If we're so keen to punish Fred Goodwin, why stop there?

THE DECISION by the Honours Forfeiture Committee to strip former Royal Bank of Scotland boss Fred Goodwin of his knighthood for "services to banking" was capitulation to "rule of the mob" and a message that Britain is anti-wealth, say some. Others ask if it goes far enough.
 
Rule of the mob

Fred Goodwin should not have been given a knighthood in the first place, says an editorial in The Times, but to strip him of it is to replace due process with "the rule of the mob". Britain is at its best when it is optimistic, generous and forgiving – a place for nurturing hope rather than nursing a grievance. Yet the treatment of Goodwin has seen us become "vindictive".   

If it is right to strip Fred Goodwin of his knighthood, why stop there? asks an editorial in The Independent. Why not add to the list his colleagues at RBS, the regulators, and even the politicians who presided over the whole affair. The absurd treatment of Goodwin damages Britain and sends the message that we are "anti-wealth, a culture of harboured grudges, public vindictiveness and mob rule". It is "crass, childish, and wholly counter-productive".

Fred committed no crime

Fred Goodwin has committed no crime, says an editorial in The Daily Telegraph. "The decision to strip him of his knighthood sets a new benchmark, whereby anyone identified as a convenient scapegoat for the country's woes can be similarly disparaged." In America, if executives are suspected of committing an offence, they are tried and dealt with severely. Here, in the absence of any evidence of criminal wrongdoing, "we choose ritual humiliation instead".

An exceptional case

Stripping a knighthood should be reserved for exceptional cases, says an editorial in the Daily Mail. And the case of Fred Goodwin is exceptional. A full assessment of the case by the Financial Services Authority, the Treasury Select Committee and the Honours Forfeiture Committee all came to the same conclusion. This isn't about vengeance or gloating. As Sir Fred becomes plain Fred Goodwin again, "a manifest wrong has been put right".
 
Why haven't there been charges?

Few tears will be shed for Fred the Shred, says an editorial in The Financial Times. "His decision to take a super-sized, iron-clad pension after wrecking the 301-year-old bank has rightly rendered him the object of public derision." Yet his humbling is a reminder that there has never been a proper accounting for the crisis, and very few prosecutions, unlike in the US. "Much better if the courts and regulators rather than the Honours Forfeiture Committee were leading the charge against pre-crash failings."
 
Bonus culture to blame

The bonus culture is really to blame, says Simon Jenkins in The Guardian. Bonuses have polluted the public image of banking, poisoned staff relations and hooked traders on risk. These discretionary gifts to top executives from company funds "should be considered a malpractice". Cut out bonuses and the rage would subside. "Fred Goodwin might even have kept his knighthood." ·