The Prime Minister has said it is not acceptable and therefore it will not be accepted. It might be enforceable in a court of law, this contract, but it’s not enforceable in the court of public opinion and that’s where the Government steps in.
Politics 101 tells us that a pre-requisite of a functioning democracy that protects basic rights is respect for the rule of law. Presumably what Harman is suggesting here is legislation that will nullify one man's contractual entitlement to his pension. This is, I would suggest, wholly contrary to the rule of law. It is government-enforced mob rule.
If you still think 'so what, Goodwin's a greedy little man who deserves everything he's got coming to him', consider what else might not be 'enforceable in the court of public opinion', as convened under Judge Harman.
Update: the more you consider and ponder upon Harman's comments, the more you realise that they are utter gibberish. Just what does 'it is not enforceable in the court of public opinion' mean? Is the enforceability of certain contracts to be put to an X-Factor style phone vote? It's just drivelling shite, an insult to the electorate. But perhaps, as James Forsyth suggests at Coffee House, Downing Street is grateful for Harman's imbecility; and while an idiot, she is a useful idiot.
Posts
1 comment:
I still don't understand why they don't look at the other clauses in his contract - what happens if he is negligent, incompetent, brings the company into disrepute etc etc.
HSBC announced a profit of several billion today, so RBS must have made some wrong moves to have made a loss of 24bn, it can't just have been the global economy.
Post a Comment