Page 1 of 1

Naseem loses Gong

Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 6:29 pm
by Kwackerz

Notice Code: 1105 Honours and Awards

Central Chancery of
the Orders of Knighthood

St James’s Palace, London SW1

12 December 2006

The QUEEN HAS DIRECTED THAT THE APPOINTMENT OF NASEEM Hamed to be a Member of the Civil Division of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, dated 31 December 1998, shall be cancelled and annulled and that his name shall be erased from the Register of the said Order.


Gerrin there! Hopefully HMTQ will take a harder stance all round with regards Gongs, Awards and the earning and retention of them. Far too many people being awarded them and not taking the responsibility that comes with the award.

*sits and gloats*

Re: Naseem loses Gong

Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 7:17 pm
by Gio
Kwackerz wrote:Gerrin there! Hopefully HMTQ will take a harder stance all round with regards Gongs, Awards and the earning and retention of them. Far too many people being awarded them and not taking the responsibility that comes with the award.

*sits and gloats*
I can think of a few dozen I'd strip of them, not including MP's.

Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 2:02 pm
by funsize
How come Archer kept his gong then?



Gio ... your sig made me jump ... I'm on French Telecom :smt003

Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 2:06 pm
by Kwackerz
I cant recall now.. something to do with He's a Lord and he'd have to have a bill brought in or somesuch.. cant remember..

Oh and Gio's Sig is harmless. only you can see your details. it's basic webgeekery involving code

Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 3:17 pm
by moletrap
Aye, smacks of a soft target to me, although I'm not disagreeing that he deserves to lose his gong. What a wasted talent.

If serious offences cause someone to lose their gong, doesn’t that disqualify half the ageing rock stars that have been gonged in the last few years? Sir Mick and his drug convictions (albeit a long time ago) anyone? :smt017

Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 4:11 pm
by funsize
Kwackerz wrote:Oh and Gio's Sig is harmless. only you can see your details. it's basic webgeekery involving code

oh duhhhhhh ... now I'm a tad :smt011


GIO ... stop peeking :smt019

Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 5:31 pm
by Gio
funsize wrote:
Kwackerz wrote:Oh and Gio's Sig is harmless. only you can see your details. it's basic webgeekery involving code

oh duhhhhhh ... now I'm a tad :smt011


GIO ... stop peeking :smt019
Awww :smt002