Forum home Road cycling forum Pro race

Sir Bradley Wiggins

24

Posts

  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 24,078
    Seems a bit harsh that 2nd at the Tour plus a bronze in the Olympic TT doesn't get Froome an MBE.

    Froome's old school establishment - he got large chunks of Africa.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • iPipiPip Posts: 90
    Back on topic, as a cyclist I'm pleased for Wiggo, as a Brit I don't think he deserves it or indeed do most of the young athletes. A knighthood should be for significant services to the country - Dave Brailsford certainly deserves one. However, whilst I don't underestimate the pride or desire to do well for their country, all of them would be doing It anyway, clearly demonstrated by the numerous nationality changes evident in many sports. Those that do repeatedly well representing their country probably deserve some national recognition too, but I'd expect a little more than competition success to merit an Honour, particularly knighthood.

    However, if its athletes vs politicians and luvvies, I say we'll done Sir Brad :)
    Regards
    Pip

    Cube Agree GTC Pro
    Boardman Hybrid Comp
    Voodoo Bantu
  • mfinmfin Posts: 6,724
    Don't the main Royals cost us about 1p a week each? I reckon that's good value, we get an out of touch lady in carpet coats that rarely smiles, a husband that puts his foot in his mouth all the time, and even one that dresses as a Nazi and gets smashed out of his face all the time. All good fun and value for money amusement if nothing else really. For every Royal that's born into a life of privilege there's thousands of people who inherit fortunes without doing anything either.

    Other countries must think our identity is enhanced by the Royals, just look how many people across the world watched the last royal wedding, there is genuine interest. Didn't watch it myself, I had a very important pub to go to.

    Must admit, I don't really 'get' the whole knighthood thing, but for all the boring sods that get one its good to see a character like Brad get one, at least it proves they don't only give them to well behaved/bland people.
  • RichN95 wrote:
    Seems a bit harsh that 2nd at the Tour plus a bronze in the Olympic TT doesn't get Froome an MBE.

    Froome's old school establishment - he got large chunks of Africa.
    *Applause*
    :lol::lol:
  • I don't think the royals have much to do with the choosing of the knighthoods. Being awarded one just means the government have decided you've earned it/ they'll be more popular by giving you one.

    I think BW has earned his. Sadly, the comparisons to other worthys who haven't been awarded, happens every year.
  • ocdupalaisocdupalais Posts: 3,767
    mfin wrote:
    Don't the main Royals cost us about 1p a week each? I reckon that's good value, we get an out of touch lady in carpet coats that rarely smiles, a husband that puts his foot in his mouth all the time, and even one that dresses as a Nazi and gets smashed out of his face all the time. All good fun and value for money amusement if nothing else really. For every Royal that's born into a life of privilege there's thousands of people who inherit fortunes without doing anything either.

    There are any number of cretinous families who could provide the nation with similar entertainment at a fraction of the cost.
    All this "harmless upper class buffoonery" (Boris Johnson, another prime candidate): don't buy it for a moment. There are billions at stake here. THEIR billions.

    Did nobody watch Blackadder!?!
  • In my experience I have yet to speak to an intelligent and hard working person who believes in the monarchy (small M). The reason for that is because these people typically believe in meritocracy which is the antithesis of what the royals (small R) are.

    I consider myself "an intelligent and hard working person" and I do believe in the Monarchy (Capital M) so possibly your experience needs to be slightly broadened in order to canvass a wider range of opinions, anyway, am genuinely chuffed for Bradley (although he may suggest that Mrs Wiggo deserves it instead!)Dave Brailsford, Laura Trott and the rest but am particularly pleased to see Sarah Storey receiving an honour, well deserved in my opinion.

    As an alternative to the traditional Honours list, what are people's opinions on a Hall of Fame model instead, very American I know, but you would have to have finished competing professionally for 5 years and then would be voted in or not by your peers. Again, not a perfect system but possibly an alternative.
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 24,078
    Tattooine wrote:
    As an alternative to the traditional Honours list, what are people's opinions on a Hall of Fame model instead, very American I know, but you would have to have finished competing professionally for 5 years and then would be voted in or not by your peers. Again, not a perfect system but possibly an alternative.

    They started one of those a couple of years ago - I don't know what it's current status is:

    http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/50th-a ... -Inductees
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • RichN95 wrote:
    Tattooine wrote:
    As an alternative to the traditional Honours list, what are people's opinions on a Hall of Fame model instead, very American I know, but you would have to have finished competing professionally for 5 years and then would be voted in or not by your peers. Again, not a perfect system but possibly an alternative.

    They started one of those a couple of years ago - I don't know what it's current status is:

    http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/50th-a ... -Inductees

    Cheers Rich, didn't know that existed
  • Isn't there a BR Hall of Fame? Currently being decided on another thread, who is the greatest english speaking rider! :D
  • iPip wrote:
    However, if its athletes vs politicians and luvvies, I say we'll done Sir Brad :)

    But it isn't though. Instead the athletes (and luvvies) are being used as a human shield to protect all the bankers and other political friends of government who expect these awards when they make their party donations.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 50,613 Lives Here
    Thought Wiggins was all anti all that establishment malarky?

    Shows how much I know.
  • BakuninBakunin Posts: 868
    Obviously, the Queen supports doping (or likes the Jam).
  • Dave_1Dave_1 Posts: 9,512
    I wish they would give me one so I can tell them to forget it. royalty (small R) are a blight on this country and an insult to any hard working person.
    I agree with you French Fighter.
  • mfinmfin Posts: 6,724
    Of all the sh1te, inefficiency and morally questionable things our money gets spent on I can't see why the Royals are even an issue really. Well, I can, its because its nice and simple to get on a soap box about for people.

    Why not pick any other historical tradition that's in effect useless, like having cavalry etc? why not issue any horseback forces with a skateboard each for processions? that would save millions.

    I agree with Rick a little, but I suppose he's also a family guy, and even if he wanted to turn it down he'd probably not want to upset his nan by doing so?? :)
  • ddraverddraver Posts: 20,481
    mfin wrote:
    Of all the sh1te, inefficiency and morally questionable things our money gets spent on I can't see why the Royals are even an issue really. Well, I can, its because its nice and simple to get on a soap box about for people.

    ...becasue 1% of the population care very deeply that they should go, 1% care very deeply that they should stay and 98% of us couldnt give a f....

    However what winds up either of the 1% more than the other is that 98%

    If we got rid of the M/m onarchay (could nt give a monkeys how you capitalise it) do you think Knighthoods, OBEs MBEs and the rest would stop going to people like Arlene Phillips?
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • TheStoneTheStone Posts: 2,291
    Dave_1 wrote:
    I wish they would give me one so I can tell them to forget it. royalty (small R) are a blight on this country and an insult to any hard working person.
    I agree with you French Fighter.

    And another one.

    The whole thing is ridiculous and makes the country look so backwards. It's my decision who I respect, not some civil servants.

    I'm hoping the tory's new benefit cap will include the royals.
    exercise.png
  • TheStone wrote:
    Dave_1 wrote:
    I wish they would give me one so I can tell them to forget it. royalty (small R) are a blight on this country and an insult to any hard working person.
    I agree with you French Fighter.

    And another one.

    The whole thing is ridiculous and makes the country look so backwards. It's my decision who I respect, not some civil servants.

    I'm hoping the tory's new benefit cap will include the royals.
    It's an honour from the country, not an insistence that everyone respects the recipient. Talk about twisting the meaning to drive your dislike of it!
  • TheStoneTheStone Posts: 2,291
    TheStone wrote:
    And another one.

    The whole thing is ridiculous and makes the country look so backwards. It's my decision who I respect, not some civil servants.

    I'm hoping the tory's new benefit cap will include the royals.
    It's an honour from the country, not an insistence that everyone respects the recipient. Talk about twisting the meaning to drive your dislike of it!

    But isn't that what it is?
    Call him 'Sir', because he's better/more important/special* (delete as appropriate) than others.

    For me, Brad is fairly special, but that's my choice.
    For me, Hector Sant is a lazy, idiot. My choice.
    exercise.png
  • TheStone wrote:
    TheStone wrote:
    And another one.

    The whole thing is ridiculous and makes the country look so backwards. It's my decision who I respect, not some civil servants.

    I'm hoping the tory's new benefit cap will include the royals.
    It's an honour from the country, not an insistence that everyone respects the recipient. Talk about twisting the meaning to drive your dislike of it!

    But isn't that what it is?
    Call him 'Sir', because he's better/more important/special* (delete as appropriate) than others.

    For me, Brad is fairly special, but that's my choice.
    For me, Hector Sant is a lazy, idiot. My choice.


    This is the point I was making earlier. I'm quite happy for a form of recognition but not in some antiquated way that then predisposes the recipient to have some form of class superiority. I might choose to refer to Brad as Sir Brad but it's my choice, my recognition of his achievement. I shouldn't have to out of an ettiquette obligation.

    Also I don't want the recipients to be under the misapprehension that they have the honour because they work harder than me, they don't.
    @JaunePeril

    Winner of the Bike Radar Pro Race Wiggins Hour Prediction Competition
  • Gazzetta67Gazzetta67 Posts: 2,006
    Load of old bollox this new years honours pish - So much for wiggins saying he didnt agree or was uneasy with all this class nonsense. So why couldnt he have said thanks but no thanks like other's before him ? His am just a boy from kilburn shyte is wearing a bit thin...change the record.
  • monarchy lovers, stick this in your pipe and smoke it:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/dec/2 ... CMP=twt_gu

    Just another thing to add to the fuel for the fire - got a few barn fulls and counting.
    Contador is the Greatest
  • mfinmfin Posts: 6,724
    ddraver wrote:
    mfin wrote:
    Of all the sh1te, inefficiency and morally questionable things our money gets spent on I can't see why the Royals are even an issue really. Well, I can, its because its nice and simple to get on a soap box about for people.

    ...becasue 1% of the population care very deeply that they should go, 1% care very deeply that they should stay and 98% of us couldnt give a f....

    However what winds up either of the 1% more than the other is that 98%

    If we got rid of the M/m onarchay (could nt give a monkeys how you capitalise it) do you think Knighthoods, OBEs MBEs and the rest would stop going to people like Arlene Phillips?

    I think you're right, the bulk of people probably don't mind either way, but most likely if it came down to some referendum to get rid of them (which of course it wouldnt), most people in the 'dont care for them' would wanna keep them. They aren't that expensive in the run of things, not if you compare them to roads, forces, nhs, whatever, they're small change, but of course they aren't a necessity either.

    At least Brad getting something shows that you can stick your finger up at the press a month or two before and those who decide these things haven't gone 'we don't give knighthoods to people like that', so they must be less stuffy than some thought.

    If we are getting rid of the royals though can we rip all the churches down first? They're old hat too after all, and we could do with the land for development.
  • keydonkeydon Posts: 144
    I wish they would give me one so I can tell them to forget it. royalty (small R) are a blight on this country and an insult to any hard working person.


    Thank God who misunderstands me for that input!!
  • ddraverddraver Posts: 20,481
    +1 with mfin on the churches - they can all go. They actually do harm!

    Put it another way if we had a vote for head of state between Blair, Cameroon and Windsor, E any time soon, I'd bet my (admittedly non-existent) house on Liz winning by a country mile!
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • ddraver wrote:
    +1 with mfin on the churches - they can all go. They actually do harm!

    Oh, you are one of those. What a surprise.

    I think you will find yourself in the minority once again.

    Churches will never go and neither should they.
    Contador is the Greatest
  • ddraver wrote:
    +1 with mfin on the churches - they can all go. They actually do harm!

    Oh, you are one of those. What a surprise.

    I think you will find yourself in the minority once again.

    Churches will never go and neither should they.

    Quite right.
    Lets all worship the mythical being in the sky rather than the non mythical being who rides for Sky :lol:
    "You really think you can burn off sugar with exercise?" downhill paul
  • ddraverddraver Posts: 20,481
    ddraver wrote:
    +1 with mfin on the churches - they can all go. They actually do harm!

    Oh, you are one of those. What a surprise.

    I think you will find yourself in the minority once again.

    Churches will never go and neither should they.

    Hah! so one form of hero worship based on nothing at all is fine, but the other form of hero worship based on nothing at all is an insult to all hard working people?

    Man, it's scary seeing into your head!
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • cornerblockcornerblock Posts: 3,228
    Bakunin wrote:
    Obviously, the Queen supports doping (or likes the Jam).

    Ma'amalade actually.
  • The queen claims £7million in Farming subsidies each year on the land that she owns. Dairy Farmers make a loss on the milk they produce in this country. I don't like the queen.

    As for Wiggins, it's not his fault he got knighted - however I am of the opinion that not every tom, censored and harry deserves a knighthood, the honour should be reserved for those who actually deserve it, like the wounded in Afghanistan, or the police officers and firefighters who die in the line of duty, or the Paramedics who save thousands of lives every year, not somebody who won a race, really.
Sign In or Register to comment.