Comments

In her late 80’s, Honor Blackman remained as feisty as ever and refreshingly blunt. Whether tirelessly campaigning on behalf of Equitable Life annuitants or questioning the wisdom of Royalty in a British democracy, nobody could accuse her of hypocrisy. This, after all, was a woman who declined a CBE.

A veteran of British films—she made her debut in the late 40’s—she will be forever associated with two characters, Cathy Gale, John Steed’s first female co-star in ‘The Avengers’, and as Pussy Galore, Ian Fleming’s lesbian thief brought back onside by Sean Connery in the third Bond epic ‘Goldfinger’. Despite the seductive voice and hourglass figure, she both demanded and received respect from her male actors. A karate and judo student in the 60’s, she had, in her own words, ‘a terribly good uppercut.’ When she was ten, she knocked out two boys who were bullying her younger brother – not a woman therefore, to mess with…

When she was alive, there was an outspoken quality that endeared her to me. I can never imagine a duller experience than being amongst an after dinner group, carefully treading the path of political and social correctness. I have, in my time, been subjected to the most unbelievable comments in the workplace, some of which have crossed the racist line, but in all honesty they simply make me laugh. This country that I live in, is not purging itself of racism, merely rendering any public outburst punishable by heavy fines and/or detention. What goes on to this day inside people’s heads, is another matter entirely. I can lampoon myself, yet others I have observed remain chippily sensitive to criticism, however affectionately delivered. I therefore love being around individuals who ‘rail against the world and specific individuals.’ Former Bond girl and national treasure Honor Blackman was a force to be reckoned with. Only hours after the death of Baroness Thatcher, the actress had some unsurprisingly strong views.

“She’s not my idea of Heaven I have to say. Although she did some good things in her time, she was merciless about the unions.”

“I’m not too happy about the Falklands either. We lost men, we took injuries and we blew up a ship. I suppose we need it for a base, but my common sense tells me that it does belong more to Argentina than it does to us.”

“She was a powerful figure, but she did damn all for empowering women. She didn’t surround herself with any women whatsoever or encourage women to come into politics or do anything in particular. She could have been a quite wonderful role model.”

Reflecting on her early screen career:

“There was no equality of women when I started out and one was permanently chased around the office and all the rest of it. That’s what people did in those days and it was assumed you’d sleep with anybody and if you didn’t you wouldn’t get the work. It still persists with some people I’m afraid.”

Honor’s major breakthrough came in 1964, when she put Sean Connery firmly in his place as the no-nonsense Bond girl Pussy Galore in Goldfinger. Interestingly, Honor was older than Sean Connery by five years and remains the oldest Bond girl at 39.

It’s a piece of film trivia that Honor is frequently cited by male journalists. Remaining a fan of the long-running film franchise, the last Bond in her lifetime was accorded the Blackman seal of approval.

“I think Daniel Craig is lovely. He’s a terrific actor to begin with, but for me there’s only one Bond. Sean Connery. I last saw him on his 60th birthday, which was a long, long time ago.”

Like millions of women, her attitude towards, and relationships with men, have routes back to her childhood and in particular, her father. Speaking to ‘The Sunday Telegragh’ in August 2012, she was asked whether her parents had a happy marriage. Reflecting on those early days, she was moved to say:

‘I think they loved one another but he was such a disciplinarian and so demanding that there was a fair amount of fear in the house. He was a very randy individual. It didn’t matter what she was doing or how she felt,there was no foreplay. He didn\‘t even come down and help with the washing up and then say ‘how about it?’

Her first husband was a businessman called Bill Sankey, who reminded her of her father. This was surprising given that her father, a First World War veteran and statistician for the Civil Service, would beat her with a leather strap when he was angry.

“Bill was 13 years older than me and those were the days when your husband was always right. It took me a long time to realise I was more capable than some of the men I knew. It was maddening it took so long. We were supposed to emigrate to Canada where the plan was that I would ditch my whole career, but then I made a last film in Spain and I found it lovely being away on location, not haunted by his jealousy all the time.” Questioned directly by the Telehgraph’s Nigel Farndale whether she had been indiscreet, the actress replied:

“I behaved like a very good wife all the time we were apart. I must have been mad. I posted money to Toronto to help him get established. It all disappeared.”

Looking back on her first marriage, Blackman was in little doubt that he felt threatened by her having a successful career.

“He loved the money I earned but he was jealous beyond belief. He was always looking for people to bash and it was dreadful.

http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw78720/Honor-Blackman-William-Bill-E-Sankey

So that’s it then? – Bill Sankey in a nutshell – an avaricious, jealous and combative individual. The problem is that the man is probably no longer around to defend himself, whilst his ex-wife, from what little I could research, presumably discussed her relationship with him on tour throughout her ‘Honor Blackman as herself’ engagements. It could have all been true, but it appeared just too pat an answer to a difficult relationship problem.

Under construction.

Since 1992, the actress had been an active member of the Equitable Members Action Group, an organisation committed to seeking financial redress for distressed investors of the failed UK insurer. Interviewed in 2009 on BBC Breakfast News, she was candid enough to admit that, in financial terms, her loss had not been as great as other policyholders simply due to the longevity of her career, and the rewarding work that has continued to come her way well into her 80’s. Whilst understandably sought after by the group to act as a high profile campaigner, she has nevertheless devoted considerable time to the cause and should be commended for that fact. Nevertheless, the overiding attention paid to Equitable life’s policyholders, or perhaps I should say a certain faction within that beleagured group, still sits uncomfortably with me for reasons I will explain later on. Firstly though, for the uninitiated, here’s Blackman’s appearance on the BBC in 2009 suitably highlighting the Government’s failings in admitting any complicity in the debacle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJt5kFujvxs\

Secondly, some informative links to the case:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/9850836/Equitable-Life-Compensation-paid-to-6000-savers-after-death.html\

http://www.moneysupermarket.com/c/news/equitable-life-compensation-questions-and-answers/0010298/\

At the turn of the century, Equitable Life was considered the most respectable pension company in the UK. Established in 1762, it eventually became one of the biggest mutually owned life insurers in the world, with around 1.5 million policyholders.

Along the way, it had become the pension company of choice for the prosperous middle class professions -particularly accountants, solicitors and private sector middle tier management members, given that it appeared to provide a better return on its funds than most of its competitors. But, like many things in life, if it looks to good to be true, then it probably is. From the late 1980s, the society was telling policyholders their investments were worth substantially more than Equitable actually had in its coffers. By the year 2000, the stated value of its customers’ policies was £3bn more than the assets actually held by the company. More tellingly, it had made no provision for the guarantees against low interest rates contained in all policies issued before 1988 (the guaranteed annuity rate or ‘GAR’ – the basis for converting one’s accumulated fund into a retirement income for life). Worse still, the company continued to declare bonuses out of all proportion to profits and assets. Investigations undertaken between 2010 and 2012 estimated that the cost in excess bonuses paid out to retiring policyholders in the 1990s was £1.8bn. In 1998, the fall in interest rates led to the first rumblings from disgruntled policyholders about Equitable’s plan to cut the discretionary final bonus for holders of guaranteed annuity policies. By that October it was clear that Equitable would face a major legal challenge.

Two and half years of legal wrangling and a number of cases in the High Court led to suggestions that Equitable was facing a bill of £1.5bn to cover the guaranteed annuities. The mutual insisted that its liability was a mere £200m. On July 20 2000, Equitable Life’s attempt to pass on the cost of its guarantees to policyholders failed in the House of Lords with a ruling that the company had acted unlawfully in its treatment of GAR policies. Equitable was immediately put up for sale and unsurprisingly there were no takers. In effect, the Society had become so weakened by over-bonusing that it could not pay, and in effect, no one would buy its with-profit business at any price. Closing its doors in December 2000, its directors soon resigned.

In July 2001 the new board of directors slashed policy values by 16% (about £4,000 million) and proceeded to affect a compromise scheme to deal with the GAR problem. However, Equitable Life’s problems were too deep-seated and this was not enough to enable it to ride out the stock market falls of 2001/2002. In 2002 policy values were cut by another 10% and the Society was forced to invest almost exclusively in fixed interest stocks. With almost none of its money invested in equity shares, it could not operate as a with-profit insurer and its policyholders did not benefit from the stock market’s rise throughout the period 2003 to 2007.

Many will remember the company’s television adverts clearly. “With no commission to middlemen, it’s an Equitable Life, Henry” and therein lies ‘the rub’ with me.

For every unworldly investor suitably bamboozled by marketing hype – and for those individuals I can only offer heartfelt sympathy for their years of suffering – I also recall ‘high end professionals’ with an overwhelming sense of smugness, mining my extensive knowledge and then investing in Equitable Life, thereby by-passing any right of mine to be rewarded financially for my hard earned academia. Studying every night and sitting exams whilst ignoring the pursuit of a ‘good time’ was my choice and I seek no sympathy. However, explaining to those individuals that the company paid their reps ‘Performance Related Emoluments’ fell on stoney ground. These considerable bonuses, whilst admittedly unconnected £ for £, to each client’s investment, nevertheless impacted on company reserves and its ability to meet future liabilities. Every time, the subject of pensions was raised with me, an existing Equitable policyholder would singularly fail to discuss the company’s perceived investment pedigree focussing instead on the ‘no middleman’ marketing hype. For those individuals with substantial holdings in the company, I was certainly aware, by their own admission, that they had not ‘diversified their risk away,’ thereby spreading contributions amongst several pension providers. If, after all, one could remove adviser commission for the first £100,000 contribution, then what argument might there be for reintroducing such a perceived impediment to ‘value for money’ investing with the next £100,000? No – I’m afraid the primary driver was ‘enhanced terms’ and a professional perception of ‘superior investing.’ In life however, individuals are often hoisted by their own petard. For those who felt they knew best – that in effect, others have no right to earn a living from their accrued professional qualifications – then I’m afraid I have little sympathy. I personally, have always paid for the services of professionals, and whilst there is some merit in DIY self sufficiency, there must also come a point where I can either relax or deploy my income earning potential in more profitable areas than attempting cost saving projects for which I have no formal training. When Miss Blackman marches on behalf of Equitable policyholders, she possibly simply sees an array of elderly retirees with scant understanding of their varied professional background. But, with well over three decades’ experience in financial services, I am acutely aware of this diversity and hence my diluted sympathy for those of a certain ilk. QED.