Skip to main content

Dis-Honours

Stripping Fred Goodwin of his knighthood may be popular- it is also deeply wrong.


At a time when convicted criminals, such as Jeffery Archer, can still be called Lord Archer and still have access to the privileges of the peerage, to strip a man convicted of no crime, because what he may (or may not) have done is unpopular looks like the worse kind of witch hunt- it is giving in to the baying of the mob.


Many tabloid newspaper editors and journalists have been knighted or have received other honours- how come there has been no such outcry against them? Tabloids were not guilty of misjudgement, but as we now know, of crimes- presumably once the Leveson inquiry is over we will strip all the journalists of their awards- as Johan Hari has been stripped of the Orwell prize (and now, belatedly his job).


I think John Prescott is a lecherous incompetent- I think we should strip him of his peerage- indeed he should never have received it. In fact I think anyone on the Labour benches should be stripped of any honours they may have. Actually I don't like Tories much either- how come Patrick Cormack- as pompous to his own side as to everyone else- gets to keep his knighthood? 


Unless Fred Goodwin was convicted of a crime, how can he be dis-honoured like this?


The honours system has been a farce for years- now it descends into something much worse.







Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Waiting for the Barbarians

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum? The barbarians are due here today. Why isn’t anything going on in the senate? Why are the senators sitting there without legislating? Because the barbarians are coming today. What’s the point of senators making laws now? Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating. Why did our emperor get up so early, and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate, in state, wearing the crown? Because the barbarians are coming today and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader. He’s even got a scroll to give him, loaded with titles, with imposing names. Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas? Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts, rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds? Why are they carrying elegant canes beautifully worked in silver and gold? Because the barbarians are coming today and things like that dazzle the barbarians. Why don’t our distingui...

Liberal Democrats v Conservatives: the battle in the blogosphere

It is probably fair to say that the advent of Nick Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has not been greeted with unalloyed joy by our Conservative opponents. Indeed, it would hardly be wrong to say that the past few weeks has seen some "pretty robust" debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat bloggers. Even the Queen Mum of blogging, the generally genial Iain Dale seems to have been featuring as many stories as he can to try to show Liberal Democrats in as poor a light as possible. Neither, to be fair, has the traffic been all one way: I have "fisked' Mr. Cameron's rather half-baked proposals on health, and attacked several of the Conservative positions that have emerged from the fog of their policy making process. Most Liberal Democrats have attacked the Conservatives probably with more vigour even than the distrusted, discredited Labour government. So what lies behind this sharper debate, this emerging war in the blogosphere? Partly- in my ...

Lib Dem v. Tory (Round 2)

The Liberal Democrats stand for a distinct political ideology. It is an ideology built around both socially and economically liberal precepts. In as far as our ruling Labour government can be said to have an ideology at all, it coincides with Liberalism only incidentally. Labour stands for pragmatism, and where it does not there is still a core of values that are collectivist and not individual. Sometimes people are prepared to claim the moral high ground for policies of social solidarity and redistribution of wealth. Liberals may argue in favour of equality of opportunity, we can not argue in favour- as Socialists do- of "and equal society". The reason is simple: Socialism does not work. If one places equality above freedom, then eventually we get tyranny. This is why, while we may argue in favour of a more equal society as being a stronger society, the tools that we may use to gain -in our view- socially desirable outcomes must rest upon freedom above all else. As PJ O'...