http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16827424

I think it was right for him to be stripped of his title. Why? Well, he earned it for services to banking, and as it transpired that is services were dubious at best, that honour should be lost. If his knighthood was for some other action on his part, then I’d argue that it would have been the wrong thing to do.



Thing is, though, at some point heads have to be seen to be rolling. There is an appetite for some form of retribution against those who caused the mess, and if this is some kind of symbolic decapitation, then so be it.

I await with baited breath for the politicians involved to be symbolically decapitated.
I know I will be waiting until hell freezes over for that to happen.

Well given they were mostly labour, there's some sense they already have been. Anyone heard anything from Gordon Brown recently?

As it is, I think it's a bit silly but possibly necessary. The banking crash was actually all about the lack of accounting for risk. Bankers did horribly risky things mainly, IMO, because those horribly risky things had little personal consequence for them. Yes, they might lose a lot of other people's money but they still stood to get paid millions, probably still get a whopping bonus every year and if they got to board level, get a nice title and the esteem of their peers. They were, effectively, insulated from the risks they were taking.

So the fact that the one of them who took the most risks has been publicly hounded, publicly humiliated and basically had a fairly rough time of it for a year or so... well, on a personal level, I have some sympathy, but overall - good. The financial sector needs to feel that when it's risking other people's money it's also risking something itself. If that means one or two of them get hung out for the crows, well at least the rest of them might think twice before doing something that could cause millions of people to be out of a job or lose their pensions. If they think twice because they don't fancy the idea of the tabloid press camping out on their doorstep six months later, maybe they'll avoid flushing the economy down the toilet next time.

And as much as I admire Digby Jones's intellect (and I do), I find 'the lynch mob on the village green' to be such a tortuously mixed metaphor that I'm not entirely sure I understand what he was intending to say.

Jon

Various peers of the realm have had actual criminal convictions for serious matters. Perjury and fraud/lying under oath amongst them. They still have their honours, even if they have no honour themselves.

This guy has made bad mistakes, been reckless and deserves to have some or all of his assets seizedas compensation for his errors perhaps if there is a legal and decent way. He has commited no crime however, as stupidity is not a crime. He got the knighthood years ago, for his service at that time. Bad decisions since then, yes. I don't feel there is justice in this, only throwing him to the dogs (that's us and the press)

*shrug* Just because the right thing isn't done every time that shouldn't mean we never do it.


Some would consider a title 'an asset'.


Well, that's not absolutely true. He was investigated with the possibility of charges being brought against him. The CPS abandoned the effort because they decided they weren't confident of getting a conviction. That's not the same as 'having committed no crime'. It may have been that he did, but they were very complex crimes and he could afford very good lawyers. The CPS is notorious for abandoning cases that are 'a bit tricky'.


Actually, no. he got the knighthood in 2004, at which point a lot of the bad decisions that led to the credit crunch had already been made. The acquisition of ANM Amro was the straw that broke the camel's back for RBS but it was already way too big and sustained upon financial vehicles which were at some point bound to collapse. And aside from that, if anything surely it was recumbent upon him to make better decisions after he had been enobled? If he's a knight of the realm, isn't he supposed to act in an admirable and honourable way? Isn't that entirely the point? We give the honour to people who we believe act that way, and we kind of expect them to continue acting that way afterwards?

Stripping his Knighthood was justified in my opinion - he received it whilst helping to inflate the credit bubble that burst four years later.

BTW, I had to smile at the following comment on Radio 5 yesterday: