Gordon Brown blocked honorary knighthood for Steve Jobs after Jobs declined to speak at Labour Party conference

“Gordon Brown blocked an honorary knighthood for Apple founder Steve Jobs, it has emerged,” Christopher Williams reports for The Telegraph.

“The then-Prime Minister refused to knight Mr Jobs in 2009 because he turned down an invitation to speak at the Labour Party conference, a former senior Labour MP said,” Williams reports.

“Mr Jobs was put forward for the honour by the MP for services to technology,” Williams reports. “Apple was aware of the proposal, [the former MP] said, and it reached the final stages of approval, but was rejected by Downing Street.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: No surprise here as Steve Jobs doesn’t strike us as being very big on the whole quid pro quo thing. When presented with the terms of the “deal,” he likely told Brown precisely where to place The Queen’s sword.

Related articles:
Queen Elizabeth to give ‘honorary knighthood’ to Microsoft’s Bill Gates today – March 2, 2005
Apple’s Jonathan Ive named Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire – December 31, 2005

62 Comments

    1. Don’t be such a plonker, judging a whole country on what Gordon Brown did or didn’t do. Perhaps we should judge the whole USA based on one of your past leaders?

      1. Hey Mike Caine!
        I’m not American. And I know for a fact that Brits tend to be intensely nasty and mean-spirited. Americans are much more polite and easier to get along with than the usual ignorant, sanctimonious Brit.

        Another example: Ricky Gervais

        1. That’s not been my experience. Perhaps they just find you very irritating when you go to Britain? 🙂

          Agree re the Ricky Gervais, although the Americans seemed to like his Office series enough to do their own version

    2. Two words: Jonathan Ive

      Three more: Tim Berners-Lee.

      I will however allow you to call Brown whatever you want. The man is a feeble-minded idiot who once said that high levels of personal debt were a price worth paying for healthy economy – well, that didn’t work out so well once all the cards were dealt.

      But most Brits are polite, well-mannered infinitely patient people and we don’t have a major gun-related massacre every month like some countries.

      1. Yes, there are some Brits who are polite and well-mannered, but the majority of them are ignorant, yobs. No doubt, someone will call me ignorant for pointing this out, but I spent 8 years in UK. Worked for the DoD and earned my PhD at Cambridge. In my experience, Brits are the most unpleasant, blinkered, shallow, know-nothing, pop-culture obsessed, sanctimonius bastards I’ve ever worked with.

        Yes, I have lots of friends and and I’m not an anti-social asshole, I have a major ‘bee in my bonnet’ about how intensely unpleasant many British people tend to be. Despite the fact that ALL my ancestors are British and my son was born in Wiltshire, I find Brits to be insufferable snobs. How ironic that Brits abhor American arrogance, yet are profoundly more arrogant themselves.

        1. Well, unless you met 30 million different Brits (i.e. the majority), your statement is indeed ignorant. What you can say is that the majority of people that you met treated you with what you perceived as an ignorant or snobbish attitude.

          As for your comment about Ricky Gervais, I could make a similar comment about Charlie Sheen and extrapolate the behaviour and character of all Americans from that one example.

          As for your experience of the UK, if you display the kind of attitude you’re displaying here, I’m really not surprised you got given the cold shoulder.

        2. Perhaps you found it difficult over here because you are American and worked for the ministry of defence and liked to show off about your Cambridge Phd and like to make sweeping generalisations? Just a thought.

      1. Er . . . ‘Scottish’ is still ‘British’, I think you’ll find.

        Not ‘English’, of course. But certainly ‘British’.

        We Rule.

        As in Rule Britannia.

        Despite being ‘nasty, mean-spiritied, ignorant, and sanctimonious’.

        And patronising, of course.

        There, there, old chap. Do calm down. No need to get in a tizz.

        1. No tizz you’re just incorrect.

          The Scottish are not British. They are Scottish. Please don’t make the mistake.

          The term United Kingdom refers to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is a political term rather than a geographical union.

          Great Britain is the political entity made up of England, Scotland and Wales, including their offshore islands. It does not include the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands or Northern Ireland.

          British Isles is a geographical rather than political name. It includes all the main and offshore islands of Great Britain and Ireland, as well as the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands.

          In terms of refering to people, you are safer not to call anyone British. People will not take offence to being referred to by their “regional” nationality (if that makes sense?!) but people in each of the British countries may take offence to being called British or (heven forbid!!) english when not in england! Kind of the same thing as not calling a Canadian American or a New Zealander Australian.

        2. Wuteva… I’m Scottish. And all but the hardcore Scots don’t mind being called (and considered) British. Great Britain is also the island name: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain… so it’s akin to calling Canadians “North Americans” or Kiwis “Australasians” both which are not overtly offensive.

          In the case of Great Britain, the line is even less blurred, considering that in some ways, Scotland (and especially Wales) act similar to Provinces or States and in other ways act as countries… under one banner, the Union Jack.

          Trust me… ask most Scots if they consider themselves British… and they’ll probably say they do.

        3. Speaking as a “Brit” I can assure you it’s you who are wrong. Any Scot you may met may abhor being called Britsh but that is what he or she is. Great Britain is not only the island but also, since the union of the crowns (1602) then the act of union (1709 – I think, but you can wiki), the state. A Scot will carry a British, not Scottish passport. Of course even English people may prefer to be recognised as English rather than British, and Cornish people may prefer nit to be called English or British, but that like the Scots is a matter of preference, not fact.

    3. British nastiness eh?

      And yet it didn’t take much for you to post that they’re “a mean-spirited bunch of sanctimonious bastards”.

      Pot, kettle, black.

  1. Yeah, save it for Ive and folks who care for those, he’s already bagged the CBE. One day, there might be a Jobs honour medal that might mean something with design integrity.

  2. iCan see Steve Jobs on a stallion slaying all those dark evil viruses clinging around da Microsoft empire. Not!
    The Apple kingdom is just fine 🙂
    Thanks Steve for being our Knight 🙂

    Buy AAPL !

      1. The sun still never sets on the Empire. They still have (and rule over) enough land around the globe that at any point in time, there’s sunshine on some Imperial land… Even after the loss of Hong Kong…

        1. True, but not to any great extent.

          If it weren’t for the Pitcairns – which are hardly the most substantial of islands and only have less than 100 people on them – once the sun goes down on the Falklands, it’s all over until it hits Diego Garcia.

          Basically, it’s a bunch of tax havens, an archipelago that we retain so that the US can maintain an airbase at Diego Garcia and some isolated rocks in the arse-end of the Atlantic Ocean populated by more sheep and penguins than people mainly for the potential oil deposits.

  3. This BS brings to mind a line from Taps, delivered by George C. Scott as ‘General Harlan Bache’

    “dependent upon the caprices
    of often inferior men.”

    I just see Brown with “the aligator on the tit”.

  4. One, I doubt Steve cares too much about these “honours”.

    Two, the notion that he needs to speak to their party to receive such an “honour” is rubbish. What other nominee was required to speak?

    Three, given Steve’s health issues, I doubt he was going to fly to the UK, to give a speech, and again to get an award. What a waste of his valuable time, not to mention a waste of jet fuel.

  5. In the United States the highest office one can aspire to is citizen. We do not recognize ‘royalty’ & couldn’t gave less of a damn about “The King’s Speech” or where the Queen places her sword.
    We had a war in order to get free of all that shit.

    1. Well of course.

      I mean, the Cult of Paris Hilton et al is much better than a royal family.

      Although in truth we only like proper royals over here. Like the Queen, who’s put in the hours. Her son . . . meh. Maybe skipping over to William (who likes rugby and is therefore officially All Right) might be a better bet.

      And I think you’ll find your ‘war’ needs the word ‘civil’ in front of it, given that most of the protagonists were Brits fighting Brits. Which means we won!

      1. I pay no attention to the celebutard stuff and most of us could not give a damn about it. Our media covers it because it’s easier than covering real news. Recent polling shows most of us don;t give a shit about the upcoming ‘royal’ wedding, yet you can bet the nets will wall-to-wall it.

      1. You must not understand the meaning of title. Our basic law forbids our government granting titles of nobility, so it was important to our founders and first citizens. Our elected officials and military officers have positional titles, but no permanent title. One shows respect to the office- not the holder of the office.

      2. Not if one holds to the notion (which I do) that elected officials and government employees are truly to be considered “public servants” (an oxymoronic term if there ever was one).

  6. The two couldn’t be more different.

    Gordon Brown who was Chancellor of the Exchequer (finance minister) and the Prime Minister during the complete financial mismanagement of the countries finances that have left us with a national debt of over a Trillion Pounds sterling.

    Steve Jobs has turned an ailing company back into the largest tech company in the world, which if it continues it’s current growth and innovation will have a market cap of over a Trillion Dollars.

    If a guy merits a Knighthood then give it to him, don’t try and use him for your own political gain.

  7. Hmmm, anonymous sources and rumors. The article: “A spokeswoman for the former Prime Minister said today: ‘Mr Brown did not block a knighthood for Steve Jobs’.”

    1. Oh well, if one of Brown’s spokespeople said it, it must be true.

      Just like it was true that nobody put any pressure on the Scottish government to release the Libyan with the name I can’t be bothered to go and hunt down.

  8. … and that is why I admire Steve Jobs… “honorary” my foot.. let alone being it about “knighthood”!!!!! hahaha… screw those knights and the idiots who gave our “honorary” degrees and labels.

    Way to go Steve Jobs.

  9. A full of hubris fool called Tony Blair recommended Gates for the knighthood. A complete fool succeeded the hubris fool, but we don’t really, really know if he blocked Jobs or if Jobs was even in the running. I don’t recall Gates giving any speeches to Labour Party members so why would Jobs? What would he have in common? What would he possibly have to say in a British political context??????

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.