If he's done something seriously wrong then yes, but a minor infringement of the rules probably doesn't warrant it. Getting rid of the entire honours system would be an improvement, but that's a different issue.
Should people like Sir Malcolm Rifkind lose their knighthoods?
To be fair, both Straw and Rifkind were rumbled before they could anything really corrupt so I said no. Their reputations and careers now lie in tatters because of their own gr££d and avarice and neither of them's getting into the House of Lords now and all that in itself is quite good punishment.
Rifkinds admission to having not a lot to do except going for walks and reading, makes politicians like him, prime candidates for zero hours contracts.
Are we only allowed to spend our time on those two groups until the problems of poverty and war have been resolved globally once and for all then.
Bit limiting tbh
I just wonder what starving kids or soldiers horribly maimed in war think of the general public being so pissed off about something so unimportant as this crap about Jack Straw or Malcolm Rifkind.
As far as im aware this was a sting, a set up where the objective was to encourage them to do wrong so that it would generate a news story.
in my opinion these set ups dont deserve the attention they get.
If they had been found out as a result of an investigation that wasnt a trap then fair enough
Considering that he chaired a very important and secretive part of the State then I have no problem seeing him going.
If the sting had not been done by C4 and the Telegraph but by someone like Putin and his ilk, who could use the threat of public disclosure as blackmail, then I can easily see that Rifkind is a security threat and he should have resigned immediately the story was revealed to him.
As for the sting itself being an Agent Provocateur, don't have a problem with that as the establishment has often used these approaches themselves. Live by the sword and all that
I just wonder what starving kids or soldiers horribly maimed in war think of the general public being so pissed off about something so unimportant as this crap about Jack Straw or Malcolm Rifkind.
Do you really? Well I don't suppose the kids give a monkeys as they are a)kids and b)starving. Maimed soldiers are slightly different and I expect they will hold a variety of views as do the rest of the population, given that they are people who aren't solely defined by their maimed bodies.
Or are you just attempting (unconvincingly) to imply you have a superior insight into what is important by trying to imply that this is too trivial to waste time on when we could all be out there doing good works? In which case, D- must try harder.
Personally I don't consider the question of whether our elected representatives are prepared to sell us out by flogging that representation off to the highest bidder for a fast buck unimportant. But y'know I'm not maimed or starving (not even peckish) so what would I know.
As far as im aware this was a sting, a set up where the objective was to encourage them to do wrong so that it would generate a news story.
in my opinion these set ups dont deserve the attention they get.
If they had been found out as a result of an investigation that wasnt a trap then fair enough(/B
I agree with this, he and Straw were tricked into saying what they said, no one knows whether this is really what they think or what they would say, it could just be a case of them making themselves look more important than they are.
As far as I'm concerned these "stings" should be against the law, they have ruined too many "good" peoples careers over the years
I'm not sure what you mean by "people like Sir Malcolm Rifkind" but no I don't think he should lose his knighthood over this.
As far as im aware this was a sting, a set up where the objective was to encourage them to do wrong so that it would generate a news story.
in my opinion these set ups dont deserve the attention they get.
If they had been found out as a result of an investigation that wasnt a trap then fair enough[/QUOTE]
I agree with this, he and Straw were tricked into saying what they said, no one knows whether this is really what they think or what they would say, it could just be a case of them making themselves look more important than they are.
As far as I'm concerned these "stings" should be against the law, they have ruined too many "good" peoples careers over the years
The problem is of course that either one of them had the option to do the right thing and to say, no sorry the access and influence I have isn't for sale. Instead they both named their price.
It doesn't really matter that the offer was actually fake as there's no real reason to imagine that if the offer of money for influence was for real that they wouldn't have struck a deal and taken that money. Which is after all what they were filmed trying to do.
The problem is of course that either one of them had the option to do the right thing and to say, no sorry the access and influence I have isn't for sale. Instead they both named their price.
It doesn't really matter that the offer was actually fake as there's no real reason to imagine that if the offer of money for influence was for real that they wouldn't have struck a deal and taken that money. Which is after all what they were filmed trying to do.
And there's no reason too believe they would have struck a deal and taken the money, AS I said it could have been all talk and no action, which is what you usually expect from politicians ;-)
BTW I wonder if they had done the right thing and said no would we be discussing it now.
Tbh, I think there's a far greater case for removing the honours from Rolf Harris:
Australia strips Rolf Harris of honours Rolf Harris has been stripped of his Australian honours after his conviction last year for child sex offences. A brief statement said that the disgraced entertainer's appointments as Officer and Member of the Order of Australia had been terminated by Governor General Peter Cosgrove. Harris, 84, was jailed in July 2014 for nearly six years for 12 indecent assaults against four girls. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-31581719
I say no on the basis that as things stand there's no evidence to suggest he or Straw have actually done anything wrong.
I don't recognise the judgement passed down by the green eyed court of public opinion who have taken it upon themselves to decree that both should be content with their lot simply because their parliamentary salaries are more than theirs are.
Comments
Were you aware of that?
Honours in general or Rifkind in particular?
You think there is a Committee set up to deal with Rifkind in particular?
Well in theory there could be, if the House of Commons wanted there to be...
As to the question, no not really, unless it's found he did something illegal.
AFAICR the Prog was only 2-3 days ago. Just how fast do you think the Commons moves?
The committee have already doctored the name on their office door as it was relatively easy to change to Rifkind from Rolf.
To be fair, both Straw and Rifkind were rumbled before they could anything really corrupt so I said no. Their reputations and careers now lie in tatters because of their own gr££d and avarice and neither of them's getting into the House of Lords now and all that in itself is quite good punishment.
Are we only allowed to spend our time on those two groups until the problems of poverty and war have been resolved globally once and for all then.
Bit limiting tbh
I just wonder what starving kids or soldiers horribly maimed in war think of the general public being so pissed off about something so unimportant as this crap about Jack Straw or Malcolm Rifkind.
in my opinion these set ups dont deserve the attention they get.
If they had been found out as a result of an investigation that wasnt a trap then fair enough
Considering that he chaired a very important and secretive part of the State then I have no problem seeing him going.
If the sting had not been done by C4 and the Telegraph but by someone like Putin and his ilk, who could use the threat of public disclosure as blackmail, then I can easily see that Rifkind is a security threat and he should have resigned immediately the story was revealed to him.
As for the sting itself being an Agent Provocateur, don't have a problem with that as the establishment has often used these approaches themselves. Live by the sword and all that
Do you really? Well I don't suppose the kids give a monkeys as they are a)kids and b)starving. Maimed soldiers are slightly different and I expect they will hold a variety of views as do the rest of the population, given that they are people who aren't solely defined by their maimed bodies.
Or are you just attempting (unconvincingly) to imply you have a superior insight into what is important by trying to imply that this is too trivial to waste time on when we could all be out there doing good works? In which case, D- must try harder.
Personally I don't consider the question of whether our elected representatives are prepared to sell us out by flogging that representation off to the highest bidder for a fast buck unimportant. But y'know I'm not maimed or starving (not even peckish) so what would I know.
I agree with this, he and Straw were tricked into saying what they said, no one knows whether this is really what they think or what they would say, it could just be a case of them making themselves look more important than they are.
As far as I'm concerned these "stings" should be against the law, they have ruined too many "good" peoples careers over the years
I'm not sure what you mean by "people like Sir Malcolm Rifkind" but no I don't think he should lose his knighthood over this.
And there's no reason too believe they would have struck a deal and taken the money, AS I said it could have been all talk and no action, which is what you usually expect from politicians ;-)
BTW I wonder if they had done the right thing and said no would we be discussing it now.
Australia strips Rolf Harris of honours
Rolf Harris has been stripped of his Australian honours after his conviction last year for child sex offences. A brief statement said that the disgraced entertainer's appointments as Officer and Member of the Order of Australia had been terminated by Governor General Peter Cosgrove. Harris, 84, was jailed in July 2014 for nearly six years for 12 indecent assaults against four girls.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-31581719
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/news/a581297/rolf-harriss-bafta-fellowship-annulled-after-conviction.html#~p5ghuBhDDfG6f9
Savile only lost his Knighthood by being dead:
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/oct/09/jimmy-savile-knighthood
I don't recognise the judgement passed down by the green eyed court of public opinion who have taken it upon themselves to decree that both should be content with their lot simply because their parliamentary salaries are more than theirs are.