... and given his current travails in the Upper House, start bashing the bishops?

~s~

No people are just pointing out it is a smokescreen and a bit of tokenism when what really needs to happen is a reform of the bonus system which is why Milliband is right to say that Goodwin being stripped of his Knighthood should only be the start of what gets done.

I certainly do not feel sorry for him losing his Knighhood and it may well be right and proper he has done but by the same token its about time we removed honours from others as a matter of course not let them keep them when they have been sent to prison for perjury as Archer was for example.

So if at the end of the day Goodwin being removed of his Knightood signals the start of something whereby other Knights and Peers are liable to lose their titles then all well and good however it is far, far more important that there is real reform of the bonus culture and that bankers are weaned off it.

It remains to be seen if the PM thinks it all stops here or does as Labour wants and institutes real reform of the bonus system. Given he didn't want to intervene in Hester's bonus and doesn't want to interfere with other RBS exec's upcoming bonuses I think the chances of Cameron acting are close to zero.

But where does this all stop??....Somebody gets an award for being successful, then as it taken away when things go awry?

As far as I'm aware, Goodwin isn't a criminal, so I'm thinking he has had his title removed for being a failure?....With this in mind, what about the England Ashes winning side of 2005 who all got honours for their acheivement?....18 months later, they got humiliated 5-0 in Oz....Surely, using this latest policy, all those honours should be taken back?

Its a joke (a lot like the whole Honours system)......Politicians once more pandering to media hysteria....I thought after the whole News International thing, politics was, once and for all, going to do its own thing and not be influenced by barmy tabloid headline-makers?

Do you think it will reduce his 'employability' within the shark pool, FFS he is a hero to these 'b'ankers.

Somebody asked me if I had been affected by or new anyone affected by the Brinks Mat robbery, to which I said 'no', they then said 'I bet you know loads affected by the bankers greed'

His argument was, Fred and his cronies were worse than criminal robbers as their actions have cause untold suffering, all for personal greed.

Hard to disagree, but I wouldn't advise anyone to take up robbery.

Things went more than awry. He almost single handedly caused the UK part of the global banking crisis requiring a £45bn bail out for his bank.



The analogy is not applicable and I think you know that really. As to criminal charges for Fred, why not? Directors are as far as I know liable for prosecution for various reasons to do with mismanaging their business. For example if you continue to run a business knowing it is unsustainable financially you can be prosecuted. He basically got off scot free for what he did and while I do think this is tokenism and politically motived to deflect from the real issues I can't say he didn't deserve to lose his Knighthood. Quite a few other people should have been stripped of titles as well which is another reason why this has been mishandled.

[url=http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-why-should-we-stop-with-fred-goodwin-6297577.htmlForm an orderly queue please[/url

I disagree. One perfect example is the legendary Lester Piggott. His tax related conviction was absolutely nothing to do with the reasons he was given an OBE, he was the greatest jockey there had ever been, he gave untold pleasure and won not a few bob for millions, and was a hero of the working classes amongst others. The fact that he was then prosecuted for tax matters had no bearing on, nor did it in any way detract from, his unbelievable and legendary achievements. It was therefore totally wrong and out of order to strip him of the poxy OBE (?) which was in any event hardly much recognition for his lifetime achievements.

In Goodwin's case he was knighted on the basis he was doing a great job, when in fact he was almost bringing down the economy. One at least comparable scenario would be if Piggott had for example been proved to have won every race while on drugs, then yes strip him of his award, but not in these circumstances.

Also, Sir Lester did bird for his tax offences. What penalty has Shred suffered?

The fact you can be brilliant at one thing and so that should be ignored if you then go on to become a convicted criminal is not right IMO. Do you think if he had gone to prison [ibefore[/i he was honoured he would still have been honoured? I certainly don't. Likewise Archer would not have been ennobled if he had been convicted for perjury beforehand. When you become a Knight or are honoured it may well be for a specific thing but that should not mean you can then go an break the law without fear of losing your title. It should be par for the course that serious breaches of the law should put your title or honour at risk. I think it is perverse to do otherwise but unfortunately we do, which is why I can see where A Darling is coming from when he says Fred losing his Knighthood is tawdry and it is politically motivated.



I don't agree. You should not be expected to keep a title no matter what it was given to you for if you go on to be a convicted criminal.



I think Shred and other bankers responsible for the banking crash should face prosecution. It has been treated from their point of view as if they were just the ones running any old business that unfortunately went bust when in fact the the consequences of their actions are greater than just about any bit of organised crime I can think of bar drugs. People have lost jobs, are having money taken off them in the form of higher taxes, support for vulnerable people is being screwed over and so on. All because of this idiot and his ilk. However the fact we just let them move on and in Fred's case even gave him a £350K a year pension does not, in my opinion, mean he should not be stripped of his title.

My issue with all this is that I reckon that is all that is going to happen.

The honours system is riddled with hypocrisy anyway.
Many of the so-called great and good go through life feathering their own nests and satisfying their own egos and then get a knighthood or peerage for it, providing they have supported the right party with a judicious donation here and there.

Meanwhile, people who have devoted their lives to making things better for others get tossed into the hat for a random and token OBE.

It certainly serves its purpose, which is to reinforce the establishment link between cash and authority.

He wouldn't have been, but I don't see why he shouldn't have been. But it's beside the point. he had paid the price and been punished for his offence, Why should he be further punished by having his OBE, for achievements totally unrelated to his offending, taken off him?


I would agree, but whereas Archer has a title, Piggott has not. He received a prize, if you like, for what he'd done, and I really don't see why he deserves to have the honour withdrawn. I mean, why not strip him of his Derby wins, then? They are no more relevant, and a damn sight more prestigious than some OBE.


Again, I agree.


I entirely agree, but his case is quite different, it would be absurd for him to retain a knighthood for services to banking; in the same way as it would be absurd for Piggott to retain a knighthood for services to Revenue collection.

I love LS Lowry's work.

But I love him even more as a man when I found out the other week that he had turned down the Queens Honours list FIVE TIMES in his lifetime, an OBE, CBE, a Knighthood, and twice turned down a Companion of Honour.

I bet that Betty doesn't have any of his paintings on her wall, I bet she's got a twitch when you mention his name as well.

Is there any rule or even law that prevents an honours recipient from flogging his little badge on eBay?

Don't think so, there seem to be several medal dealers that have all sorts of stock, and I'm sure I've heard of VC's going for many tens of thousands of squids at auction.

But if you buy one, I don't think it really counts

That CBE is going back to Oxfam then...

Not sure the law still applies but in my reading about the Plantagenets and Tudors, monarchs were quite fond of "Attainder", whereby they could strip a title and/or lands and/or property from someone guilty of a crime that "tainted" that title (it was usually treason but not exclusively so) and give it to someone else (or keep it).

We still have a monarch ... so come on Brenda, shift yerself ...

That's what you call style.
Five times ... but still they thought they could tempt him, eh?

In fairness though it was never suggested Lowry had anything against the honours system or the awards in principle. The only thing I can find is an explanation attributed by his "friend and fellow artist Harold Riley":


[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-16737374BBC article[/url

I was thinking more along the lines of receiving one (in absentia of course) and then doing a "Senior"

Yes, he's always been quoted as saying that "he didn't want to change his position", not that he said that publically of course, the list of those who have refused honours (and who are now dead) was only released a few weeks ago after a Freedom of Information request [urlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/jan/26/roald-dahl-cs-lewis-writers-refused-honours[/url

1955, 1961, 1968, 1972, 1976



I just like the idea of The Queen sitting there trying to up the stakes each time, "Well the little turd wouldn't have an OBE, or a CBE, bung him a knighthood this time, I bet the little s[ihi[/it won't turn that down..."

And then trying twice with a Companion of Honour

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?