Clearly if Russell,or any of the production team, understood what Investment Banking as an industry had done over 30-years to globally lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty - or that a very small percentage of those working in banks are the 'bankers', with large bonuses based on performance he was targeting - this man would not have needed to respond.
Several years after the crash, the facts are all out there, including how the £billions in annual revenues from Investment Banking even after the crash, mostly offsetting the ££billions being written off each year in retail lending through the 'boom' years - plummeted like a stone, after bonuses were slashed, and other investment banks took most of RBS's best staff.
A rough example would be RBS investment banking division MADE £2.4 bil in one year, the retail/mortgage banking division LOST £2.8 bil in the same year = a consolidated/reported £400 million annual loss = public outrage, 'how can you pay investment bankers bonuses' when RBS lost money.
Both governments appeared to take the populist view that better to cut bonuses for the best revenue earners (so they left), rather than have RBS perform like it's global investment banking peers, and have the stock price rise above what we paid for it, and give the tax payer a profit much earlier.
The UK was the only country in the 2007/8 financial crash that felt the NEED to privatize banks, whereas in the U.S. where the banking crisis began, all the $trillions lent to U.S. banks by the U.S. authorities were paid back in full a few years back.
Quite when an RBS having (unlike in the U.S. banks) suffered several years of state populist intervention is therefore able to pay back every penny to the UK taxpayer, god only knows.
Still, facts like that shouldn't get in the way of a taxpayer funded Russell Brand film production, having a rant about something he doesn't want to understand.