PMs honours: who deserves one?

[Cyril Haearn]

The Grauniad is predictably sickened* by TMs honours list, apparently when she formed her regime she said her helpers would be lucky to get so much as a chocolate biscuit
Who should not, or should have been honored?
..
* just like times columnists who are usually angry, as noted elsewhere

[Ben@Forest]

Given the furore over Geoff Boycott l can't say l heard about any other recipients in May's honours.

Like him or loathe him l think Boycott made a good point about the inquisitorial legal system in France compared to the accusatorial system here. If the investigating magistrate found Boycott abrasive, difficult and misogynist his/her determining of the facts could have been skewed. And Boycott, for all his other qualities, is abrasive, difficult and misogynist; but he may have been innocent.

The inquisitorial system is sometimes said to produce fewer wrongful convictions, but from what I've read in cases of murder, rape, violence etc it is as likely to produce wrongful convictions as the accusatorial system.

[mercalia]

too many "honours" are given out. I read that she gave hours to her former advisers but claimed she vomited when Cameron did the same Question - if you met a Lord this or Duke that would you address them as such or as eg Charley NotWorthMoreThanMe-Bloggs? "HiYa Mrs Windsor how are your kids these days?" Would be interesting to see their reactions?

[Tangled Metal]

Met ms Windsor and mr Greek once at our school all those years ago. Trust me there's no royal etiquette among bright, independent grammar school kids. Blunt and very honest! That's despite intense teacher led crowd control attempts. Mind you the Duke was as good at the banter as anyone.

I guess the political honours are about a retirement perk. Afterall their jobs are linked with their bosses. One out, all out with less remuneration I guess. Don't condone it but can understand it. Plus get your guy into lords could help later on somehow.

Boycott? I remember at the time of his conviction I tended to believe he was guilty. I really don't agree that just because time fellows memory that we should give him the benefit if the doubt now when we probably didn't back when it happened.

As to honours, well Boycott was an outstanding player of cricket. If any sports people deserve honours, not sure success at your job alone is enough, then he qualifies imho. As to conviction 20+ years ago without any repeat offence, well I don't think that is a reason to void his honour. It's the rehabilitation of crime that is part of all good justice systems imho

[Mike Sales]

Boycott rather confirmed his unfitness by saying he did not "give a toss" about organisations working against domestic violence.

[Ben@Forest]

Sir Sean Connery possibly has previous too, he famously said that 'slapping a woman is no big deal', though 40 years later said he was misquoted. But one of his ex-wives alleged domestic violence too, of course that's not a conviction.

I don't remember any controversy about that when he was knighted though, l think it was more about (as usual) his non-dom status and occasional forays into Scottish politics.

[Psamathe]

Boycott rather confirmed his unfitness by saying he did not "give a toss" about organisations working against domestic violence.

I would completely agree. He was found guilty. They had a photo of his girlfriend after the beating and it was not a trivial attack. His attitude stank.

Ian

[Psamathe]

too many "honours" are given out. I read that she gave hours to her former advisers but claimed she vomited when Cameron did the same :roll:....

Which is yet another case showing how hypocritical our politicians are.

Nothing will change. The system is ludicrous. If you excel at cricket then the world of cricket will honour you; if you excel at being filthy rich then you have your own reward and you will have the envy of much of the rest of those queuing at food banks; etc. We don't need to keep appointing peole to some archaic system that has long lost purpose and use.

Are those given knighthoods proud of being in the company of Sir Jimmy or ex Sir Fred Goodwin, ex sir Anthony Blunt, ex (Sir) Robert Mugabe, ex (Sir) Nicolae Ceaucescu, ex (Sir) Benito Mussolini , etc.

And as I said above, honouring somebody convicted domestic abuse who "doesn't give a toss" shows what an offensive system it has become.

Ian

[Ben@Forest]

Boycott rather confirmed his unfitness by saying he did not "give a toss" about organisations working against domestic violence.

I would completely agree. He was found guilty. They had a photo of his girlfriend after the beating and it was not a trivial attack. His attitude stank.

Did he definitely say that? I was listening and got the impression he said that he didn't give a toss about the opinion of a woman who worked for a domestic violence charity. If so, that's a different thing. It's not pleasant but it's not the same as not giving a toss about domestic violence.

[Psamathe]

Boycott rather confirmed his unfitness by saying he did not "give a toss" about organisations working against domestic violence.

I would completely agree. He was found guilty. They had a photo of his girlfriend after the beating and it was not a trivial attack. His attitude stank.

Did he definitely say that? I was listening and got the impression he said that he didn't give a toss about the opinion of a woman who worked for a domestic violence charity. If so, that's a different thing. It's not pleasant but it's not the same as not giving a toss about domestic violence.

I heard the R4 interview and felt his "didn't give a toss" was referring to not "giving a toss" about what people thought and the contrary opinions at that time were from the charitable organisations so I interpreted him not giving a toss about what they thought.

He was found guilty and I felt his attitude completely stank.

Ian

[Mike Sales]

Boycott rather confirmed his unfitness by saying he did not "give a toss" about organisations working against domestic violence.

I would completely agree. He was found guilty. They had a photo of his girlfriend after the beating and it was not a trivial attack. His attitude stank.

Did he definitely say that? I was listening and got the impression he said that he didn't give a toss about the opinion of a woman who worked for a domestic violence charity. If so, that's a different thing. It's not pleasant but it's not the same as not giving a toss about domestic violence.

He was not attacked for saying he did not give a toss about domestic violence, as you will see if you reread. He was attacked for saying that he did not give a toss about the opinion of the chief executive of Womens' Aid.

[Ben@Forest]

Did he definitely say that? I was listening and got the impression he said that he didn't give a toss about the opinion of a woman who worked for a domestic violence charity. If so, that's a different thing. It's not pleasant but it's not the same as not giving a toss about domestic violence.

He was not attacked for saying he did not give a toss about domestic violence, as you will see if you reread. He was attacked for saying that he did not give a toss about the opinion of the chief executive of Womens' Aid.

So l heard it right. And that is different. He is entitled not to concur with her opinion on his knighthood. And as has been said if we believe in spent convictions and not reoffending then however unpleasant he may be that is not a disqualification for being enobled.

[Mike Sales]

So l heard it right. And that is different. He is entitled not to concur with her opinion on his knighthood. And as has been said if we believe in spent convictions and not reoffending then however unpleasant he may be that is not a disqualification for being enobled.

She disagreed with his ennobling because he has clearly not accepted his guilt. Indeed, he insists on his innocence.
Acceptance of guilt is a requirement for rehabilitation.

[Tangled Metal]

So l heard it right. And that is different. He is entitled not to concur with her opinion on his knighthood. And as has been said if we believe in spent convictions and not reoffending then however unpleasant he may be that is not a disqualification for being enobled.

She disagreed with his ennobling because he has clearly not accepted his guilt. Indeed, he insists on his innocence.
Acceptance of guilt is a requirement for rehabilitation.

Unfortunately there have been many cases where this is patently not the case. It is simply the reduction in the likelihood of a repeat offence that is needed. Boycott has not repeated the offence in 25 years so this aspect of rehabilitation has kind of succeeded don't you think?

[Mike Sales]

She disagreed with his ennobling because he has clearly not accepted his guilt. Indeed, he insists on his innocence.
Acceptance of guilt is a requirement for rehabilitation.

Unfortunately there have been many cases where this is patently not the case. It is simply the reduction in the likelihood of a repeat offence that is needed. Boycott has not repeated the offence in 25 years so this aspect of rehabilitation has kind of succeeded don't you think?

Examples? Have any of these impenitents been knighted?