NOW HE IS ONCE MORE just plain Fred Goodwin. The politicians have yet again proven that there is no level at which they are not prepared to stoop to gain a few points in the weekly polls. David Cameron insists that the process of removing Mr Goodwin’s Knighthood was wholly proper and carried through without political pressure being put on the forfeiture committee.
This committee is made up of senior civil servants who sit in order to judge whether any recipient of an honour has behaved in such a manner that they are no longer a fit and proper person to continue to hold such an honour.
As I understand it, in the case of a Knighthood the recipient has to have committed a criminal act in order for it to be removed. If this is true; then, for all of Fred Goodwin’s many character flaws, one of them was never that of being found guilty of any crime (unlike some peers I will mention later).
Cameron’s insistence on his own neutrality in this tasteless and crude episode, would test the naivety of any village idiot. Of course the prime minister never introduced himself personally to the forfeiture committee, neither, for that matter, did any serving minister in the Coalition. What I suggest is a variation on, ‘who will rid me of this turbulent priest?’. There are plenty of rewards, as any member of such an honours committee know all too well; if the head of Goodwin could be delivered up to the current anti-banking mob, and in the process boost David Cameron’s poll ratings for another week…well then who knows? Those high ranking civil servants know how the game is played, and how unpopular Fred Goodwin is among the British people. If the overheard desire of Henry II followed a similar pattern by theses high ranking civil servants, then Fred was truly shredded.
The committee members knew there would be no inquiry into their decision, unless, that is, they had allowed him to keep his Knighthood; which, according to what I read, they had every incentive to do regarding the rules… but not, however, according to a politician’s displeasure. Which is another matter entirely for a civil servant – especially of the high ranking variety.
IN DOING, AS I BELIEVE this committee has done, by finessing a result favourable to politicians and the people, they have set a precedent for such excommunications in the future, based upon any distasteful, but legal forms of behaviour, which would be sufficient for further removals from the honours list. This would open a Pandora’s box, whereby any prime minister of any party, could effectively remove Knighthoods bestowed by their political opponents when they were in opposition.
By, as seems to be the case with Fred Goodwin, removing him from his Knighthood, through nothing more than a dislike for his personality, opens the way for similar treatment for the hundreds of other Knights of the Realm, many of whom may be in adulterous relationships, or, and this is popular at the moment, especially with Labour, a tax avoider.
What the forfeiture committee has done, is to equate Fred Goodwin with Anthony Blunt the spy, one of the few receivers of a Knighthood to have had it taken from them. No; there is politics at work in all of this; and in order to solicit a high poll rating that may only last a week; our political masters may have ruined a system of reward that has stood the test of time.
If anything that Fred Goodwin did that was illegal, I would have supported the forfeiture committee’s decision. I have no love for this man; he is all that his enemies accuse him of – but he is not a criminal!
Politicians, especially under the last government, courted Fred Goodwin. Between 2001-2009, he was RBS’ chief executive. He presided over RBS’s rapid rise to global importance, helping to create assets of £1.9 trillion, becoming the fifth largest bank by stock market value.
Then came a wrong decision that incurred the wrath that now surrounds him. If he had not been so arrogant on the way up, he would have had friends in high places on the way down, that would have helped him cling on to his Knighthood.
Being dislikeable, it seems, after the forfeiture committees latest pronouncement, is the new criteria for removing a honour.
IT IS STRANGE THAT, in comparison, a humble knight should have is honour taken from him for nothing more than being unpopular with politicians: but why should a peer (and more than one) be allowed back into the chamber of the House of Lords after being jailed?
Lord Taylor of Warwick was jailed over his expenses; his fellow peer Lord Hanningfield also received similar punishment. In both cases they had broken the law of the land and duly paid a penalty. But a penalty which fell short of relieving them of the peerages. All they received were suspensions from the Lords.
Of course these were not the only violators of the law in the Lords; but the point I am making is that the same rule regarding the retention of Knighthoods also applies to the House of Lords. In the cases of Taylor of Warwick and Lord Hanningfield, they have each served a sentence for criminal behaviour, but have nevertheless been allowed back onto the red benches after a period of suspension.
Is it little wonder that under Cameron’s watch, the whole system of honours may now become politicised. In this country the honours system has set the gold standard for all sorts of good causes. The system is supposed to represent the most beneficial contributions to this nation’s well being from the humblest recognition to the highest.
Now, with Goodwin’s removal of his Knighthood for purely political reasons, this government has corrupted the whole system of honours. From now on, the press will examine every contender for a Knighthood, because criminal behaviour is no longer the gold standard for removing any kind of honour.
No comments:
Post a Comment