Ignorant sodding stupidity

A new study suggests that in the past too many well off businessmen and business women have been given honours ranging from MBEs to knighthoods despite little evidence that they have put anything back into the community.

However, the report from the campaign group Legacy10 says that honours should be explicitly linked to charity giving, rather than simply rewarding someone for having worked hard and made an impact in a particular industry or profession.

In the past five years, there have been 11 knighthoods and one damehood awarded in the Queen’s Birthday or in the New Year’s honours lists where the citation only mentioned service to business or industry.

Each of these 12 people was either chairman, deputy chairman or chief executive of a large company or organisation.

The report says: “People nominated for honours in the field of business should need to provide firm evidence of charitable giving and/or volunteering of time.”

What is this nonsense?

Creating a large business that pleases people with its products is providing a service to the community!

10 thoughts on “Ignorant sodding stupidity”

  1. Presumably ‘service to business or industry’ is mere trade and infra dig, while ‘charitable giving and/or volunteering of time’ is noble philanthropy.

  2. I also love the whole misconception – if you merely fall into step behind Legacy10, then you’ll never get an honour. Because Legacy10 is about giving in your will and dead people can’t get (indeed do not have) honours (as opposed to some, but not all, decorations.)

    Or, in other news, charity lobbying group insists that the only thing worthy of honouring is charity. Meh. Bastiat. Scumbags …

  3. So Much For Subtlety

    Surreptitious Evil – “Or, in other news, charity lobbying group insists that the only thing worthy of honouring is charity.”

    Oh, I am sure they don’t object to luuvies and pop stars getting gongs. Just not businessmen. It is more than a charity lobbying group wants gongs to be given to people who give to them.

  4. Also this from the first comment on the article
    “Martin Yeates led Mid Staffordshire Hospital Foundation trust for four years, until an investigation uncovered up to 1,200 “excess” deaths amid an appalling catalogue of failings in care.

    He walked away with more than £400,000 after resigning in 2009, then said he was too ill to be cross-examined over the scandal at a public inquiry, which is due to report to ministers in January.

    Bereaved families said they were appalled to learn that Mr Yeates has now taken a job as chief executive of a health charity, Impact Alcohol and Addiction Services, which hold contracts with the NHS. ”
    Mind Boggling!

  5. The logical conclusion of this would be:

    option A: if you where to start up a company in a developing country, create jobs, create wealth, transfer knowledge and skills to the work force, supply a commodity or service and increase government revenue via taxation you are a bad person.

    Option b:If you go to a developing country and hand out free stuff to keep the population subservient to foreign forces you’re a good person.

    and then you can whinge about imperialism and that evil capitalism stuff

  6. So should honours only be given to rich people who give away some of their spare cash and not to poor people without spare cash?
    Guys who work 90 hours a week should be treated with contempt while those who work 30 hours and spend half-a-dozen on “charitable activities” must be rewarded?

  7. I quite like the suggestion made by the journalist Ian Warden some years ago: rather than giving Kylie Minogue an award for her services to Australian music, why not give Australian music an award for its services to Kylie Minogue?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *