UK Honours system - flawed?

[witch]

ABOLISH THE MONARCHY! Problem solved no more sycophants keeping the system of privilege going.

 

Create a peoples award>

 

What now? Most award recipients are chosen by the 'powers-that-be' and I can't see that changing whether the Queen actually gives them out or some random bloke who has been elected President. How does that change things?

 

The Queen only has one set of civilian awards that SHE chooses the recipients of - The Royal Victorian Order. My father, who was one of those faceless civil servants in and around government (think 'Yes, Minister') got the Lieutenant of the Victorian Order from the Queen as he was involved in many royal visits. In a twist to the 'get rid of the monarchy' argument, he actually would have REFUSED the award had it come from the government as he thought they were all...well, I can't say what he thought....but it was in 1986....

[kili]

What makes you think that abolishing the Monarchy will abolish sycophancy? Do you not think people did the same under the Soviet system for awards?

 

Orders, decorations, and medals of the Soviet Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Try reading what I said not what you want it to say. I dident say it would abbolish sycophancy. I said it would stop the abuse that is the privalage system known as the monarchy . If you dont uderstand why the monarchy is an affront to democratic principles amd why any awards should come from the people thats a matter for your conscience .

[Flatpackhamster]

Try reading what I said not what you want it to say. I dident say it would abbolish sycophancy. I said it would stop the abuse that is the privalage system known as the monarchy . If you dont uderstand why the monarchy is an affront to democratic principles amd why any awards should come from the people thats a matter for your conscience .

 

"Awards should come from the people", should they? So we'll all vote for who gets an award, will we? Of course not. What'll happen is that 'the people' will have the decision made for them by The People's Council Of Award Choosers which will be exactly the same system as we have now with the word 'people' replacing 'royal'.

 

What I think is so pitiful about socialists is your near-total lack of understanding of basic human psychology. I can't decide whether it's naivete or stupidity but, time and again, you wave your arms and say 'People will behave like this under the new system' and then you're amazed when they don't.

[speckytecky]

Given you a rep for this Flatpackhamster because what you say sadly is proven in history - time and time again.

 

"Awards should come from the people", should they? So we'll all vote for who gets an award, will we? Of course not. What'll happen is that 'the people' will have the decision made for them by The People's Council Of Award Choosers which will be exactly the same system as we have now with the word 'people' replacing 'royal'.

 

What I think is so pitiful about socialists is your near-total lack of understanding of basic human psychology. I can't decide whether it's naivete or stupidity but, time and again, you wave your arms and say 'People will behave like this under the new system' and then you're amazed when they don't.

[kili]

"Awards should come from the people", should they? So we'll all vote for who gets an award, will we? Of course not. What'll happen is that 'the people' will have the decision made for them by The People's Council Of Award Choosers which will be exactly the same system as we have now with the word 'people' replacing 'royal'.

 

What I think is so pitiful about socialists is your near-total lack of understanding of basic human psychology. I can't decide whether it's naivete or stupidity but, time and again, you wave your arms and say 'People will behave like this under the new system' and then you're amazed when they don't.

 

You make a lot of assumtptions about people . Who said I was a socialist? And stupidity can be assgined to many arguments not least one that assumes a system of reward by the people would be worse than the monharcy, a system that rewards sycohpancy and privalge to a select few.

 

It seems your understanding of basic human psychology is also lacking .

[nicholab]

The honor system is still very class based if your a dinner lady you get a lower honer that a white hall civil servant.

[Flatpackhamster]

You make a lot of assumtptions about people . Who said I was a socialist?

 

The likelihood of you being anything but when you have that stance on the monarchy is close to zero. That level of naivete around the actions of 'the people' (which you treat as a single, homogenous lump instead of the individuals they are) is characteristic of socialists.

 

And stupidity can be assgined to many arguments not least one that assumes a system of reward by the people would be worse than the monharcy, a system that rewards sycohpancy and privalge to a select few.

 

It seems your understanding of basic human psychology is also lacking .

 

No, it isn't. You keep saying there would be a 'system of reward by the people' so perhaps you could outline to us the exact process. How would 'the people' choose? Take me through the process because I don't think that you've thought it through. I think you imagine that 'the people' would choose and you don't know, for a moment, how that would happen.

[kili]

The likelihood of you being anything but when you have that stance on the monarchy is close to zero. That level of naivete around the actions of 'the people' (which you treat as a single, homogenous lump instead of the individuals they are) is characteristic of socialists.

 

 

 

No, it isn't. You keep saying there would be a 'system of reward by the people' so perhaps you could outline to us the exact process. How would 'the people' choose? Take me through the process because I don't think that you've thought it through. I think you imagine that 'the people' would choose and you don't know, for a moment, how that would happen.

 

You don't have to be a socialist to be opposed to the monarchy you just need an intellect with some depth to be able to reason the absurdity of such an institution in the century we live in.

But as this is getting off topic and seems to be more about your political leanings than mine I'll bow out of this conversation from this point and leave you to it. 900 kids is enough for me to deal with without playing tit for tat with you.

 

Have a nice day.

 

Kili

[pcstru]

The likelihood of you being anything but when you have that stance on the monarchy is close to zero.

 

Surely the description most likely to be accurate for someone who wants rid of the monarchy is ... a Republican.

[Flatpackhamster]

You don't have to be a socialist to be opposed to the monarchy you just need an intellect with some depth to be able to reason the absurdity of such an institution in the century we live in.

 

Oh, it's absurd, I'll grant you. But what's more absurd is the idea that getting rid of it would change anything at all. Does France have no honours system? Does the US have no honours system? Do 'the people' decide there?

 

But as this is getting off topic and seems to be more about your political leanings than mine I'll bow out of this conversation from this point and leave you to it. 900 kids is enough for me to deal with without playing tit for tat with you.

 

Have a nice day.

 

Kili

 

If you don't have the courage of your convictions to outline your worldview, I advise you not to post it in the first place.

[Flatpackhamster]

Surely the description most likely to be accurate for someone who wants rid of the monarchy is ... a Republican.

 

Mostly yes, but sometimes no, because it depends what they want to replace it with. Lenin wasn't a Republican, for example. The Ayatollahs in Iran weren't Republicans, they were Theocrats. In the UK, though, you can find almost all Republicans on the left.

[Rydra]

If you want an example of who 'the people' vote for, look at

 

-britains got talent

-xfactor

-dancing on ice/strictly ballroom

-the latest government, since it seems 'the majority' voted them in, but 'the majority' thinks they're incompetent.

 

I wouldn't trust 'the people' to agree on the colour of the sky if you put them all in the same place on a cloudless day and told them all to look up.

 

Also to note, it's not just their accolades within their profession, but what they do with the profession within the country as a whole.

 

None of us are likely to win an award of this size, because we don't do things 'for the country' as a whole. You might be the greatest IT tech that ever walked this earth, but in reality you're still only helping 500-1000 people in one area.

 

Paula Radcliffe is one that's probably overdue, Elton John has been a face of British music for decades and one of the best selling artists in history, he's also helped numerous charities, and has been close friends with the royal family for quite some time. You can't blame people for giving him some credit, how many of you are multimillionaires, have some of the best selling material on the planet, president of your own national football clubs, and a name known by literally hundreds of millions of people.

 

A lot of these people serve their country the best they can with their skills.

 

Is it biased? Yes and no. Only 'big names' achieve these things, but guess what, their achievements are well known and far reaching. So they probably deserve it.