Sir Fred Goodwin, pensions, property rights, Law, Legislation and Liberty: an open letter.

We have an update via the Army, here. And the MSM thinks this will not happen, here.

David Davis

Sir Frederick Goodwin

Late of…..

…..c/o The Royal Bank of Scotland plc

42 St Andrew’s Square

Edinburgh, Scotland

Dear Sir Fred

I do not know where you are at present and I presume it’s not at the above offices, but never mind. I am sure the good ladies at the Southport Branch will have this sent to you, after I have presented hard copy to them tomorrow morning. The purpose of this private letter is to advise you that I, and perhaps many thousands of other ordinary folks, are appalled at the way Mr Harriet Harman (we call her on the blog “Horrid Hardbint”) is getting at you publicly, and threatening to invoke what we also call, on here, “State Directed Property-Confiscation”.

It is really of no interest to me at all, nor is it to others I know, what your agreed pension is to be. It is the least of our worries at this time. I, as a customer of your Bank (it is actually quite a good Bank, and has not been more than usually unreasonable over the 20-odd years of my association with it – from Holt’s days – remember that one?) would say that if it and you  – and even the ghastly/oily Sir Paul Myners – had agreed a sum for you to b***** off with, than that should be it.

If the Law says a contract is admissible at Law, and therefore can be defended in a Court, then what business is it of Hardbint and her nasty fascist friends in the government to pretend they can overturn it, using what they have the brass neck, the immortal rind and thickskin, to call “public opinion”?

Are laws to be changed by merely what the sitting government says is “public opinion”? What, then, is Parliament for? A very dangerous precedent for the prospects for individual liberty – and in particular property rights – would be set by Harbint’s words, if she were able to translate them into actions.

You  __must__  certainly defend yourself, and vigorously, and by whatever means are at your disposal, to keep a contractual arrangement which has been legally agreed with you. For you to not do this will be an abrogation of YOUR own responsibility as a Subject of the Queen to defend the Rule of Law. If you do not, then a bad precedent will have been set, and everyone’s legally-agreed property will be under an existential threat.

The duty to do this falls to you more than to others (a) because you have just been publicly attacked and threatened by an Officer of the State, and (b) because you probably have more resources to do this than the rest of us.

I remain

Yours sincerely

David Davis

Blogmaster, The Libertarian Alliance



  1. If Harriet Harman suggests that an individual will be targetted by the Government because “the Prime Minister has said so” – regardless of whether the individual’s rights are protected by the law, then all we need to do is dress her in a black uniform with a swastika, or a KGB uniform, to see what attitude this mirrors. I didn’t know that Gordon Brown’s title had recently become “Der Fuehrer”.

    Besides this, if it is appropriate to implement assassination by media towards Fred Goodwin for RBS (when all parties globally have acknowledged that no-one saw this coming), and demand that he give up his pension – then it is just as appropriate that Gordon Brown give up his current pension (and position) for his absolutely unjustifiable decision to lose the UK Billions of Pounds by selling off the UK’s Gold Reserves at one of the lowest prices in history (and unlike the Global Economic Crisis, plenty of people saw that coming at the time – and said so).

    The same can be aid for Alistair Darling’s ham-handed and catastrophic handling of the Northern Rock debacle, as his and his Prime Minister’s dallying and fumbling (and questionable / unethical behaviour towards Virgin Money) also merit the seizure of their pensions – as they turned a salvageable situation into a disaster (in which their media leaks also played a significant role).

    Frankly, one of the most significant causes of the Global Economic Crisis can be found in the legislation passed by Bill Clinton – which Robert Reich also had a strong hand in implementing – when they legislated (for votes, no doubt) to force banks to provide mortgages to those who could not afford them – punishing and fining banks which did not thereafter comply.

    If one does this, does one not expect banks to try to find a way to try to make money out of an otherwise bottomless hole. Similarly, as banking is globalised, if the US Banks start this, for others not to follow suit will be commercially untenable.

    Of course, the current Labour government and its inept former Chancellor – now unelected Prime Minister – also ran wild with their completely reckless drive for everyone to own their own home. Some people just can’t – and the current financial crisis is more to do with the failure of their (and Bill Clinton’s) uninformed interference in the private sector to effect social engineering, than it is to do with banks and bankers.

    Once politicians start to artificially meddle with financial markets and structures, what the end result will be is unknown, and (as they are now) they can be catastrophic

  2. Dave:

    Don’t you actually understand that it’s Crony-Capitalists like ‘Fred’ who have brought your beloved “Capitalism” to the edge of ruin?

    “…everyone’s legally-agreed property will be under an existential threat….”

    That’s what we keep on trying to get you folks to see…



  3. Tony, old man!

    Why do you _always_ pretend to disagree with me?

    I don’t mind. It’s just that on _this_ issue I thought we’d agree about liberty and property rights, and that I’d not hear from you on this one…?

    I really thought you’d agree that he was entitled? No?

    Do you _really_ want me to disinherit the children and grandchildren and further descendents of “Union” “Bosses”? I would if you said it was right. I think it’s right.

  4. Tony,
    I _KNOW_ Sir Fred and the others just behaved lik sheep. But the ClintonNazis set it all off. The other problem, which i have not addressed here as there wasn’t time, and I want to run a powerful hit-getting blog in realtime, is the “employment” of “graduates”, who are fascist sheep mostly.

    They believe whatever the Human-Remains-Dept says they should, in order to “get on”.

    if “graduates” all want to sell securitised jink-debt to each other in diffreent banks, whay was it then Sir Fred’s problem?

  5. Hi David

    To think that Harriet would see to it that Sir Fred be regarded as the innocent victim!

    To adopt ultra pedant mode: it’s St Andrew Square. I know this because one of my clients has a very large account there. I always know how to spell the address but never remember the postcode…

    I persuaded the said client to move 30% of their money into another bank a few months ago! The Board thought I was mad. No longer.

  6. Of course you were right David, from the point of view of advising your client. But all I was going on about was the liberal, which is to say, conservative, view of property rights.

    I have no liking for Sir Fred one way or the other. But I think it’s a bit rich of nazi scumbags in Wastemoster to publicly pillory him, with also malicious threats, on the Wireless Tele Vision, at which exact point he has no redress, for merely doing what they had more or less ordered him to do.

  7. Dave:

    Note especially the Milton Friedman quite:

    How can we ensure that — in the rapidly-transforming world economy — people can choose (and look forward to) a future human and economic environment which is the best we can achieve?

    And how can we make sure that everyone has a real incentive to choose
    the best systems providing opportunities for maximal economic growth?

    Insofar as economic systems are ‘Wertfrei’ (value-free) abstract games, as
    the economists tell us, people have the right to choose the most favourable ‘game’, and to receive full payment for their consent to the particular game’s taking place. Too often, some neoconservatives and others take the
    _particular_ game (and its income and property distributions) for granted, as a — somehow — given ‘background’. Not so.

    As Robert Nozick points out, the better-off tend to be the descendants of the beneficiaries of past injustices, while the less-well-off tend to be the descendants of
    their predecessors’ victims. Justly-due restitution is not ‘confiscation’, nor is it ‘redistribution’ either.

    This view – Agorism – owes much of its inspiration to the late Agorist theoretician Robert LeFevre and to the late Karl Popper. To Robert LeFevre it owes the insight that there is no basis for property rights which does not entail the possible initiation of aggression to assert
    those rights — which aggression is morally forbidden to consistent individualist anarchists, or indeed anyone morally or practically opposed to the initiating of aggression.


    I see no viable alternative to Milton Friedman’s view, expressed in “Capitalism and Freedom”:

    “Just what constitutes property and what rights the ownership of property confers are complex social creations rather than self-evident propositions.”

    To Karl Popper is owed his analysis of the achievement of intellectual, moral and practical advance by means of the Open Society of free and democratic institutions.

    ‘Democracy’ to Popper means the ability
    to change the governing order without violence; and — to this end — for people to be free to hypothesize, research, discuss and advance proposals for improving the ways people live.

    That’s it, really!

    I’m quite confodent that the RBS shareholders could remove Fred’s testicles (for ruining RBS) if they took competent legal advice.



    PS: And — as I’ve often told you – I’d rather go to bed with Harriet Harmon than with Fred. These things mattr…

    I wonder if she likes being tied up, all fresh out of the bath, and gently whipped? Strictly voluntarily, of course… (smiles)

  8. Dave:

    “I wonder if she likes being tied up, all fresh out of the bath, and gently whipped? Strictly voluntarily, of course… (smiles)”

    How can this paragraph possibly make _me_ disgusting? Is it ‘disgusting’ to wonder? (smiles)


  9. Dave:

    [ FX: “I am not, and never have been, a fancier of Fred!” ]

    Good enough for you?

    I do have a penchant for boyish girls, though: tomboys…

    Olivia Newton-John;

    Rachel Stevens;

    Keeley Hazell;

    Sienna Miller;

    Sandahl Bergman;

    Rachel Ward;

    Gail Porter;

    Avril Lavigne;

    Alex Parks;

    Demi Moore;

    Carrie-Anne Moss;

    The list goes on… (smiles)


  10. Some biblical advice for Harriet and Gordon – “Take the moot our your own eye, before you take the speck out your brother’s!”

    This campaign against the bankers by New Labour is cynical, hypocritical, demagogic, unlawful, and fascistic. Come to think of it, those five adjectives accurately describe a large part of New Labour’s thinking and behaviour.

    Furthermore, I note that Radio 4 (and presumably the rest of the BBC) only runs this issue as take away Sir Fred’s pension versus he’s legally entitled to it. In other words, they’ve predictably swallowed the New Labour distraction strategy hook line and sinker.

    I also note that Blue Labour (the party formerly known as the Tories) has predictably not raised a squeek against this demagogic exercise or against Gordon Brown’s decade of mismanagement.

Leave a Reply