After all the favours which the powers that be have done for the banking industry recently, it wasn't too much of a surprise to see the Supreme Court cossetting the parasites yet again.
And it certainly isn't much of a shock to see the banks declaring that the Office of Fair Trading hasn't got jurisdiction over their charges. Let's face it, banks and fair trading never have had much in common.
But for their representatives to claim that "unarranged overdraft charges are an important part of current account services" is pitching it a bit strong.
There can't be many people whose account hasn't slipped accidentally into the red by a few quid from time to time and it is arguable that some charge for that could be justified.
But the scale of those charges and the consequences of making them are way out of proportion.
It would not seem to be beyond the wit of man to organise banking software so that, should a standing order drive you into overdraft, that payment is not made. Certainly, if you try to withdraw money from the local hole in the wall that isn't in your account, it simply won't let you, so it can't be impossible to run account banking that way.
But banks never have. They allow the accounts to overdraw, charge you for the unarranged overdraft and then add insult to injury by charging you for the letter that they send telling you that you are overdrawn. On that, they make a fat profit.
And if that charge puts you even more overdrawn, why they charge you again for any other payments that bounce as a consequence.
All of which is unjust, unfair and stinks of usury, especially since a letter doesn't cost around £25 to produce and, even if you are only a pound over the top, an accidental overdraft will cost you around a minimum of £50 in the end, if not more.
It's not surprising that people - apart, that is, from Supreme Court judges whose wallets are so securely cushioned by the big fat salaries they are paid that they have probably never been down to within their last fifty grand - get a little upset.
And the upset is compounded by the fact that it's not the bank's money to begin with.
They hold your money, they lend other people your money, they make a profit on doing so and pay their top people big fat bonuses from the profit on lending your money out, but when you have a bit of trouble, they just make it worse for you.
And that means that those least able to pay for banking services are lumbered with paying the most.
It's not as if you have any choice in the matter. Try living without a bank account when nearly every employer pays through the banking system.
But what really rankles with people is not the charges themselves. It's the gross unfairness. Even the government admits, in the words of Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury Sarah McCarthy-Fry: "It's clear that, in the past, banks were not thinking enough about their customers. That needs to change for the future."
Too right, it does, but why should the banks be allowed to get away with such appalling past behaviour?
Let's face it, when it comes to unarranged overdrafts, the biggest offenders in history are the banks themselves, who have just had a multibillion-pound unarranged overdraft from the taxpayer to pay for their irresponsible and profligate handling of our money.
If banks need to charge up to £50 for an unarranged overdraft of a fiver, then just how much should the taxpayer be seeing as a return on all those billions?
They are clearly getting off a lot more lightly than they are allowing their customers to.
And it's highly unlikely that the majority of unarranged overdrafts were incurred by foolish betting and gambling at ridiculous odds. We generally leave that to the banks and the bankers.
I would urge people to join
1 Million PPL Say Bank Overdraft Charges Are Wrong on Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/groups/edit.php?members&gid=184391222612#/group.php?gid=184391222612&ref=nf
