Commentators

Rain (AM and PM) 3° London Hi 10°C / Lo 3°C

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.

More from Hermione Eyre

Post a Comment

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.

Comments

Violence?
[info]ddraig_ddu wrote:
Thursday, 26 March 2009 at 01:02 am (UTC)

'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!
Mirthless tosh
[info]exogamist wrote:
Thursday, 26 March 2009 at 06:58 am (UTC)
What a desperately belaboured tosh-ridden attempt to say the bleeding obvious. Talk about Alistair Campbell being mirthless, take a look at yourself. And as for this 'the vigilante tendency is infrequently manifested, I think, by wronged pensioners' it deserves a medal for pomposity.
lilly livered clap trap
[info]bowesy wrote:
Thursday, 26 March 2009 at 07:01 am (UTC)
"(are we sure that Mercedes belonged to Sir Fred and not his butler or chauffeur?)"

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.
Re: lilly livered clap trap
[info]northernsaddler wrote:
Thursday, 26 March 2009 at 01:43 pm (UTC)
actually, most chauffeurs tend to drive big expensive cars.
What drippy rubbish
[info]herb_worth7 wrote:
Thursday, 26 March 2009 at 08:03 am (UTC)
Who is this pansey-dame?
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?
you scored an own goal at sir fred's
[info]doug_piranha wrote:
Thursday, 26 March 2009 at 08:04 am (UTC)
I am not going to stick up for a greedy banker.
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.

[info]mrjohn01 wrote:
Thursday, 26 March 2009 at 08:31 am (UTC)
(are we sure that Mercedes belonged to Sir Fred and not his butler or chauffeur?). ?

This is a joke right

If butlers and chauffers make enough to drive a Benz, what does the chambermaid make ? (apart from beds).
Revolution
[info]cjn1946 wrote:
Thursday, 26 March 2009 at 08:57 am (UTC)
If anybody made an attempt to study history it would be seen that this is how all social revolutions begin, with the ruling elite (the labour/tory party) becoming distant from the people they are supposed to represent and corrupted by those who support them with donations and thus keep them in power to further the donors interests.

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.
Re: Revolution
[info]sara_sense wrote:
Thursday, 26 March 2009 at 11:08 am (UTC)
Totally agree.

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.

The role of the media in this
[info]loxton_p wrote:
Thursday, 26 March 2009 at 09:18 am (UTC)
I really don't feel that the media have done much to prevent further attacks of this nature upon Fred Goodwin's house from occurring. The street in which he lives has been mentioned, today there are numerous pictures of his house (some with the actual house number in clear view). The Independent has been more responsible than others admittedly with the photo they have used, but with the power of Google Maps these days it's not hard to take the street name, enter that in and have a virtual stroll up his street and pick out where it is that way. We have to be so very careful in the information age.
Rule 1 - You attract what you are.
[info]budnubac wrote:
Thursday, 26 March 2009 at 10:34 am (UTC)
I by no means condone violence as a way to further ones aims under any circumstance, however Goodwin is suffering from the fact he's behaved totally irresponsibly and so receives a totally irresponsible response. You attract what you are
[info]john_levett wrote:
Thursday, 26 March 2009 at 10:47 am (UTC)
You've owned 'A Love Supreme' for four years and never played it? Those are four seriously wasted years...
violence against the rich
[info]sweetbriar12 wrote:
Thursday, 26 March 2009 at 11:02 am (UTC)
To be perfectly honest it is not surprising that violent attacks such as this one occur. The media is now running down the very people it celebrated.
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
Taxing property profits is fairer
[info]wormery wrote:
Thursday, 26 March 2009 at 11:11 am (UTC)
I agree - vandalism solves nothing. Taxing everyone more - like hacks like you - and also creatig a new tax so no-one makes any profit from the rising price of their property would be much fairer, and a big tax on buy to lets, and a massive tax on second homes, and more inheritance tax. As would a tax on those who have children in an overpopulated world and an overcrowded country where a hovel cots 200 grand.

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.
[info]frank598 wrote:
Thursday, 26 March 2009 at 11:35 am (UTC)
Peopele take the law into their own hands when they percieve that the state won't act on their behalf.

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.
Who is the vandal?
[info]frigalo wrote:
Thursday, 26 March 2009 at 11:48 am (UTC)
Poor man, how he has suffered, but not enough. I think if you look at how the man has behaved towards his fellow men and women in the UK, most others would come to the conclusion that he is the biggest vandal. Of course you can't go around smashing up things that belong to other people. So why did Sir Fred?
My god know
[info]why_tell_me_why wrote:
Thursday, 26 March 2009 at 12:07 pm (UTC)
Safe in the knowledge that this forum will quickly turn into some childish socialist revolutionary rant supporting violence of the third world variety so i wont bother to do anything to add to the "dialogue" but to state anybody who has a copy of A love supreme listen to it free of any distraction its amazing and its immediate as well which isn't something you can see in all such pieces of work. Its just that great if nothin else listen to part 2. If you dont own it check it out on spotify and then you'll wanna own it later. Spectacular urbane, fiery, groovy.
How did he get the police to attend
[info]sublibellous wrote:
Thursday, 26 March 2009 at 12:12 pm (UTC)
The amazing thing is that the police responded to this. The usual police response to broken windows is to send a letter six weeks later - they're often reluctant even to give a crime number for the incident. Yet in this case they not only turned up in person, but stood guard over the house.
Lack of insight
[info]ilkalottie wrote:
Thursday, 26 March 2009 at 12:52 pm (UTC)
Acts of vandalism and violence have been taking place for centuries. The ancestors of those who carried out these deeds are now called the nobility and live largely above the law in grand estates and palaces.
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.
Restraint
[info]ilkalottie wrote:
Thursday, 26 March 2009 at 01:26 pm (UTC)
I have reread your article and buried in there, somewhere, is a call for restraint.
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!
Bankers' WAGs to blame too
[info]wormery wrote:
Thursday, 26 March 2009 at 01:32 pm (UTC)
Don't forget his wife too - it's the wives who put pressure on the husbands to be rich and make more money so they can go shopping in boutiques and enjoy lives of luxury. So let's have some equal ops eh...Behind every greedy pig man's there's a greedy pig woman...
The vigilantes (and you who support them) are worse than Goodwin
[info]the100thidiot wrote:
Thursday, 26 March 2009 at 01:41 pm (UTC)
For those of you who seem to think the vandalism was justified, ask yourselves who else lives at Fred Goodwin's house other than him? Well, his young children do - how scared do you think they would have been to hear breaking windows in the night? And in what way are they at all responsible for their father's actions? Have you even thought through the implications of your apparent support for those throwing stones through Goodwin's windows?

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.
[info]rjd8 wrote:
Thursday, 26 March 2009 at 01:48 pm (UTC)
Yes it was a smirk. And why not? He wasn't harmed (which is something I would never advocate). He was and is a lot safer than the thousands whose survival is now threatened by his venal recklessness. Perhaps he now feels a little of the same fear that he instilled when he strode around "shredding" lives to enrich himself and shareholders to levels so disproportionate that they have now proven to be detrimental to society at large.
[info]rjd8 wrote:
Thursday, 26 March 2009 at 02:15 pm (UTC)
Noble sentiments expressed here. But they fail to properly take into account human nature and the crime that was perpetrated by the crisis/collapse of the financial system. The scale of the recklessness (and reckless action is criminal action) engaged in by the self-appointed masters of the universe abetted by the govt, has led to a form of violence perpetrated on ordinary people. How do you really expect the average person in the street to react to being robbed slowly (or often very rapidly) of their dignity by facing joblessness, an erosion of financial independence and the fear of not being able to provide for your dependents. Not sure what planet Hermione grew up on, but if the summer of rage materialises (and I hope it doesn't) it will be a rude welcome to the real world for her. It's not the smirk that will cause peril. It's the perilous mismanagement of people's lives that will cause peril. Hermione is having problems here with making the correct link between the peril and its causal factors. She's not a serious social commentator.
You may feel different....
[info]mowfalmighty wrote:
Thursday, 26 March 2009 at 03:59 pm (UTC)

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...,
Sir Fred -
[info]itismr wrote:
Thursday, 26 March 2009 at 06:43 pm (UTC)
Such twaddle !
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.
An apt punishment
[info]ilkalottie wrote:
Thursday, 26 March 2009 at 09:28 pm (UTC)
I wonder how many of Fred Goodwin's children will, when they get older, admit proudly, if at all, to FG being their father.
A few smashed windows, that's all
[info]orderedchaos2 wrote:
Thursday, 26 March 2009 at 10:13 pm (UTC)
Compared with millions of smashed careers, sorry, I can't really feel sympathy. It isn't really surprising that people are turning on the boys who gave us this wonderful economic recession. After all, with no job to take up their time what else is someone to do?

Columnist Comments

mary_dejevsky

Mary Dejevsky: Cool realism is a political virtue, too

No ideological vision could have replaced sound judgement in 1989

terence_blacker

Terence Blacker: Reality TV police shows are criminal

For half an hour, the real world is presented in black-and-white terms

dominic_lawson

Dominic Lawson: The only options are to double up in Afghanistan or leave

At a risk of sounding callous, the number of casualties is actually small for a war


Loading...


Most popular in Opinion