Should we shred Sir Fred's pension?

how about a quick act of parliament taxing said pension (only Freds specifically) at 100%

If the pension was boosted at the discretion of the board of RBS then I think all those responsible for the decsion, should be asked to justify it. Anything above the contractual level of income would appear to be in breach of fiduciary duties.

Is Sir Fred solely responsible for the 'credit crunch'? If we're talking financial punishment, even voluntarily, what about the regulators and various government ministers who have been found to have been severely lacking during their 'tenure', including Gordon Brown's 10 years as probably the most deluded and deluding Chancellor in history.

It's all a question of honour and integrity, both of which are lacking in Goodwin. Never mind what the rules say, it's down to what is right and what is wrong. This, as we all know is quite clearly wrong in the same way that our illustrious Home Secretary is wrong to claim the most outrageous expenses for living in her sister's flat in London and calling it her main home when her husband and children are in Redditch. I wonder what they feel like knowing that they do not live in the 'main' family home?

What sort of example does this set to those further down the food chain when they see these fat cats with their noses deep in the trough?

Goodwin was the leader of a major bank; what sort of leadership qualities does this show? He should fall on his sword and be accountable for his errors and take some responsibility for the appalling business decisions that he took which led to the demise of one of this country's greatest banks. He should be stripped of his Knighthood and made to forego a large slice of his pension and show some humility and set an example.

Perhaps he should be means-tested like the rest of the UK population before a decision is made regarding this particular benefit.

Sound like another own goal by the government here!

If it was legal then why should he give it back! Perhaps if the PM and other ministers are prepared to sacrifice 50% of their pension for allowing this mess to happen on their watch he may feel differently!

£16 million, or whatever the figure is, is a tad over the Lifetime Allowance so won't much of the reported £650 - £700,000 pension be taxed at 55% ?

I agree that Sir Fred will find life on £300,000+ a bit tough and may have to now buy his pot noodles at Lidl but at least the taxpayer will be retrieving over half his pension.

To be serious I was concerned to hear John Prescott say that the pension should be seized and Goodwin invited to sue. If paying the pension is contractually legal then a Government that breaks it's own laws is arguably as immoral as a huge pension for one of the breakers of a broken bank ?

I heard Ross Altman on the radio yesterday saying that the pension should be dealt with under the Pension Protection Fund as the bank is effectively bankrupt and is only trading due to government intervention. What she didnt seem to acknowledge is that if you apply that to Sir Fred's pension then you have to apply it to all of the RBS staff pensions which means that the people who have been working hard without the influence on the decisions will probably get hit just as hard, afterall it is unlikley they will go out and get another job which pays £4m per year but he might when all of this dies down. Thats the problem if you apply a rule it applies to all. Instead maybe we should be pursuing this under insolvency rules, that being that when pension contributions (or in this case promises) are made knowing that the company is financially unable to sustain them they can be revoked. The big problem is that we dont know who agreed this and when. Surely questions should be asked of the Pension Trustees, Sir Fred couldnt have made this decision alone !

There seems to be a lot of "pot" and "kettle" going on here. When politicians and specifically Government Ministers, and Regulators forego some of their extremely lucrative pensions as a "gesture" to accept their part in the blame, then and only then can they demand that Fred shreds his pension.

From what I understand the Government did know about this last autumn, specifically Lord Myers. Though whether they actually understood the ramifications and what it would mean by topping up his fund by another £8m I doubt. But then that is par for their level of incompetance.

Much as I thinkl that Fred's pension is obscene, he, the RBS Board, and Remuneration Committee and Government negotiated it, and if they were fool enough to agree it they are the ones who should be penalised.

Iniquitous though it is that a man is being so handsomely rewarded for 'failure',the fact of the matter is that his pension reflects his very high earnings over many years.

Virtually all politicians make the most appalling errors of judgment throughout their careers, some of which involve the deaths of hundreds of troops and tens of thousands of civilians (Tony), but I have never detected one shred of remorse or indeed a gesture of giving up on one's pension.

The current sport of baying for Fred Goodwin's blood is breathtakingly hypocritical.

This is a simple question of right and wrong.

Is Sir Fred wrong to accept someting which his employer has discussed, negotiated and then offered him - NO.

Are the employers and anyone else who agreed and sanctioned this ludicrously obscene amount of discretionary increase wrong - YES.

As such, a breach of trust has been committed, or possibly they, as third party, have persuaded a breach of trust to be committed and are, therefore, personally liable to the beneficiaries for any consequent loss.

This angle is far more likely to stand up in court than to attempt a law change based solely on this case. Contractual obligations wuold have resulted in a very large annual pension, but to use discretion to increase this is disgusting. The statements say that this was done in response to Sir Fred voluntarily foregoing his years notice income. If this was, indeed, voluntary then they should have thanked him for that and been done, but i was more likely that a jolly nice chat was had about how best to dress up the situation and give him money in a way that was less likely to be noticed and raise such a level of public outcry.

We have for years bemoaned the fact that an individuals pension could be lost on the company folding, especially where the company has "borrowed" the money from the pension scheme.

We therefore think it is fair that money put in trust for a pension is safe - it is not for The Sun/Mirror et al to decide arbitrarily on a case by case basis.

If we were to apply this principle, any employee sacked after 25 years service for incompetency could have his pension effectively revoked by his employer, especially a new on if the company had been taken over.

Unpalatable as it may be that this arrogant clown will get the money, if it is contractual and in a separate pesnion fund, it is actually fair and legal.

I think I have missed something here, how does his pension stack up with the LIfetime allowance ? I do'nt believe he worked at RBS long enough for Primary protection to permit £693,000 per year.

Who gives the treasury the authority to override legislation that stops the normal folk having a pension of more than approx £80,000 per year ?

I think I need a nighthood and a red fur coat, that way I will be able to retire on the £250,000 I will need to keep my family going in my dotage

Sir Fred should be held to account for his past actions. He should be the first test case of many legally challenging investment bankers actions as Director of the relevant banks and if found guilty they should go to prison or at least be fined a great deal of money for the misery that they have caused throught thier actions

Sir Fred should be fined £16 million for starters and have his house taken away.

Sadly, until he and his family personally feels serious discomfort for his actions in his own pocket he will never understand what he has relly done to this country.

If you want to pint a finger what about Teflon Tony? what about his peniosn, what about Brown's pension. They have been overseeing the financial meltdown over teh last ten years so should they not carry the can?

The FSA are paying themselves Bonuses out of increases in our charges, shouldn't that be stopped?

Jealousy gets us nowehere, this is merely tabloid sensationalism (again) tryingto deflect the true problems this Government has got this country into. Complete and utter Bankruptcy!

Good luck to him (Sir Fred) is all I can say.

A pension is nothing other than deferred pay. It was right at the time that Fred 'the shred' was paid his exorbitant salary are we now going to retrospectively claw back his pay from previuos years? I think not.

As for Prescott starting an on-line petition for shredding Fred's pension because he was proved to be incompetent.........come on when did Prescott or Brown for that matter ever make competent decisions. Prescott had a 'super' department created in 1997 to satisfy his ego at a cost of billions of pounds to the country for no benefit. Can we have your pension back please John?

Brown almost single handedly managed to precipitate the closure of all private sector defined benefit pension schemes and has failed to tackle the world's biggest Ponzi scheme (public sector pensions). Can we have your pension please Gordon. I think not.

Fred'd pension may be unpalatble but there is nothing more unpalatble than these politicians playing to the lowest common denominator in society and embarking on a witch hunt like this. Hypocrisy has taken on a whole new meaning with this lot.

There has been much politically-motivated posturing concerning this pension, and we need to establish the difference between the benefits to which Sir Fred Goodwin was beneficially entitled and anything additional provided at the discretion of RBS's board.

Sir Fred joined RBS in 1998. Consequently, on joining any RBS-sponsored pension arrangement he would have been a Class A (post - 89) member under the pre A-Day regime. He would have been entitled to accrue capped benefits in an approved arrangements. Any additional entitlements would have accrued in an approved arrangement (FURBS or UURBS). Come A Day, it seems reasonable to suppose he opted for both Primary and Enhanced protection.

As a result, it is to be expected that Sir Fred is beneficually entitled to some pension benefits. This a basic principle of trust law, and there is nothing that Paul Myners, George Osborne or Ros Altmann can do about it.

However it appears that that the rate of Sir Fred's total entitlement has not been actuarially reduced to allow for retirement at age 50. To comply with the requirements of trust law, such an arrangement requires a special employer contribution - an augmentation - to be made. Depending on scheme rules, such payments are made 'by the employer at the discretion of the trustees.' It is very likely that an augmentation payment will have breached the Annual Allowance and whatever protection provision that may have been in place.

This leaves us with three questions to ask:

Has an augmentation payment been made?

If so, when was it made?

Who made it?

RBS is bust - only UK PLC money has saved it.

He is responsible it was his over priced purchase of ABN which has made RBS untentable in the current enviroment

Knowing this his man had effeectively bust the bank his board(mates in the city) allowed him a dicretionary increase in his pension.

This is the same greed and arrogance that has caused many of the problems we now face.

The sooner he is stripped of his knight hood, and given the appropriate pension based on what he would,be entiitled to receive under PPF rules the better.

Perhaps then we may see some real regret next time the and the Bankers are put forward in front of a Select committee insread of coached replies.

I have a feeling any enforcement to remove his pension through legislation will fall foul of the Human Rights Act, specifically the right to property and non removal.

leave him alone

no one was questioning his pension when rbs were making huge profits in previous yeas were they??

typical ignorance to ask him in a capitalist world to give up his hard earned pension just likeanone else.

would we aks alan sugar to give up his pension if his company started to make losses? - i think not!!

It appears that all of the top bank executives who are responsible for the current banking crisis have filled their pockets with loot before gliding safely to earth under their diamond encrusted parachutes. What the hell were the Government and regulators doing whilst this was going on - dreaming up another cock and bull regulatory review for an industry that ain't broke - despite their best efforts!

I too believe that he should be held to account for what is tantamount to negligence on his part. He was happy enough to take the salary and bonus that goes along with the responsibility he had and so should be taken to task for his failings. He should be made to pay back some/all of his earnings to help the bank which he failed.

I can't believe no-one has started legal proceedings against these chief execs who seem to have gotten off scot free with a simple appology. "Oh Sorry about that", Come on!! What other company in the UK would be bailed out if they had found themselves into trouble, none they would simply go bankrupt. Surely we should be setting some sort of presedence so that these execs in future earn their salary's and know the consequences of THEIR failings.

After all it is us as taxpayers that will feel the consequences of the government funding for years to come. Why shouldn't they?

Well the man who said that he did not go to work to cuddle employees is being cuddled for perpetuity by us all now.

The mechanics of the actual deal to provide the pension suggest a mixture of benefits to get to this figure.

Someone let him go quietly as an employee with a deal rather than say to him we will not pay you to leave. Why not let him wait until normal retirement mate like the rest of the staff or suffer reductions for taking benefits early.

I have read his letter to Myners in the Times today and it is interesting.

Fred is and was an autocrat who surrounded himself with servants in fear. This was great when the city loved him but one deal too far has crashed a normally solid organisation.

The context of his penury in retirement is the comparison with that of the staff made redundant and businesses that will fall also with negative consequences.

He is not alone in his fault for macro-economic events but is joined by global regulators, poor corporate governance, missing auditors and investment bankers.

If I was to preside over the destruction of 96% of the value of my company, I'd expect to be on the bread line, not a multi millionaire.

Sir Fred should be stripped of his knighthood, and his pension slashed to match the national average wage. He might then understand the pain his actions have caused to ordinary shareholders. He should also be disbarred from ever holding another directorship.

Alternatively, revalue his pot as at 1st January 2008, convert it into RBS shares at that point and put the ******** into drawdown.

£650-£700,000 pa is an obscene amount to pay a failure.

M Carden is right . Its easy and simple to do and its just what the government did for the so called "greedy" utility companies.

A windfall tax is the answer on both Fred The Shreds pension AND on all the bank bonuses considered excessive.

The spinless government have this option but will I suspect ignore it .

The problem is that the whole syatem of Governement, banking and regulation is rotten to the core. The lot of them need to go. The average taxpaying citizen of this unfortunate Isle will foot the bill of not only the current bailouts but also the generous pensions of these dispicable morons for many years to come.

The oposition are spinless. There should have been an outcry at this missmangement of the economy by "Golden" Brown , the saviour of the Free World (self proclaimed). There should be a vote of no confidence in the government. The reason there hasn't been is that the mess is so bad that the Tories & Libs don't want to inherit the problem. Democracy really doesn't exist. And where has than Blair moron disappeared to? Oh yes his mates at JPM who pay him $millions for a couple of days work each year.

While Sir Fred appears legally entitled to his pension, he could make himself more of an attractive role model if he set up a new charity in his retirement.

This would fund immediate cancelation of any applicant's debts on the condition they apologised publicly for them.

Legislation has brought us minimum wages, it's unfortunate that because of the greed shown by so many I feel it's about time legislation was brought in about maximum wages to include bonuses (can I suggest £250,000) and sensible pensions based years of service not just a few years as is most probably the case with Sir Fred.

Sir Fred , you greedy b------, you made a monumental cock up, have made RBS bankrupt other than for the government bail out using our money. If you had any morals or spine, you'd give up all the pension monies, together with wages and bonuses you have been paid since you bought ABN AMRO and be grateful you got off so lightly. If I had done this to my business, I'd have gone bankrupt and no one would have bailed me out or paid me a handsome pension.

He (Sir Fred) and his kind should not be allowed to walk away from the debacle that they allowed to happen; caused mainly by greed and incompetence as I see it.

Sir Fred has created havic on hundreds of thousands of individuals and households by his actions and what he allowed his employees to do.

I beleive that if this Government allow him to walk away with that obseen pension of which they were clearly aware of, then apart from many other bad decisions they have made in Government this incident will surley bring them down.

This is the Labour Governments "Poll Tax"

Greed got us here and greed will bring us back here. After all if you let a group of incompetent, spineless, morons run free with the country's cheque book, would you be surprised if you had no pot to p!ss in and no window to throw it out of.

Is it time to vote for another set yet?

He only got the damned pension as a bung for keeping the blame from his mates on the board.

The main killer for RBS was the ABN deal. That would have been thoroughly debated at board level, and the whole board shared responsibility, but a cosy little deal was done where 'good old Fred' fell on his sword, in exchange for a bit of bunce.

Until ALL senior remuneration has to be subject to a direct shareholder vote by law (perhaps all in FTSE 100 companies) then this sort of deal with continue.

Rank incompetence on behalf of the Government. Surprise surprise.

If I was Fred I'd keep it too - but if I was in the Government I would take revenge on the rest of the board who sanctioned it by kicking them out without any lovely payoff.

I think I might propose stripping 'sir' Fred of his sir-ness as well. That might make him think.

It isn't just the bankers, we have developed a culture where senior management in large companies are so far removed from real life that they genuinely believe their job is enormously more difficult than yours, and they really deserve all this money. It isn't, they don't. I don't resent them, but they should remember that however hard they work, they are lucky, and if they cock it up, they should expect the risk that goes with such high rewards, i.e. an unceremonious exit with nothing.

In truth, this is nothing more than a symptom or the serious rot and self interest that infects the boardroom's, town halls and politicians in general around this country and most of the rest of the world.

They think the rest of us, owe them an outrageous living, think that just because they managed to get a job because they move in the right circles, they all refuse to accept any responsibility for their actions and are interested in nothing more than whats in it for them.

Its all about self interest, whether their name is Fred Goodwin, Gordon Brown or virtually all or any of them.

They justify their silly salaries and pay packages by saying that they have to recieve that much to attract the best people.. total tosh and we know it, the trouble is, that all of these things are controlled by the same people, they are either politicians or on the boards, and they work with each other.

I yearn to see some policiticans or people with true leadership, that actually want to try and do the right thing, rather than simply looking out for whats in it for them.

Unfortunately that type of person is something of a rarity in our self obssessed materialistic society, and if truth be told, we are all guilty of it to a less or more degree. Decency, courtesy and morals, seem to have been outlawed in the last 15 years, and replaced with an interferring govenrment hell bent of sticking its nose into everything that doesn;t need fixing and doing nothing about the things that are wrong, because of self interest.

I mean ask yourself, would Tony Blair have been so hell bent of introducing the Huma rights act, had Cherie not been a human rights lawyer, waiting to "earn" millions of punds of tax payers money?

Fred is a swine, an immoral true example of the worst excessesses of selfishness, however we are probably little more than powerless to do anything about it.

My question would be this. Why was Sir Fred, not fired for gross misconduct and incomptence? why is it that Execs have lovely contracts that mean that even if they do get fired, they still get however many years pay.

Why do policiticans and boards members all have their noses in our trough, and are allowed to scoop up as much for themselves as possible?

Why are the board of RBS not being sued for incompetence for allowing this pension fiasco to go through?

Until we realise that without taking a good hard long look at ourselves, realising that many of us have become very selfish and would do exactly the same thing as Sir Fred in this circumstances, until we realise these things about ourselves, and get a grip on the corruption, selfishness and general lack of morals running rampant through all of our boardrooms and policticians, there is no possibility of anything changing for the better.

I dont suggest communism or socialism, but i do suggest the people of this country stop, take a long hard look, and truly decide if they want their companies and countries run in this way... becuase if we dont, only wholesale root and branch reform is the way forward..

The question is, is anyone out there, man enough, or Woman enough to take on such a task....

The Daily Mash is the only commentator that has this story pegged and articulately portrayed:

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/brown-refuses-to-hand-back-pension-200902271606/

Surely Goodwin, and as time will tell, Brown and Darling, should be more worried about Jail time than their huge salaries, memoir bonuses and future royalties and benefits that their notoriety will surely bring?

Fred the shred? Fred the shred? Fred the c*** more like

Normally anyone who completely fails in their job is rapidly shown the door and is not able to argue about the conditions under which they are sacked. This man must have made the biggest failure ever seen in a UK company, so it is reasonable that he should forfeit a large slice of his pension.

However all this was known when the government originaly bailed out this tin pot bank and I suggest that in keeping with the normal old boys club they decided to give good old Sir Fred a good send off and weather the storm later when they knew they couldn't get it back.

It is not what you know, Sir Fred knew little to nothing as shown by his disastorous management, but who you know and after all he is knighted, so he is well placed there.

Why should he hand back anything?

Should we also stop Tony Blair’s and Labour ministers pensions for gross incompetence and causing illegal wars resulting in over a million dead and billions pounds wasted? Why should corrupt MP’s enjoy a huge pension?

I could have written and said much the same as everyone above, but my two headings are what we need to focus on.

What was/is legal

What was/is moral

Without law, we have anarchy and the law is there to stop politicians (and previously monarchy) creating anarchy.

Without laws that match our morals, we have revolution which results in anarchy.

This all needs pursuit in law without fear or favour, but what needs to be recognised is that Fred the Shred was not the sole participent in what has occurred and ministers baying for blood could find themselves in the dock too. I'm sure Tony Blair is very aware that unlike the USA, there is no "presedential immunity" and we have beheaded our head of state before don't forget, so an ex PM or current one needs to be wary what they call for.

Other than Financial Services, you cannot back date the alw to make an individual guilty in law when in fact they were morally corrupt only.

That is what IFADU has been fighting to reverse, i.e. respect for the rule of law at the time the advice was given, NOT in hindsight based on how the world has changed or current laws/morals.

This is one of the serious risks of removing more peers from the hosue of Lords as it makes knee jerk changes to rules/laws much quicker and less thought out and to some extent could play in to extremists hands (again think what Hitler or more likely Himmler could have done with a national data base!)

People are paid for their ability and their competence. Clealry both are severely lacking in the case of Sir Fred Goodwins activites using Royal Bank of Scotland - for his own self interest - rather than the best interests of shareholders - and customers. This has happened in the past with Muike D Ross at Scottish Widows ( and his colleagues Angela Knight now at the ABI, CHarles Thomson at Equitable ). Mike D Ross was given some £4M as a pension for his part in the fialures of Scottish Widows, and it is interestingtthey had to be bought out by Edinburgh's Trustee savings Bank ( TSB ) - now being branded as Lloyds ( see financial commentators).

The point is, theywould NOT do this with their own money, so why are they allowed to act against shareholders and customers - with other peoples money ?

The blatant negligence and the general incompetence of this Government, and in particular Gordon Brown and his chancellor - demonstrates the arrogance of Edinburgh as a financial centre - or the competence of Edinburgh's financiers or as financial managers.

Ian Lees

Whilst they are at strip him of his Knighthood.

They stripped Lester Piggot for no lesser a crime!

At least Lestor did not bankrupt a public instituion!!

This is now a witch- hunt. Should the government, who asked the FSA regulatory body to use a light touch when dealing with the bank business model which had become risky, not at long last accept responsibility for the whole mess. It seems to me that Fred is being used as a scapegoat for the government's negligence. His pension would also come from other previous employments. If we try to take his pension away then every person in the U.K who have pensions better beware incase they make mistakes in their future careers - they could be stripped of their pensions.

Give the guy a break, although guilty of the ABN Amro purchase, which caused most of the problem, he did work hard in previous years and was in the past extremely successful.

And I am not an admirer - just fair

If it can be held that Sir Fred and his cronies were actually guilty of a criminal offence (eg Company Law) then his pension must surely be the proceeds of his crime. As such, the pension pot can then be seized under Money Laundering legislation. Shame Mr Brown didn't consult me on this.

Forget Fred, let's start paying Gordon's inflation proofed pension asap. He has cost us billions more than Fred.

This business of expecting him to voluntarily forgo most of his pension, or give it to charity - come on, that's the kind of crap you demand someone else do, yet if it was you in the same position and legally you could keep it, you know d@mn well you would.

He isn't the first person to get paid for failure and he most likely won't be the last - no, it's not right but don't bitch about things you can't change and concentrate on making sure it doesn't happen again.

I would like to see exactly what the trustees of the scheme have to say about the accrual basis of his scheme, the present funding level, what level of exceptional and discretionary payments were made on bealf of this member and why a 50 year old "failed" former employee has been allowed to access his fund 10 years early without any form of visible actuarial reduction.

If he and they have stayed within the rules there is very little the government can do but bleat about it and cry "foul". Perhaps then we can focus on how and why the regulators and the government of the period allowed companies to act so irresponsibly with the taxpayers money.

The reality in all this is that if the ABN had been won by Barclays they would be in trouble instead of RBS, RBS would be sitting with 12Bn from the rights issue ready and willing, I suspect, to pounce on the competition and Fred and the Board would be praised as the heros of the hour.

Lets not forget that the ABN deal was voted for by shareholders so it's great to see hipocracy, and short term memory loss is alive and living in the media, politicians, the shareholders and the general public.

Re the pension if we were all placed in the same position i.e. protecting your family's interests, would any of us do the same. I think "yes" is the answer you're looking for.

This settlement was legal and above board. The rule of law applies to everyone, including incompetents. The uproar is a mixture of politicising, envy and hypocrisy.

Goodwin didn’t cause the current crisis. He was just part of it. It was caused by the greed which market forces imposed upon all of the players. Someone had a germ of an idea – let’s give loans to people with very limited means, we’ll make a turn on it, at least for a few years and my record, for the short time I’ll be here, will look good. The idea took root, and spread, and blossomed and finally withered and died, as it was destined to do.

The financial papers and magazines have been full of warnings about this approach for the last 10 to 15 years. Due diligence was kicked into the gutter by everyone, including Goodwin, the US administration and the UK government. The fast buck ruled, greed was indeed good. The crime is that so many ordinary people will have to suffer. Oh…and – if you hang around this earth for long enough, you will see this sort of thing happening again.

1) Obscenely high salaries and bonuses fuelled reckless behaviour by senior bankers and traders. Why should Goodwin be rewarded for his mismanagement??

2) RBS was bailed out by the taxpayer, many of whom have lost pensions, savings, bonuses and jobs, through no action of their own. No RBS taxpayer money should go to Goodwins pension

3) The pension was awarded by RBS board/pension trustees. They should pay Sir Fred if they think it so necessary

4) Many low-paid employees (<20k/yr) have now lost bonuses which actually brings their income up to an acceptable (just) level, because of the finanfcial crisis. Why do they suffer and Sir Fred gets rewarded??

5)Thousands of people lose their jobs for minor "misdemeanors", yet get no bonus or payoff. Why should Sir Fred be rewarded for his gross mismanagement?

6) In 1997 the goverment started robbing all pension funds, leading to many collapses. The Government is now quietly making enquiries as to whether it can legally default on thousands of public sector pensions. The Government changes the rules whenever it like. What is stopping them from making the right decision over inflated banker payoffs/pensions?

As ever, the Government is being spineless over this issue.

Almost forgot - how often were we told by bankers (self-serving) and politicians (their buddies) that "to attract the best we must pay competitive salaries or they will take their skills elsewhere" ??

Well the events of the last year have blown that assumption out of the water. A market stall holder (no offence meant) can balance books better!

No banking experience + crass risk taking + greed, all rewarded by a fat pension that has just been increased by 10k - my entire annual pension, after 20 years service!!

There is a way to get out of the Goodwin pension that I have used in practice.

Wind up RBS plc and then create RBS1 plc to take over those parts of RBS that it wishes to excluding the Goodwin pension, of course.

Surprised no one has mentioned that whilst "Sir" Fred got his pension doubled AND retired early , he presided over an RBS rule change that enforced a 40% cut for RBS employees that take early retirement, do as I say not do as I do eh Fred ?