Sir Fred Goodwin - former head of RBS = which managed to cost taxpayers £billions when it collapsed has allegedly obtained a superinjunction preventing media from describing him as a " job description deleted but think of merchant ##### "
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12709484
So the British Justice System continues on its merry way of protecting the guilty - particularly if they are rich ...
Of course, if you are poor or normally well off , you cannot afford the consultation fee to even consider the process but hey we live in a democracy , right? We've got to keep our former bankers' confidentiality especially when they have done so much to enrich impoverish us.
Last edited by: madf on Fri 11 Mar 11 at 06:41
|
The Freds are still out there cocking a snook at the rest of us.
Perversely the banks are now coining it again despite a shortage of capital. They are taking little risk but have widened their margins considerably. The opportunity, if there ever was one, for the government to rein them in, or even to collect a realistic amount of tax on their profits, has gone.
No doubt someone will be along in a minute to say it is all for my benefit.
|
>> The Freds are still out there cocking a snook at the rest of us.
Yes.
>> Perversely the banks are now coining it again despite a shortage of capital. They are taking
>> little risk but have widened their margins considerably. The opportunity, if there ever was
>> one, for the government to rein them in, or even to collect a realistic amount of tax on their
>> profits, has gone.
Actually I think the media and government missed a trick whipping up the anti-banker bonus frenzy.
Bank pays 28% (or thereabouts, using the tax rules for their best advantage) corporation tax.
Tax on a personal bonus is likely to be 40% or 50% for most employees
However it does rather distort the housing market price down south..
Anyway, If the banks all follow HSBC's threat and leave London we'll be in an even bigger hole than we already are.
Agreed, the wealthy can use their wealth and power to look after themselves - nothing new there.
Last edited by: AnotherJohnH on Fri 11 Mar 11 at 10:27
|
>>
>> Perversely the banks are now coining it again despite a shortage of capital. They are
>> taking little risk but have widened their margins considerably. The opportunity, if there ever was
>> one, for the government to rein them in, or even to collect a realistic amount
>> of tax on their profits, has gone.
>>
>> No doubt someone will be along in a minute to say it is all for
>> my benefit.
>>
Agree, but then it can't be that difficult to make money when base rate is 0.5% but typical mortgage rate is still up above 4%. I seem to recall at other times a difference of 1-1.5% between base and mortgage rate was more typical. Multiplied by the amount of mortgage lending in this country that's a lot of money.
|
>> Sir Fred Goodwin - former head of RBS = which managed to cost taxpayers £billions
>> when it collapsed
It hasn't cost us billions though, has it?
We own 84% of the bank, with that stake currently worth about £21 billion. I believe that we paid £20 billion for that stake.
The truth is that with all of these bailouts, including the banks in the US and likes of GM, is that the taxpayers generally make a good return.
|
The forum's favourite newspaper has a little more on this story:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1365047/Former-RBS-boss-Sir-Fred-Goodwin-named-Parliament-having-taken-super-injunction.html
The term 'banker' is hitting the headlines, although far more interesting is the 'other matters Sir Fred wishes to keep private'.
It's also bad news in a sense for the footballer John Terry because his case is raked over again, just in case anyone's forgotten about it.
Last edited by: Iffy on Fri 11 Mar 11 at 08:26
|
|
Wealth should have its privileges.
|
It does, you can buy stuff. Isn't that enough?
John
|
|
The best thing about a superinjunction is apparently that no one is allowed to know even of its existence, apart from the House of Commons and C4P of course.
|
>> The best thing about a superinjunction is apparently that no one is allowed to know
>> even of its existence, apart from the House of Commons and C4P of course.
And the front page of the Sun.
|
"merchant #####" - is that cockney rhyming slang?
|
I see the front page of The Star has "Jordan divorces" or some such as it's headline. I must have blinked. All that's going on in the world and that is the most important thing to some people. :-(
How about a super injunction preventing reporting of; Jordan, Royal Wedding and... I'm sure there's more?
John
|
>> The Star has "Jordan divorces" or some such as it's headline.
"Jordan Divorce Today - Official. Kate blames Reid's 'unreasonable' behaviour as marriage fomally ends"
;)
|
Wow. I wonder what constitutes unreasonable in that house? I might also ask who "Reid" is but that might give the impression I cared :-)
John
|
>> I might also ask who "Reid" is but that might give the impression I cared :-)
Cross-dressing cage fighter. Simples.
|
I must lead a sheltered life. Presumably "unreasnoable behaviour" means he wouldn't share his frocks!
John
|
I'm not a Sun reader so I don't know what the ghastly Goodwin is trying to hide. It can't be his ill-gotten gains because everyone knows about those. It can't be his appalling dress sense either because everyone knows about that. What hanky-panky, what shenanigans, could the po-faced twozzer have got up to? Perhaps he's just tired of being pointed at as a comic example of the undeserving rich.
Somehow I can't bring myself to care much, apart from twinges of prurient curiosity. Is there something wrong with me I wonder?
|
Well, call me naive, but I can't understand this injunction business.
Whatever happened to freedom of speech? I can't think of any possible justification for banning people from saying things about Sir Fred - particularly if the things that they are saying are true.
It seems that all sorts of freedoms seem to be disappearing in modern Britain in an effort to prevent people from having their feelings hurt.
|
...particularly if the things that they are saying are true...
That is the problem from the media's point of view.
Goodwin appears to accept whatever it is he is trying to hide is true.
|
>> particularly if the things that they are
>> saying are true.
Invasion of privacy, and all that jazz.
I mean, who hasn't indulged in an orgy with six prostituites, during which certain concentration-camp scenarios are acted out?
It is MY private life, and you lot have no right to know about it.
Oh, has anyone got any idea what the injucntion involving a certain well-known tall wiry-haired motoring-show presenter/Murdoch columnist-journalist managed to get an injunction about?
|
>> I see the front page of The Star has "Jordan divorces" or some such as
>> it's headline. I must have blinked. All that's going on in the world and that
>> is the most important thing to some people. :-(
>>
Yes, but it's a long time since The Star was a newspaper.
|
Invasion of privacy, and all that jazz.
Where does this absurd notion that we have a right to privacy come from? If I have an affair with someone, what right have I to order people not to talk about it? If I don't want them to talk about me having an affair, I'll not have one. If I don't want people to say that I drive an Audi, I'll not drive one. If I, er, um, don't want people to say I'm a banker, I won't get a job with a bank.
(I realize that won't stop them, but then I doubt that there is a single person in this country who has reached the age of 10 who has not had something untrue said about them.)
|
|
This:- tinyurl.com/4fb9tjl is even nicer, as it demonstrates just what sort of a (b)anker Sir Fred is/was in his business life.
|
Sir Fred Goodwin - superinjunction - Manatee
