New Year's honours

[Hope]

In view of the number of 'ordinary' people who have been awarded New Year's Honours (some 75%),

A total of 1,197 people are on the list, with almost three quarters of them earning recognition for work in their local community. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38470732)

what are folk's views on the principle of the system, even if you have misgivings over the actual execution of the idea.

[Anchorman]

Any fluffy system distributed by an unelected puppet which bears the discredited moniker of 'british empire' deserves all the ridicule it can get.

[Gordon]

I'm with Jim on this: get rid!

[Hope]

So Jim and Gordon, are you saying that no-one ought to be publically honoured/recognised for acts they do for society in any way?

[Aruntraveller]

So Jim and Gordon, are you saying that no-one ought to be publically honoured/recognised for acts they do for society in any way?

Reform the honours system - and as Lynne Faulds Wood said we really need to get rid of the 'E'. Ludicrous.

[Gordon]

So Jim and Gordon, are you saying that no-one ought to be publically honoured/recognised for acts they do for society in any way?

Personally I'd say no, since I can't envisage how such a system would work fairly: I'd imagine that for every person honoured for altruism they would be many more who are equally deserving and, as such, it seems pointless and, by being selective on a UK-wide basis, open to abuse and cronyism. The current system, carrying the 'empire' reference, is anachronistic and of course the involvement of the monarchy is for me unacceptable - so bin it, and put the monarchy in the same bin.

If some want public honours then something local would probably be better I suppose - but personally I wouldn't bother.

[Hope]

Reform the honours system - and as Lynne Faulds Wood said we really need to get rid of the 'E'. Ludicrous.

The daft thing is that in my OP I asked about the principle, not the actual working.  I therefore assumed that both Jim and Gordon would rather we had no such system of recognition.

Incidentally, assuming that we retain the monarchy at least until Liz passes on, in whose name would folk like to see the honours awarded by (noting that, contrary to Jim's and Gordon's fancies, the monarch doesn't decide who is the receive them, and nor does the Prime Minister of the day).  That job is fulfilled by a group of civil servants tasked with the job.  I believe that, whilst the PM and other party leaders put forward names of party hacks they would like to see receive honours, the group isn't obliged to accept the names - though they traditionally do.

[Gordon]

(noting that, contrary to Jim's and Gordon's fancies, the monarch doesn't decide who is the receive them, and nor does the Prime Minister of the day).  That job is fulfilled by a group of civil servants tasked with the job.  I believe that, whilst the PM and other party leaders put forward names of party hacks they would like to see receive honours, the group isn't obliged to accept the names - though they traditionally do.

I'm well aware of that thanks, hence my comment about abuse and cronyism in my last post.

[Hope]

Personally I'd say no, since I can't envisage how such a system would work fairly: I'd imagine that for every person honoured for altruism they would be many more who are equally deserving and, as such, it seems pointless and, by being selective on a UK-wide basis, open to abuse and cronyism. The current system, carrying the 'empire' reference, is anachronistic and of course the involvement of the monarchy is for me unacceptable - so bin it, and put the monarchy in the same bin.

If some want public honours then something local would probably be better I suppose - but personally I wouldn't bother.

BBC Breakfast interviewed two of the 'local community' recipients this morning.  One, the co-founder of a charity working with addiction amongst ex-service persons, suggested that such an honour would give her more clout when dealing with Government and Local Authority departments.  The other, honoured for his service to young people, iirc, suggested that it would encourage youngsters to feel confident in approaching him for help.

Surely, in the same way that royal and other official endorsement of companies helps boost their trading here in the UK and abroad, a formal recognition helps to highlight the work that small and often overlooked charities are doing.  Remember that, with approaching 200,000 registered charities in the UK at present, very few get any recognition outside their own locality - and experience suggests that seeing someone nationally honoured for a particular work has encouraged others to start similar ones in their own localities.  Local recognition wouldn't do this.

[Hope]

I'm well aware of that thanks, hence my comment about abuse and cronyism in my last post.

But cronyism and abuse isn't the whole picture.  75% of this list have not been chosen on the grounds of either.  I'd have no qualms about ditching the 'E' moniker, the political honours or even the sporting ones - but they aren't the majority of the honours and haven't been for many years.

You and Jim seem to want to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

If Scotland were to go independent, are you suggesting that there would be no Scottish means of honouring worthy people?

[Gordon]

You and Jim seem to want to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

If Scotland were to go independent, are you suggesting that there would be no Scottish means of honouring worthy people?

Yep: that would be my personal preference. I suspect I'd be in the minority, but I'd just get rid.

[Hope]

Which does not even begin to address Gordon's point. sssso I will help you out. Have a national lottery for charity recognition and for every millionaire we create a charity hero.

Why a lottery?  Isn't it helpful for inspiring people by at least making it appear as if some thought has gone into the system?

As for 'not even begin(ning) to address Gordon's point', it has addressed it far better than your post quoted above has addressed my posts.

[Nearly Sane]

Why a lottery?  Isn't it helpful for inspiring people by at least making it appear as if some thought has gone into the system?

As for 'not even begin(ning) to address Gordon's point', it has addressed it far better than your post quoted above has addressed my posts.

because Gordon's point is about the problem of fairness and since you haven't addressed that a lottery would be justnas fair. Surely you get that a system if non justifiable thought is the same as a lottery?

[Hope]

because Gordon's point is about the problem of fairness and since you haven't addressed that a lottery would be justnas fair. Surely you get that a system if non justifiable thought is the same as a lottery?

Gordons opinion is perfectly legit., though I still don't see the reasoning behind his opposition to the concept (after all, just about every other nation has an equivalent system) so there must be a good reason for having them.  I tend to reject the idea of a lottery for the very reason that it has unfairness built into it - something that the current system here generally, but not exclusively, doesn't.

[Nearly Sane]

Gordons opinion is perfectly legit., though I still don't see the reasoning behind his opposition to the concept (after all, just about every other nation has an equivalent system) so there must be a good reason for having them.  I tend to reject the idea of a lottery for the very reason that it has unfairness built into it - something that the current system here generally, but not exclusively, doesn't.

You don't understand unfairness. A lottery system is fair n that it doesn't make claims to fairness. It just randomly has winners. It doesn't say they are more deserving, it doesn't have any chance of cronyism.

[Gordon]

BBC Breakfast interviewed two of the 'local community' recipients this morning.  One, the co-founder of a charity working with addiction amongst ex-service persons, suggested that such an honour would give her more clout when dealing with Government and Local Authority departments.  The other, honoured for his service to young people, iirc, suggested that it would encourage youngsters to feel confident in approaching him for help.

I suspect they might be over-egging the pudding, since having been awarded honours themselves they are supportive of the system. If these honours did indeed provide greater influence or encourage the confidence of young people in those honoured - which raises potential concerns in both scenarios, and the latter in particular - then surely these honours should be awarded to all similarly competent people, so as to boost their influence and/or confidence in their abilities.

Have to say I think the two examples you cite highlight the weakness in the system and its arbitrary nature.   

Surely, in the same way that royal and other official endorsement of companies helps boost their trading here in the UK and abroad, a formal recognition helps to highlight the work that small and often overlooked charities are doing.  Remember that, with approaching 200,000 registered charities in the UK at present, very few get any recognition outside their own locality - and experience suggests that seeing someone nationally honoured for a particular work has encouraged others to start similar ones in their own localities.  Local recognition wouldn't do this.

I'm sure there are ways of promoting trade and/or awareness or organisations that don't require titles and gongs: it would be an incompetent business or charity that was dependent on one of their 'people' being honoured, since if this were the case then the majority of businesses and charities who don't have someone honoured are at a disadvantage - so bin the honours and create a level playing field. 

[Anchorman]

Reform the honours system - and as Lynne Faulds Wood said we really need to get rid of the 'E'. Ludicrous.

WOT TV said.
The French Legion d'homour seems a far more sensible system than the uk flummery.

[Anchorman]

The daft thing is that in my OP I asked about the principle, not the actual working.  I therefore assumed that both Jim and Gordon would rather we had no such system of recognition.

Incidentally, assuming that we retain the monarchy at least until Liz passes on, in whose name would folk like to see the honours awarded by (noting that, contrary to Jim's and Gordon's fancies, the monarch doesn't decide who is the receive them, and nor does the Prime Minister of the day).  That job is fulfilled by a group of civil servants tasked with the job.  I believe that, whilst the PM and other party leaders put forward names of party hacks they would like to see receive honours, the group isn't obliged to accept the names - though they traditionally do.

I couldn't give a stuff who sits on the committee - but for my money the honours system should be devolved to the nations of the union anyway.
The honours themselves are anachronistic flummery and need to be reformed and re-titled.
Also, many would prefer to receive them from the hands of elected or appointed people, rather than genetically chosen unelected people with meaningless titles.

[ippy]

 I don't have any answers to offer about a better honours systen, not that I'm likely to be offered any kind of honour, but if I  were to be offered an honour I wouldn't want to think I had let myself down and had let myself be seduced by this present system.

I like the sound of the French system, they seem to me to be level headed bunch of thinkers about this kind of thing, so I'll go with whoever sugested that.

There are a serious lot of things we've got wrong here in the UK with our systems royal and the honours combined, it's just luck we have our present queen and no thanks to any part of our system.

And when our daft system honours the religious people's bishops on their retirement! we have not only had to put up with having the 26 as of right in the H O Lords we can't even rid ourselves of them when they retire.

This honours system also gave tha B H S creep a knighthood, for theft by the looks of it.

ippy

[SusanDoris]

BBC Breakfast interviewed two of the 'local community' recipients this morning.  One, the co-founder of a charity working with addiction amongst ex-service persons, suggested that such an honour would give her more clout when dealing with Government and Local Authority departments.  The other, honoured for his service to young people, iirc, suggested that it would encourage youngsters to feel confident in approaching him for help.

Surely, in the same way that royal and other official endorsement of companies helps boost their trading here in the UK and abroad, a formal recognition helps to highlight the work that small and often overlooked charities are doing.  Remember that, with approaching 200,000 registered charities in the UK at present, very few get any recognition outside their own locality - and experience suggests that seeing someone nationally honoured for a particular work has encouraged others to start similar ones in their own localities.  Local recognition wouldn't do this.

Yes, I do agree with you here. Of course there are anomalies in the system and it shouldn't have the word 'empire' associated with it, but it's one of those systems that if it ain't broke, don't fix it, unless something far better can replace it. I have just been listening to a talking book by Jill Allen-something about  her guide dogs. She has worked tirelessly for fifty years on behalf of the blind and partially sighted and was given the MBE some time ago and the OBE in 2010, so her words have something of an added authority as a result.

[floo]

Honours should go to people who have done something worthwhile to help others. I object to them going to sports personalities and celebs, for just being good at their sport or whatever!

[Hope]

I like the sound of the French system, they seem to me to be level headed bunch of thinkers about this kind of thing, so I'll go with whoever sugested that.

Could you outline their system?

[Hope]

I couldn't give a stuff who sits on the committee - but for my money the honours system should be devolved to the nations of the union anyway.
The honours themselves are anachronistic flummery and need to be reformed and re-titled.

I have no problem with that latter, but I do have a problem with localising them to the extent you suggest, Jim.

Also, many would prefer to receive them from the hands of elected or appointed people, rather than genetically chosen unelected people with meaningless titles.

Why should someone working in a charity that covers the whole of the UK, or an idea that started locally but which was then taken up by folk in other parts of the UK only be honoured in one part of the nation?  What is wrong with a UK-wide honours system.

As the lady I referred to in a previous post said, the honour she has received gives her more clout when speaking with local and national government.

[ippy]

Could you outline their system?

Sorry Hope can't help here, someone on one of the posts on this thread mentioned the French honour system and my reference was only from my experience that tells me the French for all of their faults, are and can be very good at the way they think about these sorts of subjects.

I didn't comit myself to this line of thought, because I might be wrong, even though I often see things in the same light as the French do; can't remember which post referred to the French system.

ippy

[Anchorman]

Sorry Hope can't help here, someone on one of the posts on this thread mentioned the French honour system and my reference was only from my experience that tells me the French for all of their faults, are and can be very good at the way they think about these sorts of subjects. I didn't comit myself to this line of thought, because I might be wrong, even though I often see things in the same light as the French do; can't remember which post referred to the French system. ippy Guilty. Jim.