« Honours degraded - again | Main | Did 617 die for contracts? »

December 29, 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


i have to say i am in agreement with Robert on this , Benjamin Zephania showed how to tell the establishment what to do with their baubles


"These were progressive uses of Prime Ministerial directives. David Cameron's plans to use awards to shore up his controversial ’Big Society' policy, described as 'aspirational waffle' by the Archbishop of Canterbury, is less defensible"

Probably was, whenever a politician does or says something there is usually an ulterior motive which has nothing whatsoever to do with honour as the rest of us understand that concept. However, quoting from some 'archbishop' who takes a homophobic, heterosexist and gender normative stance on same-sex marriage really isn't going to impress many of us. We really do not need Rowan Williams or the recent slew of over-privileged hetero males like the Archbishop of Westiminster and that stupid judge Sir Paul Coleridge who have nothing better to do with their time but moan about how outraged they are at the idea of equal rights for LGBT people. A pox on them too - that's what I say! And, believe me, 2013 is set to be a *very interesting* time for the ancien regime...


If all ~190,000 members of the Labour party are readily accepting such honours, I'll join tomorrow.

Not that I care much myself you understand... but my mum would be able to strut like a peacock in a pair of Jimmy Choos next time "That Mrs Jones" bangs on about "Her Son, The Doctor."

Robert Tyler

Why are you a member of a party whose members readily accept such honours? Kinnock, Eluned Morgan, Anita Gale etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum, ad infinitum ?

The comments to this entry are closed.