Post Office scandal: Hero Alan Bates should refuse a ‘tainted’ honour

Published

2 years ago

January 14, 2024

admin

The TV drama series Mr Bates vs The Post Office has had such impact because it suddenly humanised a widespread miscarriage of justice which had been reported on with seemingly little public outcry for at least a decade.

Instead of dry court reports, documentaries and articles, millions of viewers could see, acted out, how the devastating and false charges of dishonesty destroyed the lives and livelihoods of the sub-postmasters and mistresses.

Hundreds of people were directly affected but the drama offered up a hero and a villain: Alan Bates, who has doggedly fought for his colleagues over two decades and Paula Vennells, chief executive of the Post Office from 2009 to 2019, when the abuses were at their worst.

Any drama needs lead characters but it is perhaps a uniquely British trait that popular reaction to the shocking revelations has concentrated on what titles they should and should not receive from the honours system.

Well over a million people signed a petition demanding that Ms Vennells should lose her CBE.

In the face of unbearable pressure, including from the prime minister, and facing an investigation by the Forfeiture Committee, she gave it up voluntarily last week.

A rather smaller number, in the tens of thousands, backed the “Honour Alan Bates” petition by the weekend.

But the pressure is on him in the other direction, to accept one.

Once again Downing Street weighed in saying it would be “common sense” he should be recognised.

Mr Bates previously turned down an OBE, a lower rank in the British Empire Order, so long as Ms Vennells had the higher Commander of the British Empire.

Now he says “if anyone chooses to offer me one, then come back and ask me”.

Honours – from the humble MBE, Member of the British Empire, all the way up to Knights and Dames – are in the sole gift of the monarch, known as the “Fount of Honour” in this context.

They are usually only awarded on the recommendation of the prime minister after various sub-committees have considered nominations and requests.

Since 1997, peerages conferring seats in the House of Lords for life have been formally separate from the system.

Apart from automatic appointments for some Church of England bishops and judges, they are political appointments in the gift of the prime minister and party leaders, even when those accepting peerages opt to be non-aligned.

These appointments are the greatest pieces of patronage open to the prime minister and the only honours with a potential cash value.

Peers get a vote in a law-making chamber and can claim a basic £342 for every day they attend parliament, plus some travel and accommodation expenses.

Honours are intended to give people recognition “for their valuable service and contribution, perhaps to charity, to the emergency services, or to their industry or profession”.

Some recipients or the organisations they work for eagerly seek nomination for awards.

John Major told a parliamentary committee that dealing with such requests was one of the most unpleasant aspects of being prime minister.

Others rule themselves out.

Those who have rejected honours include Rudyard Kipling, Graham Greene, David Bowie, Nigella Lawson, Jon Snow, LS Lowry, John Le Carré, Claire Tomalin, Michael Frayn, John Cole and David Dimbleby.

Reasons vary. Some, including French and Saunders, say they see no reason why they should be honoured for doing what they enjoy.

Others, especially journalists, have qualms about being rewarded by the establishment they are supposed to be holding to account.

The author Graham Greene, like some others of the most distinguished in British society, held out until tempted by the most exclusive honours.

Greene accepted membership of the orders in the gift of the monarch alone: the Companionship of Honour (65 members) and the Order of Merit (25 members).

Honours lists have increasingly become celebrity hit parades, sprinkled with actors, pop stars, and TV personalities for the amusement of the masses.

The system and the recipients have also been embarrassed by subsequent revelations – as the Conservative Baroness Michelle Mone is discovering.

It is hit and miss whether those caught up in controversy lose their honours – unless, like Ms Vennells, they surrender them.

Most at risk are pillars of their profession who are subsequently disbarred or businesspeople caught up in financial scandal.

Lord Kagan and Jack Lyons had their knighthoods “annulled”. So did Fred “the Shred” Goodwin of RBS and James Crosby of HBOS, at his request, after the credit crunch.

But, in spite of a vote to remove it by MPs, it seems that, technically, Sir Philip Green of the Arcadia group still holds his.

Honours expire with death so it remains moot whether the late Sir Jimmy Savile has been de-knighted.

Until 2014, it was impossible to kick out members of the House of Lords. A reform act now means that they can be expelled if they receive a prison sentence of a year or more. It is also permitted to resign altogether from the Lords, although this is not the same as taking “leave of absence”, as Lady Mone is now doing.

Most countries have honours systems such as France’s Legion D’Honneur and the congressional and presidential medals of honour in the US.

The difficulty with the British system is that it is so extensive and contains so many different gradations.

In his evidence to MPs, Graham Smith of the Republic Campaign argued: “Rather than simply recognising people, you are elevating them and implying there is a structure within society in which some people have a higher status than others.

“I do not think that is appropriate in a democratic society where we are all supposed to be recognised as equal citizens with political equality, if not other forms of equality.”

Politicians and judges who are still serving are banned from receiving the Order of Canada. But British honours are also dished out by political leaders to others who are still politically active; in the case of Lords, until they die.

Tony Blair and Gordon Brown chose not to have a resignation honours list. David Cameron revived the practice and put 15 aides into the House of Lords.

Click to subscribe to the Sky News Daily wherever you get your podcasts

Boris Johnson got to install 30-year-old Charlotte Owens and 31-year-old Ross Kempsell into the upper chamber for life. Even Liz Truss, prime minister for 49 days, made her own appointments.

It is well established that major donors to political parties buy themselves a golden ticket to elevation. To those who say the UK is not as corrupt as other countries, my reply is: “What about the Lords?”

Defenders of the UK system say it is valuable because of the hundreds of unsung heroes and heroines who receive recognition. They tend to get the lower honours, while the top gongs – CBEs, peerages etc – go to the already powerful. They are receiving crumbs from a tainted table.

Alan Bates deserves all the respect and praise we can give him, for his defiance of corporate, judicial and political indifference, his decency and his honourable determination to clear the name of so many and obtain compensation for them. My advice to the people’s hero, however, is do not “Arise Sir Alan”.

UK

Starmer and Reeves ditch plans to raise income tax in budget

Published

12 hours ago

November 13, 2025

admin

Starmer and Reeves ditch plans to raise income tax in budget

Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have scrapped plans to break their manifesto pledge and raise income tax rates in a massive U-turn less than two weeks from the budget.

The decision, first reported in the Financial Times, comes after a bruising few days which has brought about a change of heart in Downing Street.

I understand Downing Street has backed down amid fears about the backlash from disgruntled MPs and voters.

The Treasury and Number 10 declined to comment.

The decision is a massive about-turn. In a news conference last week, the chancellor appeared to pave the way for manifesto-breaking tax rises in the budget on 26 November.

She spoke of difficult choices and insisted she could neither increase borrowing nor cut spending in order to stabilise the economy, telling the public “everyone has to play their part”.

The decision to backtrack was communicated to the Office for Budget Responsibility on Wednesday in a submission of “major measures”, according to the Financial Times.

Tory shadow business secretary Andrew Griffith said: “We’ve had the longest ever run-up to a budget, damaging the economy with uncertainty, and yet – with just days to go – it is clear there is chaos in No 10 and No 11.”

This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.

Please refresh the page for the fullest version.

You can receive Breaking News alerts on a smartphone or tablet via the Sky News App. You can also follow @SkyNews on X or subscribe to our YouTube channel to keep up with the latest news.

UK

Economy grew by 0.1% in third quarter, official figures show

Published

23 hours ago

November 13, 2025

admin

Economy grew by 0.1% in third quarter, official figures show

The UK’s economic slowdown gathered further momentum during the third quarter of the year with growth of just 0.1%, according to an early official estimate that makes horrific reading for the chancellor.

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) reported a surprise contraction for economic output during September of -0.1% – with some of the downwards pressure being applied by the cyber attack disruption to production at Jaguar Land Rover.

The figures for July-September followed on the back of a 0.3% growth performance over the previous three months and the 0.7% expansion achieved between January and March.

Money latest: The £110 benefit 1.1 million older Britons don’t claim

The encouraging start to 2025 was soon followed by the worst of Donald Trump’s trade war salvoes and the implementation of budget measures that placed employers on the hook for £25bn of extra taxes.

Economists have blamed those factors since for pushing up inflation and harming investment and employment.

ONS director of economic statistics, Liz McKeown, said: “Growth slowed further in the third quarter of the year with both services and construction weaker than in the previous period. There was also a further contraction in production.

“Across the quarter as a whole, manufacturing drove the weakness in production. There was a particularly marked fall in car production in September, reflecting the impact of a cyber incident, as well as a decline in the often-erratic pharmaceutical industry.

“Services were the main contributor to growth in the latest quarter, with business rental and leasing, live events and retail performing well, partially offset by falls in R&D [research and development] and hair and beauty salons.”

When measured by per head of population- a preferred measure of living standards – zero growth was registered during the third quarter.

The weaker-than-expected figures will add fuel to expectations that the Bank of England can cut interest rates at its December meeting after November’s hold.

The vast majority of financial market participants now expect a reduction to 3.75% from 4% on 18 December.

Data earlier this week showed the UK’s unemployment rate at 5% – up from 4.1% when Labour came to power with a number one priority of growing the economy.

Since then, the government’s handling of the economy has centred on its stewardship of the public finances.

The chancellor was accused by business groups of harming private sector investment and employment through hikes to minimum wage levels and employer national insurance contributions.

The Bank has backed the assertion that hiring and staff retention has been hit as a result of those extra costs.

There is also evidence that rising employment costs have been passed on to consumers and contributed to the UK’s stubbornly high rate of inflation of 3.8% – a figure that is now expected to ease considerably in the coming months.

Rachel Reeves has blamed other factors – such as Brexit and the US trade war – for weighing on the economy, leaving her facing a similar black hole to the one she says she inherited from the Conservatives.

Her second budget is due on 26 November.

She said of the latest economic data: “We had the fastest-growing economy in the G7 in the first half of the year, but there’s more to do to build an economy that works for working people.

“At my budget later this month, I will take the fair decisions to build a strong economy that helps us to continue to cut waiting lists, cut the national debt and cut the cost of living.”

Shadow chancellor Sir Mel Stride responded: “Today’s ONS figures show the economy shrank in the latest month, under a Prime Minister and Chancellor who are in office but not in power.”

UK

Scottish government yet to pay up after losing legal battle over definition of a woman

Published

23 hours ago

November 13, 2025

admin

Scottish government yet to pay up after losing legal battle over definition of a woman

The Scottish government and For Women Scotland’s long-running legal battle over the definition of a woman is yet to come to a close.

For Women Scotland (FWS) won the case in April when the country’s highest court ruled “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refers to “a biological woman and biological sex”.

The Scottish government was ordered to pay a portion of the campaign group’s legal costs.

FWS told Sky News the bill of costs for the Supreme Court element of the case was more than £270,000, however various parts have reportedly been disputed by the Scottish government.

That has now been submitted to the court for determination and a decision is awaited.

The Outer and Inner House element of the case at the Court of Session in Edinburgh was said to be more than £150,000.

Trina Budge, co-director of FWS, said the group is also due an uplift – a small percentage of the final expenses awarded.

Ms Budge claimed Scottish ministers are yet to enter into any negotiations on settlement and a date has been set in January for a hearing before the Auditor of the Court of Session to confirm the amount the government will have to pay.

Ms Budge said: “The delay always suits the paying party but I think it’s quite unusual to decline to enter into any discussions at all.

“It’s highly likely this is a deliberate tactic in the hope of starving us of funds to prevent us continuing our latest case on the lawfulness of housing male prisoners on the female estate.

“However, it should come as no surprise to the government that we have massive support and we will, of course, be continuing regardless of any sharp practices.”

It is understood the bill of costs for the Supreme Court case was lodged by FWS in August, while the expenses linked to the Court of Session action was submitted in September.

Figures revealed by a recent Freedom of Information (FOI) request show the Scottish government has spent at least £374,000 on the case.

Final costs are yet to be confirmed but will be published once complete.

A Scottish government spokesperson said: “There is an established process to be undertaken to agree the final costs for a legal case and these will be calculated and published in due course.”

In August, FWS lodged fresh action at the Court of Session.

The group claimed Holyrood’s guidance on transgender pupils in schools and the Scottish Prison Service’s (SPS) policy on the management of transgender people in custody were both in “clear breach of the law” and “inconsistent” with the Supreme Court judgment.

The following month, the Scottish government issued updated guidance which said schools across the nation must provide separate toilets for boys and girls on the basis of biological sex.

If possible, schools can also provide gender neutral toilets for transgender students.

However, court proceedings continue over transgender prisoners.

Current SPS guidance allows for a transgender woman to be admitted into the female estate if the inmate does not meet the violence against women and girls criteria, and there is no other basis “to suppose” they could pose an “unacceptable risk of harm” to those also housed there.

First Minister John Swinney and Justice Secretary Angela Constance have both dodged questions on the case, citing it would be inappropriate to comment on live court proceedings.

On Tuesday, Ms Constance was accused by former Scottish Tory leader Douglas Ross of “misleading” Holyrood, saying she could give full answers under contempt of court legislation.

Scottish Tory MSP Tess White, the party’s equalities spokesperson, added she was “spine-chillingly concerned” of a repeat of the Isla Bryson case.

Bryson, a transgender woman born Adam Graham, was initially sent to a women-only prison despite being convicted of raping two women.

The offender was later transferred to the male estate following a public outcry.

Speaking to Sky News, Ms White said: “John Swinney was quick to waste taxpayers’ money fighting a case which confirmed what the vast majority of the public knew beforehand: a woman is an adult human female.”

The MSP for North East Scotland urged the SNP administration to “pay up and finally respect the clear judgment from the Supreme Court”.

A Scottish government spokesperson said: “It is the Scottish government’s long-held position that it is inappropriate for Scottish ministers to comment on live litigation.

“In all cases, we have an obligation to uphold the independence of the judiciary. We do not want the government to ever be seen as interfering in the work of the independent courts.”