another scotmans to get a massive pension

[Mclovin]

had gordon not bailed his friends out, they would have a very reasonable 28k pension....

http://news.scotsman.com/royalbankofscotland/RBS-b...

[Parrot of Doom]

More politicians lining up to decry the contractual obligations which they accepted existed when they supported the banks.

In other words, populist preening politicians trying to outdo one-another by attacking everyone's favourite bogey-man.

[jshell]

You take his pension away, you might as well tear up UK contract and employment law.

It's another 'non-story'!

[Funk]

Indeed. Built his pension pot over 40 years. Since when did receiving your pension depend on job performance? If that were the case, politicians would be required to refund us money from their (also very generous) pension pots.

[5unny]

The Scotsman said:

Had the government not propped up RBS with a £45.5 billion bail-out, and instead allowed it go bust, the maximum annual pension for employees allowed by the Pension Protection Fund would have been only £28,000.

But RBS insisted Mr Pell, who was paid £932,000 last year, was entitled to claim his pension, pointing out he had built up his pot over nearly 40 years in the banking sector.

Yes but had no help been given to failing institutions like the RBS he would have lost his pension (well all but 28k/year of it).

[Parrot of Doom]

Yes, and so would a great many other people who weren't to blame for the banking saga.

[jshell]

5unny said:

The Scotsman said:

Had the government not propped up RBS with a £45.5 billion bail-out, and instead allowed it go bust, the maximum annual pension for employees allowed by the Pension Protection Fund would have been only £28,000.

But RBS insisted Mr Pell, who was paid £932,000 last year, was entitled to claim his pension, pointing out he had built up his pot over nearly 40 years in the banking sector.

Yes but had no help been given to failing institutions like the RBS he would have lost his pension (well all but 28k/year of it).

And, your point is what? That we should have let the account holders and investors lose their money just to teach this guy a lesson?

[jshell]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

[b]Most[/] of the investors were sub-guarantee. What about the others? Just let them go? Shareholders - lose everything?

[Elroy Blue]

jshell said:

You take his pension away, you might as well tear up UK contract and employment law.

It's another 'non-story'!

Parrot of Doom said:

More politicians lining up to decry the contractual obligations which they accepted existed when they supported the banks.

In other words, populist preening politicians trying to outdo one-another by attacking everyone's favourite bogey-man.

Can I quote them in the 'Public sector are parasites' thread!

[jshell]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I think the shareholders will eventually see their investments return, if we leave it long enough. That wouldn't happen if RBS went to the 'wall'. It'd be 'lights oot'!

[jshell]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

For Gawd's sake, man: 'It's an Institution'!

Besides, I got in at 14p.......

[jshell]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I just figured that they'd saved it that far, I hadn't been to the casino for a while and it was worth a few £k punt that I was prepared to lose, wish I'd gone 'all-in' tho'!!! I still think that even at 43p there's still potential for massive returns over a couple or three of years.

[ninja-lewis]

Minor quibble but Pell isn't Scottish. Born in India and brought up in England. Worked for Lloyds then Natwest before the takeover.

[Mojocvh]

ninja-lewis said:

Minor quibble but Pell isn't Scottish. Born in India and brought up in England. Worked for Lloyds then Natwest before the takeover.

qfp