Unsurprisingly the FSA's pathetic refusal to publish details of its investigation into RBS (which let management off the hook, and only mildly rebuked them by saying that the near collapse of RBS was the result of a series of "bad decisions") has received the scorn that it so rightly deserves.
The Telegraph quotes Lord Oakeshott, a Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman:
"We cannot learn the lessons of the worst corporate crash in British history if we can't see the evidence."
Lord Oakshott went on to say:
"Most people, taxpayers and City experts alike, simply will not accept there was no failure of corporate governance on the part of the management, board and regulator of RBS."
One wonders if the FSA's reluctance to publish the details of its investigation is designed to save the blushes of the ex board members of RBS, or to save itself and its pathetic report/"findings" from rigorous scrutiny.
Why is the FSA still in existence?
If someone has a copy of the report, I suggest that they leak it to WikiLeaks (currently accessible via this domain http://184.108.40.206)