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

    • Since you’re clearly not experiencing what we are I’m not sure I agree with any of your points. I also asked for anyone else having a similar problem… it’s absolutely fine if you’re not but I’d appreciate less of the “go live your life”. There is no need to comment with that tone, it doesn’t provide us with any help for the matter. Nor is it polite. We’re a very kind family simply not wanting damage and don’t find the actions necessary. It’s been the same driver/delivery for a while and this never used to happen. I wouldn’t post this on the forum if it wasn’t getting so frustrating. Again, the kids and myself have kindly asked for this to stop a few times with no success. We all work hard for our living and would never want (nor are we trying) to rid someone of their livelihood. But similarly, I don’t find it fair. Please feel free to PM me if anyone has any advise or shares the same.  
    • And now we have the worst labour government in many many decades who, by moving to your position on the right, are ushering in a far right reform government. Well done you.
    • You implied he did a good job in your first paragraph when you said you would have hated to see Corbyn lead the country through Covid - the alternative being Johnson, presumably? With the results we all saw. Unite - you have a problem with unions? Who work hard to see that their members get a fair deal in their workplace? How exactly are these people and groups "all as bad as each other"? In what way? Labour "purging their party of the far-left" has given us a weak prime minister who has apparently deserted any "left" (aka caring for other people and having decent moral principles) leanings he ever had. Which is why people appear to be leaving Labour in droves and voting, or intending to vote, Green or Lib Dem or for an independent Left candidate. Starmer has shot himself in the foot, in my opinion. But what would I know. What worked?! I don't know enough about what you are talking about to comment, but "believing" you know the reason someone did something does not make it true. I don't believe that Corbyn ever got "starstruck" or "forgot about his politics", but if you can provide evidence that those things are true, then fair enough. I don't think you can, though.
    • I think you need to get a grip If it's who I am thinking of, she's a young black girl in her twenties, has braids with bright colours through them and - I suspect - works with her father. It's always the same man behind the wheel and he's older than her, always in the same van, so I'm assuming it's a father-daughter combo which, if it is, I think is rather sweet.  They hustle hard in a job that is poorly paid, has little prospects, is relentless and thankless. The fact that they have stuck it out since the pandemic says a lot about them.  I think she's a lovely girl, who's perhaps a little shy - but she'll smile or chat back if you make the effort with her. And I admire her for sticking with that job for so long. Perhaps she's just one of these people who's naturally a bit clumsy or bashes things, the same way some people are heavy on their feet when they walk. But I wouldn't dream of jeopardising her job because she closes the slams the gate and doesn't 'kiss' the ring doorbell with her fingers.  Perhaps she's being passive aggressive because you are. And perhaps she also wishes she got to spend her time worrying about potential damage to her letterbox or her gate.  As for your gate / letterbox - you're talking about hypotheticals. Has there been any damage? No. Then go and live your life and worry about it when it happens.  (apols we have the wrong person, but some of my points still stand). 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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