Tag Archives: Sir Fred Goodwin

RBS: interesting and sad, but inevitable


David Davis

I mean, what is the point, if you are a Stalinist, of nationalising an enormous bank, which is still operating mechanically as a bank that does banking thingies, if you can’t use it to influence free property transactions your way, and push people about? 

The Landed Underclass wins, again, the Daily Targeting Grand Challenge Cup. Either he does nothing all day, or else he gets up earlier than I do.

Meanwhile, in the madhouse, the political grandstanding continues. Why, instead of all that, since they are so kind and upright and want to “protect the integrity of the honours system” to assuage their pretend-rage, don’t the Westmonster buggere show what they are _really_ made of? Take away fred goodwin’s knighthood? My trousers they will! It could happen to them next!

Why don’t they just throw poor Fred’s wife and children to the lions in the arena, and make him watch? They’ve done almost as much already.

RBS: The Paul Myners/Harriet Harman/Derek Wanless thingy smells ever more fishy.


UPDATE:- Ooooooooooooh, look at this one too! Guido again. the sheer brass neck, the czhutzpah (if that’s how it’s spelt – I have no clue what czhutzpah is, maybe it’s an African cooking sauce) of these stalinist graspers just beggars the imagination.

David Davis

I smell a rat. I see it floating in the air. (Hat tip Guido, for Guido-guiding us to here.)

It seems that socialists will always be found, in the end, with their hands in the till. Be they ever so compassionate towards Working People – or just “The People” – be they ever so Fabian, so – well – Toynbee-esque, they can’t keep away from money, they simply can’t do it, it’s not in their nature, it’s like a magnet to them.

Perhaps it’s their institutional-amorality. They’re always gassing on about “capitalists” and their “worship of profit over people”. They trumpet their credentials to the rooftops: just read any article by Polly Toynbee for example, like this one.

(Pol) Pot calling kettle black, all over again, and again, and again….

Why can’t they just throw in the towel, stop pretending to want to “redistribute” other people’s legitimate property to those whom they purport to “represent”, and simply join the existing game?

Some may win: then they can be philanthropic without hurting others. This will be fine, and conservatives will not complain. We have done it for centuries. Then of course you die.

Some may not win, and some may even leave “out of the  money”. But that’s just life: so do we, and so have we also done for centuries. Then, after it’s all over, you die as well, even if you have failed first. It’s the rules of the game.

The stalinists don’t mind it happening to actors and actresses (many of whom they themselves f***, like JFK did) like that – so why not themselves? 

Hypocrites.

Harriet Harman, Sir Fred Goodwin, pensions, law and contract. The Army speaks. A suitable update from ARRSE


UPDATE2:- Dear old Legiron. Much better writer than I.

UPDATE1:- Here were our previous thoughts about Sir Fred and the fragrant Harriet.

David Davis

This part of the thread from here, on ARRSE, is instructive:-

Post Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:08 am

She needs to be very careful about a Court of Public Opinion
If she does listen to it she might not only find herself out of a job sharpish but she and her mates losing their gold plated pensions and expense packages aswell
Funny how public opinion now suits as stated by Old Snowy plenty of other things are desired by the public but we won’t get 
They fought tooth and nail to stop the public finding out about their pensions etc and such othert things as Iraq and WMD’s 
I saw a report that stated he had paid into the pension for 30 years starting with bank of Yorkshire and Clydesdale Bank so who is she to take it away from him?
The Goverment wil rake in tax from it and also he wil have paid plenty of tax over the years as well    

But whilst they kick off about this it stops what a p1ss poor job they are doing off the front page

the_boy_syrup
 
Posts: 2692
Joined: Feb 20, 2006


Post Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:09 am

Apologies, but I think Harman’s drivel is worth repeating as one of the most outrageously stupid remarks of the century (so far):    

“… but it’s not enforceable in the court of public opinion and that’s where the Government steps in.”

Notwithstanding that this shows the most staggering ignorance of how the country should be governed, isn’t it amazing that she’s suddenly so interested in public opinion, to the point of proposing a shameful piece of opportunistic legislation when it might earn the gobment a few cheap points — but somehow forgot the importance of public opinion when sending the nation into an illegal war?

For the last few years, especially since Bush was elected for the second time in the US, I’ve had an increasing sense that watching UK and US politicians is like looking through a distorting mirror. It seems more and more like watching children playing at being politicians. They open their mouths and the most unbelievable, ill-considered, illogical sh1t just pours out.

Yeah, I’m pi55ed off with Goodwin and the other greedy swine, but the government is at root responsible for this, by inadequate regulation, by mindless boosterism of unsustainable economic growth and by its pathetic and ill-thought-out response to the crisis. Goodwin is a symptom more than a cause.

And where the hell does Mandelson, of all people (“intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich”, remember?) get off by giving righteous lectures? 

They are barmy to be such spineless, clueless hypocrites, and barmier still to think we haven’t noticed.

What are we going to do about these ba5tards? How do the adults reclaim the reins of power?

Old_Reprobate
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Dec 27, 2007
Location: The goat farm


Post Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:26 am

The whole sorry interview is here:    

www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/…1_03_2009/

Start at 35mins 15 secs in.

There are not enough adjectives in the English language to describe how loathsome she is. Proof once again that this gubment think they are above the law and will do anything and say anything as long as it scores popular point with the voters.
When the history books are writen in a few years time, people will wonder how we managed to vote these jokers in threetimes!

Murphy_Slaw
 
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sep 20, 2007
Location: slightly right of Ghengis Khan




Post Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:31 am

Right said Fred (in “Harriet Harman, British State-Lynch-Mobdriver v. Royal Bank of Scotland plc Contracts Department”)


David Davis

It says in The Landed Underclass that The Telegraph says that the “government” is “prepared to change the Law” to stop Sir Fred Goodwin getting his contractually-agreed pension. Just look at this terrifyingly dangerous utterance:-

But Ms Harman, Labour’s deputy leader, said that all necessary steps would be taken if the 50 year old would not do the “honourable” thing. (my emphasis – ed.)

“Sir Fred should not be counting on being £650,000 a year better off as a result of this because it is not going to happen,” she told BBC1’s Andrew Marr show.

“The Prime Minister has said it is not acceptable and therefore it will not be accepted. It might be enforceable in a court of law this contract but it’s not enforceable in the court of public opinion and that’s where the Government steps in.”

Ms Harman declined to say exactly what action could be taken but reports this week have suggested a special Act of Parliament was being considered by Downing Street as a last resort.

It is a dangerous thing, that any government, after Magna Carta, does not have respect for Law. Talk of “public opinion” and “The People” is always a dead-giveaway about Nazis lefty tyrannical tendencies.  All outfits that behave in this way should be treated as deeply suspect nasty fascist lefty Nazis.

Sir Fred Goodwin, although probably as culpable as any trough-pigging banker who dined out for years on States’ funny-money, is entitled, as a Sovereign Individual, to keep what free contracts have allowed to him. Specially as Guido has pointed out that Lord Myners knew about it in advance and the sums involved are nugatory.

This is a clear case of shamelessly but unjustifiably trying to take the high-moral-ground, but the thoughpiggers of ZanuLieBorg – who have pissed away the money, and also incidentally robbed millions of people of hundreds of billions of their own, fully-legally-obtained, and paid-for, “private pension pots”, to pay for a clientariat-votariat for themselves.

We all now have to work till we die. Sir Fred’s £700,000 is the least of our worries. I hope he gets a highly-paid job with the IMF and screws Harriet Harman (metaphorically – I for one would not even “escort”  her, if she paid me.)

Sean Gabb on Holocaust Denial


UPDATE2:- (25th March 2009) See how Daniel Hannan tears, ferociously, the trousers, follows by the Y-fronts, off Gordon Brown, his own Prime Minister, in the EU Parliament. This will take the heat off poor Sir Fred Goodwin for a bit.

UPDATE: Here’s Sean Gabb’s speech to Conservative-Future, in London, Monday 16th February 2009. It was about what they should _REALLY_ do, as soon as they got into power. Smash the State, basically, by demolishing the levers of power which empower what Sean has publicly called “The Enemy Class” in their tyrannising of ordinary people, and the removal of individual liberty in all things.

It was a proper stormer, and really upset the Tories.

Free Life Commentary,
A Personal View from
The Director of the Libertarian Alliance
Issue Number 159
24th April 2007

postCount(‘flc159’);Comments (8)| postCountTB(‘flc159’); Trackback

Defending the Right to Deny the Holocaust
by Sean Gabb

Last week, on the 19th April, the Justice Ministers of the European Union agreed to make “incitement to racism and xenophobia” a criminal offence in all 27 member states. Despite the best efforts of the German Government, this does not mean that sceptical comments on the holocaust will become a crime in any European country where it is not so already. I am surprised that the British Government held out for a moderating of the final document so that all speech short of “incitement” will remain free. But I doubt if the agreement made last week will be the last word in the matter. Already, nine member states of the European Union punish denial or “gross revision” with imprisonment. There are calls for criminalisation in England. I have no doubt these calls will grow louder.

My own view – and I speak on this matter not only for me but also for the Libertarian Alliance – is that there should be no restrictions on freedom of speech where public affairs are concerned. This involves, among much else, the right to say anything at all about politics, religion, sex, science or history. It is no business of the State to tell people what they can and cannot think. Our bodies are our own. Our minds are our own. What we do with them is our business. It is one of the highest glories of the Enlightenment that states were shamed out of dragooning people into the various established worships of Europe. It is one of the most ominous signs of the modern counter-Enlightenment that people can again be persecuted for their opinions.

Of course, there are people who claim to believe in freedom of speech, but who say that the promotion of “hatred” is a distinct matter. They say that “hate speech” is direct or indirect incitement to acts of violence against others, and so should be put down by law. This is not, on their reasoning, censorship. It is simply a matter of keeping the peace.

We in the Libertarian Alliance reject this supposed distinction. What some call the promotion of hatred others call telling the truth. Quite often, whatever opinion the rich and powerful do not like they will find some means of calling “hatred”. In any event, we believe in the right to promote hatred by any means that do not fall within the Common Law definition of assault.

Perhaps you are one of those people who believe in a distinction between free speech and hate speech. This being so, I will drop any further mention of abstract rights and turn to a practical argument that is ultimately just as connected with keeping the peace. Let me ask: what reason have I to believe that the holocaust really happened?

The obvious answer – that the standard history books say it happened – is not in itself much good. My first degree was in History, and I know enough about certain periods to say with confidence that even standard secondary sources are riddled with errors that sometimes amount to actual falsehoods. I will not discuss the numerous claims of doubtful truth made about the Later Roman Empire. I will only observe that, in the standard accounts of the Second World War,  the Katyn Wood massacre used to be blamed on the Germans, and now it is blamed on the Soviets. How can I be sure that the same is not true for the holocaust?

The next answer – that there are many witnesses to the holocaust still alive – is also not much good in itself. These people may have been in a concentration camp, and they may have seen atrocities. They did not see the holocaust in any synoptic sense. They may have been mistaken. One of my grandmothers, for example, lived in Kent all through the Second World War, and she went to her grave insisting that there had been an unsuccessful German invasion of England in 1940. There are millions of people who claim to have seen plaster statues of the Virgin weep real tears, and I am perfectly assured they are mistaken or lying. How do I not know that the holocaust survivors I have met or seen on television were not mistaken or lying?

Or there is the argument from the agreed nature of the Hitler Regime. Almost everyone accepts that this acted in defiance of – and perhaps in open contempt for – the norms of civilised behaviour. This may be evidence for the probability of a holocaust. But it is hardly proof that one happened. On the same reasoning, I can believe that Hitler was a bad man: this does not require me to believe that he ate human flesh.

To answer the question properly for myself, of whether the holocaust happened, I need skills and knowledge that I do not have and do not feel inclined to acquire. I need a good understanding of German, Polish, Russian, Hungarian and Hebrew, among other languages. I need to be able to track down a mass of primary sources, most of which are unpublished but are in various European and American archives. To evaluate all this, I need technical knowledge that I do not have – knowledge, for instance, about the lethal nature of Zyklon B gas, or of diesel fumes, or of how to burn bodies and dispose of the remains.

I have not read even much of the secondary material that exists in English. This is not a subject that has interested me since I sat my O Levels. I have, though, read a very small selection of the material published on both sides of the debate. And what I can say of this is that, considered purely in itself, the revisionist material is as persuasive as that of the mainstream historians. At least one side in this debate is lying, and lying very fluently – but I am not able, on the basis of the evidence offered, to say who is lying.

Nevertheless, I believe with reasonable firmness that the German National Socialists did try, during the last years of the Second World War, to murder every Jew they could set hands on, and that they succeeded in murdering several million. Whether this was a plan centrally conceived and centrally directed, or whether most of the killings were deliberate murder or the effects of culpable negligence, are not matters on which I have any opinion. But on the central claim of the holocaust, I am reasonably assured.

I am assured of this on the authority of the mainstream historians. I have no means of knowing for myself whether the holocaust happened. But I take it on trust that it did happen. That is true for me, and it is true for the overwhelming majority of everyone else who believes the same.

There is nothing in its nature unsatisfactory about knowledge based on authority. Most of what we know we cannot demonstrate on any grounds of direct evidence. I “know”, for example, that light travels at 186,000 miles per second, and that the Earth is in an elliptical orbit around the Sun, and that the Earth is around 5,000 million years old. I am completely incapable of demonstrating any of this. I might even have trouble arguing with a convinced flat-earther. I believe all these things and much more beside because nearly everyone else believes them.

I grant that we should not believe too much on authority that we are competent to investigate for ourselves. But the only real concern with such knowledge is not that it is on authority, but that the authority should be good. What makes authority good? The best answer is when it can be openly contested by others who claim to know better, but who have not convinced reasonable onlookers that they do.

With regard to the holocaust, I have – broadly speaking – two options. I can believe that it did happen roughly as claimed. Or I can believe that it is a gigantic conspiracy of lies maintained since the 1940s in the face of all evidence. Since debate remains free in the English-speaking world, it should be obvious what I am to believe. I believe in the central fact of the holocaust. On the secondary issues mentioned above, where my authorities do not agree, I suspend judgment.

Take away the freedom to argue with or against these authorities, though, and my assurance that they are right must be weakened.

In my case, let me say, laws against revising or denying the holocaust will not destroy my belief that it happened. There is still the long preceding time of open debate, and the unlikelihood that compelling new evidence either way has been discovered now. There is also the fact that many people will insist on laws in support of evident truths. If you are Jewish, for example, it may be very upsetting for people to say that your grandparents were not murdered in Poland in 1944, but are alive and well and living in Finchley. Or you may worry that scepticism about the holocaust will prepare the way for a repeat of it. Then there are the obvious financial and moral advantages that certain Jews and the State of Israel have obtained from the holocaust. Cries of anti-semitism are a good closing tactic for many debates that might otherwise be lost.

Laws to compel belief in the holocaust do not mean it did not happen. But they do allow people to ask what kind of truth this is that needs laws to defend it. There are many people who know even less about the holocaust than I do, and who deny that it happened simply because David Irving is generally acknowledged to be an expert of sorts on the period, and he had to be locked up before he would shut up.

Open mockery of deeply-held views, deliberate and gross offence, savage abuse that barely stops short of incitement to violence – these may well disturb the peace. Far worse, though, is the sort of hatred that boils beneath a seemingly placid surface, and then erupts into a disorder that cannot be checked by reason. That is the danger of laws to compel belief in the holocaust.

And they make cranks into martyrs. Do you suppose the Libertarian Alliance enjoys putting out news releases in defence of David Irving? We put these out because we believe in freedom of speech with no exceptions. We put up with the cold shoulder from other civil liberties groups, and with raised eyebrows and outright smears. We are much happier defending the rights of sexual or social minorities, whose tastes we might ourselves share or do not think in the least reprehensible. We do what we believe is our duty, and do it as well as we can – but we regret the need to do it.

And they set a precedent for further censorship. If people must be careful what they say about the holocaust, why not add the alleged Armenian genocide? Or the alleged Bosnian genocide? Or the alleged Irish genocide of the 1840s? Or the Divine Mission of Christ? Or the holiness of the Prophet? Why not have legal curbs on doubts regarding the nature and extent of global warming? Indeed, on this last, there are calls for the American President to be impeached for his expressed doubts.

Censorship is rather like torture. It is always possible to fabricate “exceptional circumstances” to justify it. Opponents can always be denounced as naive or tender-hearted. But it is always corrupting of civilised decency. Its general tendency is to undermine whatever it is called into being to uphold.

I am glad that the British Government, among others, managed on this occasion to prevent a common scheme of censorship across the European Union. But I do not suppose, given the settled decline of faith in freedom of speech, that this will turn out to have been more than a holding action.

NB – Sean Gabb’s novel The Column of Phocas (£8.99) will be withdrawn from sale in the next few months, prior to its reissue in February 2008 by a multinational publishing group. Buy copies of the first edition while you can from http://tinyurl.co.uk/z31v or via Amazon: http://tinyurl.co.uk/2cnw The sequel has already been completed.

You can download the first three chapters free of charge from: http://tinyurl.co.uk/kkl4