It says in the Telegraph that
The Government is prepared to change the law to strip former RBS chief Sir Fred Goodwin of his £650,000-a-year pension, Commons Leader Harriet Harman has hinted. Ms Harman said the payout was “money for nothing” and vowed that the ex-Royal Bank of Scotland chief executive would not end up with the cash even if his retirement deal proved legally watertight.
Leaving aside what one might think of the thickness and quality of the feathers with which all City species have always lined their nests, and of the trial by television of one particularly finely-plumaged specimen, is this really a good idea?
What is the legal difference between the pension which is the subject of a contract between Sir Fred and his former employer and the one which is the subject of a contract between my former emplyer and myself?
Why should the government be able to name arbitrary individuals and deprive them of their legal rights by diktat?
Why is everybody arguing about Sir Fred, who is only the decoy, and nobody arguing about the proposed establishment of what appears to be a precedent dangerous to all who intend ever to rely upon the law of contract?
although it would be amusing to see, if it came to pass, fred taking it to the ECHR and winning back the money.
cue Liarbour shrieking ‘the EU is a very bad thing!’
[...] 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. [...]
I have written an open letter to Sir Fred Goodwin on our bolg.
Please feel free to virally-transmit it, as I will be printing it and handing it to the Staff of RBS Southport tomorrow.
http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com/2009/03/01/sir-fred-goodwin-pensions-property-rights-and-law-an-open-letter/
73 de M3LBG