There’s nothing like a good scandal or scare story to bring out the hypocritical indignation of many, which then often results in bad laws being made and others left to cope with the mess created.
Do you remember the Dangerous Dogs Act being introduced. A few children and people had been attacked by some pretty fearsome dogs, mostly pit-bulls, and the press who couldn’t have had much else to do at the time jumped on the bandwagon and kicked up one hell of a stink about dangerous dogs, which then resulted in a knee jerk reaction from the Tory Government of the day who rushed through the ill conceived Dangerous Dogs Act. To say the least, this botched Act of Parliament was little more than a dogs dinner. The result was harmless dogs all over the place being seized by the police for yapping at the postman – or at other dogs, as they do, and being locked behind bars for doping what dogs do whilst expensive court cases dragged on. There were countless numbers of little old ladies trying to save their toy poodles from canine death row. Eventually the Act was amended, but not after a great deal of angst.
The irony at the time was after all the fuss the press made about dangerous dogs, which culminated in the Dangerous Dog (dinner) Act, they then created a new campaign to defend the pets of these little old ladies and conveniently ignored the fact that it had been their stories about dangerous dogs that had created this new problem, which they then became equally indignant about.
We can now see a repeat of this scenario with Sir Fred’s pension. The press and media are working the nation into an absolute frenzy over the injustice that the man who wrecked RBS should get a pension fit for a King. At the same time our politicians are jumping on the bandwagon and getting steamed up about this despite the fact some of them in the Treasury approved it. There is talk about taking his pension being taken away from him as he does not deserve it. Several politicians are jumping up and down about the size of his pension, including John Prescott, who in turn conveniently forgets that they too are in line for a nice healthy pension at the taxpayers expense despite the fact they have given away most of the running of the country to the EU. Because they have granted the EU so much power over us and our laws, our elected politicians are only be accountable for around 30% of our laws and in reality they don’t deserve 70% of their pensions when they come to retire.
The real worry about this matter is not the size of Sir Fred’s pension, not even if it is deserved or not, but the actions that this Government may take due to the media circus the story has created. We all know that New Labour is not adverse to taking some quite large draconian steps, they have proved that our freedoms and liberties are of little consequence to them, so what if they make a law enabling them to remove the pensions of those such as Sir Fred who they feel are not deserved? Where will such a law stop?
Once on this slippery road of pension snatching, in a short time from now we could all find that we have to justify why we are entitled to our state pensions. Company directors who have risked their homes by taking out mortgages to invest in their businesses and create employment may find the rewards they risked all for are snatched by a state which has decided they don’t deserve it. In the meantime people such as Lord Mandelson and most politicians will continue to take their generous pensions from the taxpayers. We may find the fuss about Sir Fred’s pension today could set in place some knee jerk and bad laws which will enable the state to snatch our pensions in the future. This is the real danger of Sir Fred’s undeserved pension, will our pensions in turn be threatened?