Not a Sir anymore.

I wonder how much that will wipe off RBS share price tomorrow and how much the taxpayer will lose.

They should give it to Lester Piggott instead.

I'm sure he'll be crying into his Cristal tonight. What a fooking pointless exercise.

When will they be stripping Archer of his enoblement? Or any of the other convicted criminals that have padded out the honours lists for decades past?

Will they be doing the same to [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/default.stmLord Michael Ashcroft[/url?

A mere token gesture. He'll be devastated as he looks at his bank balance.

The timing of this announcement on the same day as we have been made aware of Camerons capitulation to Germany and the Eurozone, is of course purely coincidental.

It makes a nice story for the tabloids to run on their front pages rather than the real story of Camerons euro surrender.

Could they now change his name to from Mr Goodwin to Mr Badloss, because that's what it was.

My surname is Goodwin (genuine) as a kid i always got Badlose........

You think being stripped of his title won't affect him? I'd bet in the circles he moves its a huge embarrassment. If he wasn't interested he wouldn't have accepted the 'honour' in the first place.

The reason he has been stripped of his title is political. We are in the midst of this controversy over bankers bonuses which the govt has taken a lot of flak about so at this point in time making a gesture like this makes it look like a banker is suffering.

He is a sacrifice to try and make it look like bankers can't get away with their actions. It is an attempt by the govt to look tough on bankerrs and to deflect the focus away from bonuses and any reform of the bonus system.

Will Hutton on 5 live yesterday suggested it would be seen as a bad thing in banking circles. Yes he's got plenty of money, but as you say the embarrassment will be bad for a while.

Agree with Coddy that we should go after Archer too

Or was it Ashcroft?

He said both, but I'm more keen to get Archer

I'm not interested in Archer's titles for their own sake, but for the sake of literature he should be prevented from ever using the title "author" on his CV and passport.

Which sort of takes us back to Fred Goodwin and his threats to sue people who ever referred to him as a banker ...

Is that the obscure pronunciation, where the b sounds like a w?

[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/11/fred-goodwin-banker-superinjunctionApparently he was quite upset at the usual pronunciation.[/url

The criticism over this is mounting and not particularly in sympathy with Mr Goodwin but because it increasingly looks like a bit of ill thought out victimisation designed to grab the headlines.

Yes it is rather inappropriate for a banker who led RBS to the brink of ceasing to exists has a knighthood for "services to banking" which is what he got it for in 2004 when life was all rosy but if you strip Goodwin of his title how can you possibly leave those Knights of the Realm or Lords who are convicted criminals with theirs? As Coddy pointed out above Archer has a title and kept it despite going to prison and I am pretty sure one of the Lords who went to to prison over the expenses scandal has not only kept his title but has taken up his seat once again in the upper house.

It's quite right Goodwin gets a ton of flak for running RBS into the ground but given he is not a convicted criminal stripping him of his title looks increasingly petty and not thought through. Mind you this is the government of unintended consequences who tend to act first and think later so it is no surprise really.

I seem to recall from my time at the Home Office that stripping a Lord of the title is much more difficult than just having a Forfeiture Committee meeting though

Here we have the real reason for it.
Smoke and mirrors, Cameron's usual ploy.

Beheading after a short spell in the tower?

Lord or Sir, I am sure there are quite a few "Sirs" who have retained their title despite a criminal conviction.

If Shred wasn't pulling a pension of £342,500 a year or so, I might even start to feel sorry for him. As it is, the taxpayer is paying him six-and-a-half-grand a week, and will do for the rest of his life, for "services rendered" so pardon me if I keep my handkerchief firmly in my pocket, in favour of my sickbag.

The point about Shred being some sort of sacrificial lamb is actually the reverse of the truth. Which is that even though the FSA largely held him personally responsible for the biggest and most damaging UK bank failure ever, there has been no action, disciplinary or otherwise, ever taken against him. Same with Hornby, or Crosby, when they could have faced huge fies adn a ban on working in the finance game. Instead, no recourse at all, and off to new jobs for the boys. He, and they, have got away with it. What is sicker, having got away with it and having the gall to keep taking the obscene "pension" for life, people on here seem to be sticking up for him as if he's somehow being bullied or something.

Allow me to clarify my position.
He's a tw@.

But Cameron is nonetheless using Shred's disgrace as a smokescreen to disguise his total inaction about banking and director fatcattery.

Wot he said.

And also, methinks, to try to deflect blame from the financial sector at large for the financial crisis onto one rather useful scapegoat. He'll probably follow this shortly with another announcement about it being time to stop bashing the bankers.

Undoubtedly so, but either the numerous commentators across the press, and Shred's supporters in and out of the industry, have fallen for it or, more likely the faux indignation is just a devious rearguard action.