Wednesday, 1 February 2012

Goodwin should count himself lucky

Parliament, as a comment to a previous post reminded me, remains our supreme court. Parliament can still pass a Bill of Attainder that tries, condemns and sentences all in one. In the past, Attainder meant forfeiting all you had; land, titles, houses, property, wealth and even the clothes you stood in. Popular anger against corrupt and sleazy MPs, thieving Lords, bent civil servants, peculative coppers and the rest of the stinking class would have seen a tsunami of Attainders had the 'Mail' and the 'Sun' (or this blog ..) run a vote on it.

Sadly, the ECHR would almost certainly reverse any modern Attainder. Wrecking a national economy, putting 100,000 out of work, stealing £100m and such are not regarded by the ECHR as sufficiently heinous to merit the draconian penalties of full Attainder. What we can do is what we have done - strip the malefactor of any honour they hold. Nowhere in the Charter of Fundamental Rights does it say 'Every man has the right to a KBE'. The ECHR will not reverse the judgement. 

Despite the opinion of the press, this was a good call.    


Mr Ecks said...

No it wasn't. The guy had a contract which was kept alive by Bottler Brown when RBS should have been allowed to collapse. If it been let go Goodwin would have been unemployed and, with his contract legally voided for that reason,would be in receipt of neither pay nor bonus.

The political scum want to blame the bankers but said bankers are no more than the maggots attracted by the rotten meat of the state. If the banks had been truly private, unregulated and responsible financially(directors and shareholders) to the bank's depositors as they were 120+ years ago--before the state stuck its oar in,none of the present mess would have happened.

Mr Ecks said...

"No it wasn't" should be "No he shouldn't".

Mr Ecks said...

Actually, it could be either phrase:
Line 1 fits the last line of yr article and Line 2 fits for your title for the piece.

Woodsy42 said...

"the ECHR would almost certainly reverse any modern Attainder."

I bet they wouldn't if one was granted against an ordinary prole like you or I.

Weekend Yachtsman said...

Can't agree, Mr. R.

It looks unpleasantly like mob rule to me.

Whose door will the mob be braying at next? Not mine, hopefully, or yours, but how do we know what will, with hindsight, become unacceptable or unfashionable?

Such sanctions should be reserved for those who've been properly tried and convicted of some serious (ie non-technical, non-motoring, genuinely criminal) offence after due process.

Not for nothing are Bills of Attainder non-constitutional in the US.

Anonymous said...

Better still if we had (or could still) gone after those that awarded it in the first place.

"Attainder" would be a fitting punishment for Bliar and Brown. Loathsome bastards!

Coney Island

Tarka the Rotter said...

It's a pathetic, petty response which, whilst getting us all to focus on Fred Goodwin - who committed no crime by the way, just acted with incredible stupidity - we don't look long and hard at Brown, Blair, Balls and Co who, if anything, are a thousand times more culpable and deserve impeachment at the very least.

Tarka the Rotter said...

MMMm missed the word 'guarantees' in between stupidity and we...too eager to post I guess

Anonymous said...

There was always something suspect about the whole 'honours' system to begin with. It appears to be a corrupt boys club with a price for admittance.

opinion prole said...

No Mr R, not so good.

Scapegoating one man who hasn't been convicted of any crime is just knee-jerk politics and pandering to the mob. Making up the rules as they go along won't do.

As long as unindicted thieves and convicted criminals are allowed to retain their peerages this is just one rule for the pols and another for the proles. Don't even mention that male anglo-saxon bankers are to be stripped of their honours and female muslim peers are not. Or does the amount involved now matter more than the principle?

Meanwhile the clamour for a referendum on the EU continues to be ignored by all main parties. No need to listen to public opinion when it really matters, eh?

anon 2 said...

Well, the pols are all totally brainwashed by an educational system that deprives all students of anything but Franco-German claptrap.

So maybe most of our dumbed down useful-idiots don't even understand English - let alone its mindset - the one that insists on the basic freedoms of thought and speech. Certainly, the foreign ones (millipedes, cleggerclogs, etc) will be completely unaware of the fighting spirit that sent us all over the globe so that we could be free of euros. Like their compatriots, they hear English sounds, but no nothing of the underlying meanings.

In any case, I prefer English words for most things. For example, we have the descriptive "tidal wave" -- so I don't know why we have to put up with tsunami. In its turn, that's a meaningless set of noises for us. It's a bit like that vile foreign system of weights and measures... and strange ideas about 'honour.'

[Rant almost over -- :)]

But of course, it would pay us to remember that a key component of cultural invasion is the shutting down of communication between the
rulers and the ruled. That job, which deprives the populace of any voice, falls to the mediators, the local governors, .... the pols.
[Insight derived from Paolo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed.]

anon 2 said...

Regrets: "know nothing."