To address various points made by Dick Bridge:

1.        No theft has been perpetrated by Sir Fred Goodwin in any way, shape or form, to continue to state that he is a thief in print is libel you as a lawyer should know that.

2.        Can you tell me who "the system" has robbed Dickey and what particular "system" you are referring to. I do not manipulate any system and to date I have not lost a thing.


3.        Now this one I liked – "Once upon a time a lot of lawyers made it their concern to see that they worked in a "justice" system." – A "lot of lawyers" Dickey?? Like hell, damn few and far between. All you ever get from Courts of Law is LAW. If it is justice then that has to be fought for in Parliament where laws are changed. You then rounded that off with – "Some of us still believe in justice" – Again Dickey, hell as like you believe in mob rule, as did most during the French Revolution – They weren't so keen on it when it eventually turned on them.

Now it is thelevellers turn:

1.        No I do not believe or put forward the opinion that Goodwin is ethical, but I strongly refute the accusation that he is a thief and a criminal.

2.        On the subject of criminality you quote two cases and ask which is criminal? On the one hand you describe Goodwin as – "A man who, from his abuse of power, ruined the lives of thousands and then arrogantly refused to refute the huge payout he had negotiated," On the other hand your alternative candidates you rather euphemistically describe as – "a few radicals registering the disgust of all right-minded people at the fact that he (Goodwin) got away with it?". The honest answer to your question is of course that while Sir Fred Goodwin is guilty of nothing more than being a particularly good negotiator (possibly not it must be awfully easy to run circles round "Clown" Brown and his minions) the others are guilty of criminal damage.

3.        You bay and call for "the revolution" and boast that the attack on Sir Fred Goodwin's property was "not mindless vandalism, this was a well-planned and executed guerrilla operation" Be careful what you wish for leveler it might just come to pass, and if that is your yardstick of a well-planned and executed operation that revolution of yours is going bite you rather badly.

To Emma B:

1.        "….the reality a small group described by experts as well-educated individuals conducting an organized assault

"Professor Capitanchik, of the Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen, grouped the gang together with environmental terrorists and guerrilla animal protection activists.

"These groups, while not using violence against people, are not too concerned about causing damage," he said. "All of this, in their view, is to bring home the message, whatever it happens to be."

He said they were likely to be young, highly motivated, well-educated individuals and suggested they could be bank workers or investors." –   So Professor C has never heard of "those" groups using intimidation; issuing death threats; hammering nails into trees; sending incendiaries through the post; sending letter bombs. Odd that I didn't realize the ivory towers of Robert Gordon's were as well insulated from normal life as that.

2.        On Monday, Sir Max Hastings, a military historian and former newspaper editor, called on the public to throw stones through the windows of failed bankers" – Then someone wants to inform Sir Max that incitement to commit a criminal act is an offence. Alternatively "failed bankers" could toddle round to Sir Max's place and heave a few bricks through his windows to see how much he appreciates it.

3.        "They have stashed away enough of our money to be secure from any threat to their lifestyles." – More crap from Sir Max, who Emma B seems to have fastened upon as the font of all knowledge. Well I have news for both Sir Max and for Emma B, those "failed bankers" have not taken a single penny of either yours or his.

Finally Guest Lox:

1.        "We in the public domain have an image of banks as prudent conservative sensible institutions that we can trust with our money." – And generally by and large they are. I along with hundreds of millions of others still use and trust banks. Not one of them has ever robbed me, got me hopping mad at times, and I would not cross the street to spit on any employee of the Nat West even if they were on fire, but that is personal.

2.        "We assume that those running the banks put our interests first and would never do anything to compromise our security and livelihoods." – Well no, not really, that is not the way things work, irrespective of what you might think. The bank is a business that is there to service a need and it exists to make money primarily for its shareholders. As its business is making money, it relies on its demonstrable and proven ability to do that to attract customers, who, if they save with the bank, quite rightly expect the bank to make them money in terms of interest paid on savings accounts. So Guest Lox Banks are not there to provide anyone with a safety net or any other form of social service – it is basically up to you to look after your own security and to look after your own livelihood.

3.        "A point to remember - if RBS had gone under, he would have received no pension as there would have been no company to pay it.

So he needs to thank us for having a pension at all.

The fact that he has agreed to take so much is criminal." - Now let's see if, and it's a very big if, RBS had gone under what would have happened? All the banks assets would have been realized, all outstanding debts to the bank would have been called in causing a large number of very healthy companies and employers to go to the wall themselves who otherwise would have continued to trade and employ people. Get the drift, the ripples from a pebble. Now who are the first to be protected when a company goes under – in order – the employees pay and pensions; the creditors; the shareholders. Sir Fred Goodwin negotiated his "retirement" package with those who were throwing RBS a lifeline, i.e. the British Government, The Treasury in fact. Maybe they should learn to negotiate better; Sir Fred didn't just name his own price somebody in either the Government or the Civil Service had to have agreed to it so please stop talking about this man doing anything criminal, he hasn't. Morally objectionable maybe but nothing illegal - I'd pour my scorn on the clots who let him get away with it - Clown Brown and Co.