I think virtually everyone, with the presumed exception of Sir Fred himself, is agreed that he should be stripped of his knighthood. What strikes me as a little sad is that now this process is carried out by some dull and boring committee. Not so in days of yore as this little historical fact I came across indicates.
In 1621 two knights (businessmen coincidentally) were found guilty of exercising harsh monopolies over the licensing of inns and suffered the punishment of being publicly degraded. A contemporary report says:
'Sir Francis Mitchell's sword and gilt spurs, being ornaments of knighthood were broken and defaced.......one of the Knight Marshal's men...cut the belt whereby the culprits sword hung, so let it fall to the ground. Next the spurs were hewn off his heels and thrown, one one way the other the other. After that the Marshal's attendant drew Mitchell's sword from his scabbard and broke it over his head...'
Great stuff. That's what I call stripping someone of his knighthood. I bet if it were done in Westminster Hall, it would be standing room only with tickets probably changing hands for well over a thousand pounds. And think of the price the TV screening rights would get. A large part of our debt cancelled at a stroke and a good precedent set.
Do it to Sir Fred and see all the others fall into line. To quote the bard of Warmington-on-Sea: "they don't like it up 'em".