Still no Sir Bruce Forsyth ?

I am sure I am not alone in wondering why Bruce Forsyth was not awarded a Knighthood today for his services to comedy, TV and light entertainment ?

But well done to all those who did receive an honour today. Particularly to Chris Hoy who deservedly receives a Knighthood for winning four gold medals at two separate Olympics. I rather felt that Kelly Holmes was rather prematurely awarded her equal honour four years ago in some undue haste and potentially created a problem for future honours lists whereby anyone else receiving two gold medals might equally expect to be made a Knight or a Dame. Bradley Wiggins, a winner of three gold medals in two Olympic games might rightly feel a little put out that he has been treated unequally compared to Dame Kelly.

But I rather like the honours system. It does allow is to reward and revere those worth of our thanks and praise. Well done to all of them.

Why ever was Mugabe given a Knighthood by the Tories in the first place ?

I was pleased to see the government had asked the Queen to revoke Robert Mugabe's Knighthood today, but it begs the question as to why the Tories ever thought it was a good idea in the first place.

Mugabe was given the honour in 1994 thanks to John Major's government. Now if Mugabe has been some sort of saint up until 1994 and had only turned bad in the last 14 years, you could accept it, but Mugabe's henchmen had been committing atrocities for some time by 1994 yet he was still rewarded with a knighthood.

Apparently the then Tory government did not consider that the murder by Mugabe's henchmen of more than 2000 (and possibly up to 10,000) opposition activists and supporters was enough of a reason to prevent him being given honours by the Queen ?

Its so odd that our leaders felt that appeasing a tyrrant and a murderer would make him change his ways.

More criticism of Cameron highlights further issues for the Conservatives

Ali Miraj, a one time Tory candidate who, if I am correct, took the Tories from second to third in Watford, has criticised David Cameron for being all about PR and lacking substance. This isn't new in itself as so many Tories have criticised David Cameron in recent days that the list is turning in to a telephone directory. However, David Cameron's response was interesting.

"Call me Dave" claimed in response that Mr Miraj had asked, just a few hours earlier, for a peerage. Presumably David Cameron's response to Mr Miraj had been a negative one and this is the picture Cameron's team are trying to paint of Mr Miraj.

It might be a correct picture to paint. but, it asks questions of the Conservative Party that it appears that members, confidantes and aides of Mr Cameron feel it is possible to ask or request a peerage. Whilst it might not be on the scale of "cash for honours", the "support for honours" system seems to be working fine in the Tory Party. I thought the Conservatives were all about meritocracy, and perhaps Cameron's refusal to grant Mr Miraj an honour is a sign of this. But the Conservatives have got to stamp out any idea that by lending support or making massive donations (did anyone mention Lord Ashcroft ?) you will get a peerage.

If such a system did not exist, would Ali Miraj have asked ?

Lord Black, Lord Archer, how many other crooks have the Tories given honours to ?

Lord Black, found guilty today. Lord Archer, found guilty some years ago. Both, as I recall, given peerages by the Tories. Both convicted crooks, both have been or would be allowed to keep their honours.

Are there any other crooks the Conservative Party have given honours to aside from Jeffrey Archer and Conrad Black ?

Was Salman Rushdie really the correct choice for a Knighthood ? What about Bernard Manning ?

Should we let people in other countries dictate what we do in the UK ? Of course not. So in that case, why not give Salman Rushdie a knighthood ?

.
There is though an alternative point of view. Rightly or wrongly, many Muslims are very upset at the perceived sleight on Islam that Salman Rushdie has perpetrated via his book "The Satanic Verses". I am assured by people who have read it that it is neither blasphemous or unduly nasty about Islam, but that is neither here nor there. The point is that Salman Rushdie is seen by Muslims as an emblem of western disdain for Islam.

.

Whatever Salman Rushdie's literary talents, which I personally have never found to be outstanding, his name wasn't crying out for a Knighthood. There are other authors who are much more revered and respected who have not been awarded such honours, so it was hardly a question of it looking odd or out of place that Salman Rushdie hadn't got one either. So why was it so important to award him a knighthood now ?

.

Given the comments from Iran and Pakistan, it seems like we are waving a red rag at a bull. When we talk of doing everything we can to deter terrorists, arguably Rushdie's honour will work as a rallying cry for those who wish to see harm come to Great Britain. Is it really helping the war on terror ? We cannot and we should not be seen to bow to the pressure from Iran and Pakistan over this and he must now keep this honour, but it does raise questions about Rushdie as a person.

.

It just seems odd that Rushdie, who appears to have become largely free to live his life again after so many years under police protection, would wish to make himself such a big target yet again. The comment from the Pakistani Minister who said, not in so many words, that Rushdie had "everything that was coming to him", might hold some water in some quarters. His words cannot be condoned by any rational person, but you can see where he is coming from.

.

There will be an outcry from people saying that Rushdie had the right to say what he wants, it is his right to do so and if people take offence rightly or wrongly then it there fault and a few words never hurt anyone. We could equally say the same about Bernard Manning who died today. I didn't see anyone urging a Knighthood for him though.

P.S. I know Dizzy disagrees with my sentiments, but he writes well on the subject HERE. 23:25

P.P.S. It appears that Iain Dale doesn't rate Rushdie as an author either. 23:28

Lord Adonis - Ignorance, ignorance, ignorance

On the subject of bringing in compulsory language teaching for children from the age of seven showed just how ignorant he is for a minister of education on BBC Radio Five Live at teatime.

I'm in favour of the policy (I already teach French to year sevens), but have real concerns about how this extra lesson will be fitted in to the timetable. We are only able to teach it to year sevens because there is more flexibility in Key Stage Three.

Anyway, he was asked how it would be fitted in to the timetable, and his reply was that "70% of Primary Schools already teach some languages so if they can do it, so can the other schools"

What Lord Adonis didn't acknowledge was that 70% of schools teach languages, but to only one year group, and usually in year 6 only with a real "push" on the subject after the SAT's have been completed. It is not true to say, or imply as he did, that 70% of Primary school children are taught languages.

How did he get his Peerage ? Wast he a large donor to the Labour Party ?

P.S. I am told he is a crony, not a particularly large donor. He jumped ship in 1995 from the Lib Dems to Labour. I guess his peerage is his 20 pieces of silver.

Handwritten note links Blair to cash for honours ?

At least one of the Sunday papers are running a story that the Metropolitan Police have found a hand written note from Tony Blair directly linking the Prime Minister to the cash for honours probe, so says BBC News 24. Read the Sunday Telegraph story HERE.

All this whilst the Independent reports that the Electoral Commission are recommending that the Labour Party should be taken to court for other breaches of the law.

If this is true then Tony Blair and the Labour Party are in real trouble. We could see an absolute meltdown in this year's local elections and the Welsh and Scottish elections too.

New Year's honours - Arbitrary and unfair ?

So the New Year's honours list has been published. I guess Rod Stewart deserves one for his success and it's amusing to think that Zara Phillips will get an award too. However, something irks me about the people's awards.

Don't get me wrong, I think they are a good idea in principle, but they do seem somewhat arbitrary. I remember the clerk to Horsford Parish Council in Horsford serving as clerk for seventy years. Every year they parish council put his name forward as a tribute to his unswerving work for the community over decades, yet he never got an award and died three years ago. I thought this was a shame as seventy years of service doing the same job is so very rare. Yet I know of people who have got them for simply doing their job, be it being a dinner lady, a man collecting car park money or a head teacher.

Again, I am not wanting to demean those worthwhile jobs. Indeed, we'd be lost without them, but I want to see honours going to people who have done something extra-ordinary. Won medals, saved lives, made history, won awards, basically, I don't expect one myself for teaching, so am a little concerned when I see headteachers and getting them.

It is perhaps a measure of the society we live in that everyone has to have an award. The problem is for me, I want to see awards based on the extra-ordinary. I want to see people rewarded for doing something that I couldn't do and not getting one arbitrarily, subjectively on the basis of "well, he tries hard" !