![]() | A news item involving Fred Goodwin was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 1 February 2012. | ![]() |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of Fred Goodwin be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Suggestion: most of the detail of the RBS period should be moved to the Royal Bank of Scotland Group article (which doesn't have much on this period), in seemain style, and have just a summary here. Rd232 talk 23:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Goodwin was at the heart of the expansion, so should be detailed here as well. Peterlewis ( talk) 09:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Is there a reason we are not allowed to document that Fred Goodwin was trading whilst insolvent?
RD232 you seem intent on blocking the documentation of this fact. I suspect this to be the work of a PR ageny. As I cannot imagine a rational explanation for not wanting a true and accurate biograpy to be written.. Surely it is right and correct that his history is accurately documented? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.109.203.178 ( talk) 12:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Well it seems to me that you seem intent on stifiling a fair documentation of what this guy did.
He was the boss, the company was insolvent, as a biography of a director, I think it is a fair addition.
I will try and add again and see if pleases you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.109.203.178 ( talk) 13:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
An IP contributor added greedy to the opening description. I was in the process of reverting it (reluctantly) but another article contributor had already done so. However, there is little doubt that greed is being widely used (just try Google for 'Goodwin greed' and dozens of reputable news sources have used this description). Just because it's distasteful doesn't mean that it is not accurate and fair. Any thoughts? leaky_caldron ( talk) 17:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I'll repeat here what I posted on my talk page in response to this.
As far as I can tell from a quick look, the new "opprobrium" sentence and four references are fine: the mixture includes politicians, media commentators (the guardian one in particular) and members of the public. This reduces the risk of problematic edits by less experienced contributors. Congratulations to Leaky cauldron for responding so constructively. - Pointillist ( talk) 22:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the section about his pension is starting to get out of hand. We need to focus more on the facts and less on what various people have to say. It's a big public scandal so lots of people have an opinion, and we can't usefully quote them all. Also I'm not sure if the para on Peter Cummings is useful context or a distraction which should be moved elsewhere (he doesn't seem to have his own article). Rd232 talk 13:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
So why not start a Cummins article? He seems to be the focus of a lot of attention in the media for his high pension? Peterlewis ( talk) 07:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
re the expunged Harriet Harman segment, it was, of all the political opinion on the subject, the most significant because it raised the possibility of the pension simply not being paid by senior government figure (as opposed to opposition MPs and ex-ministers like Prescott). She went further than the PM, it was broadcast on national TV and received considerable press coverage. It's her seniority and the directness of her quoted views on the matter that set her apart, even from the likes of Timms and Darling (who's department was responsible for letting the discretionary award through). It also created potential conflict with the PMs statements leaky_caldron ( talk) 10:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
References
Somebody keeps reverting the word "disgraced" from the summary "...is a disgraced Scottish banker...".
This is a commonly accepted way to refer to Goodwin and I am not aware of any reasonable sources that could contend this. For example, the Daily Telegraph referred to him on the front page of today's (4th March 2009) Business supplement as "the disgraced banker".
In what sense is he not "disgraced" ? It does not violate NPOV - it is simply a fact - he is "disgraced". Garygateaux ( talk) 16:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I think to say he is disgraced is pretty accurate. We're not saying if he's innocent or guilty, but I don't think you'll find many people who'd argue that the opening statement referring to him as a 'disgraced banker' is untrue. -- Richardeast ( talk) 18:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
So if Goodwin has done nothing wrong (except wreck a large bank), what did he do right? To use the word "disgrace" seems highly appropriate. Peterlewis ( talk) 20:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
We record facts, we don't do right, wrong, shame or disgrace. We can say "x calls him disgraced" or "y said this was scandalous" we don't say either way fror ourselves. Scandal is the wrong word here, as it assumes that the pension was scandalous or someone was scandalised. (Actually, I think it is a scandal - but that's my POV and not for the article). Since "controversy" and "scandal" are proving problematic, I've put in "criticism". We are in search here for a neutral heading, so one which even some readers may see as partisan should be avoided. I doubt Sir Fred would see this as a scandal, whilst I suspect he'd agree that there has been widespread criticism and condemnation.-- Scott Mac (Doc) 21:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure there is verifiable scandal and/or disgrace somewhere around the saga of RBS's corporate objectives, the salaries/bonuses/pensions they offered their executives, the risks the executives took and the extent (or lack) of supervision by government and shareholders. Right now, I'm just not comfortable linking the blame quite so specifically to this one individual via a section heading—it feels too much like The Charge of the Light Bridge excuse from Yes Minister (page 338). It would be a different matter if we moved some of the text to "RBS Disgraceful Strategy", "FSA Supervision Scandal" and/or "RBS Pension Moral Outrage" articles, because then we'd be covering the event rather than the person. After all, we have a Watergate scandal article, even though you won't find anything on Wikipedia saying that Richard Nixon is disgraced. - Pointillist ( talk) 22:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
It's disappointing to see that Wikipedia is censoring references to Goodwin as "disgraced". Major newspapers such as The Times regularly refer to Goodwin as "disgraced"; however, it would appear that rich and powerful men such as Goodwin have apologists working for them who have the ability to censor Wikipedia. I'm sure he can afford to employ censors with his huge pension. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babylon93 ( talk • contribs) 08:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Sadly Wikipedia is happy to censor user content. Goodwin is clearly disgraced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.187.93 ( talk) 17:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I see that you have now given up defending the censorship of the word "disgraced" and have instead resorted to abuse ("bottommost dregs of the sewer") and random statements regarding "editors who have spent years honing their debating techniques in economics, law, history, psychology". Wikipedia has censored the word "disgraced". Either admit it, or remove the lock on the article so that the truth about this man can be published. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.187.93 ( talk) 07:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Just deal with this as you would people who are dead and no longer within living memory. For instance 'Alexander the Great/Julius Caeser/Genghis Khan was a megalomaniac mass-murderer etc.' might be an appropriate tabloid style description for these people if they were alive and active today, however no publication would use such terms to describe them now as they have no (emotional) bearing on us anymore. The same reasoning should be applied to people like Fred the Shred. I absolute despise the man, but an encyclopedia should be written from the perspective of its contents being timeless and as readable/factual today as it will be a hundred years in the future. Another example might be Jesus. He was disgraced in the eyes of the Samhedrin and the general Jewish population, but I doubt anyone would now write 'Jesus was a disgraced preacher executed for desecrating the Jewish holy temple'. Hope this is remotely useful and makes the slightest bit of sense. 1812ahill ( talk) 22:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I think it weakens the article not to call him disgraced. Maybe not at the beginning of the article but certainly in respect of the events of the last couple of years. It is a fact, with numerous reputable sources, that he has lost his reputation, there is a loss of respect for him, and he is strongly and generally disapproved of, which is what being disgraced is about, as a result of recent events. To say that he was, and currently still is disgraced is not a POV but a fact. It is nothing to do with whether what he did is right or wrong, it is to do with what people generally think of him which I don't think is a matter of dispute. What I also think is that some editors are seemingly so scared of anything which might be considered a POV that even reasonable verifiable statements such as Fred being disgraced are now removed. I think the fact that he was disgraced should be put back. You could also put in the fact that he is seemingly trying now to restore his reputation, i.e. to become no longer disgraced. (See London Daily Mail today) Whether he will be disgraced in twenty years time is another matter, which is probably why it shouldn't go at the start of the article, but it should certainly be in as applying to events in 2007/8 TamaraStaples ( talk) 09:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Maybe their articles should use the word disgraced, or is it generally forbidden on wikipedia? TamaraStaples ( talk) 12:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Censorship is what sanctimonious soreheads call editing. "Disgraced" is NOT appropriate to an encyclopedia article. "Disgraced," unless there is some official sanction called "Disgrace" -- which there is not -- is a pejorative, a POV term. If you want to vent your feelings about "Fred Shred," then there are plenty of other places to do it without debasing Wikipedia. J M Rice ( talk) 19:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
There's no political momentum for 'Sir' Fred to have his knighthood removed. Because of the importance of the people making this demand I believe it warrents inclusion in the article and I am going to update accordingly. Does anyone have any input? -- Richardeast ( talk) 11:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Should this be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.212.140 ( talk) 19:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
"Sir Frederick Anderson Goodwin is a Scottish banker and former chief executive of the Royal Bank of Scotland"
"Banker" is correct and more concise than "senior banking executive". (My dictionary's definition is, "a person who manages or owns a bank or group of banks".) — Matt Crypto 18:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Two separate issues: 1) "banker": it seems clear enough that "banker" is a correct word for Goodwin's RBS job by common definition and usage in the media. 2) "Former"; he is indeed no longer currently working as a banker, but plenty of professionals go temporarily out of work and are still reasonably described as professionals regardless. My inclination, per WP:CRYSTAL, would be to leave off "former" until he either gets a job in a different area, or enough time has passed for it to be clear he has definitively left the profession. — Matt Crypto 19:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I removed the term "former" and replaced it with "retired". Someone removed that term. Is there now a dispute over whether he has taken early retirement ? Do I need to crawl through the newspapers for to find a reference to this ? May I humbly ask why the term "retired" needed to be removed ? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Kbdguy (
talk •
contribs)
21:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
News media typically describe him as a banker. This is a reasonable description, as the term isn't precisely defined (and it isn't about to be precisely defined on this talk page). Rd232 talk 22:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
(1) He has taken early retirement (2) It is a matter for the record that he has retired. (3) He may choose to work again in the future, but that is not for us to say - according to WP:CRYSTAL (thankyou for pointing this out Matt) we do not predict the future, therefore (4) His status is that he is retired until he makes an announcement to the contrary or gets some kind of employment.
If this action is reverted I plan to escalate this as far as recall if necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbdguy ( talk • contribs) 15:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
FYI you can check his directorships at (e.g.) creditgate.com, though this will cost £8.95 and is only accurate up to the last filing dates for companies where he is a director, which can mean information is up to 21 months out of date (so his RBS directorship/s will still be listed). The steps are:
This still leaves open the question of whether a person can be called "retired" or "unemployed" while a director of a company, and whether checking a resource like this counts as original research. Good luck. - Pointillist ( talk) 21:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
As long as someone is a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, they ARE a chartered accountant. Please stop adding he's a former CA, unless you have evidence he's resigned for the institute.-- Scott Mac (Doc) 16:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
While Wikipedia is not a Newspaper, it does need to reflect some reality and accuracy without obfuscation. While it may not be possible to use the term 'disgraced' according to some, it remains a point of fact that Goodwin remains a controversial figure in the world of finance during the economic meltdown (as does his successor Stephen Hester who incidentally earns what Christiano Ronaldo earnt at his first term at Real Madrid)
It would not be incorrect to use the correct term of controversial otherwise he wouldn't have appeared in so many News papers and had his Scotland property vandalised as was the RBS Building at Threadneedle Street during the 2009 G-20 London summit protests. Heliosphere ( talk) 00:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think history needs to to note him for simply being a CA, as the FIRST impression gives. Perhaps too many Wikipedia editors from too many PR firms are cashing in making another fortune in amplifying his philanthropic endeavours ? Who knows? But that's just my cynical tendency conspiracy theory which is probably shared by thousands, if not millions.
But seriously, he should be known for what he did that brought him to public attention Heliosphere ( talk) 01:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed that that cause of Fred's knighthood has been edited back and forth a bit. I think the reason for the confusion is that two different Frederick Goodwins were knighted on the same day. "Our" Fred is here, while the "other" Fred is a Cook Islander here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Po8crg ( talk • contribs) 08:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
What the hell was his knighthood for? "services to banking" - He drove RBS into the ground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.202.157 ( talk) 09:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
The super-injunction also prevents reporting of Fred Goodwin's affair with a colleague, which began shortly before and continued during the credit crunch of 2008. See these links (judged not good enough sources to be in main article): Adulterous failed banker Sir Fred Goodwin obtains superinjunction « naked capitalism and this: Unbankable Story - Guy Fawkes' blog Comment added by Antioxidant Sunrise ( talk • contribs) 11:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Ianmacm: FAG isn't a banker because (1) he has no banking qualifications and (2) he isn't currently working as a banker. I await your comments before reverting your reversion. Perhaps "was a prominent figure in the banking industry" would be appropriate wording. OldSpot61 ( talk) 00:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
When you do have the balls to publish this, also note that he's now suing people in his own family - http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/may/24/financier-sister-in-law-injunction-breach —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.21.164.194 ( talk) 12:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
The Guardian story is interesting, because it uses the now familiar pussyfooting language associated with these cases. While anyone who is capable of using Google can find out about ZAM, at the moment it does not meet the notability guidelines for a separate article. ZAM could be mentioned in 2011 British super-injunction controversy. It would be better to start a new thread there instead.
Also, and *please* get this right, FRED GOODWIN IS NOT ZAM. Don't go spreading any rumours here, you will only make yourself look silly when they turn out to be wrong.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I wondered whether the opening of this page should really introduce him as "Sir Fred Goodwin", given that at the time of typing (January 2012) there has been talk of stripping him of his knighthood. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 22:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
No longer is he a knight - I have just heard on the radio that the knighthood he was given in 2004 has been stripped off him.
ACEOREVIVED (
talk)
17:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Is it an "annulment", or is it a "revocation"? The two terminologies have different meanings, connotations and implications, and are not interchangeable, just as a "dissolution" of a marriage (divorce) is different from a matrimonial "annulment". I believe that if his knighthood was ["annulled"], which it was, it should then be described EXACTLY as such. 87.102.74.124 ( talk) 17:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.185.197 ( talk) 17:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
He is a British national, and should be described as such, not Scottish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.228 ( talk) 17:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
This edit removed new material, but without an edit summary -- so we don't know what the objection was. If there's no persuasive reason to keep it out, I'll restore it. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 12:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Fred Goodwin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
The section headed "Early Career" includes the following statement: "For Touche Ross he headed the worldwide liquidation of Bank of Credit and Commerce International after its collapse in July 1991."
I believe this to be incorrect. Although Goodwin was a Touche Ross partner at the time of the BCCI collapse, there is no evidence that he was ever a qualified Insolvency Practitioner, which is an absolute requirement before an individual can be appointed as either an Administrator or a Liquidator of a company under the Insolvency Act 1986. Note that it is named individuals that are appointed by the courts, not firms.
If we look at the appointment notice in the London Gazette dated 6th March 1992 [1] (page 4150) we see the list of individuals appointed as BCCI liquidators as follows: B Smouha of Touche Ross & Co., London, and G Baden and J Roden, Attorneys at Law, appointed as Joint Liquidators of BCCI SA on 3rd January 1992 by the District Court of Luxembourg; and on the same day C Morris, J P Richards, N R Lyle and S J Akers, all of Touche Ross & Co., London, were appointed as Joint Liquidators by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry under section 137 of the Insolvency Act 1986. There are other appointments covering BCCI subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands and elsewhere. There is no mention of Fred Goodwin anywhere in these appointments.
The following passage appears in the book "Shredded - Inside RBS, the Bank that Broke Britain" by Ian Fraser:
Goodwin consistently misrepresented his role in the BCCI winding-up exercise. The Edinburgh-based financier Peter de Vink recalls: 'The very first time I met Fred was at a dinner with Gerard Eadie [chairman of double-glazing firm C R Smith]. Before Fred arrived, I was told that, at a very young age, he had single-handedly led the BCCI liquidation. I expressed astonishment. When I asked Fred about it over dinner, he led us to believe that he was the sole partner in charge - and at no point did he acknowledge that he was part of a team. A few months later I met Brian Smouha at a friend's house in London. Brian was introduced as the senior Deloitte's person on the BCCI liquidation. I said to Brian, "But I thought that Fred Goodwin led that." I'll never forget his face. Without saying a word, Brian conveyed the impression he'd never heard anything so ridiculous in his life!'
On the basis of the above I think an edit is justified - but before proceeding with this I wanted to canvas opinion as there will be sources out there that support the line that Goodwin led the BCCI wind-down. I propose the following: "For Touche Ross he participated in the team that undertook the worldwide liquidation of Bank of Credit and Commerce International after its collapse in July 1991."
Thoughts?
Lord Mauleverer ( talk) 20:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
![]() | A news item involving Fred Goodwin was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 1 February 2012. | ![]() |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of Fred Goodwin be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Suggestion: most of the detail of the RBS period should be moved to the Royal Bank of Scotland Group article (which doesn't have much on this period), in seemain style, and have just a summary here. Rd232 talk 23:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Goodwin was at the heart of the expansion, so should be detailed here as well. Peterlewis ( talk) 09:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Is there a reason we are not allowed to document that Fred Goodwin was trading whilst insolvent?
RD232 you seem intent on blocking the documentation of this fact. I suspect this to be the work of a PR ageny. As I cannot imagine a rational explanation for not wanting a true and accurate biograpy to be written.. Surely it is right and correct that his history is accurately documented? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.109.203.178 ( talk) 12:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Well it seems to me that you seem intent on stifiling a fair documentation of what this guy did.
He was the boss, the company was insolvent, as a biography of a director, I think it is a fair addition.
I will try and add again and see if pleases you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.109.203.178 ( talk) 13:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
An IP contributor added greedy to the opening description. I was in the process of reverting it (reluctantly) but another article contributor had already done so. However, there is little doubt that greed is being widely used (just try Google for 'Goodwin greed' and dozens of reputable news sources have used this description). Just because it's distasteful doesn't mean that it is not accurate and fair. Any thoughts? leaky_caldron ( talk) 17:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I'll repeat here what I posted on my talk page in response to this.
As far as I can tell from a quick look, the new "opprobrium" sentence and four references are fine: the mixture includes politicians, media commentators (the guardian one in particular) and members of the public. This reduces the risk of problematic edits by less experienced contributors. Congratulations to Leaky cauldron for responding so constructively. - Pointillist ( talk) 22:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the section about his pension is starting to get out of hand. We need to focus more on the facts and less on what various people have to say. It's a big public scandal so lots of people have an opinion, and we can't usefully quote them all. Also I'm not sure if the para on Peter Cummings is useful context or a distraction which should be moved elsewhere (he doesn't seem to have his own article). Rd232 talk 13:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
So why not start a Cummins article? He seems to be the focus of a lot of attention in the media for his high pension? Peterlewis ( talk) 07:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
re the expunged Harriet Harman segment, it was, of all the political opinion on the subject, the most significant because it raised the possibility of the pension simply not being paid by senior government figure (as opposed to opposition MPs and ex-ministers like Prescott). She went further than the PM, it was broadcast on national TV and received considerable press coverage. It's her seniority and the directness of her quoted views on the matter that set her apart, even from the likes of Timms and Darling (who's department was responsible for letting the discretionary award through). It also created potential conflict with the PMs statements leaky_caldron ( talk) 10:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
References
Somebody keeps reverting the word "disgraced" from the summary "...is a disgraced Scottish banker...".
This is a commonly accepted way to refer to Goodwin and I am not aware of any reasonable sources that could contend this. For example, the Daily Telegraph referred to him on the front page of today's (4th March 2009) Business supplement as "the disgraced banker".
In what sense is he not "disgraced" ? It does not violate NPOV - it is simply a fact - he is "disgraced". Garygateaux ( talk) 16:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I think to say he is disgraced is pretty accurate. We're not saying if he's innocent or guilty, but I don't think you'll find many people who'd argue that the opening statement referring to him as a 'disgraced banker' is untrue. -- Richardeast ( talk) 18:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
So if Goodwin has done nothing wrong (except wreck a large bank), what did he do right? To use the word "disgrace" seems highly appropriate. Peterlewis ( talk) 20:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
We record facts, we don't do right, wrong, shame or disgrace. We can say "x calls him disgraced" or "y said this was scandalous" we don't say either way fror ourselves. Scandal is the wrong word here, as it assumes that the pension was scandalous or someone was scandalised. (Actually, I think it is a scandal - but that's my POV and not for the article). Since "controversy" and "scandal" are proving problematic, I've put in "criticism". We are in search here for a neutral heading, so one which even some readers may see as partisan should be avoided. I doubt Sir Fred would see this as a scandal, whilst I suspect he'd agree that there has been widespread criticism and condemnation.-- Scott Mac (Doc) 21:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure there is verifiable scandal and/or disgrace somewhere around the saga of RBS's corporate objectives, the salaries/bonuses/pensions they offered their executives, the risks the executives took and the extent (or lack) of supervision by government and shareholders. Right now, I'm just not comfortable linking the blame quite so specifically to this one individual via a section heading—it feels too much like The Charge of the Light Bridge excuse from Yes Minister (page 338). It would be a different matter if we moved some of the text to "RBS Disgraceful Strategy", "FSA Supervision Scandal" and/or "RBS Pension Moral Outrage" articles, because then we'd be covering the event rather than the person. After all, we have a Watergate scandal article, even though you won't find anything on Wikipedia saying that Richard Nixon is disgraced. - Pointillist ( talk) 22:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
It's disappointing to see that Wikipedia is censoring references to Goodwin as "disgraced". Major newspapers such as The Times regularly refer to Goodwin as "disgraced"; however, it would appear that rich and powerful men such as Goodwin have apologists working for them who have the ability to censor Wikipedia. I'm sure he can afford to employ censors with his huge pension. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babylon93 ( talk • contribs) 08:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Sadly Wikipedia is happy to censor user content. Goodwin is clearly disgraced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.187.93 ( talk) 17:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I see that you have now given up defending the censorship of the word "disgraced" and have instead resorted to abuse ("bottommost dregs of the sewer") and random statements regarding "editors who have spent years honing their debating techniques in economics, law, history, psychology". Wikipedia has censored the word "disgraced". Either admit it, or remove the lock on the article so that the truth about this man can be published. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.187.93 ( talk) 07:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Just deal with this as you would people who are dead and no longer within living memory. For instance 'Alexander the Great/Julius Caeser/Genghis Khan was a megalomaniac mass-murderer etc.' might be an appropriate tabloid style description for these people if they were alive and active today, however no publication would use such terms to describe them now as they have no (emotional) bearing on us anymore. The same reasoning should be applied to people like Fred the Shred. I absolute despise the man, but an encyclopedia should be written from the perspective of its contents being timeless and as readable/factual today as it will be a hundred years in the future. Another example might be Jesus. He was disgraced in the eyes of the Samhedrin and the general Jewish population, but I doubt anyone would now write 'Jesus was a disgraced preacher executed for desecrating the Jewish holy temple'. Hope this is remotely useful and makes the slightest bit of sense. 1812ahill ( talk) 22:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I think it weakens the article not to call him disgraced. Maybe not at the beginning of the article but certainly in respect of the events of the last couple of years. It is a fact, with numerous reputable sources, that he has lost his reputation, there is a loss of respect for him, and he is strongly and generally disapproved of, which is what being disgraced is about, as a result of recent events. To say that he was, and currently still is disgraced is not a POV but a fact. It is nothing to do with whether what he did is right or wrong, it is to do with what people generally think of him which I don't think is a matter of dispute. What I also think is that some editors are seemingly so scared of anything which might be considered a POV that even reasonable verifiable statements such as Fred being disgraced are now removed. I think the fact that he was disgraced should be put back. You could also put in the fact that he is seemingly trying now to restore his reputation, i.e. to become no longer disgraced. (See London Daily Mail today) Whether he will be disgraced in twenty years time is another matter, which is probably why it shouldn't go at the start of the article, but it should certainly be in as applying to events in 2007/8 TamaraStaples ( talk) 09:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Maybe their articles should use the word disgraced, or is it generally forbidden on wikipedia? TamaraStaples ( talk) 12:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Censorship is what sanctimonious soreheads call editing. "Disgraced" is NOT appropriate to an encyclopedia article. "Disgraced," unless there is some official sanction called "Disgrace" -- which there is not -- is a pejorative, a POV term. If you want to vent your feelings about "Fred Shred," then there are plenty of other places to do it without debasing Wikipedia. J M Rice ( talk) 19:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
There's no political momentum for 'Sir' Fred to have his knighthood removed. Because of the importance of the people making this demand I believe it warrents inclusion in the article and I am going to update accordingly. Does anyone have any input? -- Richardeast ( talk) 11:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Should this be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.212.140 ( talk) 19:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
"Sir Frederick Anderson Goodwin is a Scottish banker and former chief executive of the Royal Bank of Scotland"
"Banker" is correct and more concise than "senior banking executive". (My dictionary's definition is, "a person who manages or owns a bank or group of banks".) — Matt Crypto 18:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Two separate issues: 1) "banker": it seems clear enough that "banker" is a correct word for Goodwin's RBS job by common definition and usage in the media. 2) "Former"; he is indeed no longer currently working as a banker, but plenty of professionals go temporarily out of work and are still reasonably described as professionals regardless. My inclination, per WP:CRYSTAL, would be to leave off "former" until he either gets a job in a different area, or enough time has passed for it to be clear he has definitively left the profession. — Matt Crypto 19:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I removed the term "former" and replaced it with "retired". Someone removed that term. Is there now a dispute over whether he has taken early retirement ? Do I need to crawl through the newspapers for to find a reference to this ? May I humbly ask why the term "retired" needed to be removed ? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Kbdguy (
talk •
contribs)
21:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
News media typically describe him as a banker. This is a reasonable description, as the term isn't precisely defined (and it isn't about to be precisely defined on this talk page). Rd232 talk 22:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
(1) He has taken early retirement (2) It is a matter for the record that he has retired. (3) He may choose to work again in the future, but that is not for us to say - according to WP:CRYSTAL (thankyou for pointing this out Matt) we do not predict the future, therefore (4) His status is that he is retired until he makes an announcement to the contrary or gets some kind of employment.
If this action is reverted I plan to escalate this as far as recall if necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbdguy ( talk • contribs) 15:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
FYI you can check his directorships at (e.g.) creditgate.com, though this will cost £8.95 and is only accurate up to the last filing dates for companies where he is a director, which can mean information is up to 21 months out of date (so his RBS directorship/s will still be listed). The steps are:
This still leaves open the question of whether a person can be called "retired" or "unemployed" while a director of a company, and whether checking a resource like this counts as original research. Good luck. - Pointillist ( talk) 21:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
As long as someone is a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, they ARE a chartered accountant. Please stop adding he's a former CA, unless you have evidence he's resigned for the institute.-- Scott Mac (Doc) 16:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
While Wikipedia is not a Newspaper, it does need to reflect some reality and accuracy without obfuscation. While it may not be possible to use the term 'disgraced' according to some, it remains a point of fact that Goodwin remains a controversial figure in the world of finance during the economic meltdown (as does his successor Stephen Hester who incidentally earns what Christiano Ronaldo earnt at his first term at Real Madrid)
It would not be incorrect to use the correct term of controversial otherwise he wouldn't have appeared in so many News papers and had his Scotland property vandalised as was the RBS Building at Threadneedle Street during the 2009 G-20 London summit protests. Heliosphere ( talk) 00:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think history needs to to note him for simply being a CA, as the FIRST impression gives. Perhaps too many Wikipedia editors from too many PR firms are cashing in making another fortune in amplifying his philanthropic endeavours ? Who knows? But that's just my cynical tendency conspiracy theory which is probably shared by thousands, if not millions.
But seriously, he should be known for what he did that brought him to public attention Heliosphere ( talk) 01:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed that that cause of Fred's knighthood has been edited back and forth a bit. I think the reason for the confusion is that two different Frederick Goodwins were knighted on the same day. "Our" Fred is here, while the "other" Fred is a Cook Islander here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Po8crg ( talk • contribs) 08:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
What the hell was his knighthood for? "services to banking" - He drove RBS into the ground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.202.157 ( talk) 09:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
The super-injunction also prevents reporting of Fred Goodwin's affair with a colleague, which began shortly before and continued during the credit crunch of 2008. See these links (judged not good enough sources to be in main article): Adulterous failed banker Sir Fred Goodwin obtains superinjunction « naked capitalism and this: Unbankable Story - Guy Fawkes' blog Comment added by Antioxidant Sunrise ( talk • contribs) 11:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Ianmacm: FAG isn't a banker because (1) he has no banking qualifications and (2) he isn't currently working as a banker. I await your comments before reverting your reversion. Perhaps "was a prominent figure in the banking industry" would be appropriate wording. OldSpot61 ( talk) 00:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
When you do have the balls to publish this, also note that he's now suing people in his own family - http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/may/24/financier-sister-in-law-injunction-breach —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.21.164.194 ( talk) 12:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
The Guardian story is interesting, because it uses the now familiar pussyfooting language associated with these cases. While anyone who is capable of using Google can find out about ZAM, at the moment it does not meet the notability guidelines for a separate article. ZAM could be mentioned in 2011 British super-injunction controversy. It would be better to start a new thread there instead.
Also, and *please* get this right, FRED GOODWIN IS NOT ZAM. Don't go spreading any rumours here, you will only make yourself look silly when they turn out to be wrong.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I wondered whether the opening of this page should really introduce him as "Sir Fred Goodwin", given that at the time of typing (January 2012) there has been talk of stripping him of his knighthood. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 22:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
No longer is he a knight - I have just heard on the radio that the knighthood he was given in 2004 has been stripped off him.
ACEOREVIVED (
talk)
17:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Is it an "annulment", or is it a "revocation"? The two terminologies have different meanings, connotations and implications, and are not interchangeable, just as a "dissolution" of a marriage (divorce) is different from a matrimonial "annulment". I believe that if his knighthood was ["annulled"], which it was, it should then be described EXACTLY as such. 87.102.74.124 ( talk) 17:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.185.197 ( talk) 17:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
He is a British national, and should be described as such, not Scottish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.228 ( talk) 17:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
This edit removed new material, but without an edit summary -- so we don't know what the objection was. If there's no persuasive reason to keep it out, I'll restore it. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 12:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Fred Goodwin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
The section headed "Early Career" includes the following statement: "For Touche Ross he headed the worldwide liquidation of Bank of Credit and Commerce International after its collapse in July 1991."
I believe this to be incorrect. Although Goodwin was a Touche Ross partner at the time of the BCCI collapse, there is no evidence that he was ever a qualified Insolvency Practitioner, which is an absolute requirement before an individual can be appointed as either an Administrator or a Liquidator of a company under the Insolvency Act 1986. Note that it is named individuals that are appointed by the courts, not firms.
If we look at the appointment notice in the London Gazette dated 6th March 1992 [1] (page 4150) we see the list of individuals appointed as BCCI liquidators as follows: B Smouha of Touche Ross & Co., London, and G Baden and J Roden, Attorneys at Law, appointed as Joint Liquidators of BCCI SA on 3rd January 1992 by the District Court of Luxembourg; and on the same day C Morris, J P Richards, N R Lyle and S J Akers, all of Touche Ross & Co., London, were appointed as Joint Liquidators by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry under section 137 of the Insolvency Act 1986. There are other appointments covering BCCI subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands and elsewhere. There is no mention of Fred Goodwin anywhere in these appointments.
The following passage appears in the book "Shredded - Inside RBS, the Bank that Broke Britain" by Ian Fraser:
Goodwin consistently misrepresented his role in the BCCI winding-up exercise. The Edinburgh-based financier Peter de Vink recalls: 'The very first time I met Fred was at a dinner with Gerard Eadie [chairman of double-glazing firm C R Smith]. Before Fred arrived, I was told that, at a very young age, he had single-handedly led the BCCI liquidation. I expressed astonishment. When I asked Fred about it over dinner, he led us to believe that he was the sole partner in charge - and at no point did he acknowledge that he was part of a team. A few months later I met Brian Smouha at a friend's house in London. Brian was introduced as the senior Deloitte's person on the BCCI liquidation. I said to Brian, "But I thought that Fred Goodwin led that." I'll never forget his face. Without saying a word, Brian conveyed the impression he'd never heard anything so ridiculous in his life!'
On the basis of the above I think an edit is justified - but before proceeding with this I wanted to canvas opinion as there will be sources out there that support the line that Goodwin led the BCCI wind-down. I propose the following: "For Touche Ross he participated in the team that undertook the worldwide liquidation of Bank of Credit and Commerce International after its collapse in July 1991."
Thoughts?
Lord Mauleverer ( talk) 20:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)