Sir Frederick Goodwin
…..c/o The Royal Bank of Scotland plc
42 St Andrew’s Square
Dear Sir Fred
I do not know where you are at present and I presume it’s not at the above offices, but never mind. I am sure the good ladies at the Southport Branch will have this sent to you, after I have presented hard copy to them tomorrow morning. The purpose of this private letter is to advise you that I, and perhaps many thousands of other ordinary folks, are appalled at the way Mr Harriet Harman (we call her on the blog “Horrid Hardbint”) is getting at you publicly, and threatening to invoke what we also call, on here, “State Directed Property-Confiscation”.
It is really of no interest to me at all, nor is it to others I know, what your agreed pension is to be. It is the least of our worries at this time. I, as a customer of your Bank (it is actually quite a good Bank, and has not been more than usually unreasonable over the 20-odd years of my association with it – from Holt’s days – remember that one?) would say that if it and you – and even the ghastly/oily Sir Paul Myners – had agreed a sum for you to b***** off with, than that should be it.
If the Law says a contract is admissible at Law, and therefore can be defended in a Court, then what business is it of Hardbint and her nasty fascist friends in the government to pretend they can overturn it, using what they have the brass neck, the immortal rind and thickskin, to call “public opinion”?
Are laws to be changed by merely what the sitting government says is “public opinion”? What, then, is Parliament for? A very dangerous precedent for the prospects for individual liberty – and in particular property rights – would be set by Harbint’s words, if she were able to translate them into actions.
You __must__ certainly defend yourself, and vigorously, and by whatever means are at your disposal, to keep a contractual arrangement which has been legally agreed with you. For you to not do this will be an abrogation of YOUR own responsibility as a Subject of the Queen to defend the Rule of Law. If you do not, then a bad precedent will have been set, and everyone’s legally-agreed property will be under an existential threat.
The duty to do this falls to you more than to others (a) because you have just been publicly attacked and threatened by an Officer of the State, and (b) because you probably have more resources to do this than the rest of us.
Blogmaster, The Libertarian Alliance