- Reaction score
zipperhead_cop said:Okay, that speaks to discreditability. But to be honest, the military has far more chances at medals than a police officer. The number of on-duty deaths is pretty low, and there is no indication that this family are being "medal detectors". They felt that creating any attention towards this situation would harm the case, and they were trying to "play the game" as they were told. Most civilians would not be aware that such a nomination could or would be held in confidence if submitted. Certainly, more education on our side is needed, but that is no reason to deny this on a calendar technicality.
This isn't a competition. The fact that Police officers do not have the same opportunity as Soldier to win valour awards is probably the lamest excuse I've heard yet.
No this family is not acting as "medal detectors", but just as our laws are not created for those who naturaly follow a moral and peaceful course in their lives, these regulations are not designed to protect the system against people like this family but from exploitation by those who would if the could.
Everyone here realizes that if this nomination is permitted to procede it is not a done deal that the nomination will amount to anything right?
I'm not going to change my mind on this. I think that it is a precedent that would cause much more harm than good for the whole honours system. To quote Churchill...
"The object of giving medals, stars and ribbons is to give pride and pleasure to those who have deserved them. At the same time, a distinction is something which everybody does not possess.
If all have it, it is less value.
There must therefore be heart burnings and disappointments on the borderline. A medal glitters, but it also casts a shadow. The task of drawing up regulations for such awards is one that does not admit of a perfect solution. It is not possible to satisfy everybody without running the risk of satisfying nobody."