Well, here goes.
Honours for simply doing a job for which one receives financial compensation, such as but not exclusively, entertainers, sports-people, politicians, state paid civil servants (of all types) and so on are completely not appropriate.
Honours for unpaid and voluntary service to the community are appropriate, but should not be graded according to some functionary's view as to which recipient's effort is more worthy.
A simple "Community Service" medal or ribbon would suffice.
Over to you for comment.
|
Morning Roger, you're up early!
I do agree with you, but I bet a lot of others won't.
Pat
|
Rotten cough & cold = bailing out of bed to let my wife snooze on!
Good morning to you Pat!
|
Strong coffee, a cigarette and a bit of early morning peace is a good cure!
Pat
|
Roger
I'm disappointed in you. I thought you had taken Bigtee's advice and had just got home after several ales, a hot curry and casual sex with a stranger....
Lashing with rain her, so jogging to the gym next, a long sauna then off to see the Life of Pi this afternoon. Followed by several ales in my local and a curry before work tomorrow.
And I totally agree with your sentiments
Last edited by: legacylad on Sun 30 Dec 12 at 08:47
|
Honours: are they obsolete in the 21st. Century?
Yes they are, and completely devalued.
|
|
Basically I agree with you Roger.
|
|
The vile Cherie Blaire getting a CBE - yup the honours system is obsolete !
|
The Honours system is as alive as trust in politicians.
"Arise Lord Tony Blair " would be the final nail in the coffin..
|
|
Honours are now no more than just another part of the celebrity culture.
|
|
Lord Blair of Basra anyone ? What do people think of naming disputed territory in Antarctic after QE2 - The Argies ain't impressed.
|
>> What do people think of naming disputed territory in
>> Antarctic after QE2 - The Argies ain't impressed.
I did like that one. Goes nicely with South Georgia, named after George III, and the South Sandwich Islands, named after the M&S BLT.
|
>> >> What do people think of naming disputed territory in
>> >> Antarctic after QE2 - The Argies ain't impressed.
Should've got their first then shouldn't they, wonder what they would have called it, María Eva Duarte de Perón island?
|
|
Bit bigger than an Island though..
|
|
not the bit they would have got. Iceberg i think they call it.
|
A good idea in principle but devalued by the awful people we hand them out to and the politicised way they are often awarded.
I would rather we voted for winners, nominated locally like some BBC awards.
|
What a sterling bunch of serious no-nonsense chaps and ladies you are. Obviously Roger would quite like to be woken up by his valet with the greeting 'Good morning, Sir Roger,' although if his first name were Gengulphus for example, like the character in one of the superbly funny Jeeves novels, he might feel differently. Perhaps that was what he really had in mind. Similarly, Dame Pat would sound a bit better than Dame Shirleen... But I can't see what's wrong with Dame Kelly Holmes.
Perhaps names are the real problem. It would be far more rational to have a number or number-and-letter code imposed on everyone at birth. It would suit a world in which all details are held on mainframe computers and people's brains are atrophied. No chance of misspelling or mispronunciation, or of people topping themselves after brooding on their ridiculous given names while feeling a bit depressed and paranoid.
'Lord X43CBR/194887453 of Nempnett Thrubwell has been appointed to the Privy Council.' Has a certain ring to it don't you think?
|
|
Devalued now way beyond ironic.
|
What about only awarding honours after someone has died, based on an objective assessment of the value of their life?
I often feel when reading an obituary - he sounds a good egg, he ought to be put in poet's corner or the pantheon or something like that. A kind of national equivalent of putting ex headmasters' portraits in the hall, or inscribing someone's name on a roll of honour.
That way we wouldn't get carried away by one-off good deeds or temporary show-biz celebrity. Also, most importantly, there would be no point in anyone angling for one during life.
|
Do people here think everyone was as pleased as they pretended to be when field peerages, knighthoods and so on were handed out to thuggish warriors, warlords and brothel keepers? Now that they are handed out to professional politicians, trick cyclists and noncing toadies and vulgarians, has anything really changed?
The answer is that it hasn't. Honours are still handed out to the deserving and undeserving alike. It's absurd to think the system has become 'devalued'. What people fear is that the country has become devalued, that they are living in a tinpot backwater full of smug hobbits who don't see how ridiculous they and their country are.
One wonders why these stern rationalists don't all decamp to some vibrant rational republic or dictatorship. It wouldn't be all that nice probably but it wouldn't be so embarrassing, would it? That's the main thing, for those whose legs are constantly plaited with embarrassment. Those of us who are more relaxed, shameless and easily amused would at least be spared their tedious carping.
|
Tedious carping it may seem to you AC, but some of us would just like to see the future gongs handed out to people who are worthy of them.
Let's look forward, looking back at what has gone before can't change anything.
Pat
|
|
Maybe turning AC's view on its head in that any honour bestowed on by the State should have added value to the recipient. I thought the British Empire had croaked ages ago by the way.
|
>> I thought the British Empire had croaked ages ago by the way.
This is the sort of plaited-legs stuff I mean Rob. No one who can read thinks Britain still has any empire to speak of. But it had one, a big one, which shaped the world we are living in now and has left traces - fading traces if you like - more or less everywhere. Not all fading so quickly, although change is constant: language, institutions, culture and learning that this country imposed on a lot of bits of the world. Is there so much to be ashamed of? I don't hear nearly as much of this miserablist carping and false regret from those recently imperialized as I do from my own compatriots. They have a realism and seriousness some of us seem to have lost.
|
>> some of us would just like to see the future gongs handed out to people who are worthy of them.
But Pat, some of them are, surely? I was just reminding people that it was always like that.
|
Granted AC, SOME of them are.....most or them arn't. There's the problem.
Pat
|
|
The fact is of course that awards are purely a matter of opinion. Your views as to who should be rewarded are unlikely to coincide with mine and nobody is going to agree totally with any selection. At the end of the day they add a little bit of colour and interest to life. Don't see the problem.
|
>> At the end of the day they add a little bit of colour and interest to life. Don't see the problem.
The problem is that colour and interest are embarrassing. After all some of the recipients don't seem all that deserving. That's the trouble innit? If only they'd just give gongs to Brucie and them, geezers who deserve it like, I'd be in favour. But they just throw them away on civil servants and diplomats no one's ever heard of. Not to mention those stupid incompetents who somehow get to be government ministers.
The whole thing's been completely devalued since Ethelred the Unready's day. Completely devalued. Just like the so-called thieving empire and the British army what had to be rescued from that Hitler by the French, or was it the Russians? Some foreign lot anyway.
We all ought to run away and hide in Sark or somewhere. This place is a pathetic disgrace. Anyone who thinks different is a Pollyanna.
|
>> Granted AC, SOME of them are.....most or them arn't. There's the problem.
>>
>> Pat
But how do you know?
I'll never grasp the hierarchy of Knight Commanders, Grand Commanders and orders of this that and the other. I've no truck with idea that say Permanent Secretaries of Govt Depts should automatically get knight/damehoods. And if the Commissioner of the Met Police ends up in the soup over 'l'affaire velo' then the awarders are going to look pretty silly.
OTOH, as a Civil Servant of 35 years, I usually recognise one or two names amongst the OBE/MBE recipients. There's one this year who I speak to every month or so and with whom others in my unit have much more contact. The recitation about services to reform in a particular area of public service, in which the person concerned has worked for ten years, seem to me entirely justified.
While I can be as cynical as the rest of my colleagues about 'right place/time' etc the vast majority are richly deserved. People who excel in their jobs, perhaps at times of change or keeping a limping ship afloat, deserve recognition.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 30 Dec 12 at 20:50
|
>> OTOH, as a Civil Servant of 35 years, I usually recognise one or two names
>> amongst the OBE/MBE recipients. There's one this year who I speak to every month or
>> so and with whom others in my unit have much more contact. The recitation about
>> services to reform in a particular area of public service, in which the person concerned
>> has worked for ten years, seem to me entirely justified.
>>
>> While I can be as cynical as the rest of my colleagues about 'right place/time'
>> etc the vast majority are richly deserved. People who excel in their jobs, perhaps at
>> times of change or keeping a limping ship afloat, deserve recognition.
Yeah but its mostly in the civil service where those rewards go. Wholly unjustified in 99% of cases. Gongs for doing your job? Just because the gov pays your wages? Obscene.
|
>> Just because the gov pays your wages? Obscene.
Zero got three gongs from people here for that populist, ignorant piece of crap. Obscene.
|
"Zero got three gongs from people here for that populist, ignorant piece of crap."
Now the awful populists are adding gongs just to annoy Sir Armel. You wicked lot!
|
>> Now the awful populists are adding gongs just to annoy
heh heh... up to nine now. It really is a deplorably mean and nasty attitude, perhaps not so much ignorant as partial - one-sided - and sour. And populist of course. No depth or breadth, just a 'point'.
I blame the media and think pieces by members of the chattering classes. Readers end up imagining they have thought this stuff up for themselves.
|
Ten.
I've just given him one as well.
|
"Gongs for doing your job? Just because the gov pays your wages?"
Curiously the same could be said for most Olympic medal winners. Many are paid very well for what they do, their organisations receive large government grants and the winning of an an olympic medal will considerably boost their earning potential. Perhaps they are undeserving of honours too.
|
Yes, exactly!
The "well fit" and delightful Jessica Ennis has just bought a million pound house in an exclusive area of Sheffield, despite not having sold her existing £300,000 home.
It is estimated that her sponsorship, advertising etc. next year will be around £5 million.
Don't get me wrong, she deserves a good income, for her years of effort and utter dedication, but a gong for it - no.
|
>
>> While I can be as cynical as the rest of my colleagues about 'right place/time'
>> etc the vast majority are richly deserved. People who excel in their jobs, perhaps at
>> times of change or keeping a limping ship afloat, deserve recognition.
They do get recognition - it's called a salary - deposited in their bank accounts each month.
|
>> The vile Cherie Blaire getting a CBE - yup the honours system is obsolete !
Since you cannot spell her marital surname correctly I'll take a punt you're not known personally.
I don't agree with everything she does but if she's done the charitable stuff for women's rights why should it not be recognised.
|
I think some of the honours doled out this year will prove to be very popular.
Jess Ennis certainly deserves one.
|
David Weir is a brilliant athlete and certainly deserved a K but I'd much rather give Jessica one.
No offense you understand. ;-)
|
Not me that's offended, Jess might have some words to say about it tho.
Anyway you'd never catch her
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 30 Dec 12 at 21:37
|
Yes, David Weir et al all deserve a knighthood - in fact, I think we all deserve knighthoods. Let's be fair and award them to everyone like grade As in O and A levels, then we'll all be very happy.
Of course the wretched honours system is obsolete; in fact, it's more than obsolete, it's obscene! It fell out of favour with me when Tony Blair handed gongs out like confetti to the newyob England Cricket team who promptly got drunk and went on to lose the next Ashes series.
Next thing, they'll make John Prescott a lord ....... oh no, they haven't, have they? Really???
|
|
Ken Livingstone turned down a gong - he says. CBE, I think.
|
>> Ken Livingstone turned down a gong - he says. CBE, I think. CBE...Complete Ejit.
>>
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 2 Jan 13 at 00:35
|
|
At least he has some principles, or he did it to gain publicity.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 30 Dec 12 at 22:54
|
I don't mind deserving characters getting something. What I don't like is the fact that some jobs come with an automatic knighthood notwithstanding the recipient can be the most useless person to hold the post.
The Met boss always got one, as did the RUC chief. This seems to have now spread to Manchester. When I joined, the boss was John McKay...He got his by virtue of later becoming HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary but the trend since has been Knighthoods for all since, Richards, Anderton, the unloved Wilmott and recently Peter Fahy. The only one not to get one since the 60s was the popular Mike Todd...and he would have if he hadn't topped himself.
Not all so spectacular enough to earn the gong, IMO.
Ted
|
"I'll never grasp the hierarchy of Knight Commanders, Grand Commanders and orders of this that and the other. "
Explained in a "Yes Minister" episode.
Bernard Woolley: In the service, CMG stands for Call Me God. And KCMG for Kindly Call Me God.
Hacker: What does GCMG stand for?
Bernard: God Calls Me God.
From: Doing The Honours
|
Don't people here understand that honours have always been for sale, and have always been awarded to bad or worthless people along with deserving ones?
I thought everyone did. But you live and learn.
|
Apart from awards to politicians people think they don't like, several here including the egregious Zero seem to object violently to civil servants getting gongs of various sizes. What is supposed to be wrong with that?
Civil servants aren't, and certainly used not to be, as well paid as similarly qualified people in the private sector. Their gongs traditionally aren't 'just because the government paid their wages' as Zero idiotically suggests. It's because they have, or are assumed to have, done their jobs running various aspects of the state, some more important than others but all deemed necessary, in a conscientious manner, without taking bribes or stealing government property. Worthy enough surely? Times may have changed but I certainly don't begrudge people their modest gongs.
Now, all you honour-disparagers want one of two things: no honours for anyone which is boring, dull and sour; or honours for the people you think should be getting honours. I doubt if anyone here has half a dozen candidates. I certainly haven't. I don't regard it as part of my function to distribute honours. I glance at the list, go tut tut, hooray, tut tut and forget all about it.
Life's too short to give a fish's tit about this sort of thing really.
|
>>without taking bribes or stealing government property. Worthy enough surely?<<
No it isn't worthy enough, that's the point.
The vmajorityrity of the population go out daily, do the job we agreed to do in a conscientious manner, remain honest and dedicated and get paid the wage we agreed to do the job for.
How are politicians or civil servants any different?
>>I doubt if anyone here has half a dozen candidates. I certainly haven't.<<
Could it be that you mix in the wrong circles?
Most of us know a number of people, ordinary folk who go way over and above what is need to give services to their community, to their family members and because of that save them from becoming a burden on the state.
There are so many unsung heroes who are nameless but to a close circle of friends and they are the real unsung heroes, and the ones who are deserving of recognition.
Brucie gets paid well to do his job, as do politicians and sportsmen.
The little old man in my village who is in his eighties and comes round every year in all weather to sell poppies, mows old people's lawns for nothing, and delivers the parish magazine, do it for nothing at all.
Pat
|
There are so many unsung heroes who are nameless but to a close circle of friends and they are the real unsung heroes, and the ones who are deserving of recognition."
So do you intend to do anything about it? Filled in a nomination form for them perhaps? Or a are you just complaining
www.number10.gov.uk/take-part/recognising-others/nominate-someone-for-an-honour/
|
>> No it isn't worthy enough, that's the point.
>>
>> The vmajorityrity of the population go out daily, do the job we agreed to do
>> in a conscientious manner, remain honest and dedicated and get paid the wage we agreed
>> to do the job for.
>>
>> How are politicians or civil servants any different?
>> Could it be that you mix in the wrong circles?
>>
>> Most of us know a number of people, ordinary folk who go way over and
>> above what is need to give services to their community, to their family members and
>> because of that save them from becoming a burden on the state.
>>
Pat,
I wouldn't disagree with you about the KCMG type awards going to those at the top. There certainly seem to be jobs that get one automatically in the higher echelons of the Police. There also seems to be an unwelcome return to such Perm Secs in govt being Knights or Dames.
The orders of C, O or M of the Order of the British Empire however go to people whose service has in some way been exceptional. A lady who worked for me twenty years ago as a junior manager branched out into equality and diversity. Regarded as an exemplar in the field and spread best practice around other departments. You can disagree with the message if you like (I regard it as liberating talent) but her leadership in the field was undobted. She got a CBE.
Anybody can nominate the unsung heroes of their own village or whatever. The paperwork is a bit daunting though.
|
|
Brunstrom never got anything - not even a Queen's Police Medal - which was almost an automatic thing for Chief Constables.
|
>> Brunstrom never got anything - not even a Queen's Police Medal - which was almost
>> an automatic thing for Chief Constables.
I wonder if it was offered but declined?
Heath, Benn and presumably Major must all have declined life peerages.
The guy who did the Olympic opening ceremony is also reported to have done so.
|
Are they obsolete?
No they are a reward for total Failure..
"Hector Sants, Britain's top financial regulator during the 2008 banking crisis, has been awarded a knighthood,"
www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/dec/29/hector-sants-new-year-honours
So the man in charge of the organisation set up to regulate the banks in the 21st century and head during the 2008 crisis is rewarded for abject failure.
Says it all.
"After his promotion to lead the FSA in July that year there was nothing he could have done, he said, to prevent Northern Rock spiralling toward nationalisation or RBS's disastrous acquisition of its Dutch rival ABN Amro. The goal had become one of crisis management and damage limitation."
So he was a self confessed waste of money..
Gets a GONG...
|
>> Heath, Benn and presumably Major must all have declined life peerages.
>>
Why Benn? Or did you mean Blair?
|
|
Benn renounced his hereditary peerage, that of Viscount Stansgate so he could still take his place in the commons.
|
>> Why Benn? Or did you mean Blair?
I meant Benn as a distinguished parliamentarian. The fact that he'd previously disclaimed the Stansgate title wouldn't be a bar. Home and Hailsham both disclaimed hereditary titles and went back to the Lords again as life peers.
If you had a clean piece of constitutional paper you wouldn't start with a revising house composed of nominees. But the one we've got, with plemty of very wise old owls, is actually rather good. Benn and Heath would both have added greatly to it.
|
>> The vmajorityrity of the population go out daily, do the job we agreed to do in a conscientious manner, remain honest and dedicated and get paid the wage we agreed to do the job for.
Pat, I despair of you sometimes. No one could doubt that vast numbers of ordinary people do their jobs conscientiously and don't steal, or that some people appear positively saintly for their kindness to neighbours, suffering strangers and so on. But they or most of them have never been considered for honours or wanted to be. The system didn't evolve to reward them: it evolved to reward state employees and high profile members of the great and good (or great and bad as they often seem).
It's changed over time of course, so now we have people like Jimmy Savile as well as politicians, party fund raisers, billionaire pals of the prime minister etc. Fairness doesn't come into it and never did. It can't really. A matter of numbers.
|
>>so now we have people like Jimmy Savile as well as politicians, party fund raisers, billionaire pals of the prime minister etc. Fairness doesn't come into it and never did. It can't really. A matter of numbers.
You seem to be violently agreeing that it's unsatisfactory AC.
The difference between the two points of view is probably as to whether it can ever be fair and widely approved of, to which my answer would be "no".
|
>> You seem to be violently agreeing that it's unsatisfactory AC.
Not really. I don't mind it myself and don't aspire to change the system. It's just that something like that is unfair almost by definition. A bit like life itself, or the organization of any State.
|
Wherever has the rebel in you gone AC?
With attitudes like that nothing will ever change for the better.
I always get annoyed at people's acceptance of the inevitable.
Never, ever accept that anything has to stay the same if you feel it is wrong.
And no CG, I haven't and don't intend to do anything about it, I'm not entirely sure he would appreciate that.
I did know how to go about it though.
Pat
|
"And no CG, I haven't and don't intend to do anything about it, I'm not entirely sure he would appreciate that."
So your objection would seem to be that people who have been awarded an honour and are pleased to accept them shouldn't be given honours because someone who perhaps deserves an honour doesn't want one anyway.
|
CG, you may get away with trying to twist other people's words...you have tried to twist mine before and failed.
You know fine well I didn't mean that, unless of course you are not as intelligent as I thought you were.
Now, how about you go back to bed and try getting out of the other side?
Pat
|
|
So what is your objection then?
|
It was stated quite clearly in my reply to AC.
Pat
|
As was my response.
You want awards handed out to those who deserve them but don't explain you can compile a definitive list which which everyone can agree. Awards are necessarily subjective and your list of the deserving will necessarily be different to mine.
You object to those currently receiving awards and complain that the genuinely deserving don't get them but advise that the person you had in mind wouldn't want one anyway.
I give up.
|
"You object to those currently receiving awards and complain that the genuinely deserving don't get them but advise that the person you had in mind wouldn't want one anyway."
I suspect that the person known to Pat wouldn't want one because they had previously been given to the likes of J Savile etc.
|
Possibly but again I ask how can anyone compile a list of honours that will be agreed on and applauded by everyone. It's a subjective process and Jimmy Savile only proves how wrong it can be in hindsight. I suspect that at the time his award was wildly popular.
You can either do away with awards completely or accept them for what they are and just agree or disagree with them and not take the whole thing too seriously. At the end of the day they are just a bit of the tapestry of British life like judges in wigs or the state opening of parliament.
|
>>I give up.<<
Good:)
I know exactly what I mean and from a lot of others posts on this thread, others seem to feel the same way.
No doubt it would amuse you to try and argue the point with me but it isn't going to happen!
Happy New Year CG!
Pat
|
>> Wherever has the rebel in you gone AC?
>> With attitudes like that nothing will ever change for the better.
Recognised some time ago that rebelling against the inevitable is a waste of effort. Thing do change for the better, and for the worse, more or less incessantly. But I don't expect my attitudes to have any noticeable influence, or yours for that matter.
I'm not really trying to change your views though Pat. There's nothing wrong with them emotionally or morally. Indeed they come across as endearing if that doesn't annoy you.
:o}
|
You could never annoy me AC, however you do seem to be the only one who gets away with patronising me:)
Pat
|
>> You could never annoy me AC,
Wanna bet?
But I never want to for some reason. Not quite sure whether it's because I am an old-fashioned gentleman or afraid of being whomped upside the head with your famous baseball bat...
:o}
|
>> And no CG, I haven't and don't intend to do anything about it, I'm not entirely sure he would appreciate that.
Oddly enough I was contacted a few years ago by a committee who advised me I had been nominated for an award by one of my patients.
While this in itself was mildly amusing, I felt a bit uncomfortable that they actually told me which patient it was.
I've never let on to the patient that I had been contacted as I would imagine they could be rather embarrassed.
|
>> advised me I had been nominated for an award by one of my patients.
>> While this in itself was mildly amusing
'Good writing arm' (William Burroughs) then Lygonos? Heh heh... no, seriously, sorry actually, temptation too strong...
|
The great delusion of modern life is that everything should be or can be made fair "Snot fair" is the call of the age.
The sooner people understand that nothing is fair the happier they will be.
Some of us are born in wealthy countries like the UK, Some have wealthy parents, some die young, some are bright and some are stupid. Some are lucky and some are not.
None of this is fair, just what life is. Struggle against it , try to change your life and do something about it but don't just complain that life isn't fair. That's a given.
|
>The great delusion of modern life is that everything should be or can be made fair "Snot fair" is the call of the age.
>The sooner people understand that nothing is fair the happier they will be.
That's the end of New Labour then.
|
|
I think you will find New Labour died a few years back.
|
I've nothing against the idea that people who do their job well should be given rewards, but they should be internal awards, motivaters like saleman of the year, man of the match, etc.
What increasingly grates I think is the assumption that because, say, the civil service think someone has done well, therefore we should all be expected to pay homage to the new knight or whatever.
Civil servants, sports people, news readers, charity workers, police chiefs, etc are really only doing their jobs. Good for them, their employers ought to give them recognition, but I don't need to give them an honour. I would like to reserve my honours for people who make epoch-making contributions to the cause of humanity. The sort of people who would have to feature in a "Short History of the Last Thousand Years".
Obviously only good people of course, not bad ones. :)
|
The Honours system is designed to ensure Senior Civil Servants keep quiet, don't rebel and don't try to ensure the country is run efficiently either. If they meet those needs, they are rewarded with lots of Honours.
The Honours awarded to other people are just a figleaf to cover the facts that most awards go to Sir Humphries...
|
|
That in a lucid post from A.C., is the reason honours should be discontinued for jobsworths & the like.
|
>> That in a lucid post from A.C., is the reason honours should be discontinued for
>> jobsworths & the like.
They should be stopped, full stop.
No more dames, sirs, OBEs, MBEs, nothing. Call it a day.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 31 Dec 12 at 19:28
|
>> >> That in a lucid post from A.C., is the reason honours should be discontinued
>> for
>> >> jobsworths & the like.
>>
>> They should be stopped, full stop.
>>
>> No more dames, sirs, OBEs, MBEs, nothing. Call it a day.
Rationally, why?
Accepting that too many go to those in public service why not reform so that they are part of the 'Big Society'.
|
Because the awards can never be made socially acceptable to all, becaise it has such negative corrupt past connotations, because the whole notion of "honours" bestowed by royalty has no place in today's society. The though of calling that spiv Alan Sugar " Lord Sugar" is totally ridiculous.
Talking of abusing the Royal family, where is Comrade Anovich.
|
>> the awards can never be made socially acceptable to all
Nothing can.
>> becaise it has such negative corrupt past connotations,
That's just crap.
>> the whole notion of "honours" bestowed by royalty has no place in today's society.
A society far bigger, more complex and more difficult to change than you seem to realise. What are you Zero, a political philosopher? Do me a favour and pipe down with these wild assertions.
>> calling that spiv Alan Sugar " Lord Sugar" is totally ridiculous.
Now there you may have a point:
'Lord Thief, Lord Crook, Lord Chiseller, Lord Devious, Lord Bent:
I see you in your Rollses
As I walk in Hong Kong sneakers
All the way through W1 to pay my 58%.'
Last four lines of a poem I wrote in the seventies, when somewhat indebted to a tertiary bank.
|
Mrs Alanovic had a not so good result from the Hospital in early December and had to go back for further tests. I do hope everything is OK with them both.
Pat
|
Hi Pat,
We're OK thanks, further investigation over the Christmas period indicates that Mrs A has not suffered a recurrence of the cancer at this time, and the symptoms she experienced were due to side effects of the medication she continues to take. We had a good Christmas, and our children enjoyed themselves thoroughly, which is the main thing. Back to work now. Hey ho.
|
>> We're OK thanks, further investigation over the Christmas period indicates that Mrs A has not suffered a recurrence
What a relief that must be. Long may it remain so Alanović.
Never mind Zero's crap though. The comments of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar on the British role in Afghanistan (today's terrorflag) should amuse you, as they did me.
|
I'm so pleased to hear it was a false alarm Alanovic, and you can breathe easy for a little while again.
It's good to see you back on here, you always liven them up a bit:)
Pat
|
>> Because the awards can never be made socially acceptable to all, becaise it has such
>> negative corrupt past connotations, because the whole notion of "honours" bestowed by royalty has no
>> place in today's society. The though of calling that spiv Alan Sugar " Lord Sugar"
>> is totally ridiculous.
>>
>> Talking of abusing the Royal family, where is Comrade Anovich.
I'm back. Don't do computers whilst I'm on my holidays. Works with the beggars, see?
So if "the whole notion of "honours" bestowed by royalty has no
place in today's society", what is the inevitable conclusion about the royalty itself? But then, you'd expect me to say that, I imagine.
Happy 2013 to everyone. A "royal" baby year. What joy. I wonder if we'll be remembering Jacintha Saldanha when the fabulous infant arrives, bathed in the light of God, His anointed choice gloriously to lead us?
|
There is an advertisement at the bottom of this web page for UK "Awards Consultants".
I wonder what an awards consultant does? Is he the intermediary I need if I am thinking of buying myself a knighthood?
Perhaps he would look at my CV and decide that it needed a bit more charitable experience, or that I needed to chum up with Dave on a team-building exercise down a drain pipe. Obviously I don't want to over-do it, and I might need advice on the correct etiquette, eg for ending an email without laughing out loud.
Sounding like Henry Root - what's the form here? Where did you buy your title?
|
I wonder if we'll be remembering Jacintha Saldanha >>>
Glad the good woman is well AV.
Yes i'll be remembering the poor woman mentioned, the result of half wit 'entertainment' for an increasingly idiotic audience.
I'll also be remembering that poor Indian medical student whos name doesn't appear to have been released who was brutally gang raped beaten and mutilated by what one can only assume to be a renegade cabal of half upright demons in India, i've read of some despicable behaviour in history and the well documented atrocities by truly dreadful regimes both in living memory and still happening somewhere, true evil stalks this planet, it needs to be cut dead by good men.
|
>>I wonder if we'll be remembering Jacintha Saldanha when the fabulous infant arrives
I do not seriously believe that the poor woman committed suicide over a prank. But if she did, I guess she wouldn't have made it past April 1 anyway. I fail to see how anybody can be expected to take responsibility for that woman's action in circumstances such as these.
I feel sorry for the two Australian Radio Presenters who have lost their jobs, their careers and their peace of mind because they have been the subject of a media driven witch hunt for playing a prank.
Not a funny prank. Not even a sensible prank. But only a prank.
I mean, its not as if the media would publish April 1 pranks, its not like a fortune has been made out of Candid Camera and the ilk.
And the global, sanctimonious, hypocritical bandwagon jumping is laughable.
I assume that the world would take responsibility if one of the two presenters committed suicide?
I assume that the world will apologise if one day the three suicide letters become public and it suddenly seems not so clear cut?
|
You miss my point so eloquently, FMR, it seems a shame to restate what I have been saying about this story all along. I care not about the prank element, and agree with your sentiments in that regard. What I care about is that we seem to have developed a society in which a perceived embarrassment to a "royal figure" can be seen by a person accidentally caught up in causing the embarrassment as cause, even if partial, for that individual to consider, let alone carry out, an act of suicide.
You guess she wouldn't have made it past April 1st anyway. You can't possibly know that, and you can't possibly discount the fact that she may have found an end, or at least a beginning to an end, to her evident mental issues before then.
|
>>You miss my point so eloquently,
I wasn't looking for it.
>>You can't possibly know that,
Probably why I used words like "believe" and "guess".
|
>> >>You miss my point so eloquently,
>>
>> I wasn't looking for it.
Oh. I was under the impression that you were responding to my post, seeing as you took the trouble to quote it. If you're reading and responding to specific posts without trying to find your interlocutor's point, I'd say you've missed another point - that of discussion forums.
>> >>You can't possibly know that,
>>
>> Probably why I used words like "believe" and "guess".
Belief? Yes, that never causes any problems or misunderstandings! ;-)
|
>> I was under the impression that you were responding to my post
Well you were wrong.
>> If you're ........... responding to specific posts
I wasn't.
|
|
Then why give the impression by quoting a post you're not replying to? That's what the quote function is for, surely? I wouldn't have bothered replying to you if I didn't think you were speaking to me. Do you know how to use the internet and discussion forums?
|
|
Get over yourself. I wasn't replying to your note.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 3 Jan 13 at 12:14
|
>> Get over yourself. I wasn't replying to your note.
>>
Yes, you were, by clicking "reply to this message", and then quoting it. If you have something to post which is not a response to someone else, then post it as a reply to the original post. It will then start a sub thread of its own, you you can avoid such daft discussions as this. That's why this forum and most others have that facility, I imagine.
You made a mistake, or failed to understand discussion forum structure and etiquette. Get over that.
|
:-)
And I see The Offended are out of bed for some reason.
Peace to you, No F.
|
I wonder if The Offended were replying to our notes?
And to you A'vic.
|
>> I wonder if The Offended were replying to our notes?
>>
>> And to you A'vic.
>>
To both of us, evidently.
|
The whole frownie face thing is beyond me.
But I got four green thumbs and you only got one. Nyaah, nyaah.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 3 Jan 13 at 13:55
|
>> The whole frownie face thing is beyond me.
Honours for the undeserving, surely? Awarded by self-appointed royalty or similar.
|
>> But I got four green thumbs and you only got one. Nyaah, nyaah.
>>
Got four other logon IDs, have you?
;-)
|
I like the green/red arrow system they use in the DM ... not that I'm a DiM reader you understand.
:}
|
FWIW it's been reported she made 2 previous suicide attempts:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9763845/Prank-call-nurse-in-previous-suicide-attempt.html
Last edited by: Focusless on Wed 2 Jan 13 at 14:58
|
>> FWIW it's been reported she made 2 previous suicide attempts:
>> www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9763845/Prank-call-nurse-in-previous-suicide-attempt.html
It would seem that an inquest has been opened and adjourned. The full facts will be explored on that occasion.
|
>
>> I feel sorry for the two Australian Radio Presenters who have lost their jobs, their
>> careers and their peace of mind because they have been the subject of a media
>> driven witch hunt for playing a prank.
>>
>> Not a funny prank. Not even a sensible prank. But only a prank.
I dont feel sorry for them for a number of reasons.
1/ They are Aussies
2/ They are crap radio presenters
3/It wasnt funny
4/It wasnt clever
Thats enough to sack them and loose their carers as radio presenters for me. Its not as tho they topped themselves is it,
|
>> Thats enough to sack them and loose their carers as radio presenters for me. Its not as tho they topped themselves is it,
Impressive error count in those two sentences.
Limoncello for breakfast?
Last edited by: Lygonos on Thu 3 Jan 13 at 14:11
|
>> >> Thats enough to sack them and loose their carers as radio presenters for me.
>> Its not as tho they topped themselves is it,
>>
>> Impressive error count in those two sentences.
Nothing better to do? all your patients died?
|
Still mostly hungover I reckon.
I just wondered if Stephen Hawking had hacked your PC.
|
|
Yeah I figured we were out of your league.
|
>> Nothing better to do? all your patients died?
>>
Of course not. They have perfect health and live forever in Scotland, now that the Nationalists have improved the SHS (S=Scottish) - freed from the shackles of the poor cousin of the EHS (E=English).
|
>>They have perfect health and live forever in Scotland, now that the Nationalists have improved the SHS (S=Scottish) - freed from the shackles of the poor cousin of the EHS (E=English).
Nothing to do with the Scottish Nosepickers - our health service has always been better than down South.
Just a pity the lifestyle of our patient's is second only to Northern Ireland for dismalness.
Any extra money that comes north is easily repaid by the failure of the Scottish plebs to get much pension since they die in their 60s.
|
>>Any extra money that comes north is easily repaid by the failure of the Scottish
>> plebs to get much pension since they die in their 60s.
>>
"Plebs" ? Resign immediately! ;-)
|
>> "Plebs" ? Resign immediately! ;-)
Precedent suggests I have 9 or 10 days before I need to consider such action :-)
|
|
Despite overwhelming evidence he never used the P word.
|
Thanks for the link, Brom. May I add that I am available for nominations - what would you like? Prices range from £50 for an MBE to £500 for a knighthood; half to be paid upfront, and the residue once the honour is successfully bestowed.
Some years ago, our local Bury St Edmunds MP was one Eldon Griffiths. His ambition was to get a knighthood, which was duly won in 1985. I recall stumbling upon a late evening T.V. programme about his association with a shonky, 'educationa'l set-up called the University de la Romaine, with a PO Box address based above a record shop in Sudbury. You could buy your degree or masters or, for a few quid more, opt for a PhD. The unfortunate, squirming Eldon tried to patronise the young female rookie reporter who slowly but surely tore him to shreds - I'd love to see a video of that performance.
The honours system isn't so far removed from those meaningless degrees.
|
Nominations now open for New Year Hounours in 2014.
www.gov.uk/honours
tinyurl.com/av9ln36 (a small pdf leaflet)
So if you've got a community activist, volunteer or whatever who you think should be recognised here's your chance.
Nominations close in early May.
|
AN acquaintance of ours raised over £250,000 for charity over 25 years by organising charity walks and other fundraisers. All done voluntarily.
He received an OBE: well deserved.
But for anyone doing a paid for job, an Honour for doing the job is - in my view - just unneccessary and devalues the Honours system.
By that logic, it requires a total change.. Honours only given to those who do something outside paid for work.
Ain't going to happen as those who approve the appointments hope no doubt to get one themselves...eg MPs.
|
>> But for anyone doing a paid for job, an Honour for doing the job is
>> - in my view - just unneccessary and devalues the Honours system.
>>
>> By that logic, it requires a total change.. Honours only given to those who do
>> something outside paid for work.
I'd agree with the generality of that. Nobody should get an honour automatically as part of their job. I do think however that an honour is reasonable for somebody who achieves someting exceptional in their work - well above and beyond the call of duty.
Examples might be pioneering R&D work in science; driving through innovation and reform in private or public sector; or leading a particularly high profile and challenging piece of public work.
Members of the secretariat to the Leveson inquiry or those involved with broadcasting or transport for the Olympics might come into the last group.
|
>>
>> But for anyone doing a paid for job, an Honour for doing the job is
>> - in my view - just unneccessary and devalues the Honours system.
>>
Why does it matter whether someone is paid or not? Isn't that just the old argument for excluding paid professionals from sporting competitions?
Should Nobel prizes only be awarded to amateur unpaid scientists?
Booker prizes to novelists whose books don't sell?
Knighthoods only to private amateur explorers who conquer Everests, not leaders of sponsored expeditions?
|
>> Why does it matter whether someone is paid or not?
It doesn't of course, but you are wasting your breath CP. There are people here who know, just know, that honours, especially when awarded via the oh-so-embarrassing and inappropriate-in-this-day-and-age monarchy, should simply be done away with. That, they fondly imagine, would make our country look more serious to outsiders, and to them.
Actually they remind me of johnny-come-lately professional politicians who can't wait to start tinkering pointlessly with the way things are done. It is our great good fortune that none of these idiots have the brains or bottle to stand for election.
|
|
Nice ad hom, AC. Par for the course, really.
|
I quite the honours system. I like it because of its quirkiness, its history, and I must admit that I quite like the fact that because it annoys some people. Its part of the fabric of this country. When we have finally ripped out all those thing that make our country unique and make it completely "fair" and totally bland will it really be a better place? Somehow I doubt it.
If you were building a nation from scratch of course you wouldn't go for a monarchy and an honours system as we now have it but we aren't. We are where we are and it all seems to work and if you don't like it you can perfectly well ignore it.
|
That's true, CGN. I'm sure you simply ignore the things which you consider undesirable in our country also. And I'm sure that, if you were to fail to follow this sage advice and dare raise a grumble against the Establishment, you'll be quite happy being presented with a hand dismissively waved in your direction, to the accompaniment of a loud "Pffffft".
There's democracy.
|
|
You get a green thumb from me CG because your take on the honours system matches mine; especially the bit about annoying the po-faced "egalitarians" who'd mostly be far more satisfied with the Order of Lenin.
|
>> green thumb from me CG because your take on the honours system matches mine; especially the bit about annoying the po-faced "egalitarians"
Likewise. People don't understand how damn dull and feeble they want the place to become.
|
>> >> green thumb from me CG because your take on the honours system matches mine;
>> especially the bit about annoying the po-faced "egalitarians"
>>
>> Likewise. People don't understand how damn dull and feeble they want the place to become.
>>
>>
It's Green Thumb Day for you CG :)
|
|
So every Republic is dull and feeble? USA, Russia, China, France, Germany............etc etc etc.........
|
>> So every Republic is dull and feeble? USA, Russia, China, France, Germany............etc etc etc.........
Not at all. It's fine for them. But what makes anyone think it would be fine for us?
Another thing worth bearing in mind is what they had to go through to become republics.
|
"USA, Russia, China, France, Germany"
They are all bonkers about British royalty. Back in '77, I accompanied my wife who was supervising a school trip to France - and it was wall-to-wall coverage of the silver jubilee; the French loved it. These folk are far more interested in it than the average Brit.
I think the monarchy system is OK and would be better without the hangers-on; however, I have no time at all for the corrupt honours system.
|
>> "USA, Russia, China, France, Germany"
>>
>> They are all bonkers about British royalty.
They are all free to (re)establish a monarchy of their own if they wish.
Tellingly, they don't. It's just a bit of fun for them, laughing at the crazy Brits. They wouldn't want it in their own back yards.
|
I've had same experience as Haywain back in early seventies. French papers were full of then eligible bachelor Prince Charles and his prospective wives.
Much speculation about Princess Marie-Astrid of Luxembourg though her Catholicism would, in relaity, have been a showstopper
|
>> Nice ad hom
Not nice at all, or meant to be. But not all that ad hominem either. People are entitled to their views, and other people are entitled to be bored and irritated by those views and to think they are naive and superficial.
That's democracy comrade.
|
|
I treat comments on a Bulletin Board with the entire seriousness they are due . Which is about 2 minutes.
|
|
"Idiots" is pretty ad hom, AC. On the one hand you say that's democracy, we're all entitled to our views, and yet when views are expressed in opposition to your own, those holding those views are always idiots or craphounds or some other feeble insult. That's the tiring and irritating thing, truth be told.
|
This forum would provide good material for a thesis on how to argue. I've learnt quite a bit ;-)
My first instinct is usually to argue a case from logic, fact, or what seems like a clear ethical or moral standpoint. That often feels to the arguer like an unassailable position, but it can the easiest to deal with - just use different logic, select different facts and principles.
The really great persuaders use one rhetorical device and emotional idea after another.
Churchill was an extreme example, though invective wasn't one of his favourites, at least not in the second person.
When the extreme logician meets the extreme rhetorican, it feels to both of them like knitting fog.
|
>> yet when views are expressed in opposition to your own
Not really. I don't mind being disagreed with and I don't really think people who disagree with me are necessarily idiots. But there are some sets of attitudes, often expressed here, that do bring out a certain irascibility. The same sort of thing happens on the road: some drivers elicit floods of invective that may be completely wrong, applied to any area other than their driving.
The problem here perhaps is that one usually posts in some haste, on the hoof as it were, with only half a mind. It would be possible to make a cold, wounding analysis of views that are irritatingly shallow and arrogant, but that certainly wouldn't be worth the effort. Mild invective serves as shorthand. It isn't meant to be taken to heart.
I don't see any solution to this. A lot of non-idiots have idiotic views about some things. Perhaps I have some idiotic views myself. But it seems to me that complaining about ad hom is a diversion from the actual subject at issue, a form of interference. Such sensitivity sits oddly with the view that what our country really needs is revolutionary change.
|
Gotcha. Ad homs are fine, and are not diversions from the actual subject at issue, but challenging them is not cricket. With you now.
|
>> With you now.
No, you aren't with me. You're just fooling around. Nothing wrong with that of course. We all do it.
|
Honours: are they obsolete in the 21st. Century? - Pat
