Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Cancelled Curry | Main | The state of independence »
Monday
Jun152015

Birthday honours?

The Queen's birthday honours list was out a couple of days ago and as I always I have scanned it looking for familiar names. There are no climatologists this year, but two names in particular stood out.

David Warrilow is the UK's long-term representative on the IPCC and has come to the attention of BH from time to time, although as I have noted in the past he is someone who operates very much in the shadows. BH readers did some research on him in the comments here, including Doug Keenan's recollection of a meeting between the two of them. Warrilow gets himself an OBE.

The other was Anne Glover, the former chief scientist at the EU, whose gradual descent into climate alarmism I have followed with interest. She becomes Dame Anne.

The only other one that struck me as being of interest was someone called David Surplus, the director of a renewable energy group in Northern Ireland, who is awarded an OBE. What a strange world, I thought, where it is considered honourable to achieve success through vigorous sucking at the taxpayer's teat.

 

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (31)

Anne Glover was pushed out of her EU post by green lobbyists who didn't like her support for reason with respect to GM foods.

If she is now being climate alarmist it may be because she is seeking a way back in or it may be because her expertise as a biologist means she believes she understands climate physics.

Either way, her record is worthy of an honour. Whether you agree with her or not

Jun 15, 2015 at 9:17 AM | Registered CommenterM Courtney

A little off-topic, but I noticed the BBC reporting on a 'spoof' report of a battle in the Middle East - started by someone 'tweeting' on a twitter account (which is where the BBC gets all its news from nowadays).

The BBC seems to have been caught like the rest, and complained about the spoof to the perpetrator:

...BBC Trending interviewed Mahmoud and put it to him that his stunt was in fact dangerous - and potentially stoked and exploited real people's fears.
...

With that attitude, I wonder how the BBC justify its coverage of 'climate change'?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-33111934

Jun 15, 2015 at 9:46 AM | Unregistered CommenterDodgy Geezer

"...vigorous sucking at the taxpayer's teat." Isn't that what the Royal Family has survived on for the last couple of millennia or so?

Jun 15, 2015 at 9:54 AM | Unregistered CommenterJimmy Haigh

A day or two back, I posted a comment on the Birthday List on BH 'unthreaded'. I know I did not dream that I did it because Richard Betts responded to my comment.

But my comment now seems to have disappeared.

----------------------------
Richard said...

Mike Jackson, Martin A

It's just that an OBE was awarded to David Warrilow of DECC (he's been the UK government's lead representative on the IPCC panel for many years, and part of the UK delegation to the UNFCCC) and a CBE to David Kennedy (former CEO of the Committee on Climate Change).

So either you don't think these gentlemen are "warm mongers" or part of "The Great Scare" - which would be nice to think - or (more likely?) you didn't check your facts correctly before asserting that there had been no recognition of climate-related work in the Honours…. (...)

Jun 15, 2015 at 9:58 AM | Registered CommenterMartin A

David Surplus; aptly named indeed ^.^

Jun 15, 2015 at 9:59 AM | Registered CommenterDung

What a strange world, I thought, where it is considered honourable to achieve success through vigorous sucking at the taxpayer's teat.

A phrase I have logged in my tiny useless brain. Thanks

Jun 15, 2015 at 10:07 AM | Unregistered CommenterStephen Richards

The Honour is granted not for sucking at the Taxpayer's Teat, but for not biting at the same time.....:o)

Jun 15, 2015 at 10:13 AM | Unregistered CommenterNCC 1701E

Martin A
Unthreaded was a hive of activity over the weekend. I think you'll find the relevant exchange round about page 6!
I seem to have poked Richard Betts on this subject. What I probably ought to have said is that there is no trumpeting of the major awards (knighthoods, CBEs, etc,) to the major players by the compliant media (Graun, Beeb, Indy) which suggest that such awards are not forthcoming and I wondered why.
The Damehood for Glover is well-deserved. The citation should have read "for services to pissing off Greenpeace"!

Jun 15, 2015 at 10:16 AM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

Congratulations to Sir Van Morrison!

Jun 15, 2015 at 10:51 AM | Unregistered CommenterSlywolfe

I have unfortunately decided many years ago that honours were awarded for services to the prevailing political winners, more often than not by people whom, when I knew them personally, I considered more deserving of a prison sentence.

I can cite,. because its no longer sub judice, and indeed is not contentious, Jimmy Saville and Rolf Harris.

The others you will have to guess at.

Jun 15, 2015 at 11:17 AM | Unregistered Commenterleo smith

@Jimmy Haigh

.."...vigorous sucking at the taxpayer's teat." Isn't that what the Royal Family has survived on for the last couple of millennia or so?...

Not exactly.

Great Britain is a kingdom, ruled by a monarch.

A Monarch is a kind of warlord, and applies regulation by the use of force, and gains ownership by right of conquest. Going back two millennia, the British Isles were ruled by a number of these 'kings', who had fought to gain control of a slice of land, and then owned it completely.
Over time, the ruler (and owner) of England came to rule (and own) the whole of the British Isles. Also over time, the country developed into a 'constitutional monarchy' which, although recognising the absolute ownership and power of the monarch, placed increasingly tight limits on what he (or she) could do with it.

Around 1650/1680 this process essentially passed real power to a parliament of the people, though the Monarch still governed and owned the country in principle. This is still the case today. So all laws are 'the Queen's laws' - she still has to sign them to bring them into effect, and all land is held under the Queen, who in theory owns all the land and everything in it. But in practice the 'state establishment' administer things for their own convenience rather than the Monarch's.

Thus, rather than 'sucking on the taxpayer's teat', the taxpayers (or at least, the most powerful of them) have effectively taken the property of the original owner, using a different kind of force...

Jun 15, 2015 at 11:20 AM | Unregistered CommenterDodgy Geezer

Jimmy Haigh: I hope you have a greater grasp of the AGW scam than you have of how the Royal Family works and is financed. Even better, I wish you would just keep comments like that off this blog.

Jun 15, 2015 at 11:21 AM | Unregistered CommenterHarry Passfield

Dodgy Geezer
I think Jimmy Haigh was a bit upset at the idea that the Head of State should get paid. Presumably if HMQ was a president that would be OK: having Blair preening himself in Buck House would be fine but for some reason the continuity and stability provided by a politically neutral consitutional monarch upsets him.

PS
Thanks, Harry! If she decided to unpick the settlement that gives the revenue from crown lands and the Duchy of Lancaster estates to the state in return for a Civil List payment considerably less than a president would cost us, young Gideon would be hunting for a few more taxes to fill the hole.
And she'd be even richer than she already is. Perhaps Jimmy might like to have a look here or here.

Jun 15, 2015 at 11:33 AM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

@HP No I thought Jimmy Haigh's point was a valid analogy.Two wrongs don't make a right so fix of them both.

..If it is argued that the Royal Family do work and do a valuable job for tourism, then at least to do it cheaper we could replace them with an immigrant family from abroad .... German's and Greeks maybe ..oh hang on....

Jun 15, 2015 at 11:37 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

DG, I think you meant "Thus, rather than 'sucking on the taxpayer's teat', the taxpayers (or at least, the most powerful of them) have effectively taken the property of the original murderous thieving bast*rds from the slimy creeps who inherited it and are so deluded as to think they have some kind of right to a life of slovenly luxury".

Jun 15, 2015 at 11:38 AM | Registered Commentersteve ta

The concept of Honours has moved on from recognition of mighty deeds done in battle with the enemy.

Anne Glover has been Honoured for not destroying quite as many of her own side, as she used to.

Jun 15, 2015 at 12:08 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

My, my.

And here was me thinking that OBE meant 'Other Buggers' Efforts'

Jun 15, 2015 at 12:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterLevelGaze

@leo smith

...I have unfortunately decided many years ago that honours were awarded for services to the prevailing political winners, more often than not by people whom, when I knew them personally, I considered more deserving...

The donation of an Honour invariably says much more about those GIVING the honour than those receiving it....

@steve ta

"... have effectively taken the property of the original murderous thieving bast*rds from the slimy creeps who inherited it and are so deluded as to think they have some kind of right to a life of slovenly luxury"

Ah, Steve, I fear you have a view of monarchy which is rather warped by Hollywood. The 'original bastards' (I presume you are thinking of William?) had a duty to defend their property and people as well as conquer, and the life of a king was, and is, properly defined as a duty. It is rarely 'slovenly luxury' - the king must be doing a very good job if he can afford that - perhaps the career of Alfred will give you a better idea of the typical job of an original king.

Even nowadays, though the requirement to be first into battle and last to retreat is no longer fully applicable, being a king is not a job many of us would relish. The responsibilities are onerous. Perhaps you are thinking of the position of a Prince of the Realm? As a 'back-stop' their task is to do nothing to rock the boat until called for, so you might think that that is 'slovenly'?

Jun 15, 2015 at 12:34 PM | Unregistered CommenterDodgy Geezer

@golf charlie

...Anne Glover has been Honoured for not destroying quite as many of her own side, as she used to....

Presumably the same thinking explains the invariable donation of an honour to the retiring heads of armed forces around the world...?

Jun 15, 2015 at 12:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterDodgy Geezer

@Jimmy Haigh

Presidents rarely create documents such as Magna Carta, even by 'accident', which is how it is believed to have been instigated in 1215. (King John was a very naughty king, and needed a firm telling off, and a bit of guidance.)

It's June 15th, 2015, so it's Happy Birthday Magna Carta, 800 years old today!

Jun 15, 2015 at 12:50 PM | Registered CommenterRobert Christopher

When a system of honours is centered on rewarding actors for acting and bureaucrats for pen pushing and business men for doing business then that rather demeans the work of people who step outside their cushy boxes and actually do something for the good of society. I suppose that in a world where the head of the UN is more concerned with being photographed with celebrities and the government department concerned with rape victims abroad spends half its budget on a party for Angelina Jolie we should not be surprised at this archaic system of support for a "Royal" family. The French got it right (eventually) Get rid of the leeches but keep their palaces for the tourists.

Why bother with a "Head of State" Does anyone even know who the President of Germany is? Does anybody care?

Jun 15, 2015 at 1:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterIvor Ward

Unthreaded was a hive of activity over the weekend. I think you'll find the relevant exchange round about page 6!
I seem to have poked Richard Betts on this subject.(...)
Jun 15, 2015 at 10:16 AM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

Thanks Mike - I searched again and found no trace of my comment to which RB responded. My Jun 13, 2015 at 9:05 PM reply to Richard's comment is there but I don't see the original. I assume GCHQ or NSA deleted it for some reason.

Jun 15, 2015 at 1:18 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Stewgreen and Steve ta are nearest to my way of thinking...

HP? Freedom of speech?

Jun 15, 2015 at 1:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterJimmy Haigh

Dodgy Geezer. History books may look kinder upon Anne Glover, than Lord King.

Lord King is still earning money out of depriving people of the means to live, and is still proud of himself.

Anne Glover lost her job for making a brave stand, against what she believed was wrong. Presumably events occurred, to make her unsuitable for the role, that she had previously been promoted into.

The bravest of the brave, in any field, are least likely to blow their own trumpet.

Michael Mann should be recognised for services to wealthy lawyers.

Jun 15, 2015 at 1:55 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Birthday honours for climatologists?

Birthday suit.

Jun 15, 2015 at 2:03 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

How is George Osborn on global warming?

Jun 15, 2015 at 2:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterMikeN

MikeN. I don't think Osbourn is quite as Green as the Prime Minister says he is. The Prime Minister's wife is probably not happy about the conflict in loyalties, that she finds herself in.

Jun 15, 2015 at 3:37 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Golf Charlie
What made Anne Glover "unsuitable" was that Greenpeace convinced Juncker that her stand on GM crops was "unacceptable". Amazing how any environmental NGO can say anything that comes into their heads these days and it immediately becomes fact.

Jun 15, 2015 at 3:59 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

Mike Jackson, it is very sad that Greenpeace now wields the axe of death on millions, having converted the EU, originally created to prevent war, by avoiding famine.

Jun 15, 2015 at 5:36 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Jimmy Haigh: Freedom of ignorance? (Yours). I do not begrudge you your opinion - wrong as it is - about the RF, but on this blog? Take it to Action 18.
BTW: How many members of the RF enjoy income from the Civil List?

Jun 15, 2015 at 6:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterHarry Passfield

My favourite author, J G Ballard, was reported to have said:

I received a letter from the Cabinet Office using this weird locution that the prime minister was minded to recommend me for a Commander of the British Empire.

I had visions that if only I was allowed to call myself Commander Ballard I could put on a nautical cap and splice the main-brace.

It was a CBE for so-called services to literature, another weird locution, but I declined. It was not for me.

I am opposed to the honours system. The whole thing is a preposterous charade. Thousands of medals are given out in the name of a non-existent empire. It makes us look a laughing stock and encourages deference to the crown.

I think it is exploited by politicians and always has been. Half the honours are given to people in the armed forces and civil service as a way of keeping their loyalty. I can't take it seriously.

I must say I find it sad to see left-wing playwrights who have traded on their socialist credentials throughout their careers accepting knighthoods. People like David Hare who have worn their socialist credentials on both sleeves kneel in front of the Queen, It's too much.

Jun 15, 2015 at 9:07 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>