So what makes him different to Lord Archer ............................??

[SherlockLGJ]

Was it because Archer's crime was victimless ???

Allegedly

I guess Archer didn't seriously injure/nearly kill anyone...

But it was an accident...

"was driving his McLaren-Mercedes supercar on the wrong side of a bend when he hit the couple's car head-on at 90mph (145km/h)."

If you drive on the wrong side of the road round a bend at 90mph it's not an accident when you hit someone!

every crime has a victim...thats why it is a crime.

i see no difference between Hamed and Archer. i think that it is right that he should be stripped of the honour but that if its good for one it should be that anyone found guilty of a crime has the honour removed.

I suspect it's because Hamed is working class and Archer has managed to jostle himself into being middle class or mates with rich people.

that's what I think pantomim

Oh, and I wonder whether they will strip 'Sir' Clive Thompson of Farepak infamy of his title. But I wouldn't place any money on it.

Archer was given a Life Peerage. It needs an Act of Parliament to remove. Other honours can be removed by the Queen.

I'm sure someone like Norman Baker, the Lib Dem MP who makes all those complaints about abuse of parliamentary procedures, could introduce a private member's bill. Or persuade one of his colleagues who got lucky in the ballot to do it. They manage to make time for all sorts of useless rubbish in the procedures - 3,000 new laws introduced since '97.

My thoughts exactly Edam, though I do accept DA's point.

However fast Hamed was driving he did not wake up that morning and decide to kill someone.

Lord Archer on the other hand knew when he sat in the box, that he was wilfully misleading the jury. No one got hurt, ?? Monica Coghlan never recovered from it, but then thats Ok because she was working class.

Her reputation never recovered from it.

I'm not sure of the rules. Did Haseen get something the Queen had the gift to give but Archer was made a life peer on some kind of different basis which makes it legally harder to strip away? Not sure but that might be the reason. Now he's out of prison does Archer sit in the house of lords?

"He was never stripped of his peerage but has technically sat as a "non-affiliated" peer since his party expulsion."
There was a Scottish peer convicted of starting a fire who I think kept his and also Lady Thatcher's has an inherited baronetcy which would need an Act of Parliament to strip from him so not so easy to achieve in his case.

As you can buy most of these honours presumably it besmirches your name if you have one and therefore no problems with crooks having one....

hmmm looks like one rule for....

Archer is a slimy arse isn't he?

The whole honours system is crap anyway, it takes all the meaning out of it when they give it to people simply for being popular or successful.

Or for brown-nosing the royal family.

i agree anorak

"However fast Hamed was driving he did not wake up that morning and decide to kill someone."

I disagree. If you decide to drive your car at 90mph on the wrong side of the road, you are happy to take the chance you might kill or seriously hurt someone.

FWIW though, I think Archer is a slimey arse too and I'm not defending him in any way.

Agreed, He had to know his behavior was reckless.

Presumably because Naseem has sullied the name of sport, for which he received his MBE, he's been stripped of it. But as imo Archer received his award for services to corruption, which his later antics enhanced, he gets to keep his peerage.

Think Suedonim wins the award for 'most likely explanation'.

I did not word my post correctly re Hamed, agree it was reckless but he did not set out with malice aforethought.

God now I sound like I am defending him and speeding and I am not.

LGJ wanders off.

Suedonim, think you are spot on.