From The Independent

 

Fred Goodwin, the former chief executive of the Royal Bank of Scotland who became a focal point for anger over the financial crisis, has obtained a super-injunction banning the media from identifying him as a banker.

 

The existence of the super-injunction was revealed today by John Hemming, a back-bench Liberal Democrat MP who tabled a question in Parliament about the gagging order.

 

Normally the media is forbidden from even reporting that a super-injunction exists but Parliamentary privilege allows MPs to speak on the floor of the House of Commons without risk of prosecution.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-...on-2238351.html

 

So, if we can't refer to Goodwin's former profession, how should we describe him? Apart from the obvious rhyming slang of course.

Oh the obvious will be most appropriate, the tosser.

I actually had a very interesting tutorial this week for my Financial Reporting Theory class. We were looking at non financial disclosures in the final accounts like the chairman's statements and seeing if there was evidence of various tactics to cover up bad news and make it look like everything was peachy.

 

We were given one in class that had the information identifying the company removed, and it turned out to be Fred Goodwin's statement that was released just weeks before RBS collapsed.

 

On the face of things it all looked fine, and there was clear evidence he was manipulating the shareholders into saying everything was wonderful by highlighting that revenues were up, dividends were up etc. However, the report was very short, it had a significant amount of the report dedicated to some green washing crap and there the information about the credit crunch and the takeover they undertook was all very vauge and overly technical, which would cause people with no accounting knowledge to go 'eh' and move on. They actually hid the bad news and over stated the good news to express themselves as a great company.

 

Naturally this all was revealed to be a complete lie just weeks later. [interestingly, the following years document by the new chairman was 100% PR Spin in the form of a public apology and a lot of thanks to the tax payer]

 

 

Before we jump at the Auditors, the Chairman's Statement isn't Audited, there is no statutory requirement for it. As long as they aren't disclosing information not present in the final accounts [like overstating the profit figure] it's all ok as they technically aren't lying they are just manipulating the statement and the reader which is perfectly legal.

On the subject of his new name, clearly it should be:

 

Fred Goodwin, the c**t who caused the collapse of the UK economy, blah blah blah

On the subject of his new name, clearly it should be:

 

Fred Goodwin, the c**t who caused the collapse of the UK economy, blah blah blah

 

Of course, you'd need substantial evidence, watertight proof, that he is indeed a c**t, lest his team of sh**s (I mean lawyers) have you done for libel.

 

Of course, you'd need substantial evidence, watertight proof, that he is indeed a c**t, lest his team of sh**s (I mean lawyers) have you done for libel.

Oh, I don't know. What jury would want to miss the chance of giving a big fat "up yours" to Goodwin?

Of course, you'd need substantial evidence, watertight proof, that he is indeed a c**t, lest his team of sh**s (I mean lawyers) have you done for libel.

I would have said man but i feared the libel for accusing him of being a mere human. :drama:

His "team of lawyers"... Oh, would this be "Carter-F/uck" by any chance....? We may not be able to call him the b-word, but we can actually call him something that rhymes with that..... And he cant exactly deny it, because any bloke who says he doesn't engage in masturbation in a liar..... :lol: :lol: