Liverpool FC Forum

by **Forever_Red** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 10:37 pm

From Liverpoolfc.tv:

Prime Minister Tony Blair has written to Liverpool supporters who had signed an e-petition calling for Bob Paisley to be awarded a posthumous knighthood explaining why it won't be possible to honour the club's most successful manager.
Here is the Prime Minister's email explanation in full:

Bob Paisley's achievements in football were remarkable. It is easy to see why so many people want to see his record formally recognised.

This has been underlined by the thousands of people who have signed the e-petition on the No 10 website calling for him to be granted a posthumous knighthood.

But this is simply not possible. A knighthood is an honour only given during someone's lifetime. Unlike bravery awards and medals, they have never been granted posthumously.

Formally, this is because the recipients of knighthoods are admitted into a particular Order when they attend an Investiture ceremony in person.

In practical terms, however, it would also be impossible to decide which of thousands of figures in our country's history, who were not knighted during their lifetimes, should retrospectively deserve such recognition.

For example, there are already similar e-petition campaigns for posthumous knighthoods for football managers Bill Shankly, Brian Clough, Jock Stein and Bill Nicholson.

But strong cases could also be made for many other high-achieving sports figures as well as authors, scientists and others who were not knighted during their lifetimes. Charles Darwin, Captain Cook, RJ Mitchell, who created the Spitfire, John Lennon and even William Shakespeare are just a few of those who were not honoured in this way while they lived.

The fact they were not knighted, however, does not in any way detract from the contribution they made to this country. Their lives and achievements have each been celebrated and remembered in many other ways. But a knighthood is, however, not possible for someone, no matter how accomplished, who is no longer able to receive it.

Yours sincerely,
Tony Blair

by **Well Red** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 10:40 pm

he has a point - if even one post-humous knighthood was granted then there'd be a sudden influx of them - as he mentions, Shakespeare, Darwin, Lennon.

nevermind, we did our best

by **Sabre** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 10:51 pm

I can understand the post-humous arguement

In practical terms, however, it would also be impossible to decide which of thousands of figures in our country's history, who were not knighted during their lifetimes, should retrospectively deserve such recognition.

I don't quite agree this, surely a criteria must exist to give a knighthood for a managerial career, and the achievements can be compared?

It remains unclear from my ignorance why he wasn't given that knighthood during his lifetime.

by **Well Red** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 10:54 pm

it'd be a case of "opening the floodgates" I feel.

by **jonnymac1979** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 11:09 pm

Different governments Sabre. Liverpool was literally scum in the eyes of the government in Paisley's era. All kinds of factories and industry which Liverpool thrived on at the time were shut down.

Football was also rife with hooliganism at the time, was not an industry that the government needed to reward its leading figures to gain votes (Unlike Blair and Ferguson.... if anything in Thatcher's era, to punish football would have gained votes) so Paisley was in all likelihood brushed under the carpet. Plus he was a socialist. Thatcher's government probably despised people like him as they were capitalist.

Unless anyone has any other explanations. I don't really 'do' politics. Not educated enough on it and I don't pretend otherwise.

Any Conservative voters on this board by the way. I did say explain. Not preach. Before it kicks off and I close the thread. First and hopefully last time I've ever posted something political on these boards.

Yay for me.

Ironically, all those closed down and disused factories and ports and industrial buildings etc... are being turned into luxury apartments and bars now in Liverpool. Liverpool will thrive over the next eighteen months at least. Don't know what will happen after 2008, but the amount of public money avaiable in this city at the minute is staggering. It's being thrown at businesses.

Hope it continues to be honest. I love my city.

Last point. Fuck the honours system anyway.

by **Sabre** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 11:22 pm

Thanks for the insight. I already knew since I read long ago the contrast.org site some subtle details about politics, but IMHO, the gobernment should have seen the whole picture back then.

No matter how much they disliked Liverpool, they should recognise that both Liverpool FC and the Beatles have been one of the best ambassadors of their country around Europe. When people in Spain prepares a trip for England, one of the must-go places are the football and music shrines existing in Liverpool.

They should have seen the whole picture and reckon LFC and men like Paisley brought glory to that ancient country. From an outer view it seems a blatant mistake, no matter if you are conservative or more left winged.

by **J*o*n*D*o*e** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 11:30 pm

who cares anyway, he is and always will be a liverpool legend, if anything it makes a mockery of those who have been given one and dont even come close to matching what he done.

:bowdown

by **Woollyback** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 11:38 pm

f*ck the honours system indeed, it's all political backslapping nonsense. we all know and remember bob paisley as a quiet, gentle genius. who gives a f*ck what a load of politicians thought of him? he was a bigger and better man than anyone in parliament could ever dream of being

no government has ever liked the city of liverpool, it's too individual, it's the cuckoo in the nest of english pliant conformity. it puts liverpool first and england second, it's a unique place and i f*cking love it. you'd be surprised how much business gets done from liverpool though. here's an example - there's a private bank called coutts, whose clients include the queen amongst others, and they deal only with the seriously wealthy and most successful business people & companies. anyway they've always had a place in london (obviously) and one in edinburgh. a few years back they opened an office in manchester. not long after that they opened another office. where, birmingham? leeds? glasgow? bristol? nope. liverpool. speaks volumes to me. there's a resourcefulness about scousers that can't be seen elsewhere. it p*sses a lot of southerners off but london isn't the be-all and end-all of britain. mancs are actually the same, they're a bunch of c*nts but they don't look to london to lead the way

bob was too good a man for a knighthood, he was a leader not an @rse kisser

by **jaytoothetee** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 12:07 am

dissappointed about this, tho i see blair's point, and i do agree that granting him a knighthood would open the floodgates... i didn't realise that no-one can be knighted posthumously tbh

by **The Manhattan Project** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 12:42 am

So, let Manhattan understand this.

Tony Blair can radically alter the structure of the House Of Lords, establish an Assembly for London, devolve government to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and send thousands of troops into war....but can't give a dead football manager a knighthood?

by **Smeg** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 1:03 am

Lets not get ahead of ourselves and start voting tory though.

:censored:

the tories

by **The Manhattan Project** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 1:18 am

Manhattan votes Tory, if anything to at least bring a greater balance in the Commons.

Labour MP's are way too large in number for Manhattan's liking.

Too powerful, too meddlesome.

by **babu** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 1:56 am

Well at least he had the decency to respond. time to close that book, imo.

by **The Manhattan Project** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 2:01 am

It does seem odd though. Even aside from the Paisley thing.

No posthumous knighthoods?

Charles Darwin developed theories which expanded the frontiers of science and our understanding of life.

Gets nothing.

Elton John gets a knighthood.

For what, singing "Rocketman?"

by **Lando_Griffin** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 2:05 am

The Manhattan Project wrote:It does seem odd though. Even aside from the Paisley thing.

No posthumous knighthoods?

Charles Darwin developed theories which expanded the frontiers of science and our understanding of life.

Gets nothing.

Elton John gets a knighthood.

For what, singing "Rocketman?"

No.

For shouting and screaming his interminable ditties like the fat mincing homosexual slaphead he truly is.

Liverpool FC Forum

Bad news everyone - Paisley denied honour

Who is online