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

Published

1 year 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

EU still suffering ‘wounds of Brexit’, bloc’s foreign affairs chief tells Sky News

Published

2 hours ago

May 20, 2025

admin

EU still suffering 'wounds of Brexit', bloc's foreign affairs chief tells Sky News

Britain should have access to the EU’s rearmament fund before the end of the year but “wounds of Brexit” mean some member states want it to be limited, the bloc’s foreign affairs chief has said.

Kaja Kallas told Sky News’ political editor Beth Rigby that the “technical details” of Security Action for Europe (SAFE) still need to be sorted out.

SAFE is a €150bn (£126bn) fund to provide loans to EU nations and other participants to bolster their defences.

Politics Live: Starmer says EU deal ‘win-win’

As part of Sir Keir Starmer’s new reset deal with the EU, a new defence partnership was struck that will allow the UK to access it.

Asked when this might be, Ms Kallas said: “The SAFE instrument has just been finalised between the institutions but it also needs approval from the European Council. And when that is done, we also move on with the implementation of that, and that is in the coming months.”

Asked about reports that some member states think there should be a limit on what the UK can access, she said: “ Of course these discussions are there. We have the wounds from Brexit very clearly.

“I mean you wanted to exit the European Union and then there are many voices who say that you shouldn’t have the same benefits from the European instruments that the European Union countries have.”

According to The Times, France is pushing to freeze the UK out of 85% of the fund.

Asked if Britain’s access should be higher, Ms Kallas said her personal view is that given the current climate “we should do both. We should invest more in European industry. But we should also cooperate with our outside partners like the UK”.

She added that the EU hasn’t had discussions in terms of percentage, because the fund is “down to the capabilities”.

“That is, I think, more important than numbers,” she said.

The UK government has said accessing SAFE will support thousands of British jobs.

Defence was one of the many areas that has been agreed as part of the new UK and the EU trade deal struck by Sir Keir Starmer – five years after Brexit kicked in.

A key part of the deal involves giving European fishing boats a further 12 years of access to British waters.

In return, there will be increased access to EU eGates for British passport holders in Europe, no health certificates every time pets travel to Europe and the removal of red tape from most UK food and drink imports and exports.

UK

‘I recognise the error and upset caused’ – Gary Lineker releases statement as BBC departure confirmed

Published

14 hours ago

May 19, 2025

admin

'I recognise the error and upset caused' - Gary Lineker releases statement as BBC departure confirmed

Gary Lineker has confirmed reports he is leaving the BBC after this season’s Match Of The Day and will no longer present its World Cup coverage.

It comes after the 64-year-old “apologised unreservedly” for sharing a social media post illustrated with a rat – which has been used to represent Jewish people in antisemitic propaganda, including Nazi Germany.

In a statement on Monday, Lineker said: “Football has been at the heart of my life for as long as I can remember – both on the pitch and in the studio.

“I care deeply about the game, and about the work I’ve done with the BBC over many years. As I’ve said, I would never consciously repost anything antisemitic – it goes against everything I stand for.

“However, I recognise the error and upset that I caused, and reiterate how sorry I am. Stepping back now feels like the responsible course of action.”

Lineker said he deleted the post when he learned about the rat’s symbolism, adding that he would “never knowingly share anything antisemitic”.

In a video posted to Instagram, the pundit added: “I’ve stood up for minorities and humanitarian issues and against all forms of racism all of my life, including, of course, antisemitism, which I absolutely abhor.

“There’s no place for it and never should be.”

He went on to thank the “brilliant, talented” people he has worked with and described his relationship with the BBC as “long and wonderful”.

He added: “But it’s the right time for the organisation and myself to go our separate ways.”

Lineker’s last appearance on the BBC will be on Sunday 25 May, the final day of the season.

What are the BBC guidelines on impartiality?

Gary Lineker signed a five-year deal with the BBC in 2020, under which he agreed to adhere to their impartiality rules.

The rules were then updated after his return to Match Of The Day in 2023.

The latest regulations say high-profile BBC presenters should be able to express their views on political issues as long as they stop short of campaigning.

It does not clarify what would constitute political campaigning for the big-name presenters.

The guidelines also stress the importance of “high standards of civility in public discourse”, which includes treating others with respect, even in the face of abuse and not using offensive or aggressive language.

The policy only applies to presenters outside of its news coverage. News presenters are still subject to stricter impartiality guidelines.

‘A defining voice in football coverage’

Also confirming Lineker’s exit, BBC director general Tim Davie said: “Gary has acknowledged the mistake he made. Accordingly, we have agreed he will step back from further presenting after this season.

“Gary has been a defining voice in football coverage for the BBC for over two decades. His passion and knowledge have shaped our sports journalism and earned him the respect of sports fans across the UK and beyond.

“We want to thank him for the contribution he has made.”

The former England star announced in November he would step down from Match Of The Day this year, but was set to return to front the World Cup in 2026, as well as FA Cup coverage.

The presenter was temporarily suspended from the BBC in March 2023 after an impartiality row over comments he made criticising the then Conservative government’s asylum policy.

He will be replaced on Match Of The Day by Gabby Logan, Kelly Cates and Mark Chapman, who will share the presenting role from the next Premier League season.

Lineker has hosted Match Of The Day since 1999 and has been the BBC’s highest-paid on-air talent for seven consecutive years.

He is also the co-founder of podcast producing company Goalhanger, which makes the popular The Rest Is History series and its spin-offs about politics, football, entertainment and money.

Lineker parting ways with the BBC also includes the licensing deal for Goalhanger podcast titles on BBC Sounds which ends this year, the PA news agency reported.

UK

‘Significant’ personal data exposed in cyber attack on Legal Aid Agency

Published

14 hours ago

May 19, 2025

admin

'Significant' personal data exposed in cyber attack on Legal Aid Agency

A “significant amount of personal data” of people who applied to the Legal Aid Agency – including criminal records – was accessed and downloaded by hackers, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has said.

The group that carried out the cyber attack says it accessed 2.1 million pieces of data, but the MoJ has not verified that figure, it is understood.

The government became aware of the incident on 23 April, but realised on Friday it was more extensive than first thought.

An MoJ source put the breach down to the “neglect and mismanagement” of the previous government, saying vulnerabilities in the Legal Aid Agency systems have been known for many years.

The Legal Aid Agency (LAA), is an executive agency, sponsored by the MoJ, which is responsible for administering legal aid funding – around £2.3bn in 2023/24.

The data accessed affected those who applied for legal aid in the last 15 years, and may include contact details and addresses of legal aid applicants, their dates of birth, national insurance numbers, criminal history, employment status and financial data such as contribution amounts, debts and payments.

The MoJ has urged anyone who applied for legal aid since 2010 to update any passwords that could have been exposed, and be alert to unknown messages and phone calls.

The organisation’s digital services, which are used by legal aid providers to log their work and get paid, have been taken offline.

‘We needed to take radical action’

Legal Aid Agency chief executive Jane Harbottle has apologised for the breach and acknowledged the news would be “shocking and upsetting”.

“Since the discovery of the attack, my team has been working around the clock with the National Cyber Security Centre to bolster the security of our systems so we can safely continue the vital work of the agency,” she said.

“However, it has become clear that, to safeguard the service and its users, we needed to take radical action. That is why we’ve taken the decision to take the online service down,” she said.

Ms Harbottle said contingency plans are in place for those who need legal support and advice.

The Law Society, an organisation representing solicitors across the UK, blamed the attack on Legal Aid’s “antiquated IT system”.

“The incident once again demonstrates the need for sustained investment to bring the LAA’s antiquated IT system up to date and ensure the public have continued trust in the justice system,” said a Law Society spokesperson.

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) said it is working with the National Crime Agency and National Cyber Security Centre to investigate the data breach.

The National Crime Agency said it was aware of the incident and was working closely with the MoJ to “better understand the incident and support the department”.

It comes after retailers Co-op, Harrods and Marks & Spencer were hit by cyber attacks, although there is no suggestion that they are connected to the incident at the LAA.