So, it's goodbye to the diamond geezer from Barclays. Few readers of the Morning Star will mourn his departure, writes Bill Benfield.

But it's unlikely to take much pressure off the company or, in fact, the government.
Unfortunately for Prime Minister David Cameron, the disingenuous and shrill protestations of shock over the bank's conduct carried very little conviction in past weeks.
In fact, they were strangely reminiscent of an administrator of the Transylvanian Blood Bank declaring that he had no idea that its long-term employee, that nice Mr Dracula, would abuse his position and do a one-man stock-take.
Just what did Mr Cameron think that Barclays would do, given the opportunity to increase its Threadneedle street-cred and reduce its costs by simply under-reporting the inter-bank lending costs that it had incurred? Ignore it?
Perhaps he felt that honour, integrity and a jolly good education would force the chaps involved to do the right thing?
What does he think bankers do for a living?
For your information, Mr Cameron, they skim off the top of every penny that passes through their sweaty hands, that's what they do.
Maybe he doesn't he understand, or perhaps he's flannelling the lot of us.
Which is far more likely since, despite his advanced case of Bullingdon chinlessness, he's no-one's fool and Barclays' soiled reputation and history can hardly have escaped his notice.
Because Barclays is just what the Tories think a bank shoud be and does what a bank should do.
And it will keep on doing it because that's what it always has done.
It's the bank for you if you are filthy rich, want to be even filthier and even richer and have few scruples about how you get there.
It's got a record of profit maximisation for its customers and itself that's spectacular in its predatory avarice.
And rigging the Libor rate is just a part of the story. There's profit to be found everywhere and boy, do they find it.
It's hardly believable that the resignation of chairman Marcus Agius or CEO Bob Diamond will change anything. The disease is too deep-rooted.
Here's what Barclays says about Barclays.
"Corporate Responsibility for Barclays is embodied by the concept of Responsible Banking.
"Responsible Banking means making informed, reasoned and ethical decisions about how we conduct our business, how we treat our employees and how we behave towards our customers and clients."
That's the bank's mission statement and if you believe that, you'll believe anything.
How it squares "ethical decisions" with a history of being one of the world's leading expert organisations in tax avoidance is a mystery that someone wiser can explain. It certainly needs explaining.
To a socialist, there's a lot of nonsense talked about the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion.
The only difference is that one skirts the border of legality and one skirts the border of illegality - but it's the same border and the same grey area around it.
Barclays acknowledged last Wednesday that its actions between 2005 and 2009 had fallen "well short of standards."
What standards would they be, one wonders, since its actions before during and after that period didn't exactly smell of violets and roses.
Although it has to be said that they exceeded their sleaze quota by a good margin in those years.
Barclays Bank paid just £113 million in UK corporation tax in 2009 - a year when it recorded £11.6 billion in profits.
Around that time, the bank had 30 subsidiary companies in the Isle of Man, 38 in Jersey and 181 in the Cayman Islands.
But it didn't do badly before then in the sleaze stakes.
In 2010, US District Judge Emmet G Sullivan heard an agreement between US and New York prosecutors and Barclays - and wrote it off as "a sweetheart deal," asking prosecutors, "Why isn't the government getting tough with the banks?"
The bank had agreed a $298m settlement to help it avoid prosecution over accusations of altering financial records to hide breaking US sanctions in trades with Iran, Cuba, Sudan, Libya and Myanmar from 1995 to 2006. Forget for the moment the rights and wrongs of the trade sanctions for that level of illegality, $298m was peanuts for a firm that had just recorded £11.6bn of profits for 2009.
In March 2012 the government announced retrospective legislation to close two "highly abusive" avoidance schemes.
The Financial Times reported on February 29 that, on December 5, Barclays moved to buy back £3.7bn of outstanding debt for up to £2.5bn.
We should explain that people who hold debt sometimes discount it to get early access to cash by selling the bonds cheap - normally if they have got a sniff of something that they can use the money for that will make a profit well in excess of the discount.
Anyway, the gain of about £1.2bn should normally have been taxable, generating £300m for the Treasury coffers.
But the buyback scheme sought to ensure that the profit to the bank from buying its own issued but now discounted debt was not subject to corporation tax.
You've gotta love those clever money bunnies at Barclays, they are so ingenious.
The way it appears to work in this sort of deal is that a front company (Special Purpose Vehicle or SPV) is set up by a third party.
The SPV buys the debt for the discounted price of £2.5bn.
You buy the SPV off the third party with its asset - the debt - for, say £2.7bn and, Bingo, you've got your debt back at £1bn less than you owe and there's not a penny of tax to be paid on the profit because, in the jargon, there was no capital released in the deal.
Oh, and the third party makes £200m for doing you the favour, which you don't mind paying because, after all, it's the taxman's money.
And the taxman's dough is the public's dough, so the public pays.
The second avoidance scheme exploited authorised investment fund regulations to generate a repayment of tax that has never been paid in the first place. All perfectly legal - until the Treasury pulled the plug.
Clever bunnies indeed. Clever, amoral, slick, greedy and devious bunnies.
A whole warren of them.
It's known as Barclays Structured Capital Markets unit (SCM) and has been a market leader in tax avoidance for 20 years.
Led at one stage by the almost legendary Roger Jenkins, SCM specialised in tax arbitrage, an esoteric discipline which plays off one nation's tax system against another to reduce tax bills.
Barclays raked in hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue from this unit. Indeed, in one year almost $1bn is rumoured to have been the unit's bottom line, Mr Jenkins's share of which was reported to be around £40m.
And then there's Stars - Structured Trust Advantaged Repackaged Securities - a scheme designed by Barclays and run between them and US banks from 2002.
Barclays realised at least $800m in tax savings from the British government and split them with other parties in the deals.
Using a complex warren of interlocking companies exploiting the interface between British and US jurisdictions, six US banks - BB&T, Bank of New York Mellon, Sovereign (now part of Santander), Washington Mutual, Wells Fargo and Wachovia - have been battling the government over tax credits they claimed through Stars.
US government lawyers alleged that BB&T managed to claim $1 in foreign tax credits for every 50 cents in tax.
BB&T said in court that it participated "to maximise profits and not to avoid or evade taxes."
However, the US government contends that Stars was a complex tax-shelter deal used by the US banks to generate foreign tax credits. Government lawyers alleged that the BB&T and Wells Fargo deals were a sham.
In Wells Fargo's case, they alleged that Stars was designed so the US bank's "entire economic profit would be totally and exclusively sourced from US foreign tax credits."
Washington Mutual settled in bankruptcy court last year to forgo $160m in claimed tax credits.
The other US banks are seeking repayment for disallowed tax credits totalling more than $1bn and admit no wrongdoing.
Mr Jenkins is no longer with Barclays SCM. He has moved on to pastures new.
He now works at Brazilian bank BTG Pactual, which reported that its first-quarter net profit more than doubled to R$786m (£253m) in the three months to the end of March, up nearly 140 per cent year-on-year, thanks to its profit from a government privatisation of three major international airports.
At the same time, the bank said that Brazil's economy remained weak, barely growing in the past three quarters.
Mr Jenkins must feel very much at home.