A bad banker and a dishonourable man.

The other thing we should note is just how generous are the pensions of our political masters.

I read the other day that Lord Mandelson qualifies for a pension of £31,000 relating to his time as a European commissioner, after serving just less than 4 years in the job.  Who knows at this point what he'll get when he leaves Government - hopefully within the next 15 months! - but you can be certain he won't be as financially apprehensive as most of the UK's working and retired population.

I don't know the ins and outs of our MPs' arrangements, but I'm sure I heard that they get 2/3 of their salary once they have served 2 terms in Parliament, which is a maximum of 10 years but usually less.  This is far more generous than the average RBS staff member - who has to work 40 years to get 2/3 and yes, as you point out, only if they are in the old scheme.

And, of course, all of this comes out of taxation - you and me - and is not subject to the vagiaries of the stock market, etc., which is the case for the rest of us.  Even people in final salary schemes might find that the scheme is unable to pay out, the way things are going, so their arrangements are far from secure.  Interesting that one of the members of the Treasury Select Committee made a big thing of pointing out that Fred's pension wasn't linked to the performance of the RBS share price - when theirs is far more secure, as shown above.

No ordinary person in the private sector (which is the source of these peoples' pensions) could hope to ever get such terms; neither do we have the guarantee that these people get.

I'm not saying that Fred's pension is defensible, but I do think that those in power that are taking potshots at the arrangements should be aware that their arrangements are just as incomprehensible to those of us that don't have the same privileges that they do.  They should look at themselves before slagging anyone else off (but then nothing has stopped politicians from being so two-faced before, so why should this issue?).

And remember, it is this Government that trashed the pensions industry in the first place.

Well done, Keith. I think you've made your point well. We tend to put these guys on pedestals and they savour every moment of that, believing they're invincible and can do no wrong.

Sir Fred was worse than most in that respect and rarely felt he had to justify his actions through the media and ultimately, to his shareholders.

I'd add an extra couple of adjectives to the Economist's description of Sir Fred. Deluded and arrogant.

To make matters worse, do you think he actually believes even now that he has done anything wrong?