Hermione Eyre: Vandalism leaves a bitter aftertaste
Was that a smirk in the newscaster's voice as he announced that Fred Goodwin's home had been vandalised? A "he-had-it-coming" curl of the lip? Perhaps not (headline readers are admirably po-faced) but certainly, the public response to the news that Sir Fred's windows had been smashed had an unmistakable undercurrent of jubilance. Which gives me the shivers.
There is nothing to celebrate here. Vigilante attacks make life more dangerous for everyone; they often end up hurting bystanders (are we sure that Mercedes belonged to Sir Fred and not his butler or chauffeur?).
Whatever we feel about Sir Fred's iniquities, we mustn't sanction violence by taking it lightly, not in this tinder-dry climate, with the G20 summit about to happen and 2,500 riot police already on standby. No matter how little Sir Fred deserved that car or those rather elegant bay windows, the solution cannot be to wreck them.
This may sound obvious, but there are people who should know better using the wrong kind of rhetoric.
Max Hastings used a recent column in the Daily Mail to mount a magisterial attack on bank bosses, whom he compared to Great Train Robbers. So far so good, and when he said "we should get the boot in and keep on kicking" there was little danger it would be taken literally – but "we must stand outside their homes throwing rocks" was an idiom too far. Today his words are faintly chilling.
If, collectively, we create an atmosphere in which violence against bankers is permissible, excusable, even laudable, then violence will be done. It has already been announced that we are heading for a "summer of rage", an idea which seems to excite some people. I just find it worrying. Canvases painted by so-called "edgy" artists featuring decapitated financiers, or the corpse-strewn officescape that the BBC trailed to publicise The Apprentice, are not really so very witty or clever, when you think about it.
It's unlikely the vandals were affected by Sir Fred's crimes any more than the rest of us; the vigilante tendency is infrequently manifested, I think, by wronged pensioners.
A taste for smashing things up is always with us; it's only a delicate social balance and an invisible social contract that stops it happening.
When I was a child in the 1980s, our car's tyres were randomly slashed: all the cars in our nice middle-class street suffered the same fate. Someone probably felt obscurely like we deserved it. This is the kind of trickle-down effect I fear in this case. Vandalism was not acceptable on Sir Fred's home because it is not acceptable on any home.
Sir Fred has become a focal point for violent anger because the government mishandled his sacking so badly. If he had been publicly shriven – stripped of his knighthood, had his own pension severely capped by retro-active legislation or his assets confiscated – then legitimate anger could have been dispelled legitimately and this latest, most disturbing development avoided. As it is, it may well function as a kind of amuse-bouche before the more serious G20 protests begin. We smirk at this disgraced millionaire's shattered windows at our peril.
Spin doctor just doesn't see the joke in satire
The star of Armando Iannucci's forthcoming cinema satire, In the Loop, is the splenetic Scots communications chief Malcolm Tucker, brilliantly played by Peter Capaldi.
Alastair Campbell saw the film, which is out on 17 April, at an advance screening but while recognising similarities between himself and the character, he failed to find the film funny. He is at pains to tell us he is a man with a gr-rrrreat sense of humour – at home he has been known, he says, to fall off his chair and roll about the floor with laughter. The spin doctor doth protest too much, I'm afraid. People who really do have a sense of humour rarely spell it out in such a mirthless way.
In The Loop is fast, furious and contains enough swearing to make a journalist blush. With its weasel words – the war committee is known euphemistically as the "future planning committee" – it feels scarily accurate, yet it is not entirely without compassion; the politicians and governmental workers it depicts are often monstrous but, in their own way, deeply committed. It is also very, very funny. Alastair Campbell can roll around in paroxysms all he likes, but in the end it isn't the possession of a funny bone that matters, it's what touches it.
Freed from the burden of ownership
I have just joined 250,000 UK subscribers and signed up for Spotify, the free music streaming site – well, free if you are prepared to listen to the occasional ad; reasonably-priced day passes are also available.
The words "day pass" are well-chosen because it is a bit like a musical amusement park. You take nothing away from it but the experience – the memory of the tracks you listened to. It does not revolve around buying and keeping – which as a true-born capitalist piglet, I found disconcerting at first, and then liberating.
Buy a CD, book or DVD and you relax in the knowledge you can absorb its contents at any time – which often means never. Who has not bought a book or a difficult CD in a fit of high-minded enthusiasm and then failed to find the time to read it/listen to it? I have kept A Love Supreme in its box these four years.
Schopenhauer captured the problem perfectly: "Buying books would be a good thing if one could also buy the time to read them in, but as a rule the purchase is mistaken for the appropriation."
With Spotify, there is no buzz of acquisition and no burden of ownership. Choosing and listening to tracks there and then, as from a giant cyber-jukebox, you are living totally in the moment. You listen to A Love Supreme now or never. Sadly it might be the latter.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited





Comments
'Sir' Fred's windows were smashed. A car was damaged. He suffered no violence whatsoever - not even a scratch.
Now, what abot the violence suffered by the 50,000 people who starve to death in the world every day so that people like Sir Fred can live like medieval Barons?
What about the violence suffered by our lungs when filled with toxic car exhaust fumes. What about the violence suffered by our ear-drums that are constantly assaulted by the noise of traffic in Britain (even in the middle of the countryside, unless you get at least as far from London as Wiltshire or Yorkshire!) What about the violence suffered by our very land - torn up and tarmacked over to allow these metal beasts to rampage unchecked through it? Some would say, with good cause, that ALL cars are indeed a legitimate target!
All things considered, I think Sir Fred's windows are the least of our worries!
Hmm - of course all butlers and chaufeurs drive big expensive cars - did you read this after you wrote it? Your sentiment whilst very pc and pleasant is misplaced.
The reason why it is acceptable is that this guy should be made an example of. He went too far and has shown no remorse just greed - just like the way he ran that bank. Why is he not on trial, why was he not sacked?
One can only assume it is because of croneyism, if he had been dealt with properly then this minor attack may not have happened.
How many people will end up in misery as a result of this prats actions? I for one could not give a stuff if he gets a good shoeing in the future - that or prison should be his choice.
Maybe a good public lynching will just stop the next Goodwin -, and before we cry ourselves to sleep over poor fred's woes lets just remember what he did.
Christ, Indie: you're going down the toilet quicker than a slopping of the runs. Of which this article is an example. I haven't bought you for 18 months; I wonder why?
but how does breaking his windows advance the cause of the ordinary person - suffering
during this disater /
It deflects attention - and possibly even confers sympathy - towards a person ( and a group ) that deserve a our contempt.
I am afraid the perpetrators are not the class warriros they may like to think they are - they have shot themsleves in the foot. The odd act of vandalism won't right the wrongs of this society.
We need to keep the focus on an unafir, unjust, merciless financial system that sacrfices oridnary people in its pursuit of money.
This is a joke right
If butlers and chauffers make enough to drive a Benz, what does the chambermaid make ? (apart from beds).
See, how the party system (being elected by less than 40% of the elecetorate) controls parliament and goverment, how distant they are from the real wishes of the population, how they have been corrupted with their expenses and directorships in companies who bankroll them, how this has alienated them from the real world. Just as in the past.
This is only the beginning.
Not that I condone violence in any way, of course, but when people are so angry and the emotions are boiling up inside of them, they stike out!
Things always get worse before they get better.
If there was more balance and better journalism, much of the disgusting financial runnish over the past ten or more years would not have come to this.
The fourth estate lost its independence
I look forward to Hermione voting for a party espousing those policies soon. Perhaps as soon as all journalists who got their jobs through family contacts and money are sacked to make space for real talent.
Perhaps if there had been prosecutions against bankers, and the government had acted with more vigour against Sir Fred this desire to take revenge wouldn't have grown.
Even just removing his knighthood- a symbolic gesture- would help appease an angered public.
Anyway, he will soon be able to pay for the damage from his hefty pension.
From any point of view, what FG has reportedly done is appalling. He should be brought to book and, in the absence of action by the establishment(one wonders why), there will be people who are prepared to take the law into their own hands.
As a "savvy" journalist, I am surprised that you are surprised.
When bankers like FG went on a feeding frenzy with other people's money, where were the calls for restraint then? not from other bankers, not from the politicians and certainly not from the media.
You really don't understand it do you? Tens of thousand of lives have been ruined and you are concerned about a rich man's window pane.
Astonishing!
I have no time or sympathy for Fred Goodwin and his like. But you vigilante types who advocate violence against him are worse. Whipped up by the gutter press, you want an outlet for the frustration and anger you've been told to feel. The first poster is even (apparently) trying to blame him for people starving to death in the third world. Really? Wouldn't you be better off posting such idiotic nonsense on the Daily Mail's website - I think you'd feel more at home there?
It's pathetic! Look up the word scapegoat in a dictionary. Think why the Government is making such a big deal about Goodwin's pension - it's because they're hoping it will deflect the attention from them as the ones who should have better regulated the banks.
Hermione Dahling, you may feel just a tad differently if it was you who was losing their job, house, car etc while these scumbag bankers still get their million pound bonuses. Typically in times of upheaval the bourgeoisie always close ranks. I personally cant help but think theyre simply getting what they deserve.
TRhe governemt sdeems unwilling to pounish them,, therefore the vigilantes fell obliged to step in. MAybe if your Nigels and Harmiones werent so effing corrupt this wouldnt be happening. but it is and it has...,
Can't have had anything to write.
Journalists should just admit that & present an article saying "Nothing to say" .
It would save a lot of paper -- very environmental .
Mind you ol' butty I have enjoyed the very valid comments against the exceedingly disgusting nauseating despicable Surfred.