Forum home Road cycling forum Pro race

Sir Bradley Wiggins

13

Posts

  • Contador is the Greatest
  • tremaynetremayne Posts: 378
    If we didn't already have a monarch/royalty etc etc, I certainly would not be voting for one to be created. However, like with most things (some for good, some for bad) this country has an enviable history and traditions that are also the envy of many. A bloated monarchy with loads of 'hanger-on-ers' isn't something anyone wants. The size (and cost) of the thing has been reduced somewhat over recent years and will probably be slimmed down further still - which will be a good thing.

    But as someone has already mentioned, who do we really want as head of state? I certainly don't want some scumbag elected politician. Queenie will do just fine, thanks very much. Genuine scandal related to her? Not much (ok - some of her offspring aren't quite so well behaved). Other euro leaders, heads of state? Zarko is already in hot water. Mitterrand - likewise. Berlusconi - yep.
  • rodgers73rodgers73 Posts: 2,626
    I'm not sure how the Monarchy ended up part of this discussion. All of the Honours awarded (apart from a few of the Royal Orders - Garter, Bath, Thistle, Merit etc) are decided on by the Government following recommendation to various committees. The Queen as head of State then presents the award to the recipient on behalf of the Government.

    Not sure any of that is a basis for arguing for a Republic as surely all countries have a way of giving some sort of award/recognition to their citizens (Legion d'Honeur etc)
  • No_Ta_DoctorNo_Ta_Doctor Posts: 10,033
    rodgers73 wrote:
    I'm not sure how the Monarchy ended up part of this discussion. All of the Honours awarded (apart from a few of the Royal Orders - Garter, Bath, Thistle, Merit etc) are decided on by the Government following recommendation to various committees. The Queen as head of State then presents the award to the recipient on behalf of the Government.

    Not sure any of that is a basis for arguing for a Republic as surely all countries have a way of giving some sort of award/recognition to their citizens (Legion d'Honeur etc)

    Quite.

    The Queen also signs all of the laws passed by the government, but she doesn't write them herself.

    I'm by no means a monarchist, but the honours system actually has very little to do with the monarchy. It's arguable that the honours system is a tool that is used to shore up "the establishment" and underpin the class system, but that's a different thesis.
    “Road racing was over and the UCI had banned my riding positions on the track, so it was like ‘Jings, crivvens, help ma Boab, what do I do now? I know, I’ll go away and be depressed for 10 years’.”

    @DrHeadgear

    The Vikings are coming!
  • edhornbyedhornby Posts: 1,780
    I think Brad, but especially Dave B, deserve their honours

    I think the honours system does need an overhaul tho, too many antiquated titles (British Empire??) and the tie-in to the upper chamber is still a bit dodgy

    The nonsense about either the status quo with the queens' gilded lifestyle, or a USA style president - is precisely a load of nonsense, look at the Danish model of a modern royal family, or the german presidency for better options
    "I get paid to make other people suffer on my wheel, how good is that"
    --Jens Voight
  • mfinmfin Posts: 6,724
    ddraver wrote:
    +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!

    I only mentioned churches as a daft thing though, I mean the point is, they too can be perceived as irrelevant, the sheer amount of them, BUT, just like the monarchy you don't get rid of them, cos even if you don't agree with what they represent, they still characterise the country, the buildings I mean.

    The points raised about where the awards come from sort of picks up on the issue. Someone mentions Knighthood of a cyclist, and the next thing because its the queens honours list it turns into some kind of pseudo rant about the monarchy not representing hard working people. So what. They're not supposed to.

    I suppose noone should either be able to leave any money to anyone when they die, it should all be returned to the state upon death so everyone has to work for everything they ever have?

    I know I have nothing in common with the royals and their apparent personalities, but I don't care, we have the most iconic royal family in the world, and having a strong identity for a small island is quite positive, they add to that. (even if some of them appear a bit mental, none are truly in-touch with things, and most of them seem pretty boring at best).
  • cornerblockcornerblock Posts: 3,228
    mfin wrote:
    I know I have nothing in common with the royals

    Let's not be hasty here.....
    mfin wrote:
    some of them appear a bit mental, none are truly in-touch with things, and most of them seem pretty boring at best).

    :wink:
  • TOUCHE!
    Contador is the Greatest
  • mfinmfin Posts: 6,724
    mfin wrote:
    I know I have nothing in common with the royals

    Let's not be hasty here.....
    mfin wrote:
    some of them appear a bit mental, none are truly in-touch with things, and most of them seem pretty boring at best).

    :wink:

    :) dont worry, I dont take myself seriously, I don't expect anyone else to! :)
  • mfinmfin Posts: 6,724
    TOUCHE!

    Ah, the master of humour at work! Have a great new year yeah :)
  • cornerblockcornerblock Posts: 3,228
    mfin wrote:
    mfin wrote:
    I know I have nothing in common with the royals

    Let's not be hasty here.....
    mfin wrote:
    some of them appear a bit mental, none are truly in-touch with things, and most of them seem pretty boring at best).

    :wink:

    :) dont worry, I dont take myself seriously, I don't expect anyone else to! :)

    Fair play. Happy New Year to you.
  • 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.

    Yes it is. It may not be his fault he was nominated but they contact you sometime beforhand to ask if you will accept the honour. He probably knew before SPOTY hence the reason he didn't goose the Duchess of Cambridge.
    @JaunePeril

    Winner of the Bike Radar Pro Race Wiggins Hour Prediction Competition
  • Oh come on peeps, lets get a bit of perspective.

    He gets awarded this as a nod for his 12 year career of winning all his Oly and World titles plus this year where he's won a sequence of races that no other cyclist has ever achieved. In deciding to accept it, he doesnt need to be made a scapegoat for all the moaning about privileges, the monarchy and god knows what else. No doubt if he had turned it down, there'd be a host of people complaining about his 'ingratitude' and 'ungraciousness', and him 'showing up cycling' by not accepting it.

    It seems that he's not going to use the title on an every day basis like Chris Hoy does (not that I personally have any problem with that, that's up to His Hoyness), and he's not going to swan around the peloton demanding that Fabs, Cuddles, Tommeke et al call him Sir. There'll be some mickey taking and some laughs with Wiggo right at the head of it, no doubt.
  • Don't doubt that RR but the BBC news pages has made for interesting reading the last couple of days. Apparently the paralympic horse dancer bloke Lee Pearson was "disappointed" to only be given a CBE and not a knighthood and thought his 10 gold medals deserved better.

    To put it lightly public opinion on the comments section was not with him. Moreover, as one comment pointed out, there should be more to getting a knighthood than riding a bike, no matter how fast you can do it.
    @JaunePeril

    Winner of the Bike Radar Pro Race Wiggins Hour Prediction Competition
  • Richmond RacerRichmond Racer Posts: 8,561
    edited December 2012
    Well, if the BBC website comments are unfavourable...well, I just dont know where its all going to end :wink: No doubt there was equal moaning towards Ben Ainslie (for sailing boats very quickly) and Sarah Storey (for also riding bikes very quickly). Or same level as towards Hoy 4 years ago...

    Other sports people shouldnt censored and moan that they didnt get what they think they deserve (in their own eyes) - that's not attractive.

    On the other hand, Stannard's bound to get an MBE some time..Massively Big Engine..
  • Well, if the BBC website comments are unfavourable...well, I just dont know where its all going to end :wink:

    Others shouldnt ***** and moan that they didnt get what they think they deserve (in their own eyes) - that's not attractive.

    On the other hand, Stannard's bound to get an MBE some time..Massively Big Engine..[/quote]


    Agreed. Stannard=legend
    @JaunePeril

    Winner of the Bike Radar Pro Race Wiggins Hour Prediction Competition
  • Knew you wouldnt mind that award being handed out, YP :wink:

    So...Sky seem very serious about doing better in the Classics....what's the legend-that-is-Stannard's best chance, if he gets the chance next spring?
  • Knew you wouldnt mind that award being handed out, YP :wink:

    So...Sky seem very serious about doing better in the Classics....what's the legend-that-is-Stannard's best chance, if he gets the chance next spring?


    Without a doubt he's built for P-R but casting my mind back to last year with the way that Boonen rode Sky (including Stannard) off his wheel I'm not sure he has what it takes to win but could podium. He needs to get in a break with the likes of Canc or Boonen. The elastic woul probably snap at some point but he could be in an uncatchable position for a podium by then.

    What about JTL for an Ardennes? L-B-L anyone?
    @JaunePeril

    Winner of the Bike Radar Pro Race Wiggins Hour Prediction Competition
  • 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.

    Eh? Doesn't it just show they've been honoured for great contributions to the country? You might work as hard as them, but have you brought as much pleasure to many around the country, like Wiggins/Ainslie etc have during their careers?

    I think as well as Monarchy being blamed, I think some people might be getting mixed up between Knighthoods and Hereditary Lords, who are a completely different matter.
  • 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.

    So arable farmers get subsidies while dairy farmers make a loss? As well as the queen, do you also dislike all arable farmers in the country who also get farming subsidies?

    Your first point compares subsidies given (arable farming presumably) to profit (on milk). For a fair comparison, do you know whether arable farmers make a loss on their crops and whether dairy farmers get subsidies.
  • ProssPross Posts: 24,252
    No doubt there was equal moaning towards Ben Ainslie (for sailing boats slightly less slowly than other people) and Sarah Storey (for also riding bikes very quickly).

    Fixed.
  • RDWRDW Posts: 1,900
    It's a good article and thanks for posting, however it is unrelated to what I said. You saw I used the word meritocracy and knew about the article so posted but it doesn't counter my point.

    Monarchy is largely a distraction. 'Meritocracy' is potentially much more corrosive to democracy than the ceremonial role of the head of state (would we really have been better off with President Thatcher or President Blair?). We've replaced an aristocractic House of Lords with lifetime 'meritocractic' appointments that are equally undemocratic. We have a ruling class of professional politicians in the Commons, who went to the 'right' schools and universities, and were selected for safe seats and a fast track to power. Meanwhile, we get to stick a cross on a piece of paper at intervals now fixed at 5 years in the interests of 'continuity' and 'stability'. Possession of 'merit' says absolutely nothing about whether those who rule are likely to act in the best interests of the public (though they may be more competent at executing whatever policy they decide to make).
  • LeicesterLadLeicesterLad Posts: 3,908
    edited January 2013
    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.

    So arable farmers get subsidies while dairy farmers make a loss? As well as the queen, do you also dislike all arable farmers in the country who also get farming subsidies?

    Your first point compares subsidies given (arable farming presumably) to profit (on milk). For a fair comparison, do you know whether arable farmers make a loss on their crops and whether dairy farmers get subsidies.

    Whether genuine arable farmers make a profit or loss and receive subsidies doesn't bother me in the slightest - indeed most of them need the subsidies more than the Queen :roll: . The point I was making was: Is there a need for the queen to rinse an extra 7million in what amounts to farming benefits? While the government couldn't give a sh*t about the thousands of Dairy farms packing up because they can't make a profit because it's not regulated properly and the supermarkets are raping the farmers? Not sure why you feel the need to be a clever tw*t, you knew exactly what my point was, and nobody likes a smart a*se. :roll: Watch the programme and you might get the point. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01d94rm/Panorama_The_Money_Farmers/
    Many people ask why, despite receiving massive financial subsidies, farming continues to be in perpetual crisis.

    Production subsidies were introduced in the UK by the 1947 Agriculture Act to persuade farmers to increase production and thus ensure national food security. Farmers received a guaranteed price for their produce and were encouraged to plough up pastures, drain wetlands and reclaim moorland and so put more land into production.

    Today, subsidies to UK farmers (under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)) are meant not only to increase agricultural productivity but also to protect standards of living for farmers and farming communities in the EU and to bring consumers cheap food. However, the farmgate price has fallen so low that subsidies now form a substantial part of farm incomes for many farmers. This so called 'cheap food policy' is in reality a cheap farmgate price policy and it is the corporations that benefit most from these low commodity prices.

    Essentially farm subsidies are corporate welfare; public funds in the form of farm subsidies are going straight into the pockets of the corporate traders, processors and retailers and most farmers are not seeing any real benefit. Even the Co-operative Society, the largest farmer in the UK, which receives about £5 million in subsidies, made an overall loss of £0.5 million in 2000.[19] Some farmers, of course, including the so called 'barley barons' of East Anglia, have been happily playing the system and making a great deal of money.[20]

    Some argue that subsidies are to blame for the intensification of farming, increased production levels and low commodity prices (also see box 'Why are global agricultural prices so low?'). While subsidies help cushion farmers against low commodity prices, there is no direct relationship between subsidies and production levels.

    Evidence from around the world suggests that removal of subsidies and other barriers to international trade does not significantly reduce the overall amount of land in production or production levels, although the mix of crops may change.[21]

    It seems in fact that it is low farmgate prices, regardless of whether there are any subsidies available, that encourage farmers to intensify their farming in order to increase production.[22] Paid less, they cram more animals into the same space, obtain more milk output from the same number of cows and more tonnes per acre. UK dairy farmers are currently under extreme price pressure with farmgate milk prices well below the cost of production. There are no direct subsidies for milk production, but farmers have still responded to the income crisis by intensifying.

    The most intensive sectors of agriculture in the UK: pigs, poultry and vegetable production receive no production subsidies at all. Whereas, the two most extensive farming sectors, beef and sheep, receive direct production subsidies in the form of headage payments.

    Despite the lack of evidence that subsidies actually fuel increased production, attempts to reform the CAP, announced in June 2003, have focused on decoupling or breaking the link between subsidies and production. In future a single payment will be made to farmers which will be linked to compliance with environmental, food safety, animal and plant health and animal welfare standards, as well as a requirement to keep all farmland in good agricultural and environmental condition. The Government has recently decided to base the payment on land area in production rather than on historic subsidies received. Payments based on historic subsidies were favoured by the East Anglian barley barons, who have already benefited handsomely from subsidies, whereas payments based on area of land in production are supported by the Country Land and Business Association, which represents some of the biggest land owners.[23] Either way, the reformed CAP looks set to continue to preferentially support large farmers rather than small farmers.

    Critics of the reforms also say they paper over the cracks and do not address the real issue: namely, why are farmgate prices so low that farmers, especially small and family farmers, can't make a fair living?[24]

    Without a fair price for their produce, CAP reform may slow the exodus from farming, but will not prevent it.

    The bottom line is that many UK farmers don't want to rely on subsidies. What they want is a fair price for producing food.[25]

    Also note the difference in profit on wheat production compared to milk and meat. ?lid=2629

    Comparison of cost of production and farmgate price[46]

    Cost of production Farmgate price
    Milk 18-21 pence per litre 18.5 pence per litre
    Pork 95p per kg 84p per kg
    Bread wheat £95 per tonne £115 per tonne including subsidy
    Eggs 45.3p per dozen 27p per dozen
    Potatoes £77 per tonne £50-60 per tonne
  • frenchfighterfrenchfighter Posts: 30,642
    RDW wrote:
    It's a good article and thanks for posting, however it is unrelated to what I said. You saw I used the word meritocracy and knew about the article so posted but it doesn't counter my point.

    Monarchy is largely a distraction. 'Meritocracy' is potentially much more corrosive to democracy than the ceremonial role of the head of state (would we really have been better off with President Thatcher or President Blair?). We've replaced an aristocractic House of Lords with lifetime 'meritocractic' appointments that are equally undemocratic. We have a ruling class of professional politicians in the Commons, who went to the 'right' schools and universities, and were selected for safe seats and a fast track to power. Meanwhile, we get to stick a cross on a piece of paper at intervals now fixed at 5 years in the interests of 'continuity' and 'stability'. Possession of 'merit' says absolutely nothing about whether those who rule are likely to act in the best interests of the public (though they may be more competent at executing whatever policy they decide to make).

    I never get the argument when they say, would you rather Holland, Sarkozy, Blair, Brown. Firstly the answer is yes, second its not like their decision counts for everything, third it is the case all over the World, and fourth why not just push for anarchy if you can never be satisfied with the person at the top.
    Contador is the Greatest
  • frenchfighterfrenchfighter Posts: 30,642
    Here you go LL. The UK Dairy farmers should go to Buckingham P and do what these farmers did in Brussels.

    bp17-1.jpg?t=1354812548
    Contador is the Greatest
  • ddraverddraver Posts: 20,502
    I never get the argument when they say, would you rather Holland, Sarkozy, Blair, Brown. Firstly the answer is yes,

    Now who's in a minority? And if their decisions count for nothing then why does it matter who holds the position at all?
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • mooromooro Posts: 418
    Here you go LL. The UK Dairy farmers should go to Buckingham P and do what these farmers did in Brussels.

    bp17-1.jpg?t=1354812548

    They are already doing it in Newcastle, must admit both appear to be a bit of a waste.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/video/2 ... raze-video
  • LeicesterLadLeicesterLad Posts: 3,908
    mooro wrote:
    Here you go LL. The UK Dairy farmers should go to Buckingham P and do what these farmers did in Brussels.

    bp17-1.jpg?t=1354812548

    They are already doing it in Newcastle, must admit both appear to be a bit of a waste.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/video/2 ... raze-video

    Well they may as well use it for something constructive, after all they are not making anything on it. :wink:
  • 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.

    So arable farmers get subsidies while dairy farmers make a loss? As well as the queen, do you also dislike all arable farmers in the country who also get farming subsidies?

    Your first point compares subsidies given (arable farming presumably) to profit (on milk). For a fair comparison, do you know whether arable farmers make a loss on their crops and whether dairy farmers get subsidies.

    Whether genuine arable farmers make a profit or loss and receive subsidies doesn't bother me in the slightest - indeed most of them need the subsidies more than the Queen :roll: . The point I was making was: Is there a need for the queen to rinse an extra 7million in what amounts to farming benefits? While the government couldn't give a sh*t about the thousands of Dairy farms packing up because they can't make a profit because it's not regulated properly and the supermarkets are raping the farmers? Not sure why you feel the need to be a clever tw*t, you knew exactly what my point was, and nobody likes a smart a*se. :roll: Watch the programme and you might get the point. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01d94rm/Panorama_The_Money_Farmers/
    Many people ask why, despite receiving massive financial subsidies, farming continues to be in perpetual crisis.

    Production subsidies were introduced in the UK by the 1947 Agriculture Act to persuade farmers to increase production and thus ensure national food security. Farmers received a guaranteed price for their produce and were encouraged to plough up pastures, drain wetlands and reclaim moorland and so put more land into production.

    Today, subsidies to UK farmers (under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)) are meant not only to increase agricultural productivity but also to protect standards of living for farmers and farming communities in the EU and to bring consumers cheap food. However, the farmgate price has fallen so low that subsidies now form a substantial part of farm incomes for many farmers. This so called 'cheap food policy' is in reality a cheap farmgate price policy and it is the corporations that benefit most from these low commodity prices.

    Essentially farm subsidies are corporate welfare; public funds in the form of farm subsidies are going straight into the pockets of the corporate traders, processors and retailers and most farmers are not seeing any real benefit. Even the Co-operative Society, the largest farmer in the UK, which receives about £5 million in subsidies, made an overall loss of £0.5 million in 2000.[19] Some farmers, of course, including the so called 'barley barons' of East Anglia, have been happily playing the system and making a great deal of money.[20]

    Some argue that subsidies are to blame for the intensification of farming, increased production levels and low commodity prices (also see box 'Why are global agricultural prices so low?'). While subsidies help cushion farmers against low commodity prices, there is no direct relationship between subsidies and production levels.

    Evidence from around the world suggests that removal of subsidies and other barriers to international trade does not significantly reduce the overall amount of land in production or production levels, although the mix of crops may change.[21]

    It seems in fact that it is low farmgate prices, regardless of whether there are any subsidies available, that encourage farmers to intensify their farming in order to increase production.[22] Paid less, they cram more animals into the same space, obtain more milk output from the same number of cows and more tonnes per acre. UK dairy farmers are currently under extreme price pressure with farmgate milk prices well below the cost of production. There are no direct subsidies for milk production, but farmers have still responded to the income crisis by intensifying.

    The most intensive sectors of agriculture in the UK: pigs, poultry and vegetable production receive no production subsidies at all. Whereas, the two most extensive farming sectors, beef and sheep, receive direct production subsidies in the form of headage payments.

    Despite the lack of evidence that subsidies actually fuel increased production, attempts to reform the CAP, announced in June 2003, have focused on decoupling or breaking the link between subsidies and production. In future a single payment will be made to farmers which will be linked to compliance with environmental, food safety, animal and plant health and animal welfare standards, as well as a requirement to keep all farmland in good agricultural and environmental condition. The Government has recently decided to base the payment on land area in production rather than on historic subsidies received. Payments based on historic subsidies were favoured by the East Anglian barley barons, who have already benefited handsomely from subsidies, whereas payments based on area of land in production are supported by the Country Land and Business Association, which represents some of the biggest land owners.[23] Either way, the reformed CAP looks set to continue to preferentially support large farmers rather than small farmers.

    Critics of the reforms also say they paper over the cracks and do not address the real issue: namely, why are farmgate prices so low that farmers, especially small and family farmers, can't make a fair living?[24]

    Without a fair price for their produce, CAP reform may slow the exodus from farming, but will not prevent it.

    The bottom line is that many UK farmers don't want to rely on subsidies. What they want is a fair price for producing food.[25]

    Also note the difference in profit on wheat production compared to milk and meat. ?lid=2629

    Comparison of cost of production and farmgate price[46]

    Cost of production Farmgate price
    Milk 18-21 pence per litre 18.5 pence per litre
    Pork 95p per kg 84p per kg
    Bread wheat £95 per tonne £115 per tonne including subsidy
    Eggs 45.3p per dozen 27p per dozen
    Potatoes £77 per tonne £50-60 per tonne

    In terms of should the Queen get subsidies? I think she should if she's entitled to them. If any of us earned £40,000 a year would we turn down child benefit because others deserve it more?

    I agree 100% that farmers are getting screwed over. However, it's not really the supermarkets fault - it's the public's fault. If a supermarket pays farmers a fair amount, their proces will go up, they'll lose customers and go out of business. If the public cared about something other than price, the supermarkets would too.
    (It's like people blaming the media/paparazi for invading celebrities' privacy. It's the public buying mags/papers featuring exclusive pics that drive this)
  • RDW wrote:
    New Year Honours just announced.

    sorry but this is madness....great sporting achievement and deserves an MBE or something similar but a Knighhood? :roll:

    Let him complete his cycling career - get stuck into some charity work - make a difference and then when he's in his early 50's give him the "hood"
    Wilier Izoard XP "Petacchi"/ Campag Veloce/ Fulcrum Racing 5
    Bianchi Via Nirone 7/ Campag Xenon
Sign In or Register to comment.