So, an obscure committee of civil servants have recommended that Sir Fred Goodwin, of RBS fame, be stripped of the knighthood he was awarded by the last government. This 'de-knighting' was confirmed by The Queen.
Goodwin was awarded the knighthood, in 2004 for 'services to banking'. Nothing he did since then has been found to be criminal - nothing! Crass? Insensitive? Arrogant? Self-serving? He seems to be guilty of all of these things but none are a criminal offence.
As stated above, Goodwin received his honour for 'services to banking'. The committee did not disclose if it found that those 'services to banking' to have been wrong, in some way.
So let's for a moment, leave aside opinion on the honours system and ask why he is stripped of the gong? The only conclusion I can reach is that it is because it is expedient and panders to the baying mob. I don't think anyone is fooled that this is a civil service committee which is operating independent of the government. This has the grubby hands of politicians, all over it!
Contrast his treatment with that of
All have retained their honours.
I don't like hypocrisy but do the politicians have to be so blatant about it?
Now turn to who it was that ennobled Goodwin - Step forward 'the people's tribune' the defender of the 'working class - The Labour Party! At that time, that would mean Blair and Brown. Since Tony was waging his dodgy war with Iraq (cast of thousands, including ill-equipped British troops), one comes to the conclusion that the domestic maestro, Gordon 'I have banished boom and bust' Brown, was the sponsor of the award. No doubt assisted by other members of the Tartanocracy, including Wily Alex Salmond.
You will scour the media in vain for any of them to now be defending Goodwin. The only supporter I saw with the decency and courage to speak out was Sir Jackie Stewart, apparently, a family friend of Goodwin.
Of course Goodwin and his team brought RBS to the brink of disaster (some would say beyond). However, he did not single-handedly cause the economic crisis (but see below).
Goodwin was awarded the knighthood, in 2004 for 'services to banking'. Nothing he did since then has been found to be criminal - nothing! Crass? Insensitive? Arrogant? Self-serving? He seems to be guilty of all of these things but none are a criminal offence.
As stated above, Goodwin received his honour for 'services to banking'. The committee did not disclose if it found that those 'services to banking' to have been wrong, in some way.
So let's for a moment, leave aside opinion on the honours system and ask why he is stripped of the gong? The only conclusion I can reach is that it is because it is expedient and panders to the baying mob. I don't think anyone is fooled that this is a civil service committee which is operating independent of the government. This has the grubby hands of politicians, all over it!
Contrast his treatment with that of
- Lord Archer - Jailed for perjury
- Lord Taylor - Jailed for fraudulently claiming more than £24K in expenses.
- Lord Hanningfield - jailed for fraudulently claiming more than £30K in expenses.
- Baroness Uddin - SUSPENDED from the House for illegitimately claiming more than £125K in expenses.
- Lord Paul - (One of Britain's richest men) SUSPENDED from the House for illegitimately claiming more than £42K in expenses.
- Lord Bhatia - SUSPENDED from the House for illegitimately claiming more than £27K in expenses.
All have retained their honours.
I don't like hypocrisy but do the politicians have to be so blatant about it?
Now turn to who it was that ennobled Goodwin - Step forward 'the people's tribune' the defender of the 'working class - The Labour Party! At that time, that would mean Blair and Brown. Since Tony was waging his dodgy war with Iraq (cast of thousands, including ill-equipped British troops), one comes to the conclusion that the domestic maestro, Gordon 'I have banished boom and bust' Brown, was the sponsor of the award. No doubt assisted by other members of the Tartanocracy, including Wily Alex Salmond.
You will scour the media in vain for any of them to now be defending Goodwin. The only supporter I saw with the decency and courage to speak out was Sir Jackie Stewart, apparently, a family friend of Goodwin.
Of course Goodwin and his team brought RBS to the brink of disaster (some would say beyond). However, he did not single-handedly cause the economic crisis (but see below).
- Then Senator Obama (and others) was a big proponent, in the US of reckless lending which became known as the sub-prime mortgage market.
- Gordon Brown and leaders throughout Europe continued to borrow money and increase debt levels to unsustainable levels, without any assistance from Goodwin!
- The people of Europe and the USA continued to borrow and borrow and then spend money that wasn't theirs.
- Some banks, including RBS, were dealing in financial instruments of which they really knew very little, at the end of the day.
- Some financial institutions, just like some countries became over-leveraged and their shareholders paid the price (and in some cases, like RBS, they were bailed out)
You forgot Lord Watson of Invergowrie, imprisoned in September 2005 for wilful fire-raising. However, the fact is that, at present, there is no mechanism for expelling a Peer from the House of Lords.
ReplyDeletei think you are confusing lord and sir, as far as i understand it lords are peers and it is inherited/granted whereas a sir is a knight .
ReplyDeleteI seem to recall that a significant number of hereditary peers were expelled from the House of Lords
ReplyDeleteAs I understand it Lords fall into 2 categories - Hereditary and Life peers
ReplyDeleteKnights have many 'orders' but also fall into two categories those knighted for whom the honour only lasts for their lifetime and those created a baronetcy. The latter are hereditary
What about Lord Ashcroft or even Lord Lucan? The UK honours system is out-dated and lost touch with modern societal values in the UK. I have no issues with lollipop ladies, charity workers and those who clearly live their lives by good old fashioned Protestant work ethics receiving an honour. To give honours to corporation bosses, who are amply compensated already, is plainly wrong. It's often well after the fact that the consequences of their actions come to light.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the input.
ReplyDeleteI am not aware that Lord Ashcroft has ever been convicted of anything.
I think most people would agree that at the MBE/OBE level the honours system is reasonably okay - no offence intended - but it recognises the normal/little people. i.e. tot the so called Captains of Industry. It is at the Knighthood level and above that I think many see it as staring to go wrong. There is often more than a whiff of cronyism and payback for contributions and many times I feel that their 'services to the ? industry' is no more than having done their job, just like the person on the shop floor.
That said, there are also people that receive knighthoods and such having actually made a charitable difference to the country and they should be recognised.
I do find it highly ironic that the 'forfeiture committee' is comprised of Civil Servants who all seem to get 'gongs' just for doing the job for which they are very amply rewarded.