RBS has recorded a profit of £939 million in the first six months of the year, its first half-year profit in three years.

The figure is a big turnaround from the bank's £2 billion loss in the same period in 2016.

The profit comes despite legal bills totalling a massive £396 million, which includes £151 million for its role in selling risky mortgage products in the US before the financial crisis.

Chief executive Ross McEwan said: "We're doing what we said we would at our full-year results in February - growing income, reducing cost and improving returns for shareholders, while also starting to deliver a better service for customers."

But here at Punchline we question whether they really are acting in the best interests of their customers. This is a bank which is still 70% owned by British taxpayers. Surely profits should be ploughed into paying off the taxpayers, rather than shareholders?

And to further rub salt into the wound, after the British people have supported the bank financially for nearly 10 years, RBS is planning to up sticks and move its headquarters to Amsterdam post-Brexit, with the inevitable loss of British jobs.

It's only a few days since HSBC announced they'd made £7.8 billion in profits in just six months, in a year in which they'd closed more branches across the county. And Lloyds, who've also closed branches across Gloucestershire, have made profits of £2.5 billion in the first half of the year.

These huge profits have been made by forcing customers to change the way they bank, whether they like it or not. Why couldn't the banks have made slightly smaller profits and kept branches open and staff in jobs - supporting the whole economy. Especially all the independent shops cashing up and travelling miles to their nearest branches to bank their takings. Corporate greed or great business?

What do you think? Have the banks got too greedy? Has your branch closed and what does it mean to your business? Email mark@moosemarketingandpr.co.uk