Skip to main content

New Year Honours and all that nonsense

I have never been a fan of the honours system. It is the establishment's way of keeping us in order by the potential dispensation of patronage. Frankly the system stinks.

One example of the absurdities of this year's honours is the absence of any recognition given to Andy Murray's Olympic Gold and Silver medals, the US Open and winning Wimbledon. These are no mean achievements. We are told that it is because he already has an OBE awarded only recently. Well we are not actually told anything. That is simply the explanation accepted by the media. Throw a man a penny in order to deny him a shilling!

Perhaps Andy Murray should have adopted the same logic. 'I won't bother to win Wimbledon this year because I only recently won the US Open'.

I suppose I shouldn't get too angry about it. It is the 'great and the good' rewarding the 'great and the good'. But does it matter? I wish I could say it doesn't, but it does.

It seems that in Medicine the best way to get knighthood is to 'deliver' a royal baby. Was it really such a remarkable medical exploit that it should be rewarded with a Knighthood? Apparently so!

My new year's honours go to all those who have worked tirelessly to help those affected by the injustices of Ian Duncan Smith's welfare reforms. Well done all and Happy New Year to you.




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba
7 comments
Read more

The unethical language of 'welfare dependency'

It is unethical to stigmatise people without foundation. Creating a stereotype, a generalised brand, in order to  demonize a group regardless of the individual and without regard for the potential harm it may do is unfair and prejudicial. It is one reason, and a major one, why racism is unethical; it fails to give a fair consideration of interest to a group of people simply because they are branded in this way. They are not worthy of equal consideration because they are different.  It seeks also to influence the attitudes of others to those stereotyped. If I said 'the Irish are lazy'; you would rightly respond that this is a ridiculous and unfounded stereotype. It brands all Irish on the basis of a prejudice. It is harmful certainly; but it is worse if I intend it to be harmful. If I intend to influence the attitude of others. And so it is with 'the unemployed'. All I need do is substitute 'work-shy' and use it in an injudicious way; to imply that it applies to
2 comments
Read more

The Thin End account of COVID Lockdown

Post a Comment
Read more