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

Published

10 months 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

Sara Sharif: 10-year-old’s stepmother said girl’s father beat her up ‘like crazy’, according to WhatsApp messages read in court

Published

12 mins ago

November 1, 2024

admin

Sara Sharif: 10-year-old's stepmother said girl's father beat her up 'like crazy', according to WhatsApp messages read in court

Sara Sharif’s stepmother sent her sister some pictures of the 10-year-old looking bruised and miserable – and told her to “delete” them, a court has heard.

“Look what he’s doing,” Beinash Batool told Qandeela Saboohi, referring to the beatings Sara was allegedly getting from her father, Urfan Sharif.

“Delete the pictures.”

A series of WhatsApp messages exchanged between 2020 and 2023, in which Batool told her sister about the physical attacks Sharif was allegedly inflicting on his daughter, were read out to a jury at the Old Bailey.

Batool repeatedly told her sister that Sharif was hitting Sara for being “naughty”, “rude and rebellious”, and because she had cut up his clothes, hidden keys and torn up documents.

Batool, 30, Urfan Sharif, 42, and Sara’s uncle, 29-year-old Faisal Malik, are accused of carrying out a campaign of abuse culminating in Sara’s murder on 8 August last year.

As early as February 2020, Batool described Sharif as going on a “rampage” after spilling hot tea, saying he was “possessed”.

Writing about 10 photographs of Sara, she wrote: “This is how bad he is beating her… I feel really sorry for her. He beat the crap out of her.”

On another occasion, Batool said Sharif “went ballistic” and “beat Sara up like crazy”. She expressed fears he could break an arm or leg.

In May 2021, Batool told Ms Saboohi: “Not great in our house, it’s all a bit manic. Urfan beat the crap out of Sara and my mind is all in bits. I really want to report him.

“Why the hell doesn’t Urfan learn – she’s covered in bruises, literally beaten black.”

Afterwards, Sharif sat “on his fat bum” and played the board game Ludo, she said.

She went on: “Why the hell I’m even letting him in the house. I’m sorry for Sara, poor girl cannot walk. She literally fainted in the kitchen in the morning. He made her do sit-ups all night.”

Asked what Sara had done, Batool said: “Because she hid the keys.”

By 2022, Batool said she was planning to get some “legal advice” but was advised by her sister to give it time and not to rush.

In an update later that year, Batool said she was thinking about taking Sara out of school, saying: “I don’t want to but kinda don’t have a choice.

“I’m just fed up of her behaviour and Urfan’s. Sara’s body is literally bruised because Urfan beat her up. I cannot even cover it up.

“He beat Sara up yesterday and I can’t send her to school on Monday looking like that.

“She ripped Urfan’s documents in front of him and was being rude and rebellious.”

Referring to an image of Sara in a hijab, Batool wrote: “You haven’t even seen her body, it’s a whole lot worse.”

Days later, she said Sara’s school was worried about her and Sharif was “stressed” about it.

In an apparent reference to Sara’s injuries, she wrote: “Urfan told me to cover it up with makeup and she’s going to wear sunglasses.”

Two months before Sara died, Batool referred to “Sara’s antics”, telling her sister: “Urfan beat the crap out of Sara… Yeah, he beat her up like crazy.

“Her oxygen level dropped really low, she’s finding it hard to stay awake.”

Asked if Sharif had hit her on the head, Batool said: “Nah, but she’s breathing really rapidly.”

The day before Sara died, Ms Saboohi tried to make contact but Batool told her she was “not in the mood to speak”.

Two days later, the defendants were captured on CCTV as they prepared to board a flight to Pakistan from Heathrow Airport.

That CCTV has now been shown to the jury.

On 10 August last year, police found Sara’s body in a bunkbed after Sharif called from Pakistan to say he had beaten her up “too much” for “being naughty”.

William Emlyn Jones KC, the prosecutor, has previously told jurors it was disputed whether messages Batool sent to two of her sisters were accurate or gave a full picture.

All three defendants, formerly of Hammond Road in Woking in Berkshire, have denied murder and causing or allowing the death of a child between 16 December 2022 and 9 August 2023.

The trial continues.

UK

Budget: Hostile market response as chancellor suffers Halloween nightmare

Published

6 hours ago

October 31, 2024

admin

Budget: Hostile market response as chancellor suffers Halloween nightmare

First things first: don’t panic.

What you need to know is this. The budget has not gone down well in financial markets. Indeed, it’s gone down about as badly as any budget in recent years, save for Liz Truss’s mini-budget.

The pound is weaker. Government bond yields (essentially, the interest rate the exchequer pays on its debt) have gone up.

That’s precisely the opposite market reaction to the one chancellors like to see after they commend their fiscal statements to the house.

In hindsight, perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised.

After all, the new government just committed itself to considerably more borrowing than its predecessors – about £140bn more borrowing in the coming years. And that money has to be borrowed from someone – namely, financial markets.

But those financial markets are now reassessing how keen they are to lend to the UK.

The upshot is that the pound has fallen quite sharply (the biggest two-day fall in trade-weighted sterling in 18 months) and gilt yields – the interest rate paid by the government – have risen quite sharply.

This was all beginning to crystallise shortly after the budget speech, with yields beginning to rise and the pound beginning to weaken, the moment investors and economists got their hands on the budget documentation.

But the falls in the pound and the rises in the bond yields accelerated today.

This is not, to be absolutely clear, the kind of response any chancellor wants to see after a budget – let alone their first budget in office.

Indeed, I can’t remember another budget which saw as hostile a market response as this one in many years – save for one.

That exception is, of course, the Liz Truss/Kwasi Kwarteng mini-budget of 2022. And here is where you’ll find the silver lining for Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves.

The rises in gilt yields and falls in sterling in recent hours and days are still far shy of what took place in the run up and aftermath of the mini-budget. This does not yet feel like a crisis moment for UK markets.

But nor is it anything like good news for the government. In fact, it’s pretty awful. Because higher borrowing rates for UK debt mean it (well, us) will end up paying considerably more to service our debt in the coming years.

And that debt is about to balloon dramatically because of the plans laid down by the chancellor this week.

And this is where things get particularly sticky for Ms Reeves.

In that budget documentation, the Office for Budget Responsibility said the chancellor could afford to see those gilt yields rise by about 1.3 percentage points, but then when they exceeded this level, the so-called “headroom” she had against her fiscal rules would evaporate.

In other words, she’d break those rules – which, recall, are considerably less strict than the ones she inherited from Jeremy Hunt.

Which raises the question: where are those gilt yields right now? How close are they to the danger zone where the chancellor ends up breaking her rules?

Short answer: worryingly close. Because, right now, the yield on five-year government debt (which is the maturity the OBR focuses on most) is more than halfway towards that danger zone – only 56 basis points away from hitting the point where debt interest costs eat up any leeway the chancellor has to avoid breaking her rules.

Now, we are not in crisis territory yet. Nor can every move in currencies and bonds be attributed to this budget.

Markets are volatile right now. There’s lots going on: a US election next week and a Bank of England decision on interest rates next week.

The chancellor could get lucky. Gilt yields could settle in the coming days. But, right now, the UK, with its high level of public and private debt, with its new government which has just pledged to borrow many billions more in the coming years, is being closely scrutinised by the “bond vigilantes”.

A Halloween nightmare for any chancellor.