the ongoing bank bonus debate

While watching a debate on T.V. last night between two bank representatives, John Prescott and a businessman I agreed wholeheartedly with Mr Prescott, then, on listening to his continuing statements I began to wonder if it was him agreeing with me and taking his points from my blog. He put over to the bank reps almost everything I said going as far as to say "let them sue they have no contract now."
The bank reps only two points were that they had a contract (let them fight that in court with their own money)and that while admitting to over lending accused the public for over stretching their budgets by over borrowing but he did not have the brains to notice the flaw in his statement and sadly it was not picked up by anyone.
The flaw being; it was the banks greed that allowed the borrowers to overstretch their budget and if they had been doing their jobs properly the public could afford the loans taken out hence the credit crunch they caused would not exist so both his points have been shot down in flames. We have to bring up the vulgar sums paid out in bonuses over the supposed boom years which have proved to be undeserved, and as some of these payments were more than the normal worker could make in two lifetimes the highly paid bosses still have assets that should be seized NOW it has been proved that they were not earned. We as the main shareholders should be listened to and the government should put their foot firmly down and say NO to all bonuses from the bottom up until our money is paid back in full. Does the banks think the money was donated to give them a life of luxury while the rest of the country flounders,if so dream on.
The only problem I can find in letting the matter go to court is that it brings in a justice system who at the moment seem to find it hard distinguishing right from wrong and do not punish crimes fittingly.