Security steps up for bankers and execs, as we become 'too angry'

26 March 2009

http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/8477/screencapture3.png"This is just the beginning," they warned, as they kicked the rear bumper tire of the mercedes outside Sir Fred Goodwin's property (unaware that it probably belonged to his chef).

So today, it was announced in the Scotsman that instead of addressing the real issues, security for various bankers and executives would be stepped up as Brits get 'too angry' about the big bonuses given to execs and bankers even in the recession.

The attack on former RBS boss Sir Fred Goodwin's £3m residence by the "Bank Bosses are Criminals" group is raising concern of similar attacks to come, seemingly part of a 'campaign' to condemn bankers living luxurious lifestyles, while "ordinary people are made unemployed, destitute and homeless." Said to be the work of an Anti-Capitalist group, the motivation of the attack was attributed to Sir Fred negotiating a £16.9 million pension package with no intention of giving it back, especially after the disgrace that occured over at RBS.

But didn't the shamed banker really bring this on himself? One, for being partially responsible for RBS's announcement of losing more than 24 billion pounds ($35 billion) last year, the largest annual loss in British corporate history.  Secondly, for shamelessly accepting the annual pension of £700,000 amounting to a £16.9m package with no intention of giving it back, paid by hard earned cash by the every day citizen.

Sir Fred's actions reflect the problem with human greed and expectation of entitlement on a larger scale, as money hungry execs seem more concerned with "me too" AIG-like bonus payouts than in actually saving the banks.

But is kicking in a window or two really going to do much to justify for any of this?

Perhaps the banners posted outside condemning him as a “scumbag millionaire” is a sign that the problem may not be so much that he's a banker, but with the fact that he's, well, rich. But the problem here should not be the divide between the poor and wealthy, but with the ethics and morals involved. RBS still pays for Sir Fred's security and staff insurance for his fleet of cars, so a scratch here and there will just probably be funded from the bank charges some of us have not claimed back yet.

[Scotsman]

5 comments

  • The B.
    Hmmm, am I the only one who sees the irony here? They'll smash everything belonging to rich people who'll simply claim via their insurance who will in turn put up the prices of their policy holders to cover it, the policy holders being Joe Bloggs on the street, so the only person who really suffers is your average man on the street.
  • Callum
    Good. The fundamental role of the Government is to protect its citizens. This petty crusade against bankers is starting to get quite embarrassing now - especially as the people complaining generally have no idea how the banking system works.
  • Not B.
    Callum It seems that the actual bankers also don't know how the banking system works. That's why we are in this mess.
  • Tinop
    I used to work for Heinz and their CEO makes $ 20 mil a year, $ 60K allowance for private jet usage for his family. They keep on telling us to turn off the light when we leave the office in order to be green. Why dont they lead by example -- ? They go everywhere by private jets.
  • andy y.
    OK then fuck capitalism lets live in a ditch instead

What do you think?

Connect with Facebook, Twitter, or just enter your email to sign in and comment.

Your comment