Quote ="DaveO"That depends if you consider it simply a prize or something more which elects you to a kind of institution. I think it is the latter and that being a convicted of a serious criminal offence should put your membership of that institution in doubt regardless of why you got to join the club in the first place.'"
It's just an Honours list, no more, no less. It is of course an establishment award, and I'd agree that if you refuse to be or be seen as part of that establishment, then refuse.
I also don't dispute that being convicted of a serious criminal offence should bring your award into question, on the contrary, it is entirely reasonable that it should. Where we seem to differ is you seem to think Piggott should have expected to be automatically stripped of his OBE as he was jailed for a fair stretch, whereas I say that given his offence had nothing at all to do with what he was honoured for, they should have let him keep it.
The issue is simple and very clear cut, though. If you accept that the decision is discretionary, dependant on the facts of the case, then it becomes a simple and uncomplicated question:
=#FF0000Would Piggott retaining his OBE have brought the honours system into disrepute?
To my mind, the answer to this question is a very clear "no".
In the case of Goodwin, the exercse of that discretion seems perfectly clear. I don't know why the issue of "no conviction" even arose with him (and isn't he a lucky boy) but if he is not a man who has been "[icensured, struck off etc by the relevant professional or other regulatory authority for action or inaction which was directly relevant to the granting of the honours[/i" - then who is?
