While I would never condone violence.
A swift kick up the jacksy would have been enough to make people somewhat happier about this thieving bastard.

news.uk.msn.com/uk/article.aspx?cp-documentid=15366695
( big-girl's-baubles has lived someone else's life by mistake, Wed 25 Mar 2009, 14:44, Reply)

I can't say I'm particularly outraged...
...although I'd be happier if people started lynching the Labour frontbenchers who endorsed and voted for the changes to the financial regulations that allowed low earners to take out 120% mortgages in the first place.
(PJM Does not love Liberace, Wed 25 Mar 2009, 14:49, Reply)

True but.....
It's nice to have a hate figure to concentrate my outrage on.
( big-girl's-baubles has lived someone else's life by mistake, Wed 25 Mar 2009, 14:52, Reply)

I would pay good money
to watch someone cut Tony Blairs balls off.

I'd pay even more to watch someone hanging Jacqui Smith and Hazel Blears.
( althechristmasgeordie is a bully and a cocksucker, Wed 25 Mar 2009, 14:52, Reply)

I'd chip in with that al

( Labia Majora when you're feeling down, I'll feel you up, Wed 25 Mar 2009, 15:00, Reply)

The sad truth is he didn't do anything wrong.
Don't hate the player, hate the game.

We should be blaming the politicians who worshipped at the altar of Mrs T's free market, and deregulated the financial sector to such an extent that actions like his weren't only allowed, they were fucking encouraged.

Don't think I condone what he did in a general sense, I'm just saying that he stuck within the rules of the system, however fucked up they might be, so blaming him is a bit unfair.
(username1, Wed 25 Mar 2009, 15:06, Reply)

I don't blame him for all of this.
But the way he's being a complete cunt in not budging or discussing his financial renumeration. He's just a smug thieving bastard banker.
( big-girl's-baubles has lived someone else's life by mistake, Wed 25 Mar 2009, 15:11, Reply)

He did do something wrong
he failed to carry out due diligence in the purchase of ABN Amro. Buying a bank that heavily in debt was practically criminal.

His complete failure to offer any acknowledgment of his own complicity in the downfall of one of the worlds largest banks shows that as a human being he is utter scum.

I don't really condone anyone physically attacking him or his property, but he doesn't get any sympathy from me.
( althechristmasgeordie is a bully and a cocksucker, Wed 25 Mar 2009, 15:13, Reply)

Al is spot on
*applauds*

Granted, Blue Labour are in love with Thatcherism, but at the end of the day the Labour party are supposed to be "the good guys". I voted for them in 1997 because I wanted to see an end to Thatcherism, not more of the same.
(PJM Does not love Liberace, Wed 25 Mar 2009, 15:14, Reply)

@BGB
Who is the biggest cunt - the banker or the corrupt politicians who changed the law after receiving considerable amounts in donations from the banks?

Our treasury presides over far greater outrages involving the public's money than sir Fred.
(PJM Does not love Liberace, Wed 25 Mar 2009, 15:16, Reply)

@ BGB - I wouldn't budge, if I was him
You can't retrospectively apply regulations! That's even more unfair than what he did.

He acted completely legitimately according to the rules of the system at such time as he was acting. You can't then define a new set of rules and judge everything he did in the past by them.

I say again, I think stuff like this is reprehensible, but it's the fault of the people who made the rules, not the fault of the people who were playing by them.

How would you feel if you earnt minimum wage, a new law was passed bringing minimum wage down to £2.50 p/h, and then your employer/the Revenue gave you a bill for £25k worth of overpayments, because they decided that the new law would apply from a date five years ago. You'd be pretty pissed off, wouldn't you?

@ al - yeah, that's the only sticking point with my argument. I'm yet to see any evidence that he broke the letter of the law, although there's no doubt he acted cuntishly.
(username1, Wed 25 Mar 2009, 15:17, Reply)

@PJM
Yes but....... he's such a smug bastard.


@username1 - that's hardly the same thing.
( big-girl's-baubles has lived someone else's life by mistake, Wed 25 Mar 2009, 15:18, Reply)

It's an extreme analogy
But it's exactly the same.

You can't expect people to obey laws that you may or may not make up in the future, they can only be judged on the basis of the laws and regulations that were in place at the time. In the case of the financial sector, that was practically none, but you can't blame them for taking advantage of that. There needs to be more legislation now to prevent things like this happening again, but as I said, you can't apply it retroactively.
(username1, Wed 25 Mar 2009, 15:24, Reply)

No-one is suggesting
that the law be applied retroactively, although it can be done if required and if a government has the balls to follow it through.
( althechristmasgeordie is a bully and a cocksucker, Wed 25 Mar 2009, 15:24, Reply)

woah woah woah
in Edinburgh? Who's with me come easter?

*loads up on bricks and smoke bombs*
( The Grammar Badger loves her new car even more than she loves cheese, Wed 25 Mar 2009, 19:44, Reply)