The presenter framed the discussion in the context of the £40 billion of tax payers' money used to prop up the banking system over the last year or so. Apparently the programme "got a call from Barclays" even during the piece, to point out that Barclays hadn't benefited from these bailouts.
Let's be generous and call that misguided, should we? Since, if one or more of the banks that did benefit directly had not been propped up, then Barclays would have been significantly affected due to it's financial relationships with these other banks.
It concerns me that, in the rush to demonstrate they had no part in this whole sorry affair, they are not accepting their responsibility and so, will see no need to change.
If there was one message that came loud and clear from the banking crisis, then surely it was that change was, and is still, necessary.
But, it is in the world I see so, in order not to perpetuate this mistake, I am looking seriously at where I am deluding myself that I am not responsible for something in which I clearly have had a part to play.
Whenever we have any sort of reaction to a seemingly external situation, we can learn a lot from following this line of enquiry.
