I had a touch of schadenfreude this morning when I noticed that the Co-op had appointed a white knight to investigate the background to its capital shortfall.

Why schadenfreude? For the past few years banks have come under attack because they are evil. You know, evil in that cowboys and indians way so beloved of the left. Banks are bad. Banks have to be because, gasp, they make profit.

Profit, that singular word designed to get a yoghurt weaver puce with rage despite the fact that some of their most beloved institutions- - the BBC, Greenpeace, Unions, The Scott Trust, etc -- actually make profits as well, yes even ‘not-for-profit’ ones.

Actually, the Scott Trust has made some very good uses of off-shore vehicles and private equity in the past; the left should look it up.

But that is different. That is ‘good’ profit that is being made, unlike those bankers.

They believe that mutuals and building societies are part of the ‘good’ side of profit -- although personal experience of Nationwide leads me to believe in a slightly different narrative for them.

But now you see that the Co-op has a £1.5 billion black hole due to the fact that it indulged those more base manoeuvers beloved of the evil ones --- takeovers and aggressive purchases in the form of buying Britannia Building Society and trying to grab 632 branches from Lloyds.

As a result, bondholders will take a £500m hit on their investments. These are investors that include some 15,000 pensioners and small savers.

There is something deeply, deliciously ironic about seeing a mutual take a hit like this. Not, of course for the bondholders, but more for the idea that you can compartmentalise banking into good/bad.

It is like going to Borough Market. Now, don't get me wrong, I am a bit of a foody and I do like good husbandry of meat and buy appropriately when I can. But what you see in farmers’ markets up and down the country is a base rip-off capitalizing on bias.

Unlike mass-agriculture -- you know the agriculture that increases yields, lowers prices and allows a family to actually eat -- farmers’ markets and their ilk rely mainly on small holdings.

Smaller holders, lower yields equals higher prices, right? Not necessarily. You see the price should be balanced to production and profit. ie. how much did it cost to raise that pig, butcher it then transport it to Borough? That, coupled with the money a seller wants to make.

However, if you can slap organic on the label, you are laughing; chuck another couple a quid on the chop. The production costs may not actually be that much different to a big farm when you scale it down, but the profit margins can be.

But that’s OK, because it’s 'good profit'. And guardianistas like good profit. The guardianista sees no problem about the prices that Good Earth charges compared with say Morrison, because its the right sort of profit. Its warm and fuzzy; it offsets guilt and it banks the privilege to be checked later.

And it is a double bonus because the poor cannot afford to buy there so guardianistas can also indulge in a bit of sneering at poor people shopping at Asda and buying shite chicken.

The right kind of profit is equalled by the right kind of wages and institutions.

It doesn’t matter that the multi-billion pound behemoth that is the BBC wastes our money left right and centre; it is the right kind of broadcaster. It is not Sky. Sky is evil you see. The BBC isn’t.

And it is perfectly fine for the BBC to spend a fortune on presenters like Jeremy Paxman but not so good when it comes to Jeremy Clarkson because he’s, well, the wrong type of presenter.

And it is perfectly fine for a footballer to be on £250,000 a week. That's good. That’s working class. Football is working class isn’t it? I’m sure I read in the Guardian that it was.

In reality of course, mates of mine who grew up supporting their teams can hardly afford to attend nowadays as prices take the sport away from them.

But £250,000 a week is fine for Rooney. It’s the right kind of wage unlike those evil bankers with their £1m wages and £250,000 a year bonuses. That’s the wrong kind of pay.

And of course Microsoft is evil but Apple isn’t. Starbucks is a tax-cheating filthy company until you need wi-fi and your double, skinny, mocha-peasant flat.

Now, hypocrisy isn’t, unfortunately, the sole preserve of the left, but they just do a damn good job at it. Whether sending their kids to private school while condemning everyone else to the sink estate comp or flying to Tuscany as air-fares go up -- all to protect the planet you know -- the left see things in absolutes.

Good v Evil; Co-op v Barclays; Good Foods v Asda. But if you fancy joining them in their quest for that perfect world with the perfect coffee, wi-fi and broadcasting channel just ask yourself one thing, that one thing that seems to go through their privileged little souls -- have you noticed how much being right-on actually costs?

It seems that the guardianista does not so much check their privilege as use their privilege card.

Simon Miller is a Contributing Editor to the Commentator