So, they were talking about the mismanagement of HBOS by ex-chief Sir James Crosby and its subsequent collapse. Douglas Alexander, BBC Scotland's Economic Correspondent was on yucking it up while the usual frothers phoned and sent texts brimming with the kind of bile and effrontery unique to this radio show.
Apparently James has asked to be stripped of his knighthood and has waived 30% of his £508,000 pension by way of reparations for being a banking chump. The presenter (and many of the plummy pensioners who like to phone Kaye of a morning) were suggesting that the greedy bastard be stripped not just of his 'K' but of his entire pension.
Step in Douglas Fraser, he pointed out that Pensions were hugely complicated and when one enters into a pension agreement; it is a binding contract. The notion that we might reach back in time and change the terms of a pension agreement would be dangerous, not to mention the legality of it which would be exceedingly complicated and parlous in terms of the precedent it would set.
Yes, I'm sure the Westminster Government thought exactly the same thing about the retroactive legislation they rammed through parliament on the sly in order to make sure the thousands of already dead-poor people who couldn't or wouldn't do Workfare definitely couldn't claim back the money government held back from them.
You might be sitting there thinking; 'but its not the same thing at all...' But it is: the UK government has a legal obligation to pay the proper amount of welfare to clients just as the pension provider has a legal obligation to pay the agreed pension rate. Both examples have their basis in the same principle of law.
I don't listen to every utterance burped out by Douglas Alexander, but I'll offer my pound for your bucket if shite if said anything like this about Westminster's actions over Workfare.
Apparently James has asked to be stripped of his knighthood and has waived 30% of his £508,000 pension by way of reparations for being a banking chump. The presenter (and many of the plummy pensioners who like to phone Kaye of a morning) were suggesting that the greedy bastard be stripped not just of his 'K' but of his entire pension.
Step in Douglas Fraser, he pointed out that Pensions were hugely complicated and when one enters into a pension agreement; it is a binding contract. The notion that we might reach back in time and change the terms of a pension agreement would be dangerous, not to mention the legality of it which would be exceedingly complicated and parlous in terms of the precedent it would set.
Yes, I'm sure the Westminster Government thought exactly the same thing about the retroactive legislation they rammed through parliament on the sly in order to make sure the thousands of already dead-poor people who couldn't or wouldn't do Workfare definitely couldn't claim back the money government held back from them.
You might be sitting there thinking; 'but its not the same thing at all...' But it is: the UK government has a legal obligation to pay the proper amount of welfare to clients just as the pension provider has a legal obligation to pay the agreed pension rate. Both examples have their basis in the same principle of law.
I don't listen to every utterance burped out by Douglas Alexander, but I'll offer my pound for your bucket if shite if said anything like this about Westminster's actions over Workfare.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for comment as always and I apologise if you have to jump through any hoops to do so. Its just that, I'm still being spammed by organisations who are certain I can't get it up or when it is up its not big enough or that I don't have anyone to get it up for.
Who knew blogging could be so bad for ones self-confidence?