Bradley & Bingley boss Richard Pym is refusing point-blank to answer any questions about the reassurances he gave shareholders only two trading days before the bank was nationalised and they lost all their money.
Despite numerous requests for interviews since the shock nationalisation, Mr Pym is still refusing to explain himself to investors who bought shares in the bank after reading his assurances that the bank was "well capitalised" and "fit for purpose going forward".
He issued his statement on Thursday 25 September, and said nothing to contradict those assurances before the close of the Stock Market on Friday 26 September.
As Bradford & Bingley's 940,195 shareholders now know to their cost, the bank was nationalised without warning before the Stock Market opened again on Monday 29 September.
The series of events raises a number of questions to which Mr Pym, of all people, ought to know the answers.
And there are many shareholders who believe that, as the £750,000-a-year Chief Executive Officer of Bradford & Bingley, Mr Pym might want to say at least something to shareholders. Maybe even a sentence including the word "sorry".
But he won't say a word.
Does he even care? We don't know, because he won't say.
As a journalist and Bradford & Bingley victim (just £3,700 in shares in my case) I approached Bradford & Bingley's press office requesting an interview and was told it was extremely unlikely he would agree.
I e-mailed a list of 10 detailed questions that shareholders want Mr Pym to answer, hoping he would at least have the manners to offer a written reply, but all I received back was the following short message from the press office:
"Many of your questions relate to the nationalisation of B&B plc and, therefore, you should direct your questions to The Government, which is B&B's single shareholder.
"All statements made by the Company prior to nationalisation were entirely accurate."
That, as we journalists know, is called passing the buck.
However, there is a significant admission in the second sentence. If Mr Pym's assessment of B&B's trading position was correct, as he now maintains it was, that throws doubt on the need for the nationalisation to have happened either at all or at that time.
Here, for the record, are the questions that Mr Pym refuses to answer:
1 - Why have you declined to give any interviews or make any Press statements since the nationalisation?
2 - There are 940,195 Bradford & Bingley shareholders who believe the nationalisation was not necessary at the time and want to know if you share their view. What do you have to say to them?
3 - You issued statements a few days before the nationalisation in which you reportedly said Bradford & Bingley was "well capitalised" and "fit for purpose going forward". Is it correct that as the CEO of what was then a listed company, your comments were subject to regulation and therefore had to be accurate so that shareholders were not misled?
4 - Will you confirm that the statements you made were indeed accurate?
5 - As nothing happened to the detriment of Bradford & Bingley's trading position in the few trading days between you issuing those encouraging statements and the nationalisation being imposed, were you (with hindsight) wrong in your assessment of Bradford & Bingley's trading viability?
6 - If you still believe you were correct in your assessment of B&B's trading viability, do you think the nationalisation was unnecessary at that time?
7 - What do you have to say to people who read your statements, believed them, and bought shares in Bradford & Bingley on the strength of your personal reassurances, only to have their shareholdings "extinguished" by the nationalisation a few days later?
8 - If you now believe your assessments of B&B's trading viability were wrong - or, if you believe they were correct and that, consequently, the nationalisation should not have been imposed - have you considered offering your resignation as a matter of honour or in a gesture of protest?
9 - Did you lose your own personal shareholdings in Bradford & Bingley as a result of the nationalisation or were you able to sell them in the knowledge that they were about to become valueless - in which case, at what stage did you sell them, and how much did you receive for them?
10 - As the nationalisation was only rumoured after trading on the stock market had closed for the week, were you able to dispose of what were about to become valueless shares before the market closed on the Friday - and if you were aware of the nationalisation, why did you not warn other shareholders so that they, too, could sell their shares and recover something of their investment?
No-one is suggesting that Mr Pym acted improperly at any time. Indeed, the only answer his press office has given - ie that the statements he made on the Thursday were correct - support this column's and other shareholders' belief that he was telling the truth when he said the bank was still viable.
But shareholders do want to know - and deserve to hear it from the man himself - whether he believes that the nationalisation was unnecessary and that the loss of their shares and the money tied up in them was also unnecessary.
If he came out and said so, it would add immense weight to shareholders who are campaigning for full compensation for their losses.
But if Mr Pym doesn't say anything, he's effectively leaving them to drown when he could, if he chose, throw them a lifeline.
So why won't he speak? We deserve to be told.
Jon McKnight