Honours should not be the gift of No10

Too many gongs for the boys. Senior civil servants get them for simply doing their jobs and not getting into trouble. I thought some years ago it was opened up to all of us to nominate anyone we thought deserved it. I don't mind celebreties getting them for charity work but they shouldn't get them for being famous.

It is an outdated and ridiculous system. . A kind of spin off from the aristocratic system of yore, when the monarch did that "rise sir galahad" stuff on the field of battle. As for celebs getting them well, is it not good enough for them to be very successful stars of stage and screen, or best selling singers or authors. Why do they have to have the "queen's" seal of approval. Get rid of the lot I say. Or if you really really want to keep them, just award exceptional unpaid (or low paid) public service. But the ironic thing is - such people don't care about public or royal recognition , do they.

I think agree with Jess. Just stop giving honours. The Committee of MPs want to set up another quango of worthies plus staff to sift the 'applications' or nominations' but it won't guarantee integrity. Of course, there are unsung heros but the chances of them being uncovered are slim.

The whole honours system is now a joke - instead of being used to recognise the work of those who make a difference to their community instead it is used to add to the egos of those who have just done their job in the case of civil servants or because someone has managed to hang on into old age in the case of the likes of Bruce Forsyth. Celebs are extremely well paid to do something they love - why should they get knighthoods or whatever as well.

What about the people who volunteer to make a difference in their neighbourhoods, like a woman in Bristol who managed to enthuse enough of her neighbours to get rid of the drug pushers in her area and then proceeded to set up a place where young people could go which kept them away from the temptations of drugs and crime. Its people like her who should be receiving the recognition.

Exactly barrow. A kind of victoria cross for community service appropriate - and in fact it would serve the key purpose of inspiring others. Because she has the satisfaction of what she has done.
I am not inspired at all by gary barlow or someone like that getting a gong!

I think I should have one for introducing the emoticon.

If they refused, would it be a Butternut squash?

~ We'll have to wait and see Frankel - GNHQ haven't refused yet!

Honours are really a bit of an anachronism and it would really be better to abolish them all together rather than try to patch up a failed and pointless system.

Yes, along with all hereditary peers - recognition for outstanding public service or charitable work could be by an offer to sit in a second chamber. I believe Dame Tanni Gray has been a very successful campaigner since she became a cross-bench peer.

Barrow I think people like that do get honours and we all have the opportunity to nominate them. I am happy for such people to be shown that society appreciates them but not for people just doing their jobs. I don't think that we get to hear why a celebrity gets an honour, it might be because they have very quietly been doing a lot for charity unbeknown to us. If it is just because they are famous I am very much against it.

When the honours lists are published the name is usually accompanied by a description "for services to x, y or z".

Some people who have been working for their communities do receive honours but they are usually the low-ranking ones. The top ones go to senior civil servants and captains of industry who may, coincidentally, be party donors too.

I went to an investiture a few years ago and tbh it's appalling. They give the awards in hierarchial order. So I saw some top civil servants who have been well paid for their services receive knighthoods right down to ordinary people who have worked slavishly for their communities in their own time and made a real difference to people's lives for no financial reward. But the worst thing was that the last person to receive his award was the most worthy. A soldier was being awarded the George Medal for bravery. He had risked his life to save the lives of several of his comrades...they didn't give too many details. He was the lowest of the low as far as the system was concerned.

vampirequeen Why was a soldier being awarded the George medal? It's a civilian award.

I looked it up and whilst it is mainly a civilian award it can be awarded to service personnel for acts of outstanding bravery 'not in the face of the enemy'. The soldier I was reading about was awarded it for defusing several IEDs.

Sorry might have been George Cross....I never get them right

Back to google. The George Cross is the highest award for bravery and the George Medal is the second highest. Both are primarily for civilians but can be awarded to service personnel in the circumstances I have described.
The Victoria Cross is the military award. (I didn't know any of this - you certainly learn something new every day)

Thanks Greatnan. It was definately a George something. My point was though that the most deserving was the least in the pecking order.

Twas ever thus,VQ.