MPs urge honours system reform
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I, too am with prOOne and change.
We gor rid of Imperial Honours in Oz almost 30 years ago, and replaced them with bravery and attendance 'gongs' that have more relevant local titles (but not yet the Order of the Brass Razoo). Only people who seriously got their noses out of joint were the Antipodean "Kindly Call Me God" and "God Calls Me God" brigade in the upper echelons of the Public Service, who had come to view the conferring of a knighthood as something that went with the job. This was fixed by giving the disgruntled 'Sir Humphreys' their own special 'gong' called the Public Service Medal - for which even humble clerks are eligible, if there are any left!
And the Law here is also embracing change. Our High Court judges and counsel appearing no longer wear wigs - a practice that has also been adopted by their brothers in other federal and some states' superior courts. However, I have yet to be invited to address any members of the Judiciary in Court by anything other than 'Your Honour'.
We gor rid of Imperial Honours in Oz almost 30 years ago, and replaced them with bravery and attendance 'gongs' that have more relevant local titles (but not yet the Order of the Brass Razoo). Only people who seriously got their noses out of joint were the Antipodean "Kindly Call Me God" and "God Calls Me God" brigade in the upper echelons of the Public Service, who had come to view the conferring of a knighthood as something that went with the job. This was fixed by giving the disgruntled 'Sir Humphreys' their own special 'gong' called the Public Service Medal - for which even humble clerks are eligible, if there are any left!
And the Law here is also embracing change. Our High Court judges and counsel appearing no longer wear wigs - a practice that has also been adopted by their brothers in other federal and some states' superior courts. However, I have yet to be invited to address any members of the Judiciary in Court by anything other than 'Your Honour'.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Nottingham UK
Age: 85
Posts: 5,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having just read the post submitted by Argus I really despair. Do we really want to end up like the great Land of OZ. As Soddim states this great nation was built by our brave predecessor who strove to make this country an Empire. I am now in my late 60s and I am old enough to remember seeing my Father and my Uncles going off to fight to keep this land free and seeing only a few of them returning.
When I left school I went into the aircraft industry, and yes we had one then, Avro, Austers, Bristol, Blackburns, Boulton Paul, de Havilland, English Electric, Fairy, Handley Page, Hawkers, Gloster, Miles, Sauders Roe, Shorts, Supermarine, Vickers Armstrong, Westlands etc. What have we today? BAE who manufacture bits of aircraft and Westlands about to be sold off to the Italians.
Of late this wonderful Blair Government has done so much to destroy the fabric of this Country in the seven years that it has been in power. Blair is also trying to destroy a 1000 years of tradition by proposing to do away with the Lord Chancellor.
Today in the mail there is a report concerning a couple who have fought for the country in the last war, worked, saved paid their taxes brought up a family and now because of ill health they have had to sell their house and use the savings to pay for the care they need in old age. What is the state doing for them nothing. Why because we have opened up the country to allow all these so called “asylum seekers” in for a free ride. We have freed Afghanistan and Iraq, the Balkan States are now not being persecuted so what are they running from? Why cannot they return home?
I know this is an emotive, perhaps incoherent response, and it is early but I am angry. Lets us keep Britain Great and keep our traditions, honours and awards, certainly review the way the individuals are selected. But why
Last sentence should read :- But why should we lower our standards to the rest of the world?
When I left school I went into the aircraft industry, and yes we had one then, Avro, Austers, Bristol, Blackburns, Boulton Paul, de Havilland, English Electric, Fairy, Handley Page, Hawkers, Gloster, Miles, Sauders Roe, Shorts, Supermarine, Vickers Armstrong, Westlands etc. What have we today? BAE who manufacture bits of aircraft and Westlands about to be sold off to the Italians.
Of late this wonderful Blair Government has done so much to destroy the fabric of this Country in the seven years that it has been in power. Blair is also trying to destroy a 1000 years of tradition by proposing to do away with the Lord Chancellor.
Today in the mail there is a report concerning a couple who have fought for the country in the last war, worked, saved paid their taxes brought up a family and now because of ill health they have had to sell their house and use the savings to pay for the care they need in old age. What is the state doing for them nothing. Why because we have opened up the country to allow all these so called “asylum seekers” in for a free ride. We have freed Afghanistan and Iraq, the Balkan States are now not being persecuted so what are they running from? Why cannot they return home?
I know this is an emotive, perhaps incoherent response, and it is early but I am angry. Lets us keep Britain Great and keep our traditions, honours and awards, certainly review the way the individuals are selected. But why
Last sentence should read :- But why should we lower our standards to the rest of the world?
Proone,
In keeping with your apparent egalitarian views would you represent me for free in court so I can get access to my children after a protracted 2 year legal farce perpetuated by members of your profession?
If I represent myself do you think it would help if I called the Judge "mate"?
I believe the inscription on the VC is "For Valour".
In keeping with your apparent egalitarian views would you represent me for free in court so I can get access to my children after a protracted 2 year legal farce perpetuated by members of your profession?
If I represent myself do you think it would help if I called the Judge "mate"?
I believe the inscription on the VC is "For Valour".
'Excellence' is a bit elitist too. I thought competition was frowned upon - too much pressure and all that?
Perhaps we could also have 'Commander of Not Quite Excellent', the 'Officer of Quite Good' and 'Member of Good Effort' .
Just to be fair.
Perhaps we could also have 'Commander of Not Quite Excellent', the 'Officer of Quite Good' and 'Member of Good Effort' .
Just to be fair.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MReyn24050
Perhaps you misunderstood the thrust of what I was saying. It's not really the end of civilisation as we know it. The Imperial Honours System was, for many Australians, the ‘clinical pinnacle’ of a class system that many folk had travelled from one side of the world to the other to be rid of - including those whose travel was arranged gratis by HM's Judges.
We haven't done away with Honours. All we've done is changed the names of the Awards to more closely reflect the 'Australianness' of our society. We still attempt to reward those who render exceptional service through the bestowing of Honours. But we don't use the Imperial terminology any more.
See here
But unlike the UK, we haven't done away with some of the ancient freedoms and rights conferred by the Common Law of England, that came with the first British settlers. For example, we still have the right to remain silent should the police wish to speak with us, and a Court will not draw any adverse inference if some one exercises that right. To my mind, the preservation of these rights and liberties that, in some cases go back to Magna Carta, is much more important than what we call a 'gong'.
Having just read the post submitted by Argus I really despair.
We haven't done away with Honours. All we've done is changed the names of the Awards to more closely reflect the 'Australianness' of our society. We still attempt to reward those who render exceptional service through the bestowing of Honours. But we don't use the Imperial terminology any more.
See here
But unlike the UK, we haven't done away with some of the ancient freedoms and rights conferred by the Common Law of England, that came with the first British settlers. For example, we still have the right to remain silent should the police wish to speak with us, and a Court will not draw any adverse inference if some one exercises that right. To my mind, the preservation of these rights and liberties that, in some cases go back to Magna Carta, is much more important than what we call a 'gong'.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keep the medals for gallantry and the awards for doing a particularly good job, and bin the knighthoods/damehoods that go with the job (and that includes the military) or with singing rock 'n' roll. In fact, just bin all of the knighthoods/damehoods. Sometimes I despair when I see what creeps get knighted/damed. No jealousy there, I can assure you. SIR Zoom?? Really......................
Guest
Posts: n/a
I can readily accept change to our traditions that represents positive move forward for the common good, or removes irrelevant and antiquated practices that either hinder progress or are an incumberence to everyday use (eg wigs 'n gowns). I find it harder to accept arguments that meet none of these criteria, and which are based on contentious opinions that seek to either deny or distort our history.
As I see it, the recommendations support the continuation of our H&A system but with the removal of patronage, territorial claim, chivalry, and any reference to Empire. No problem with the first two, ambivalent over the third - but why Empire? Given some events over which we cannot take pride, our activities abroad during the past hundreds of years have generally improved life on planet Earth, often at much sacrifice to our recent and ancient ancestors. To turn our backs on all of that is a sad and outrageous slur on our national memory.
It is also unhelpful to uphold the new(ish) Oz model as an alternative. That system was changed in order to remove patronage, territorial conferment, and chivalry, but more importantly to reflect Australia's status as an 'independent' Nation that will ultimately (and rightly in my view) achieve its own sovreignty. So in that case, the removal of 'Empire' was understandable.
By all means let's have a more equitable system, but leave the Empire alone. All of this chat of a 'bygone age' belongs in the trendy PC garbage can.
As I see it, the recommendations support the continuation of our H&A system but with the removal of patronage, territorial claim, chivalry, and any reference to Empire. No problem with the first two, ambivalent over the third - but why Empire? Given some events over which we cannot take pride, our activities abroad during the past hundreds of years have generally improved life on planet Earth, often at much sacrifice to our recent and ancient ancestors. To turn our backs on all of that is a sad and outrageous slur on our national memory.
It is also unhelpful to uphold the new(ish) Oz model as an alternative. That system was changed in order to remove patronage, territorial conferment, and chivalry, but more importantly to reflect Australia's status as an 'independent' Nation that will ultimately (and rightly in my view) achieve its own sovreignty. So in that case, the removal of 'Empire' was understandable.
By all means let's have a more equitable system, but leave the Empire alone. All of this chat of a 'bygone age' belongs in the trendy PC garbage can.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Nottingham UK
Age: 85
Posts: 5,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Argus
Thank you for your latest post, I apologise for misunderstanding the “thrust” of your original posting. It just hit me as being a gibe at the Poms. I also thank you for the attachment regarding Australia’s Honour System. From my understanding Australians are still eligible for certain awards under the British Imperial system of honours. I can fully understand the reasoning for the introduction of your own system.
We currently live in a life of change and whilst I am getting on in years I am not against change but I do think some thought should be given to many of the changes this government are trying to rush through. No doubt the honours system does need reviewing but do not just discard titles and awards just because the system of nomination requires adjusting. Two notable recipients of Knighthood come to mind Sir Douglas Bader and Sir Winston Churchill are those who are against the system saying that they, along with many others, did not earn their titles? Let us keep this country the unique and wonderful country it is.
Thank you for your latest post, I apologise for misunderstanding the “thrust” of your original posting. It just hit me as being a gibe at the Poms. I also thank you for the attachment regarding Australia’s Honour System. From my understanding Australians are still eligible for certain awards under the British Imperial system of honours. I can fully understand the reasoning for the introduction of your own system.
We currently live in a life of change and whilst I am getting on in years I am not against change but I do think some thought should be given to many of the changes this government are trying to rush through. No doubt the honours system does need reviewing but do not just discard titles and awards just because the system of nomination requires adjusting. Two notable recipients of Knighthood come to mind Sir Douglas Bader and Sir Winston Churchill are those who are against the system saying that they, along with many others, did not earn their titles? Let us keep this country the unique and wonderful country it is.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MReyn24050
No apology necessary.
I agree that both Sir Douglas Bader and Sir Winston Churchill were inspirational leaders who fully deserved their titles. And in today's troubled world, we could do with leaders like them, rather than those we currently endure.
No apology necessary.
I agree that both Sir Douglas Bader and Sir Winston Churchill were inspirational leaders who fully deserved their titles. And in today's troubled world, we could do with leaders like them, rather than those we currently endure.
Last edited by Argus; 15th Jul 2004 at 07:49.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Home
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Argus
They are both dead and do not fit into the equation. Your past shapes your future But if you live in the past there is no future.
Move on and modernise it is the way ahead. But do not lose your values.
Soddim
That statement has come to bite this country in the ar$e with a spiralling immigration problem. In the ex colony that I work in the people here believe that the UK owe them a debt of free passage to the country that ruled them in the past 
BTW it is not Aus too many crims there
They are both dead and do not fit into the equation. Your past shapes your future But if you live in the past there is no future.
Move on and modernise it is the way ahead. But do not lose your values.
Soddim
Bet our brave predecessors who strove to make this country an empire
BTW it is not Aus too many crims there
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engineer,
You are quite right - they do think we owe them. Unfortunately, that thought is confirmed the moment they arrive on our shores because our socialist government cannot seem to grasp the reality of the problem let alone the cure. I have no doubt that our predecessors would have quickly sorted the situation.
Our demise as a leading nation is our fault.
You are quite right - they do think we owe them. Unfortunately, that thought is confirmed the moment they arrive on our shores because our socialist government cannot seem to grasp the reality of the problem let alone the cure. I have no doubt that our predecessors would have quickly sorted the situation.
Our demise as a leading nation is our fault.
The new honours system (if it happens) should reflect society (very labour). How about get an:
OBE - get the right to drive in bus lanes
MBE - bus lanes and no congestion charge
The government could weight the privliges according to the award.
OBE - get the right to drive in bus lanes
MBE - bus lanes and no congestion charge
The government could weight the privliges according to the award.
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Honours are honours; it doesn't really matter whether the 'E' stands for Empire or Excellence as long as the honour is deserved and appropriate.
What I can't quite come to terms with is the bias in the honours system. Apart from the 'automatic' awards to the military and civil service, honours go mainly to people in show business, sport and the media. They are always supposed to have done lots of good work for charity, of course, and we are all well aware that no-one is in show business, sport or the media merely for the money. But what, I ask, have they done for their nation? Working for charity is supposed to be its own reward.
A national honour should be awarded for services to the nation that involve some degree of personal sacrifice. Sir Michael Jagger, Sir Elton John and Lord Andrew Lloyd Webber? Don't make me laugh.
What I can't quite come to terms with is the bias in the honours system. Apart from the 'automatic' awards to the military and civil service, honours go mainly to people in show business, sport and the media. They are always supposed to have done lots of good work for charity, of course, and we are all well aware that no-one is in show business, sport or the media merely for the money. But what, I ask, have they done for their nation? Working for charity is supposed to be its own reward.
A national honour should be awarded for services to the nation that involve some degree of personal sacrifice. Sir Michael Jagger, Sir Elton John and Lord Andrew Lloyd Webber? Don't make me laugh.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engineer
A profound remark, if I may say so. But, with respect, I wasn't suggesting that the gentlemen in question were anything other than deceased. And, as a critic of the Imperial Honours in so much as those that are handed out to senior civil servants for merely doing their jobs, I certainly wasn't suggesting that I live in the past. If this were the case, I'd still be living in the UK!
I recall the Sergeant Major in at the Battle of Yorkes Drift, as immortalised in "Zulu". In the face of superior odds, he held the garrison together, was inspirational to the men and maintained discipline until victory. After the battle, various 'gongs, were handed out by Queen Victoria, some more deserved than others. But not to the Sergeant Major. Why? Because he was merely doing his job. And, unlike Lord Butler, he wasn't a secretary of a civil service agency.
I agree. It's the values that Sir Winston Churchill and Sir Douglas Bader possessed that are both timeless and relevant today - values that are lacking in many of today's leaders. On a recent visit to the UK, I visited Sir Winston Churchill's grave. To my great surprise, I found not a monument but a simple grave and headstone. It was as Churchill wished. And that says something about the man!
They are both dead and do not fit into the equation. Your past shapes your future But if you live in the past there is no future.
I recall the Sergeant Major in at the Battle of Yorkes Drift, as immortalised in "Zulu". In the face of superior odds, he held the garrison together, was inspirational to the men and maintained discipline until victory. After the battle, various 'gongs, were handed out by Queen Victoria, some more deserved than others. But not to the Sergeant Major. Why? Because he was merely doing his job. And, unlike Lord Butler, he wasn't a secretary of a civil service agency.
Move on and modernise it is the way ahead. But do not lose your values.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Hants
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The real problem with traditions is that the most important element needed to create them is time. Like virginity, once you have lost them, that's it. The value of our honours system is that it links us to worthier men and women who really did deserve their awards. Some new gimcrack "modern" system would be as worthless as MacDonalds' stars by comparison.
There will always be corruption and cronyism, but by ensuring that the politicians and sports personalities are balanced with dedicated professionals in public service as well as servicemen, policemen and firemen etc honoured for gallantry, we value that most unfashionable of words - service. Until our constitution was savaged by this destroying administration it also ensured a leaven of commonsense and corage in our upper legislative chamber.
I used to staff recommendations for honours and awards, and i can assure you that most are won by remarkably dedicated and dutiful individuals who are a genuine inspiration to their colleagues. In the commercial world such people would receive pay rises, bonuses and promotion. This is not appropriate with taxpayers' money. I can assure you that a lot more thought goes into it than "Buggins' turn".
There is an irony. In my experience the really deserving recipients have always been acutely embarrassed. The real value of such an award is the opportunity for their friends and colleagues to write and express those thoughts that they would otherwise in their reserved English way never express. For the popinjays and jacks in office it is the gong itself which is the important thing. I am comforted by the recollection that at Trafalgar Nelson remembered to wear all his stars but left his sword on his desk - look where that got him.
There will always be corruption and cronyism, but by ensuring that the politicians and sports personalities are balanced with dedicated professionals in public service as well as servicemen, policemen and firemen etc honoured for gallantry, we value that most unfashionable of words - service. Until our constitution was savaged by this destroying administration it also ensured a leaven of commonsense and corage in our upper legislative chamber.
I used to staff recommendations for honours and awards, and i can assure you that most are won by remarkably dedicated and dutiful individuals who are a genuine inspiration to their colleagues. In the commercial world such people would receive pay rises, bonuses and promotion. This is not appropriate with taxpayers' money. I can assure you that a lot more thought goes into it than "Buggins' turn".
There is an irony. In my experience the really deserving recipients have always been acutely embarrassed. The real value of such an award is the opportunity for their friends and colleagues to write and express those thoughts that they would otherwise in their reserved English way never express. For the popinjays and jacks in office it is the gong itself which is the important thing. I am comforted by the recollection that at Trafalgar Nelson remembered to wear all his stars but left his sword on his desk - look where that got him.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fawkes
Welcome to the forum.
You make some interesting points. However, I think the fundamental difficulty with your argument is that those in public employment are already well paid for their 'service' (as opposed to gallantry). There's a public perception that mere 'service' in secure, well paid public sector employment with no commercial risk and a guaranteed pension should not, by itself, be deserving of a 'gong'. Those so described are guaranteed to be both rewarded each payday for their labours, and with opportunities to compete for promotion up a clearly defined hierarchical structure with increasing salary, status and pension.
Welcome to the forum.
You make some interesting points. However, I think the fundamental difficulty with your argument is that those in public employment are already well paid for their 'service' (as opposed to gallantry). There's a public perception that mere 'service' in secure, well paid public sector employment with no commercial risk and a guaranteed pension should not, by itself, be deserving of a 'gong'. Those so described are guaranteed to be both rewarded each payday for their labours, and with opportunities to compete for promotion up a clearly defined hierarchical structure with increasing salary, status and pension.
The awards system should not be tampered with in this way - it is our link to our heritage which is for the most part envied by other nations (well some of them at least).
The bottom line is that to get an award/honour someone else has to write the citation ergo the subject must have done something to get noticed.
In the military (and civil service) there are some honours granted on operational lists and some granted on the routine lists though that does not mean that those honours were routine - all recipients have done something over and above their duty to be included on those lists so just accept it that some people deserve the recognition.
The only person who really knows that they deserve the honour is the one wearing it. Try asking someone the next time you see a shiny gong what it was for and they will probably just shuffle their feet and say it was unexpected in that self-effacing British way....
The bottom line is that to get an award/honour someone else has to write the citation ergo the subject must have done something to get noticed.
In the military (and civil service) there are some honours granted on operational lists and some granted on the routine lists though that does not mean that those honours were routine - all recipients have done something over and above their duty to be included on those lists so just accept it that some people deserve the recognition.
The only person who really knows that they deserve the honour is the one wearing it. Try asking someone the next time you see a shiny gong what it was for and they will probably just shuffle their feet and say it was unexpected in that self-effacing British way....
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Big Unit Specialist
There's a distinction to be drawn between awards for acts of gallantry and awards for time serving.
I have no difficulty with, and actively support the former.
I have every difficulty with, and actively object to the latter.
Quite so, for both acts of gallantry and time serving. In the case of the former, there's some discrete act or series of acts that quite properly merits recognition. In the latter, there's no such trigger, other than being able to be noticed for aspiring to a position for which the award of a time serving 'gong' has become custom and practice. Or are recommendations for the latter category generated automatically by either ambitious staff officers or party political people because the individual concerned has reached a certain rank or position?
I'll defer to any decoration awarded for valour, courage and gallantry. But to hanker after an outdated system that is based on 'Buggin's Turn' which in turn has its origins in class based patronage and exclusion is, with great respect, outdated and not relevant to life in the 21st Century.
There's a distinction to be drawn between awards for acts of gallantry and awards for time serving.
I have no difficulty with, and actively support the former.
I have every difficulty with, and actively object to the latter.
The bottom line is that to get an award/honour someone else has to write the citation ergo the subject must have done something to get noticed.
all recipients have done something over and above their duty to be included on those lists so just accept it that some people deserve the recognition.
Argus,
The point I would wish to make in response could be summed up by saying that it is not the Honours system per se that needs overhauling but merely (?) the mechanism by which the Honour receiving cronies and time servers you allude to are rewarded.
My view remains that "the only person who really knows that they deserve the honour is the one wearing it"
The point I would wish to make in response could be summed up by saying that it is not the Honours system per se that needs overhauling but merely (?) the mechanism by which the Honour receiving cronies and time servers you allude to are rewarded.
My view remains that "the only person who really knows that they deserve the honour is the one wearing it"
