(Sir) Fred Goodwin - Right or wrong ?

1 Feb 2012

The decision to strip former Royal Bank of Scotland boss Fred Goodwin of his knighthood has been criticised by business and political figures.
The Queen cancelled and annulled the title on the advice of the forfeiture committee - whose members include top civil servants and the head Treasury lawyer - in a decision welcomed by party leaders.
The Institute of Directors (IoD) warned of politicians creating "anti-business hysteria" over the matter. Its director-general Simon Walker told the BBC that removing a knighthood because "you don't approve of someone" without there being any criminal conduct "politicises the whole honours system".
In the past, only convicted criminals or people struck off professional bodies have had knighthoods taken away.
Former Confederation of British Industry chief Lord Digby Jones, a former trade minister under Labour, said there was "the faint whiff of the lynch mob on the village green" about the decision. However, he added he did not disagree with the end result to strip the honour.
Personally believe he should of been stripped of his knighthood for 'services to Banking' before now, as should any/all of his cohorts who headed other bailed out companies who received similar 'honours', whether a Knighthood or lesser honour, plus those in public officer such as the FSA & Bank of England who were meant to be regulating and monitoring the likes of RBS, HBOS, Northern Rock, etc.
The Honours Forfeiture Committee considers cases where a recipient's actions "raise the question of whether they should be allowed to continue to be a holder of the honour".
- The former spy Anthony Blunt was stripped of his knighthood in 1979 for the treachery of supplying hundreds of secret documents to the Soviets while a wartime agent for MI5.
- Jockey Lester Piggott was stripped of an OBE after he was jailed in 1987 for tax fraud.
- former head teacher who was made a dame for services to education had her honour revoked, two years after being found guilty of misconduct.
- Former world boxing champion Naseem Hamed was stripped of his MBE after a car crash injured others
- Jack Lyons who were convicted in 1990 of illegally boosting the price of shares was stripped of his knighthood
- Joseph Jonas, the former Lord Mayor of Sheffield, was stripped of his knighthood relating to contacts with a German a year before World War I.
- Irish-born colonial officer Roger Casement forfeited his honour when he was convicted of treason for aiding those involved in Ireland's 1916 Easter Rising
- The Queen annulled Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe's honorary Knighthood in 2008
- Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceaucescu and Italy's Fascist leader Benito Mussolini were also stripped of honorary knighthoods in the past.

1 Feb 2012

and Geoffrey Archer kept his !!

1 Feb 2012

and what happens to the chairman of lloyds TSB? did that bank not lose a fortune as well?
there are many others who have made massive errors of judgements that have lost this country millions, if not billions of pounds, that have gone unpunished.
HERE IS A LITTLE CLUE.

any clues needed as to who sold our gold reserves at rock bottom prices, and lost possibly billions of pounds of tax payers money? as a clue he was chancellor of our exchequer who had first hand knowledge of gold and its prices. even minnie mouse would have known not to sell at those bottom prices.
what did he get punished by exactly?
i think this idiot deserves a similar fate. dont you?

1 Feb 2012

This describes my thoughts on the matter quite nicley
Lord Digby Jones, former trade minister, told the Today programme's Simon Jack that while he was "comfortable" with the end result, the manner in which it was done had a "whiff of lynch mob on the village green".

1 Feb 2012

Quote by starlightcouple
and what happens to the chairman of lloyds TSB? did that bank not lose a fortune as well?

Lloyds TSB problems were the result of taking over HBOS. It was HBOS' bad debts that caused their problems. Lloyds were "encouraged" by the then Labour government to do this.
Back on topic, I agree with the stripping of the Knighthood. It was awarded for his services to banking and we all know exactly what he ultimately did to RBS and the UK economy.

1 Feb 2012

I agree he should have been stripped, though it won't matter in the slightest as he still has his 17 million pension pot!
With regards to the knighthoods though...the ones most deserving rarely have them bestowed upon them and its about time we did away with that sort of nonsense!

1 Feb 2012

Double post....extremely sorry :-)

2 Feb 2012

There is an assumption that GB should have had extraordinary powers to see into the future in respect of selling the gold reserves. If anyone has "sold england by the pound" it was MT bless her little cotton ones.
i still have the Champagne on Ice for when she pops her clogs!
What title could GB be stripped of exactly and did you know that Gold was at rock bottom prices, Did you buy at that time?

Quote by starlightcouple
and what happens to the chairman of lloyds TSB? did that bank not lose a fortune as well?
there are many others who have made massive errors of judgements that have lost this country millions, if not billions of pounds, that have gone unpunished.
HERE IS A LITTLE CLUE.

any clues needed as to who sold our gold reserves at rock bottom prices, and lost possibly billions of pounds of tax payers money? as a clue he was chancellor of our exchequer who had first hand knowledge of gold and its prices. even minnie mouse would have known not to sell at those bottom prices.
what did he get punished by exactly?
i think this idiot deserves a similar fate. dont you?

2 Feb 2012

Quote by Onthebeach_1
What title could GB be stripped of exactly and did you know that Gold was at rock bottom prices, Did you buy at that time?

Not so much a title but a reward for failure.... handed to him on a plate by a grateful Labour party and detested by fuming electorate. Funny that it is 'the reward for failure' reasons the Labour front bench have been so vociferous of late about bakers bonuses.
Oh, and in answer to the OP, perhaps it was more wrong to have awarded him the knighthood in the first place (another deed from the discredited GB of course) but it having been done, it should have been left in place as he, Fred 'the shred', had not been convicted of any criminal offence - the usual trigger for such action.
Perhaps in future, such awards should come with a durability warning "This award is not for life, it's for as long as Public Opinion in the popular press doesn't cause the Government of the day any embarrassment".

2 Feb 2012

Quote by Onthebeach_1
There is an assumption that GB should have had extraordinary powers to see into the future in respect of selling the gold reserves.

so he was just that unlucky to have sold them at the lowest price of gold in many a year? this man has been plagued with bad luck it seems. he could not spot the biggest financial collapse in british history either. incompetent or just plain thick? :twisted:

Quote by Onthebeach_1
If anyone has "sold england by the pound" it was MT bless her little cotton ones.
i still have the Champagne on Ice for when she pops her clogs!

are you actualy old enough to remember MT or just go on what peeple tell you dunno

i will not tell you but have you any idea how many yeers ago it was that she stopped being PM? why do peeple continue to live in the past? stop listening to others and look at the last labour government if you want anyone to blame for this countries problems. so thatcher is responsible for the banking collapse? the cuts that we are all having to put up with at this moment, and many yeers to come? a pounds worth of debt?
plus your champaign comment is pretty horrid about an extremely frail old lady, whatever she may or may not have done. she does not deserve that at all!!!

Quote by Onthebeach_1
What title could GB be stripped of exactly and did you know that Gold was at rock bottom prices, Did you buy at that time?

he was given no title and is it any reeson. he did not even have to face the publc when becoming pm, he did it through back door politics. he will be remembered for all that is wrong with this country now, along with his partnet in crime, that money grabbing peace envoy, blair. :twisted: plus no money left, and we all know that was about the only thing labour ever told that was the truth. at leest MT took us to war with the truth. blair took us to war on a lie. that is what they will be remembered for.
goodwin was a member of the take what you can from who you can labour tactics. he should be put on the next plane to anywhere other than here.
if anyone should have had there peerage taken off them is that great lords hater, bus lane prescott lol

. you talk about MT, blimey have you had a little look at some of the labour politicians of the last 20 yeers?

:rotflmao:
the fact i did not buy gold at that time has what relevance exactly, as you have lost me on that comment i am afraid.:thumbup:

2 Feb 2012

Quote by Onthebeach_1
There is an assumption that GB should have had extraordinary powers to see into the future in respect of selling the gold reserves. If anyone has "sold england by the pound" it was MT bless her little cotton ones.
i still have the Champagne on Ice for when she pops her clogs!
What title could GB be stripped of exactly and did you know that Gold was at rock bottom prices, Did you buy at that time?

Yes, I shall also be joining you in raising a glass to celebrate her life :thumbup: Not champagne for me though :cheers:

2 Feb 2012

Interesting that tonight, in Argentina, they are having the premier showing of 'The Iron Lady'.
I wonder if the Argentinian President, who has recently been so vociferous about claiming the 'Maldives' back will be attending.
Just as Prince William should be arriving for his 5 week training assignment...
hummmmmmm

2 Feb 2012

Quote by GnV
Interesting that tonight, in Argentina, they are having the premier showing of 'The Iron Lady'.
I wonder if the Argentinian President, who has recently been so vociferous about claiming the 'Maldives' back will be attending.
Just as Prince William should be arriving for his 5 week training assignment...
hummmmmmm

he would have a job claimimg them back G :grin:.......liza would be well pissed off its our winter holidays destination every jan
i think you mean the Malvinas

2 Feb 2012

Quote by Lizaleanrob
Interesting that tonight, in Argentina, they are having the premier showing of 'The Iron Lady'.
I wonder if the Argentinian President, who has recently been so vociferous about claiming the 'Maldives' back will be attending.
Just as Prince William should be arriving for his 5 week training assignment...
hummmmmmm

he would have a job claimimg them back G :grin:.......liza would be well pissed off its our winter holidays destination every jan
i think you mean the Malvinas
Ooooops!
Yes, the Malvinas :lol2:
BTW, the President is a she... lol

3 Feb 2012

Quote by GnV
Interesting that tonight, in Argentina, they are having the premier showing of 'The Iron Lady'.
I wonder if the Argentinian President, who has recently been so vociferous about claiming the 'Maldives' back will be attending.
Just as Prince William should be arriving for his 5 week training assignment...
hummmmmmm

he would have a job claimimg them back G :grin:.......liza would be well pissed off its our winter holidays destination every jan
i think you mean the Malvinas
Ooooops!
Yes, the Malvinas :lol2:
BTW, the President is a she... lol

3 Feb 2012

UK Defence Secretary Philip Hammond has denied that the deployment of Prince William to the Falkland Islands is provocation towards Argentina.

3 Feb 2012

Quote by Bluefish2009
UK Defence Secretary Philip Hammond has denied that the deployment of Prince William to the Falkland Islands is provocation towards Argentina.

I fail to see how there can be provocation since the Falklands have never ever in the history of the world belonged to Argentina. The various claims to sovereignty come from Span, Portugal, France and Britain. From the it would appear that the earliest well documented claim (to settlement) is on the side of the French.
If the settlers had displaced existing inhabitants there may be a claim for us (or the French0 having stolen the islands - but the islands had been uninhabited for as long as history until the French and then the British arrived.
Seriously you don't get to claim any and all lands just cos they are close-by - if that were the case the UK could claim France FFS!

3 Feb 2012

i know this is off the original topic but can anyone tell me what waters are where the falklands are? oh yes the south atlantic. not exactly the north sea.
the reeson i ask this is why does Britain hold the rights to a country thousands of miles away in 2012? surely Argentina or even chile have more rights?
the days are surely long gone where britain stole land in many cases through force and now refuse to give them back. hong kong was handed back as should the falklands to the country that should have it and that is surely the closest country?
but then what do i know? lol

3 Feb 2012

Quote by starlightcouple
i know this is off the original topic but can anyone tell me what waters are where the falklands are? oh yes the south atlantic. not exactly the north sea.
the reeson i ask this is why does Britain hold the rights to a country thousands of miles away in 2012? Because we settled there. surely Argentina or even chile have more rights? No - because they didn't settle there.
the days are surely long gone where britain stole land in many cases through force and now refuse to give them back. hong kong was handed back as should the falklands to the country that should have it and that is surely the closest country We didn't steal them - they didn't belong to anyone - we (and the French) settled ownerless, uninhabited islands.
but then what do i know?

Seriously it's all in the wiki article. :thumbup:

3 Feb 2012

none of this has anything to do with vast amounts of untapped oil and gas in the Falklands dunno

3 Feb 2012

Quote by foxylady2209
I fail to see how there can be provocation since the Falklands have never ever in the history of the world belonged to Argentina. The various claims to sovereignty come from Span, Portugal, France and Britain. From the article in Wikipedia it would appear that the earliest well documented claim (to settlement) is on the side of the French.
If the settlers had displaced existing inhabitants there may be a claim for us (or the French0 having stolen the islands - but the islands had been uninhabited for as long as history until the French and then the British arrived.
Seriously you don't get to claim any and all lands just cos they are close-by - if that were the case the UK could claim France FFS!

Given the number of overseas territories held by the French... it might just possibly be the other way round :lol2:

4 Feb 2012

Ahem *stage whisper* ..... 1066

4 Feb 2012

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
Ahem *stage whisper* ..... 1066

There you go.. knew I could rely on staggs to remind us of the Norman conquests.

4 Feb 2012

Quote by GnV
Ahem *stage whisper* ..... 1066

There you go.. knew I could rely on staggs to remind us of the Norman conquests.
And we are all still here, awaiting our moment, like sleeper cells lol

4 Feb 2012

Quote by GnV
Ahem *stage whisper* ..... 1066

There you go.. knew I could rely on staggs to remind us of the Norman conquests.
They were norsemen not French. The French gave their land away for protection by the norsemen. So the Danelaw took over Britain wink

Dave_Notts

4 Feb 2012

Quote by Dave__Notts
Ahem *stage whisper* ..... 1066

There you go.. knew I could rely on staggs to remind us of the Norman conquests.
They were norsemen not French. The French gave their land away for protection by the norsemen. So the Danelaw took over Britain wink

Dave_Notts
They were descended from Norse Viking's, very watered down by this time I suspect :wink:

4 Feb 2012

Quote by Bluefish2009
Ahem *stage whisper* ..... 1066

There you go.. knew I could rely on staggs to remind us of the Norman conquests.
They were norsemen not French. The French gave their land away for protection by the norsemen. So the Danelaw took over Britain wink

Dave_Notts
They were descended from Norse Viking's, very watered down by this time I suspect :wink:
Normandy was a Principality that was tied to the Frankish Kingdom by treaty. So it wasn't French but owned and ruled by the Normans, which is the French version of norseman/northman. So no watering down. After 1066 William became an equal to the French King as he was also King of England. The French never owned England, but the English owned Parts of France until the middle of the millenium.
Dave_Notts

4 Feb 2012

Quote by Dave__Notts
Ahem *stage whisper* ..... 1066

There you go.. knew I could rely on staggs to remind us of the Norman conquests.
They were norsemen not French. The French gave their land away for protection by the norsemen. So the Danelaw took over Britain wink

Dave_Notts
They were descended from Norse Viking's, very watered down by this time I suspect :wink:
Normandy was a Principality that was tied to the Frankish Kingdom by treaty. So it wasn't French but owned and ruled by the Normans, which is the French version of norseman/northman. So no watering down. After 1066 William became an equal to the French King as he was also King of England. The French never owned England, but the English owned Parts of France until the middle of the millenium.
Dave_Notts
Oh, there will have been watering down
While some Vikings were establishing themselves in Britain and Ireland, another group did the same in the coastal region of France, around the mouth of the river Seine. In effect, the Vikings in this region allowed themselves to be bought off by the king of France. These Vikings had quite a bit of leverage. Beginning in 896 they had sailed up the Seine and laid siege to Paris several times and were constantly expanding the area they pillaged. The French kings, even Charlemagne, were unable to stop the plundering. When the French noted the increasing number of Viking settlements along the coast, they feared the worst. But the Vikings were wearying of the raids. French defenses were becoming more effective and Viking losses were increasing. So a deal was struck in 912. The French would recognize the Vikings possession of the land they had already settled (plus a bit more) and make the Viking leader, one Rollo, a French noble. In return, the Viking duke would convert to Christianity, acknowledge the French king as his overlord and, protect France against wilder Vikings. Thus was born Normandy.
The Normans were quick to become French, particularly since they were a minority in their new dutchy and a disproportionate number of the new people were young male Vikings who took local women for wives. After a few generations, the Norwegian language and customs were fading fast and the Normans were French. But they were French with a difference. While their language and other habits may have changed, the Normans were still, like all Vikings, supreme opportunists. Then William, the duke of Normandy in the 1060s, talked his way into a claim on the English throne. The king of Norway was doing the same thing. An English noble, Harold, also thought he had a lock on the crown once the king died. When the king, Edward the Confessor did die, in 1066, Harold defeated the king of Norway's invading army, but was in turn defeated by duke William and his invading Normans.

4 Feb 2012

Nothing is ever simple with the French eh wink

5 Feb 2012

Quote by Bluefish2009
The Normans were quick to become French, particularly since they were a minority in their new dutchy and a disproportionate number of the new people were young male Vikings who took local women for wives. After a few generations, the Norwegian language and customs were fading fast and the Normans were French.

This is the poblem with history, different sources give different accounts.
The ones I have read state that the Norsemen watered down the Frankish peoples until they became Norman with their own identity. Even though they had a treaty with the French king it was not as subjects but as vassals to give protection to France. Eventually it became France but not for a long time. Somewhere around the middle of the 14th-15th century when France took their lands back from the English King. The Normans by this time were English.