Fred Goodwin, ex-chief executive of the Royal Bank of Scotland, has been stripped of his knighthood because of his “lack of leadership”

of the bank, which had to be rescued by us, the tax payers.

He has not been accused of any crime, nor has he been found guilty of any crime, yet he has been punished for his lack of leadership and control.

Now we come to Paul White, aka Lord Hanningfield.

He was the leader of Essex County Council and he was made a peer of the realm. As such, he was a law maker.

This is where the problem occurs. He was found guilty of fraudulent claims on his expenses and served time in jail.

The problem we have is one person has been found guilty in a court of law, while the other has not been accused of any crime, nor has he been found guilty of any crime.

All he did was nearly collapse one of the biggest banks the UK has seen.

So I ask, how can Paul White keep his peerage and probably return to the House of Lords after being found guilty of fraud and be a law maker, yet Fred Goodwin, who has not broken any law, is punished by removing his knighthood?

If anybody can think of a logical reason why Paul White should keep his peerage, I would like to hear it.

Please don’t say “he’s done the time”. We are talking about law makers. They should be virtually squeaky clean.

I would like to make it clear I don’t support either of the people mentioned, I just think crime and punishment is really in need of a total overhaul regarding MPs, lords and bankers.

C Rickwood
Redwood Close
Colchester