Image of the PJM Medal
Banner Text = Fight For the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia Medal
Reply to topic Page 1 of 2
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Veterans get ready to defy Queen's ruling on medals.
Author Message
Reply with quote
Post Veterans get ready to defy Queen's ruling on medals. 
MORE than 200 North-East war veterans will next month receive a medal the Queen does not want them to wear. The Pingat Jasa Malaysia (PJM) medal was offered by the Malaysian government to the Commonwealth countries who served in Malaya throughout the Fifties and Sixties.

A wrangle over the medal meant that, initially, they could not even be presented to British veterans. Advertisement But in January last year, the Queen intervened, under the proviso that the medals should not be worn.

http://www.thisisthenortheast.co.uk/display.var.1564013.0.veterans_get_ready_to_defy_queens_ruling_on_medals.php

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
To which article I have responded thusly:

"I am thoroughly delighted to note that veterans, such as Gordon King, are deciding, en-masse, to openly defy the mean spirited ban on the wearing of the medal awarded them by the grateful nation of Malaysia. It further delights me to note that Malaya/Borneo veterans, world-wide, have banded together and are fighting to actively redress this callous and shameful injustice.

Is there not clearly some massive incongruity in an 'Honours System' that will cheerfully decorate highly paid and privileged, deskbound senior civil servants, with medals and other honours, whilst concurrently denying the aging veterans of two bitter jungle campaigns the right to wear their, battle won, honour?

The preposterous claim that such a restriction is necessary to the cause of protecting 'the integrity of the Imperial Honours System' is an even greater incongruity, which merely serves to highlight the fact, that usage of the term 'integrity' as applied to that perverted process, exemplifies little more than sadly inappropriate phrasing.

How very convenient that all of the (so-called) 'rules' governing the acceptance and wear of medals, administered by the Honours and Decorations Committee, are described as being, 'discretionary in nature'.....Which loosely translates as; 'This permits us to arbitrarily manipulate the rules, irrespective of merit, to attain pre-determined conclusions, entirely to our own satisfaction'!

'Jock' Fenton
ex Royal Corps of Signals & 17th Gurkha Division."


_________________
...................'Jock'
Paroi...Rasah...Batu Signals Troop.
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post See London Gazette evidence enclosed: 
Dear Editor, of ‘The Northern Echo’

In reply to your article “Veterans get ready to defy Queen's ruling on medals.” 23 July 2007
http://www.thisisthenortheast.co.uk/display.var.1564013.0.veterans_get_ready_to_defy_queens_ruling_on_medals.php
the PJM medal recipients have no need to worry, The Queen has already given ex-service veterans not servants of the Crown approval for Foreign Awards to be Worn as far back as 1968.

See London Gazette evidence enclosed:

FOREIGN OFFICE COMMONWEALTH OFFICE
ORDERS, DECORATIONS AND MEDALS CON-
FERRED BY MEMBERS OF THE COMMON-
WEALTH OF WHICH THE QUEEN IS NOT
HEAD OF STATE, AND BY FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

The QUEEN has been graciously pleased! to approve
that Orders, Decorations and Medals conferred with
Her Majesty's permission upon United Kingdom
citizens not being servants of the Crown by the
Heads or Governments of Commonwealth countries
as defined above, or of foreign States, may in afll
cases be worn by the recipients without restriction.

http://www.fight4thepjm.org/documents/London_Gazette_030568.pdf

I like my fellow veterans will be wearing my PJM medal on remembrance day with pride, and not in shame of being discourteous to The Sovereign, because eight silly billy’s on the Cabinet office HD committee have not done their homework properly and have now egg all over their face.

Yours sincerely

Malay Borneo Veteran
www.fight4thepjm.

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Media news North East 
And my contribution,
Dear Sir,

Notwithstanding the entry 5057 in the London Gazette dated 3rd May 1968, the regulations for wearing medals (the PJM) upon leaving the service is also contained in the Joint Services Publication 761 paragraph 21, which has also been issued as a DIN (Defence Instruction Notice) DIN2006 10 – 002 dated January 2006. This states that “on leaving the service personnel CEASE TO BE BOUND BY THESE INSTRUCTIONS but they expected to conform to the general instruction published in the London Gazette, and in particular not to add any order, decoration, medal or emblem to which they are not verifiably entitled or which has not been approved for acceptance and wear. The wearing of any unauthorised awards is a grave discourtesy to Her Majesty The Queen”. In a letter addressed to me dated 13th April 2007, reference D/DS Sec/1102/11/2 my attention is drawn to FCO Regulations concerning Acceptance and Wear (Section A, Point 14) as produced in 1969, I am informed (very patronisingly) that “You and Your colleagues, who bravely served in Her Majesty’s Armed Forces during the Malaya conflict were doing so as Crown Servants. Although you are now retired from this service the definition of ‘Crown Servant’ still applies. YES! BUT! These regulations referred to serving personnel and NOT to those retired. Lying by omission? Section B, which they have never quoted refers to the wearing of awards after leaving the service. Mind you the 1969 Regulations have been superseded and are, in fact, redundant, while the rehashed 2005 regulations (February 2005) particularly Section C, the PJM, was, in my view designed to prevent the wearing of the PJM , which was accepted by Her Majesty The Queen vide a parliamentary statement on the 31 January AND USED RETROSPECTIVELY to deny circa 35,000 Veterans from wearing the PJM. Furthermore, they insist in repeating the five year rule, which is arbitrary and discretionary as is the “double medalling” rule. Finally, Members and the staffs of the HD Committee have recently had the Antigua and Barbadu 25th Anniversary of Independence conferred upon, breaking all the rules which they use to stop us veterans from wearing the PJ, particularly the “Crown Servants” which they all are, or were when it was conferred, let alone most of the “MUST NOTs” in the Civil Service Code Book. If this is the standard of honesty and integrity that permeates through Whitehall, particularly in the Ceremonial and Honours Departments of the MOD DS Sec, FCO, Cabinet Office and HD Committee then God save us. David Dilley.



Last edited by GLOman on Thu Jul 26, 2007 8:19 pm; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
..



Last edited by ro5=6372 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 9:29 am; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Honours for Cash etc. 
I wonder if we will be considered, or fall under the category of being 'looked at' as a group of "Britain's Ordinary Heroes" under this piece of news. "Heroes" maybe a bit over the top in my case, but it most certainly will not be so with regard to many of you good people out there, and those who never made it back.

http://news.pipex.com/pipex/story/0,17019,8830_2611358,00.html

Tony


_________________
Veni vidi vinci
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Reply with quote
Post  
I am going to write to him to point out the huge difference in the Australian system and ours and how it was implemented retrospectively.

John

View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Reply with quote
Post The get out clause 
Perhaps I may have perceived the situation wrongly, but, this is the way I see it.
The Civil serpents know that they have made a horrlicks of the PJM situation and although saying, 'You may not wear but it will not be policed', is the standard get out clause for the numpties.

They have to save face somehow. Then again, think of the ramifications if anyone was told to remove their PJM, or at worst, arrested for wearing it. I don't think that the Civil Serpents or the Government would survive the mauling in the press, or the courts of law, for that matter.

May I quote from Lewis Page's book, Lions Donkeys and Dinosaurs, on the waste and blundering in the armed forces.

'The usual source of information is from the MoD, itself. as this admits only three possibilities.'

1. The MoD information is accurate. If it makes them look like idiots, they probably are idiots.

2. The MoD have massaged the information in their own favour. If it still makes them look like idiots, they are doubly idiots, in that they cannot falsify information properly, and the situation is worse than they described.

3. The men from the ministry, have somehow got the information wrong, in such a way as to make themselves look worse than they really are, in which unlikely case, they are truely incompetent.

Yours Aye

Arthur

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
Thank you Andy but you and I have never disagreed publicly on anything have we? At least I hope not because your bigger than me and I am not prone to fainting, I leave that to girlies.

John

Common sense prevails

View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Reply with quote
Post London Gazette. 
I agree with John Ireland (don't faint John) in that no reasonable institution such as the Information Commissioner - the Ombudsman - a magistrates court, or the Court of Human Rights, would concur with the HD Committee, and subsequently the government, approval of the non-wearing rule placed illegally and undemocratically upon the PJM.

They have admitted that the London Gazette of 1968 is extant but say that it is not applicable to us because the Queen 'meant' that when you served in the forces you were a British Civil Servant and that her approval of the PJM did not 'mean' unrestricted wear as stated in the London Gazette which is clear and consise and makes no mention whatseoever about the previous status of those egible. So its not what is said in rules and by Her Majesty the Queen, but that which is 'assumed' by those civil servants who think they have the right to command us civilians.

No wonder our country is in such a mess when these people are permitted by the serving government to interfere in such a petulant and boorish manner.

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
Barry and Andy are right, if push came to shove and the wearing issue ever came into a Court of Law then the London Gazette would be the mainstay of this case.

Its meaning appears to be unambiguous and there are no subsequent entries cancelling it out consequently 'permission to wear' has been given by the Sovereign. Whatever the government or any other department say's to the contrary, they cannot over rule those decrees without the Sovereigns explicit permission which she has not given. Therfore, the gazette entry is still extant.

That she has not intervened in this matter also speaks volumes, if she did NOT wish you to wear it I am sure that she would have made that fact abundantly clear to us.

John

View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Queen. 
mcdangle wrote:
... Her Majesty does now know about the PJM and she did actually see a Petition (as far as I am aware) from the Fight4thepjm group.

... So who refused permission for the PJM not to be worn.

... They say that the HD Committee recommended to Her Majesty the Queen that the PJM can be worn temporarily by those visiting Malaysia during the Merdeka celebrations and that Her Majesty the Queen gave her permission for this. Perhaps this is the same old prevarication we have been faced with since day one and that the HD Committee and Foreign Office used (or misused) the Royal Prerogative which allows them to cover their tracks when political matters decree it.

In any case, as Barry pointed out, the extant London Gazette Royal Decree of 1968 says it all, and we have permission to wear the PJM.


I agree with everything Andy says in his post.

Barry


_________________
BarryF, who fought for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Reply with quote
Post  
Andy

When I see the document that the Queen has allegedly signed then I shall know that she is 'agin us'. Did we ever establish that she ACTUALLY saw our petition?

Confused


_________________
--------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post The Queen. 
The question of whether or not the Queen knew that she was not giving permission for the wearing of the PJM, or whether she deliberately did not give her permission, is immaterial. Her Majesty does now know about the PJM and she did actually see a Petition (as far as I am aware) from the Fight4thepjm group.

The HD Committee have said that permission was not given for wear and that it was recommended only that it be accepted. So who refused permission for the PJM not to be worn. This is the major stumbling block that the F4 is up against because the HD Committee may have acted outwith their authority and when this has been fully proved beyond doubt then someone is for it. The numpties in this committee may believe they are too far up the food chain that they are untouchable but I would tell them to think again - look at recent events in our country.

They say that the HD Committee recommended to Her Majesty the Queen that the PJM can be worn temporarily by those visiting Malaysia during the Merdeka celebrations and that Her Majesty the Queen gave her permission for this. Perhaps this is the same old prevarication we have been faced with since day one and that the HD Committee and Foreign Office used (or misused) the Royal Prerogative which allows them to cover their tracks when political matters decree it.

In any case, as Barry pointed out, the extant London Gazette Royal Decree of 1968 says it all, and we have permission to wear the PJM.

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: What else............the Pingat Jasa Malaysia medal 
TWarner wrote:
I constantly read that Her Majesty has forbiden the wearing of the PJM


The actuality is that those serpents definitely did not ask her to forbid the wearing of the medal by private British citizens. They didn't have the moral courage to ask her to highlight their true intentions by signing a recommendation that properly reflected their nefarious objective - to stop the PJM being worn by the Brits.

Oddly, they got it wrong and screwed themselves, and that is why you can wear it ... HM has never said you can't wear the PJM, and so the London Gazette Notice of 1968, allowing eligible recipients to wear their medal, presents the reptiles with considerable difficulties and they haven't been able to overcome them satisfactorily.

TWarner wrote:
Frankly I think she has no idea that her name is being use.


I think she probably has. She is meticulous in the matter of Decorations and Medals - she spotted an error by the HD Committee when they wanted to ingratiate themselves with her by naming a gallantry award after her ... the Elizabeth Medal. She told them that when worn it would sit in the wrong order on a medal bar. It was renamed the Conspicuous Gallantry Cross. That example illustrates the dangers within a system run by sycophants, part-timers, and incompetent and dishonourable civil servants who brief the aforementioned.

HM knows exactly what is going on, and I am disappointed by her lack of support for the Brits. Having said that, the HD Committee (a bunch of part-timers who are not themselves experts on Medals and Decorations - look at their ful time occupations - and have to rely on what they are told to agree to) were, as always, told what to say by bigoted suits who fed them and the Queen lies and disinformation. HM culd only react to what she was reading and probably thought she had received a balanced recommendation and acted accordingly.

Who would have thought that she was asked to agree to retrospective and inappropriate rules just to deny the Brits? Hmmmm ...

Barry


_________________
BarryF, who fought for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:
Reply to topic Page 1 of 2
Goto page 1, 2  Next
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum