BS: Fred Goodwin's home attacked - hahaha!

Subject: RE: BS: Fred Goodwin's home attacked - hahaha!
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 11:15 AM

He'll probably screw another small fortune out of his insurance policy, pushing up everyones home insurance bills next year, and probably the policy will give him more attention than he deserves (he should get no more than someone on low income living in a high rise estate) leeching more public money.

Subject: RE: BS: Fred Goodwin's home attacked - hahaha!
From: Rapparee
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 11:15 AM

It's not much of a step from stones to Molotov cocktails and grenades. I know, I saw it in the '60s.

And what are the police doing about this destruction of property, vandalism, and (likely) incitement to riot?

Are the attackers ready to take the next step?

Subject: RE: BS: Fred Goodwin's home attacked - hahaha!
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 11:30 AM

Well the evening standard are of the opinion that the G20 summit in London will be remembered for its violence.

They are encouraging bankers to dress down to go to work.

Typical evening standard guff I presume ... I certainly hope so ...

I don't wish to live in a bomb site.

Subject: RE: BS: Fred Goodwin's home attacked - hahaha!
From: theleveller
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 11:47 AM

"Intimidation is a nasty pastime, and it's a common weapon of certain self righteous organisations. "

Yes, mostly governments, those with power, the ruling classes and, of course, never despised by the fascists in the BNP, etc.

That you see an attack on the property of a nasty, selfish individual like Goodwin by a few people as bullying shows what a perverted perception you have on life, John.

"I know, I saw it in the '60s."

Rapaire, on 17th March 1968 I was protesting peacefully in Grosvenor Square, unaware that I was breaking any law, when I was charged by a phalanx of police horses and narrowly escaped serious injury.

Strange how those on the right wing seem to find violence acceptable when it's being perpetrated by them (as it so often is) but so unacceptable when it's against them.

Personally, I do not condone violence but see the property of social abusers like Goodwin as a legitimate target.

Subject: RE: BS: Fred Goodwin's home attacked - hahaha!
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 11:52 AM

To address various points made by Dick Bridge:

1.        No theft has been perpetrated by Sir Fred Goodwin in any way, shape or form, to continue to state that he is a thief in print is libel you as a lawyer should know that.

2.        Can you tell me who "the system" has robbed Dickey and what particular "system" you are referring to. I do not manipulate any system and to date I have not lost a thing.


3.        Now this one I liked – "Once upon a time a lot of lawyers made it their concern to see that they worked in a "justice" system." – A "lot of lawyers" Dickey?? Like hell, damn few and far between. All you ever get from Courts of Law is LAW. If it is justice then that has to be fought for in Parliament where laws are changed. You then rounded that off with – "Some of us still believe in justice" – Again Dickey, hell as like you believe in mob rule, as did most during the French Revolution – They weren't so keen on it when it eventually turned on them.

Now it is thelevellers turn:

1.        No I do not believe or put forward the opinion that Goodwin is ethical, but I strongly refute the accusation that he is a thief and a criminal.

2.        On the subject of criminality you quote two cases and ask which is criminal? On the one hand you describe Goodwin as – "A man who, from his abuse of power, ruined the lives of thousands and then arrogantly refused to refute the huge payout he had negotiated," On the other hand your alternative candidates you rather euphemistically describe as – "a few radicals registering the disgust of all right-minded people at the fact that he (Goodwin) got away with it?". The honest answer to your question is of course that while Sir Fred Goodwin is guilty of nothing more than being a particularly good negotiator (possibly not it must be awfully easy to run circles round "Clown" Brown and his minions) the others are guilty of criminal damage.

3.        You bay and call for "the revolution" and boast that the attack on Sir Fred Goodwin's property was "not mindless vandalism, this was a well-planned and executed guerrilla operation" Be careful what you wish for leveler it might just come to pass, and if that is your yardstick of a well-planned and executed operation that revolution of yours is going bite you rather badly.

To Emma B:

1.        "….the reality a small group described by experts as well-educated individuals conducting an organized assault

"Professor Capitanchik, of the Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen, grouped the gang together with environmental terrorists and guerrilla animal protection activists.

"These groups, while not using violence against people, are not too concerned about causing damage," he said. "All of this, in their view, is to bring home the message, whatever it happens to be."

He said they were likely to be young, highly motivated, well-educated individuals and suggested they could be bank workers or investors." –   So Professor C has never heard of "those" groups using intimidation; issuing death threats; hammering nails into trees; sending incendiaries through the post; sending letter bombs. Odd that I didn't realize the ivory towers of Robert Gordon's were as well insulated from normal life as that.

2.        On Monday, Sir Max Hastings, a military historian and former newspaper editor, called on the public to throw stones through the windows of failed bankers" – Then someone wants to inform Sir Max that incitement to commit a criminal act is an offence. Alternatively "failed bankers" could toddle round to Sir Max's place and heave a few bricks through his windows to see how much he appreciates it.

3.        "They have stashed away enough of our money to be secure from any threat to their lifestyles." – More crap from Sir Max, who Emma B seems to have fastened upon as the font of all knowledge. Well I have news for both Sir Max and for Emma B, those "failed bankers" have not taken a single penny of either yours or his.

Finally Guest Lox:

1.        "We in the public domain have an image of banks as prudent conservative sensible institutions that we can trust with our money." – And generally by and large they are. I along with hundreds of millions of others still use and trust banks. Not one of them has ever robbed me, got me hopping mad at times, and I would not cross the street to spit on any employee of the Nat West even if they were on fire, but that is personal.

2.        "We assume that those running the banks put our interests first and would never do anything to compromise our security and livelihoods." – Well no, not really, that is not the way things work, irrespective of what you might think. The bank is a business that is there to service a need and it exists to make money primarily for its shareholders. As its business is making money, it relies on its demonstrable and proven ability to do that to attract customers, who, if they save with the bank, quite rightly expect the bank to make them money in terms of interest paid on savings accounts. So Guest Lox Banks are not there to provide anyone with a safety net or any other form of social service – it is basically up to you to look after your own security and to look after your own livelihood.

3.        "A point to remember - if RBS had gone under, he would have received no pension as there would have been no company to pay it.

So he needs to thank us for having a pension at all.

The fact that he has agreed to take so much is criminal." - Now let's see if, and it's a very big if, RBS had gone under what would have happened? All the banks assets would have been realized, all outstanding debts to the bank would have been called in causing a large number of very healthy companies and employers to go to the wall themselves who otherwise would have continued to trade and employ people. Get the drift, the ripples from a pebble. Now who are the first to be protected when a company goes under – in order – the employees pay and pensions; the creditors; the shareholders. Sir Fred Goodwin negotiated his "retirement" package with those who were throwing RBS a lifeline, i.e. the British Government, The Treasury in fact. Maybe they should learn to negotiate better; Sir Fred didn't just name his own price somebody in either the Government or the Civil Service had to have agreed to it so please stop talking about this man doing anything criminal, he hasn't. Morally objectionable maybe but nothing illegal - I'd pour my scorn on the clots who let him get away with it - Clown Brown and Co.

Subject: RE: BS: Fred Goodwin's home attacked - hahaha!
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 12:04 PM

The Banks own rules decided that he should get the pension he did.. not his fault!!! He is entitled to it even though the media have glorified it out of proportion. Just because we are in an economic decline... OK as a result of the Banks negotiations... it comes to everyones notice. Had we not been in decline then he would have retired eventually, drawn the pension and nothing would have been said.
As for the damage to his car etc.... I am sure he is insured... therefore the Insurance company/ies will pay out and he will have his items restored... but who pays for the insurance money... all those who pay into the insurance companies!! So I never see a point in any kind of criminal damage, whatever the reasoning behind it... someone(s) will always have to pay for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Fred Goodwin's home attacked - hahaha!
From: Rapparee
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 12:07 PM

Congratulations.

In March, 1968 I was "up" and hanging around the Armory, waiting deployment to fight floods on the Mississippi. A month later I was "up" as backup for the riots following the murder of MLK. A month after that I was sworn into "up to two years Federal Active Duty" and the unit of the National Guard to which I belonged was shipped to Chu Lai, South Vietnam. After returning I was again "up" following the stupid, unconscionable, shootings at Kent State. As soon as possible thereafter I quit, transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve, and a year later was discharged.

A peaceful demonstration can turn violent by the actions of a very few on either side. If you're not ready to pull the trigger, don't take up the gun.

As they say, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime."

Subject: RE: BS: Fred Goodwin's home attacked - hahaha!
From: theleveller
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 12:14 PM

"If you're not ready to pull the trigger, don't take up the gun."

My views on guns for any reason are well-known.

Subject: RE: BS: Fred Goodwin's home attacked - hahaha!
From: Rapparee
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 12:39 PM

"Power comes from the barrel of a gun." -- Mao

YOUR views on guns and violence might be well known, but you can't control others.

Subject: RE: BS: Fred Goodwin's home attacked - hahaha!
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 12:43 PM

Teribus,

As I scrolled down I thought (with a smile) "it'll be me next - he can't resist" - so it appears that I have reached a point where I enjoy your responses.

So, like a moth to a flame, like a planet to a black hole, like a spider to a plug, I find myself engaging with the self appointed Bruce Lee of verbal combat.

"The bank is a business that is there to service a need and it exists to make money primarily for its shareholders. As its business is making money, it relies on its demonstrable and proven ability to do that to attract customers, who, if they save with the bank, quite rightly expect the bank to make them money in terms of interest paid on savings accounts. So Guest Lox Banks are not there to provide anyone with a safety net or any other form of social service – it is basically up to you to look after your own security and to look after your own livelihood."

Banks offer more than just saving accounts.

They, like other businesses, provide services/products for paying customers.

Different customers require different services.

I use banks as a way of keeping my finances more secure.

I don't have to carry cash around all the time, store it under my mattress or fill bags with it every time I want to buy something expensive.

I have the option of using cheque, debit card or transfer.

In return, the bank may use my money as capital with which to run a lending business to their other customers (the ones from whom they make their real profits).

In practice, I lend to the bank in return for that security and they give me that security in return for their right to give credit to those who need it.

It is my banks responsibility to me to invest sensibly.

"Now let's see if, and it's a very big if, RBS had gone under what would have happened? All the banks assets would have been realized, all outstanding debts to the bank would have been called in causing a large number of very healthy companies and employers to go to the wall themselves who otherwise would have continued to trade and employ people. Get the drift, the ripples from a pebble. Now who are the first to be protected when a company goes under – in order – the employees pay and pensions; the creditors; the shareholders. Sir Fred Goodwin negotiated his "retirement" package with those who were throwing RBS a lifeline, i.e. the British Government, The Treasury in fact. Maybe they should learn to negotiate better; Sir Fred didn't just name his own price somebody in either the Government or the Civil Service had to have agreed to it so please stop talking about this man doing anything criminal, he hasn't. Morally objectionable maybe but nothing illegal - I'd pour my scorn on the clots who let him get away with it - Clown Brown and Co."

On the subject of Gordon, You'll note that I have already agreed that point.

On the subject of "moral", "Illegal" and "Criminal", you'll see that the only difference between your view and mine concerns use of the word "criminal". He hasn't broken the law, but in my opinion his actions are criminal.

Aside from legal definitions, criminal can also mean:

"senseless; foolish"

"Shameful; disgraceful"

"Guilty of crime or sin."

"bringing or deserving severe rebuke or censure"

synonymous with "condemnable"


As for your other point concerning the pebble and the ripples, it would seem that you are agreeing that we should all, like fred, be grateful for the decision to save RBS.

My point, that the purpose of that money was to save the bank and not Freddie Freeloader, still stands.

And my opinion, that his actions were criminal, still stands.

Subject: RE: BS: Fred Goodwin's home attacked - hahaha!
From: goatfell
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 12:59 PM

he 'stole' money for the RBS custmers

Subject: RE: BS: Fred Goodwin's home attacked - hahaha!
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 01:00 PM

It's not the aims, but the means that is wrong. I feel the same about many things on this. Violence and intimidation is the act of the bully, down through history.
There is no difference between this group of wrong headed people who made the futile gesture of vandalising Goodwin's house, and the Angry Brigade. They both hide their criminal acts under a the disguise of anonymity.
They can dignify their actions by calling themselves something crusading, but it still remains a fact, that they broke the law, and Fred Goodwin didn't.
I'm not saying I agree with his actions, or that of his ex employers, but neither to I agree with cowards who hide in the night, and commit crimes.

Subject: RE: BS: Fred Goodwin's home attacked - hahaha!
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 01:05 PM

"Personally, I do not condone violence but see the property of social abusers like Goodwin as a legitimate target." the leveller

I see violence against property as violence.

I would also add that when one sets something in motion one is not in control of others' response to it. (I yell at you, you punch me. I punch you, you set fire to my house.) I suspect that only rarely is the reaction of smaller moment than the initial provocation.

When one participates in or condones breaking a target's windows, does anyone have any idea of what the response will entail?

An analogy: They say that a smart lawyer in court never asks a question to which he or she doesn't know the answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Fred Goodwin's home attacked - hahaha!
From: greg stephens
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 01:09 PM

A lot of people keep pointing out that Goodwin broke no law, so he's noit a bad bloke. Firstly, he is a bad bloke, lawbreaker or not. Secondly, he may well have broken the law, it is being investigated. And it will be exceedingly funny if they can pin something on him.

Subject: RE: BS: Fred Goodwin's home attacked - hahaha!
From: Rapparee
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 01:10 PM

Exactly, Ebbie.

If you throw a stone at someone or something you commit a violent act. Your opinions make no difference; the violence has begun.

IF attacked I will answer violence with proportional violence.

But the bigger question is: Who made the mob judge, jury, and executioner?

Subject: RE: BS: Fred Goodwin's home attacked - hahaha!
From: Acorn4
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 01:17 PM

"And what are the police doing about this destruction of property, vandalism, and (likely) incitement to riot?"

Possible answer in today's "Daily Mirror":-

"How can the police possibly interview 60 million suspects?"

Subject: RE: BS: Fred Goodwin's home attacked - hahaha!
From: greg stephens
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 01:19 PM

At the very least, I would suggest that this toad Goodwin is guilty of conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace.

Subject: RE: BS: Fred Goodwin's home attacked - hahaha!
From: theleveller
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 01:26 PM

"I see violence against property as violence"

You may, I don't. These people were, in my opinion, making a legitimate protest. Not legal, perhaps, but certainly legitimate - as in the protests against the poll tax, the miners' strike etc, etc.Sometimes direct action needs to be taken. This is one such instance.

Subject: RE: BS: Fred Goodwin's home attacked - hahaha!
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 01:29 PM

Dearie me Terry, you'd better check your libel law. And if you don't believe that lawyers used to seek justice, you'd better look up old Tom Denning, too. I didn't always agree with him, but he did try to do justice. And that too caps your simplistic belief that all reform towards justice comes through parliament. You've lost nothing, so you think it's all all right? What a smug little right-winger.

The rich can only go so far in overpowering the poor before the tables are turned.

Subject: RE: BS: Fred Goodwin's home attacked - hahaha!
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 01:47 PM

Excuse me folks... but when you talk about 'Legitimate targets'... am I missing something here... are we condoning terrorism in any form or is it only for special situations????
I really don't believe what I am reading on here. I don't believe anyone has the right to attack any person or their property... isn't it against the law???

Subject: RE: BS: Fred Goodwin's home attacked - hahaha!
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 01:51 PM

Some people think it's OK to disobey laws they don't like.
Why don't we all do it?
I mean, it wouldn't cause any problems would it?

Subject: RE: BS: Fred Goodwin's home attacked - hahaha!
From: Emma B
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 01:58 PM

"More crap from Sir Max, who Emma B seems to have fastened upon as the font of all knowledge. Well I have news for both Sir Max and for Emma B, those "failed bankers" have not taken a single penny of either yours or his."

I do not quote Max Hastings as any 'font of knowledge' I merely quote his exhortation to "stand outside their homes throwing rocks through the windows" the only person I have seen to have actively and publicly encouraged such actions by others whatever their motivation.

As for your statement Terribus that "failed bankers" have not taken a single penny of either yours or his, as a taxpayer funding this obscene handout that is quite obviously inaccurate.

Furthermore, as someone whose pension fund was tied into the bank he ran, his risk taking with other peoples money has left a rather large hole in my future security unless the attempt at a class action in the UK against him is likely to be successful.

Subject: RE: BS: Fred Goodwin's home attacked - hahaha!
From: Emma B
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 02:02 PM

talking about throwing stones....

I seem to remember a previous argument here for 'ignoring' the laws about exceeding the legal speed limit but then some people think it's OK to disobey laws they don't like

Subject: RE: BS: Fred Goodwin's home attacked - hahaha!
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 02:14 PM

Only madmen like violence, but were are likely to be forced into the use of violence by the state. As this depression moves to slump, as it certainly will, the powers at the disposal of Brown's capitalist government will be used to keep "public order", which of course is code for suppression of protest.

Many months ago, I suggested that this "little financial hiccup" could lead to the biggest social upheaval in our lifetime....I was of course laughed off the boards.
Now we see the start of what is likely to happen as the middle class lose their priviliged position....pension rights ...property values....comfortable salaries, and start to taste what the underclass has been dining on for the last few decades. All the ingrediants are there for an unwinnable war against a powerful and very ruthless system.



We could sit back and allow the formation of a police state, and on to Facism, as they did in Germany, or we could fight and die.
I just wonder how many of the freedom loving liberals would elect to fight....very few I think, pragmatists to a man!

Whatever happens,our real liberty is sure to be severely curtailed in the supreme effort to get Capitalism back on the rails.

Forget the crooks with their few measely millions and keep your eyes on the politicians......They can do much more damage to your health....

Subject: RE: BS: Fred Goodwin's home attacked - hahaha!
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 02:19 PM

I'm with Georgiansilver here. It is hard to believe that people here are approving and advocating this kind of activity.

theleveller, you don't see targeting property as violence? Would you approve of setting a house on fire? Where do you draw the line?

Far more affective, in my view, is what was suggested above: Picket his place. Publicise his misdoings and your outrage. Keep the issue alive and make it most unpleasant for him to consider coming home.

But what is the use - not to mention, repercussions - of causing damage to property? Especially the property of a rich man who will be little or nothing out of pocket.

Breaking windows to express displeasure would bring me no satisfaction at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Fred Goodwin's home attacked - hahaha!
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 02:23 PM

"I just wonder how many of the freedom loving liberals would elect to fight....very few I think, pragmatists to a man!" ake

"freedom-loving liberals" - if you were an American, Ake, no doubt your next epithet would be "Un-American".

Pragmatism is not a four-letter word. Pragmatism requires thinking.

Subject: RE: BS: Fred Goodwin's home attacked - hahaha!
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 02:36 PM

I know what a pragmatist is Ebbie....we all have to practice it from time to time, It's just that most of the "liberals" of my aquaintance love to talk about liberty, but seem most unwilling to actually "throw their bodies into the wheels and the gears"

I think that this time, we have to finally make up our minds what side we are on.

Subject: RE: BS: Fred Goodwin's home attacked - hahaha!
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 03:09 PM

The old radical-anarchist rant survival is interesting, but if these idiots "throw their bodies" into vandalism and attacks, long incarceration is called for.

Subject: RE: BS: Fred Goodwin's home attacked - hahaha!
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 03:14 PM

Rioters notoriously wreck their own neighborhoods. When vandals force insurance companies to pay out more to cover the damage that vandals have committed - even in the name of freedom!- vandals are wrecking their own neigbhorhoods.

Subject: RE: BS: Fred Goodwin's home attacked - hahaha!
From: Rapparee
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 04:06 PM

Yeah, out here in Idaho we call it "pissing in your soup."

Fight? Yes, Ake, I'd fight. Who I would fight would depend upon who was attacking me and/or mine. Like Shiva, I'm impartial in my destruction.

Ammunition is scarce in the stores out here right now, especially the popular calibers. I'm glad I managed to get a couple more boxes of .30-30 a few months back and I think I'll see about getting some more .30-06 and definitely some more 12 and 20 gauge.

Subject: RE: BS: Fred Goodwin's home attacked - hahaha!
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 04:07 PM

Vandalism?....incarceration?....are you mad?
We will be fighting for our liberty and our lives!

The people who fought the rise of Facism in Germany were not the liberals (they aligned themselves with Hitlers thugs), but the Communists and Anarchists

Subject: RE: BS: Fred Goodwin's home attacked - hahaha!
From: Rapparee
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 04:41 PM

Yeah, and the Communists turned out as bad as the Fascists -- see Stalin, Lenin, et al.

Subject: RE: BS: Fred Goodwin's home attacked - hahaha!
From: Rapparee
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 04:49 PM

And Ake -- if you're not willing to go to jail for your beliefs, or even die for them, you're a piss-poor revolutionary.

See, for instance, folks like James Connolly, Padric Pearse, John Adams, Tom Jefferson, Leon Trotsky, Fidel Castro....

Or is this a case of
        
Love Me, I'm a Liberal Lyrics
Phil Ochs

I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
Tears ran down my spine
I cried when they shot Mr. Kennedy
As though I'd lost a father of mine
But Malcolm X got what was coming
He got what he asked for this time
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I go to civil rights rallies
And I put down the old D.A.R.
I love Harry and Sidney and Sammy
I hope every colored boy becomes a star
But don't talk about revolution
That's going a little bit too far
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I cheered when Humphrey was chosen
My faith in the system restored
I'm glad the commies were thrown out
of the A.F.L. C.I.O. board
I love Puerto Ricans and Negros
as long as they don't move next door
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

The people of old Mississippi
Should all hang their heads in shame
I can't understand how their minds work
What's the matter don't they watch Les Crain?
But if you ask me to bus my children
I hope the cops take down your name
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I read New Republic and Nation
I've take every conceivable view
I've memorized Lerner and Golden
I feel like I'm almost a Jew
But when it comes to times like Korea
There's no one more red, white and blue
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I vote for the democratic party
They want the U.N. to be strong
I go to all the Pete Seeger concerts
He sure gets me singing those songs
I'll send all the money you ask for
But don't ask me to come on along
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

Once I was young and impulsive
I wore every conceivable pin
Even went to the socialist meetings
Learned all the old union hymns
But I've grown older and wiser
And that's why I'm turning you in
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

Subject: RE: BS: Fred Goodwin's home attacked - hahaha!
From: Rasener
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 05:49 PM

I don't see a lot of difference between what happened with Germany and what could happen here in the UK.

It only needs a group of people to incite others and suddenly, violence and intimidation and bullying ensues.

Stop condoning people who want to take the law into their own hands, otherwise you and us will rue the day.

Blimey it almost smacks of the Taliban.

Why the f*** does everybody want to be voilent.

Subject: RE: BS: Fred Goodwin's home attacked - hahaha!
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 06:06 PM

Great song Rap.....I'm comin' over to join you behind the barricades.

You'll know me, ah'll be wavin' a red n'black flag!!

Subject: RE: BS: Fred Goodwin's home attacked - hahaha!
From: Rasener
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 06:13 PM

Which football team is that then that plays in red and black?

Subject: RE: BS: Fred Goodwin's home attacked - hahaha!
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 06:20 PM

The Champions!!......:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Fred Goodwin's home attacked - hahaha!
From: Rasener
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 06:39 PM

Real Madrid?

Subject: RE: BS: Fred Goodwin's home attacked - hahaha!
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 06:57 PM

Provisional Madrid?

Subject: RE: BS: Fred Goodwin's home attacked - hahaha!
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 07:01 PM

Purposeless violence we can see daily by following association football.

Capital already has its shock troops - the law system, where the government is already trying to starve out the lawyers who will defend against the state, and the police, and then the army navy and airforce if those do not suffice.

Fred fought daily to take from the poor to give to the rich (or rather to keep for himself). What weapons do the poor have with which to fight back?

Long hot summer starts with the G8 summit. That maybe the start of the revolution.

Subject: RE: BS: Fred Goodwin's home attacked - hahaha!
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 07:12 PM

Why don't they use their votes?
The turnout at elections in the UK is abysmally low.
The present government was elected by a minority of the electorate.
More to the point if civic duties were taught in school, voting should be compulsory.

Subject: RE: BS: Fred Goodwin's home attacked - hahaha!
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 10:50 PM

>What weapons do the poor have with which to fight back?<

A sad state of affairs if they, citizens of a former Empire, see themselves without recourse to anything less pathetic than sticks and stones, or molotovs and grenades. They will have given up the better part of their humanity if they feel so impoverished. Each of them has a natural, if not God-given right to resistance and revolution against an unjust government. Successful resistance wouldn't require mass violence - it needs only the inspired actions of persuasive people. Wasn't that the Great Message the world learned in the waxing and waning of the British Empire?

Subject: RE: BS: Fred Goodwin's home attacked - hahaha!
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Mar 09 - 02:12 AM

"he 'stole' money for the RBS custmers" - Goatfell

How did he do that Tom?

Are or were you an RBS customer? How much did he "steal" from you?

I would imagine that it would be nothing, do you know why? I'll tell you. If you were an RBS customer who had £1000 sitting in any Branch of the Royal Bank of Scotland and you had had that money sitting there for the last 12 months and never touched it, guess what you'd be told if you went into that Branch today and asked them how much was in your account? If it was a current account it would be £1000, if it was a savings account it would be £1000 + interest.

Tell me Goatfell how much has Sir Fred Goodwin stolen from you??

Subject: RE: BS: Fred Goodwin's home attacked - hahaha!
From: Sleepy Rosie
Date: 27 Mar 09 - 02:24 AM

The reason people like Fred do what they do when obviously they know it is ehthically fucked up (as opposed to illegal - which simply means that they can get away with it) rather than the 'right' thing is because they believe that they are utterly immune and protected from any consequences for their choices... Maybe if more people like him were to be even just a little concerned for the consequences that their actions caused, then less ordinary people would have got fucked over in the first place.

When people start beleiving that one should or shouldn't do something simply becasue it's either 'legal' or 'illegal' then they are abdicating their personal ethical responsibility. Just because there are no legal consequences for a wrongful action doesn't mean that there aught to be no consequences. This is a most appropriate and deserved consequence of his own knowingly wrongful action.

Recently learning 'The Diggers Song' (care of VTam), reminds me of some of the verses there: ''gainst Lawyers and 'gaint Priests, stand up now, for tyrants they are both even flat against their oath' ... 'the club is all their law, to keep poor men in awe', and so-on..

When has the law ever been anything other than a form of sanction and legitimisation for the wrongful acts of the rich and powerful, despite the best intentions of those lawyers who do attempt to use it for socially right ends?

Subject: RE: BS: Fred Goodwin's home attacked - hahaha!
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Mar 09 - 02:38 AM

"Furthermore, as someone whose pension fund was tied into the bank he ran, his risk taking with other peoples money has left a rather large hole in my future security unless the attempt at a class action in the UK against him is likely to be successful." - Emma B

The fact that your pension fund (I presume managed by others) had invested in the RBS would have nothing to do with the value of RBS shares having increased in value during the first six years of Goodwin's tenure would it?? The profits your pension scheme were able to post were down solely to "his risk taking" too so in your class action do they get deducted. Investing is exactly the same as horse racing its gambling.

What mechanism prevented those who manage your pension fund from selling their stake in RBS?? I can imagine very sound reasons why they did not sell and in the long term that decision will stand them in good stead.

Tell me are you going to need your pension soon? If not then don't worry, if you have money to invest buy bank shares and shares in insurance companies now you will make a fortune on them. Your pension fund managers know that.

Banks, insurance companies and mortgage providers had to be helped, because if they had gone to the wall as many here advocate that they should then everything would have stopped with catastrophic consequences.

The exercise I would like to see carried out is the comparison of what has happened to what would have been the case if the US Federal Reserve Bank had stepped in right at the beginning and guaranteed those loans as Fannie and Freddie implied that they would. My guess is that it would have amounted to a damn sight less than has been spent now.

And Emma B had that been done, nothing would have happened to the Royal Bank of Scotland and Sir Fred Goodwin would still have been in place making it money.

Subject: RE: BS: Fred Goodwin's home attacked - hahaha!
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Mar 09 - 04:14 AM

Ah, but why didn't it, Terry? Because in the name of doctrinaire capitalism they had been constructed as "off-book" devices and because, in the name of doctrinaire capitalism, nationalising them would have been "socialist". The caitalist system required that outcome.

Capitalism is the conspiracy of power against the powerless, and the legal system is its tool (yet still its thrall, since the only thing the big law corporations ask of their lawyers is that they maximise profit, and even judges are graded on (amongst other things) how fast they get through their workload against the number of successful appeals against their decisions).

Capitalism has failed, continues to fail, and in time will come to be seen as it was, a vehicle of oppression as much as the feudal system.

Fred was just one of the more obvious oppressors. What he set out to do was wrong, and what he achieved was worse.

Subject: RE: BS: Fred Goodwin's home attacked - hahaha!
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 09 - 04:41 AM

Poor Tom and other RBS account holders DID lose almost all their money.
It was just replaced with a gift of public money.

There was no money left for Fred's enormous pension.
Public money had to be used to allow him to retire at 50 with an annual income of 30 working teachers plus a £3 million lump sum.

These abuses make decent people so angry that they do crazy things.
They might plea provocation, or mitigating circumstances, or diminished responsibility due to consuming rage.

Subject: RE: BS: Fred Goodwin's home attacked - hahaha!
From: theleveller
Date: 27 Mar 09 - 04:54 AM

"Stop condoning people who want to take the law into their own hands, otherwise you and us will rue the day."

When the law fails to protect the majority of the people against a small minority, it's time for the law to change. To facilitate that the problem needs to be brought to the attention of the government and the displeasure of the people demonstrated.The poll tax demonstrations were a case in point. That these people have done this without causing injury to anyone or inconvenience to anyone other than the culprit is to their credit.

It's unfortunate that those whose lives have not been affected by this neo-criminal feel uncomfortable but that's how change is brought about. It's even more unfortunate that the gun-crazy loonies in the States are starting to man the barricades, but I supopose that's just part of their perverted mentality.

These people have my full support as a law-abiding citizen.

Subject: RE: BS: Fred Goodwin's home attacked - hahaha!
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 27 Mar 09 - 04:56 AM

The mob came for the rich bankers.
I was neither rich, nor a banker, so I held my tongue.

to misquote Fr Martin Niemöller

Subject: RE: BS: Fred Goodwin's home attacked - hahaha!
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 27 Mar 09 - 04:56 AM

100