Gisèle Pelicot to receive Legion of Honour
Ms Pelicot, 72, became a figurehead for the global feminist struggle after waiving her anonymity in the trial of her former husband Dominique Pelicot and 50 other defendants who were accused of drugging and raping her repeatedly over the course of a decade.
At the time, Ms Pelicot's lawyer told the court that she had waived her anonymity so that her perpetrators be known publicly, insisting that 'shame must change sides' in sexual violence cases, and her image became famous worldwide.
The Légion d'honneur is the most prestigious national order of merit recognising outstanding military and civilian service to France and its ideals.
Established in 1802 by Napoleon Bonaparte, the honour has been held by some of France's most notable figures, including Josephine Baker, the French Resistance spy and performer, and Nicolas Sarkozy, the former president.
As the grand master of the Légion d'honneur, the French president has the final say on who is admitted to the order but in practice the awards are mostly decided by ministers.
The order has five classes, ranging from knight (chevalier) to grand cross (grand-croix) in order of distinction.
Ms Pelicot is one of 589 people awarded the Légion d'honneur in a decree published on Sunday in the Journal Officiel and is to be elevated to the rank of knight.
In December, judges in the French city of Avignon sentenced 72-year-old Dominique Pelicot to 20 years in prison.
Ms Pelicot said afterwards: 'I wanted... to ensure that society could see what was happening. I never have regretted this decision. I have now faith in our capacity to collectively take hold of a future in which everybody... can live together in harmony, respect, and mutual understanding.'
Well-wishers commended her bravery from all over the world. Queen Camilla, a long-standing campaigner on domestic and sexual violence, was said to be 'tremendously affected' by Ms Pelicot's ordeal and wrote a letter to recognise her 'extraordinary dignity and courage'.
Ms Pelicot has since retreated from public life and began writing a memoir, A Hymn to Life, which will be published in January 2026.
Also awarded the distinction this year is Pharrell Williams, the American singer, music producer and designer, whose recent Louis Vuitton show at Paris Fashion week attracted a star-studded cast of observers including Jay Z, Beyoncé, Steve McQueen and Spike Lee.
The Légion d'honneur can be conferred upon foreign nationals who have served France or the ideals it upholds, though membership in the Légion is technically reserved for French nationals only.
Among the other French nationals granted the honour this year are the historian Mona Azouf, the actress Léa Drucker and the rock musician Jean-Louis Aubert, as well as a host of significant former politicians, academics and people in the legal field.
Recipients must have shown outstanding merit in activities benefiting France or the public interest, hold a good character, and are proposed by a minister or at least 50 members of the public.
Recipients can also be stripped of the award in the event that they are convicted of a crime or undertake any action 'likely to harm the interests of France', as was the case with disgraced Hollywood film producer Harvey Weinstein in 2017.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
21 minutes ago
- The Guardian
‘Outwitted': have water companies managed to sidestep Labour's bonus ban?
It started before the election. Against a background of growing fury about the conduct of the water companies, Labour promised to end the injustice of their executives getting bonuses while sewage was dumped in England's rivers and seas. In March 2024, Steve Reed, the then shadow environment secretary, said: 'Since the last election the water bosses have paid themselves £25m in bonuses. Labour will ban the payment of bonuses to polluting water bosses until they have cleaned up their filth.' The policy became a significant part of the election campaign two months later. The manifesto promised: 'We will give regulators new powers to block the payment of bonuses to executives who pollute our waterways.' Once in power, Labour went straight into action. One of the first big laws it passed was the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025. The legislation contains provisions to ban performance-related payments to senior executives of water companies that repeatedly pollute England's waterways with sewage. Reed, now environment secretary, described it as a means to end the 'undeserved' payments. Under the act, the government banned six water firms including Thames Water from awarding bonuses for this financial year after seven major pollution incidents. However, it was not long before flaws in this plan began to emerge. Thames Water has faced particular challenges this year, with regular discussions over its possible collapse, even as customers' bills soar to pay for infrastructure. In February, as the legislation was going through parliament, a court ruled that Thames could proceed with a controversial £3bn loan from a group of creditors, at a 9.75% interest rate, in order to stabilise the company. In May, the chair of Thames, Adrian Montague, told MPs on the environment, food and rural affairs (Efra) committee that bosses were in line for 'substantial' bonuses linked to the loan, on the insistence of creditors. The company needed to pay the bonuses, he said, 'because we have to keep staff. It is a very competitive marketplace out there … If we are unable to pay bonuses, people will come knocking and try to pick out of us the best staff we have. That is not in customers' interests.' Soon afterwards, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced plans to use the act to block Thames bosses taking bonuses. A week later, Reed appeared in front of the same committee, telling MPs that the bonuses had been withdrawn. At the same hearing Montague conceded in a letter that he may have misspoken when he said the bonuses were insisted upon by creditors. Reed told the committee that Thames Water had 'appeared to be attempting to circumvent that ban, calling their bonuses something different so they can continue to pay them'. Thames responded, saying that rather than having been withdrawn, the bonuses were paused. But in July the Guardian revealed that Thames had already paid bonuses totalling £2.46m to 21 managers on 30 April, and was refusing to claw the money back. Although it had paused the bonus scheme, or management retention plan (MRP), it did not promise that the next tranches would not also be paid, with the managers due to receive the same sum again in December and a further £10.8m collectively next June. Under the Water (Special Measures) Act, the only bonuses that can be stopped to those at the very top of the company, such as the chief executive, the chief financial officer and the chair. Chris Weston, the chief executive of Thames Water, has voluntarily declined his 300% bonus, because, he said, it would have been a 'distraction'. The water campaigner and former Undertones frontman, Feargal Sharkey, campaigned with Keir Starmer during the general election. But Sharkey has been left unimpressed by the bonus ban. He said: 'Driving forward eye-catching policies designed to do nothing more than grab headlines is no way to fix the biggest problem facing this country in the 21st century, the government has been outwitted and outmanoeuvred by the water companies.' Was the Thames package designed to circumvent the rules? Documents it released to the Efra committee show that when designing the payments package, the company hired top consultants and law firms including Rothschild & Co, Linklaters and Mercer to help it come up with a retention programme that was legally sound and would get past regulators. During Thames board meetings set up to discuss the bonuses, members asked 'if any pressure to waive bonus would be a risk generally or under the water (special measures) bill', according to the documents The board was told the bonuses were in line with the specifications of the legislation: 'The [remuneration] committee requested to reconfirm whether the MRP was consistent with the Water (Special Measures) Act and related Ofwat consultation and it was confirmed that the MRP was a retention payment rather than a bonus, and had no performance-related element. As such, it was not restricted by the Water (Special Measures) Act.' Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion Thames Water and its lawyers and advisers believe they could pay its chief executive and chief financial officer under the scheme if they wanted, because they are retention payments. If this loophole remains open, any water company that breaches pollution rules could continue to pay out millions in bonuses to their executives, as long as the payments are not labelled performance related. In a letter to the Efra committee in July, Reed would not directly answer whether these bonuses would be banned. He said: 'Should Ofwat determine Thames Water have breached the performance-related payments rule, then I expect them to take appropriate enforcement action.' A Defra spokesperson followed up and said: 'It is for companies to follow these new rules and help rebuild trust with their customers.' Water companies can also get round the bonus ban by hiking the pay of executives to make up for the lack of compensation. The Guardian revealed this week that Southern Water has nearly doubled its chief executive Lawrence Gosden's annual pay package to £1.4m. Southern has already been allowed to increase average bills by 53% over the next five years and is appealing to the Competition and Markets Authority to charge more. Ofwat says it may bring forward a planned review of the bonus ban, currently set for 2027, to look at the scope of the rules and see whether the net needs to be widened. The regulator added that executive salaries were a matter for the water companies, but said it expected them to be appropriate when taking bonus bans and company performance into account. A Defra spokesperson said: 'Undeserved bonuses for water company bosses have now been banned as part of the government's plan to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas for good. Any instances of companies trying to circumvent the new rules are completely unacceptable. 'The government will leave no stone unturned against any bosses being made these outrageous payments.' Southern Water said the rise in its chief executive's salary was not an attempt to evade the bonus ban but part of a 'long-term incentive plan' as part of an effort to turnaround the company. It added that the payments were 'common industry practice'. A Thames Water spokesperson said: 'The company's CEO is not party to the MRP and has received no payments. None of the retention payments have been funded by customers. Full details of the plan have been shared with our economic regulator and the Efra committee.'
Daily Mail
34 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Mike Lynch's widow facing damages battle as legal action from Bayesian disaster victims could wipe out her husband's estate
The widow of tech tycoon Mike Lynch could be dragged into multimillion-pound legal row as families of victims demand answers over the superyacht tragedy that killed seven, including her husband and daughter. Angela Bacares, who survived the horrific sinking of the £25 million yacht Bayesian, is now at the centre of a spiralling legal storm, with families of the five other victims preparing a multimillion-pound compensation battle that could engulf what's left of Lynch's fortune. Bacares, who is the sole shareholder of the corporate entity that owned the vessel, could find herself at the heart of the blame game, alongside the boat's management firm and insurance giant QBE. Among the seven killed were Lynch, his teenage daughter, Hannah, the vessel's cook Recaldo Thomas, Lynch's high-profile American lawyer Chris Morvillo, his wife Neda, and British banking couple Jonathan and Judy Bloomer. A further fifteen people, including Bacares, survived, rescued by the crew of a nearby yacht in a late-night operation off the Italian coast. While Bacares is understood to have her own personal wealth shielded from the estate, she may not be entirely free from the financial fallout. Bacares is listed as the sole shareholder of Revtom, the company that owned the doomed Bayesian, and that opens the door to potential legal claims from families of the victims. James Healy-Pratt, a prominent US aviation and maritime lawyer, is representing the family of 59-year-old cook Recaldo 'Rick' Thomas, the first victim recovered by divers. He has said: 'The Thomas family are satisfied that they can establish liability for Rick's death against those entities based on the current evidence.' He confirmed that Bayesian was insured for more than $150 million by British Marine, a subsidiary of QBE, and warned that the family would soon offer the insurer a chance to resolve the case behind closed doors or face high-profile legal proceedings in the US. 'The Thomas family will shortly be offering QBE the opportunity to mediate confidentially their significant claim in the US, or face very public US legal proceedings,' he added. Meanwhile, the family of Chris and Neda Morvillo have also signalled their mounting frustration with the yacht's managers and insurers. Chris's brother, New York lawyer Greg Morvillo, has been outspoken about his determination to fight for justice on behalf of his late brother's daughters. He said: 'We had hoped that by now Camper & Nicholsons, who managed the vessel, and the insurance companies that manage the liability for the vessel, would have proactively contacted us to offer not only their condolences but also assurances that there would be no need for us to litigate the losses suffered by our nieces. 'Sadly, no such outreach has happened and our patience is running out. We do not wish to engage in a litigation, and we had thought that Camper & Nicholsons and the insurance companies would feel the same way, but it is beginning to feel inevitable. 'Through all of this, we continue to express our deepest condolences to all those who lost loved ones or who have been impacted by what we think was an avoidable tragedy.' QBE confirmed it had insured Bayesian but refused to comment further. It is understood the firm has already instructed a major US law firm to handle potential litigation. A legal insider close to the case said: 'What is an unspeakable tragedy for all is turning into a compensation fight.' Last month, Italian authorities raised the sunken yacht from the seabed as part of an ongoing criminal investigation that may not conclude until 2027. A separate British maritime inquiry is also under way and will feed into upcoming inquests. Teenager Hannah was the last to be found, hidden behind a mattress below deck. She had won a place to do English Literature at Oxford and was due to start her studies when she returned from the trip In a separate long-running civil case, Lynch - the Autonomy founder once hailed as Britain's answer to Steve Jobs - was found in 2022 to have defrauded US tech firm Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE) in its $11.7 billion (£8.6 billion) takeover of his software firm in 2011. HPE accused Lynch and his finance chief of cooking the books to make Autonomy appear far more valuable than it was, launching a decade-long legal saga that only deepened after his extradition to the US and eventual death in 2024. Though Mr Justice Hildyard ruled in favour of HPE, the final damages have yet to be determined. The company is seeking a staggering $4 billion - far more than the $516 million Lynch is believed to have personally received. A final judgment is now expected within days, with speculation mounting that the figure could exceed the value of Lynch's estate.
Telegraph
34 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Trump has every right to berate the technocrats
Knucklehead or numbskull? Donald Trump uses both terms to describe Jerome Powell, the chairman of the US Federal Reserve. It depends on which day of the week it is. His attacks on Powell are now so frequent they have lost the power to shock, but imagine the horror if Sir Keir Starmer started regularly describing Andrew Bailey, the Governor of the Bank of England, as a nitwit or a simpleton. Or if France's president, Emmanuel Macron, were to refer to Christine Lagarde, the president of the European Central Bank, as a 'nigaud' or 'crétin'. Imagine also if they let it be known that they were examining ways of ridding themselves of their troublesome monetary priests, as Trump has done in the US. The entire political and economic establishment would be up in arms and there would be mayhem in the bond markets. Yet Trump is Trump and iconoclasm comes with the territory. Trump's bark may in practice turn out to be worse than his bite. It often does. It is none the less worth considering whether in this instance he might not have a point. Looked at objectively, the unwritten understanding that presiding governments should never criticise their central banks is one of the modern world's more absurd conventions. Of course, we all know how it came about. It was part of a much wider shift in which key parts of government were removed from direct political control and vested instead with independent technocrats. Free from the need to win elections, it was argued, these arms-length bodies would do a much better job than the politicians in keeping things on the straight and narrow. In Britain, granting the Bank of England independent control of monetary policy, was very much part of the then-Labour government's attempt to sanitise itself with markets and present the UK as a trusted and stable monetary regime that had finally put its post-war inflationary past behind it. As with most other central banks, independence has been buttressed by provisions that make it virtually impossible to sack the incumbent governor except in the case of madness or misfeasance. Much as he would like to dismiss Powell, even Trump has struggled to find a way around these guardrails. The ballooning costs of renovating the Federal Reserve's grandiose Washington headquarters may be evidence of public sector waste and incompetence but it is not, on the face of it, a case of outright fraud. All the same, the lavish nature of the Fed's refurbishment touches a chord that characterises central banks as out of control, unaccountable and often just plain wrong. And now they build themselves palaces and cathedrals as symbols of the once-ruling idolatry. Admittedly, Trump's own vulgar redecoration of the Oval Office in his trademark gold chintz is in some respects just as bad, even if far less expensive. But at least Trump is elected, while Powell is a mere appointee. This in itself is causing much amusement, for in this week describing Powell as a 'terrible' chairman, Trump added that he was 'surprised he was appointed', seeming to forget that it was he who originally chose him. He soon regretted it and, by the end of Trump's first presidency, the two were barely on speaking terms.
