Re: Sir Fred Goodwin : Thu Feb 02, 2012 5:01 pm  

Chris28 wrote:

I seem to recall from my time at the Home Office that stripping a Lord of the title is much more difficult than just having a Forfeiture Committee meeting though

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 ...

Re: Sir Fred Goodwin : Thu Feb 02, 2012 5:05 pm  

McLaren_Field wrote:

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.

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

Re: Sir Fred Goodwin : Thu Feb 02, 2012 5:53 pm  

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": ... explained the painter did not have “anything against the system”. He said: “He indicated he didn’t wish to change his situation by something being latched on to him.” Speaking after the list was revealed Riley said Lowry was a “very private person” and may have wanted to protect his privacy. BBC article

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": ... explained the painter did not have “anything against the system”. He said: “He indicated he didn’t wish to change his situation by something being latched on to him.” Speaking after the list was revealed Riley said Lowry was a “very private person” and may have wanted to protect his privacy. BBC article

Re: Sir Fred Goodwin : Thu Feb 02, 2012 6:08 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

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

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

Re: Sir Fred Goodwin : Thu Feb 02, 2012 7:12 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: 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": BBC article 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 http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/jan/26/roald-dahl-cs-lewis-writers-refused-honours

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: 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": BBC article 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 http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/jan/26/roald-dahl-cs-lewis-writers-refused-honours

Re: Sir Fred Goodwin : Thu Feb 02, 2012 7:15 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

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

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 shit won't turn that down..."

And then trying twice with a Companion of Honour

[DaveO]

Re: Sir Fred Goodwin : Fri Feb 03, 2012 10:25 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

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.

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.

Re: Sir Fred Goodwin : Fri Feb 03, 2012 11:52 am  

DaveO wrote:

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: Would 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 "censured, 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" - then who is?