Should Sir Fred hand back the booty? Or is this a case of lack of due dilligence by the government and therefore Fred should keep it without having to worry about the possibility of legal action?

He would have made himself look good to the public had he voluntarily decided to settle for a humbler sum. However, he now appears a greedy fool and a villain after ruining a bank. Does the government have a case? I don't know. But Labour's Treasury Minister states that he was not aware that the pension was not contractually binding. What does that mean? It seems that if it was not binding, there should be no discussion. They should just go after it. Or, perhaps, Labour is just full of talk. Perhaps, Labour would have allowed him to walk away with the money had it not been for some whistleblower. Why did they have to wait until people complained before they decided to 'try' and do something about it? Sounds like they had no intention of recovering that money before.