when one J Smith, of (occasionally) Nunhead, was found with her fingers in the till of public money?


Leaving aside the implications of legislating for one badly-conducted contractual negotiation, this is a very dangerous move for the government to be talking about. The PM appears to have backtracked today, thankfully...

It will be very interesting to see what Harriet Harman has in mind....await her next move with interest.


We the people and the government and the world economy are all victims of sub prime, and the stupid "AAA" risk attached to the securitised assets which all banks bought into with their cash reserves. I blame the risk agencies, Moodys, Standard & Poor or whoever rated these "assets" for ALL of what has happended.


Fred should keep his pension, he negotaited it and its been signed. He built up a huge banking empire and but for the incorrect ratings attributed to sub prime he might still be building this bank. Eventually he did fail in the eyes of the media and the people, but not in terms of his employment contract, if he is asked to go he is entitled to a termination package in line with his earnings. There is nothing the government can now do about that, I would be very surprised if there are any changes to his termination arrangements.

If the implication is that Howard/Hague/IDS or Cameron would have behaved any differently then I am going to have a hard time buying it



Sean,


Poor logic. Howard / Hague / IDS & Cameron have not and are not in charge of government. The Labour Party is. This government - T Blair's & G Brown's has been characterised by headlining statements and then a lack of attention to detail:


Remove tax breaks on Pension Funds - ?5 Billion a year win for government coffers - but destruction of previously internationally regarded British pension system.


Make the Bank of England independent - but fail to put in place a sufficiently rigorous regulatory regime. Result - economic meltdown.


Invade Iraq to find weapons of mass destruction - whoops, no WMD. Result 150+ deaths of British service and well over a 1,000 serious injuries plus countless thousands of Iraqi deaths and heightened tensions with Islamic world.


Send Parachute REgiment to Helmand Province - John Reid states "We'll not need to fire a single shot". 3 years and several million rounds of ammunition later - we're losing servicemen's lives again.


Take over RBS and sack the CEO. Fail to check up on the small print of the deal - make a song and dance about something that is legally watertight and beyond government interference (cf: Mick Mac's post above.

Ill need to check my facts mm but im fairly sure her majesty s opposition supported blair and brown in several of those ventures


It is possible to support the intention but still find that the detail is lacking. However, of my five examples the opposition opposed at least two - Pension raid and deployment of troops to Afghanistan without adequate support.

Does it really matter what someone get in a pension, given the scale of fuckups that we have seen of late ? No one was bothered about Freds Pot when their houses were rocketing in value just like their their own company/priate pension pots ( contianing a big slice of RBS equity ) anmd whatever equities they were holding, either in person of via proxy.....all of which are part of the same set of rubbish asset valuations that led to this downfall



So why the big bother now ?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Direct link to joint statement : https://thehaguegroup.org/meetings-bogota-en/?link_id=2&can_id=2d0a0048aad3d4915e3e761ac87ffe47&source=email-pi-briefing-no-26-the-bogota-breakthrough&email_referrer=email_2819587&email_subject=pi-briefing-no-26-the-bogot_-breakthrough&&   No. 26 | The Bogotá Breakthrough “The era of impunity is over.” That was the message from Bogotá, Colombia, where governments from across the Global South and beyond took the most ambitious coordinated action since Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza began 21 months ago. Convened by The Hague Group and co-chaired by the governments of Colombia and South Africa, the Emergency Conference on Palestine brought together 30 states for two days of intensive deliberation — and emerged with a concrete, coordinated six-point plan to restrain Israel’s war machine and uphold international law. States took up the call from their host, Colombian President and Progressive International Council Member Gustavo Petro, who had urged them to be “protagonists together.” Twelve governments signed onto the measures immediately. The rest now have a deadline: 20 September 2025, on the eve of the United Nations General Assembly. The unprecedented six measures commit states to:     Prevent military and dual use exports to Israel.     Refuse Israeli weapons transfers at their ports.     Prevent vessels carrying weapons to Israel under their national flags.     Review all public contracts to prevent public institutions and funds from supporting Israel’s illegal occupation.     Pursue justice for international crimes.     Support universal jurisdiction to hold perpetrators accountable. “We came to Bogotá to make history — and we did,” said Colombian President Gustavo Petro. “Together, we have begun the work of ending the era of impunity. These measures show that we will no longer allow international law to be treated as optional, or Palestinian life as disposable.” The measures are not symbolic. They are grounded in binding obligations under international law — including the International Court of Justice’s July 2024 advisory opinion declaring Israel’s occupation unlawful, and September 2024’s UN General Assembly Resolution ES-10/24, which gave states a 12-month deadline to act. UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory Francesca Albanese called them “a momentous step forward.” “The Hague Group was born to advance international law in an era of impunity,” said South Africa’s Foreign Minister, Ronald Lamola. “The measures adopted in Bogotá show that we are serious — and that coordinated state action is possible.” The response from Washington was swift — and revealing. In a threatening statement to journalists, a US State Department spokesperson accused The Hague Group of “seeking to isolate Israel” and warned that the US would “aggressively defend our interests, our military, and our allies, including Israel, from such coordinated legal and diplomatic” actions. But instead of deterring action, the threats have only clarified the stakes. In Bogotá, states did not flinch. They acted — and they invite the world to join them. The deadline for further states to take up the measures is now two months away. And with it, the pressure is mounting for governments across the world — from Brazil to Ireland, Chile to Spain — to match words with action. As Albanese said, “the clock is now ticking for states — from Europe to the Arab world and beyond — to join them.” This is not a moment to observe. It is a moment to act. Share the Joint Statement from Bogotá and popularise the six measures. Write to your elected representative and your government and demand they sign on before 20 September. History was made in Bogotá. Now, it’s up to all of us to ensure it becomes reality, that Palestinian life is not disposable and international law is not optional. The era of impunity is coming to an end. Palestine is not alone. In solidarity, The Progressive International Secretariat  
    • Most countries charge for entry to museums and galleries, often a different rate for locals (tax payers) and foreign nationals. The National Gallery could do this, also places like the Museums in South Kensington, the British Library and other tax-funded institutions. Many cities abroad add a tourist tax to hotel bills. It means tourists help pay for public services.
    • Having just been to Co-op to redeem a 50p off Co-op members' card voucher on an item that is now 50p more than it was last week, Tesco can't come soon enough
    • Surely that depends on the amount.  It can be quite piffling.  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...