Image of the PJM Medal
Banner Text = Fight For the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia Medal
Reply to topic Page 2 of 6
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
The Queen, did she sign a document.....
Author Message
Reply with quote
Post  
Well the first thing that I have done is send this to my MP

Dear Michael,
so, after well over 2 years of badgering HM Government to come clean on the matter of the ‘Queens signature’ they have finally admitted that she did NOT sign the order forbidding veterans to wear the PJM It was her private secretary, Sir Robin Janvrin, who signed the letter.

We knew that there was something dreadfully wrong here as the civil (or as it transpires ’ uncivil’ ) servants have tried every conceivable means at their disposal to prevent us from having sight of that original instruction. They have lied and prevaricated, obfuscated and deceived and have shown us that they are the most obnoxious and dishonest bunch of people that it is possible to try to do business with. They have misled Parliament and even worse, they have brought scorn on the person of Her Majesty herself! The HD Committee has been found out at long last, they are a disgrace but then we the veterans knew that right from the start. Janvrin is a member of that committee and so if ever there was a conflict of interests it is here.

Armed with the knowledge that The Queen NEVER signed that order then I must conclude that the 1968 London Gazette is the final arbiter here and that she HAS given her permission for it and other such awards to be worn as stated therein. I hope that you will advise those that have brought dishonour on this country over withholding this award, civil servants and parliamentarians, that it is they who are now held in total contempt by veterans of the Malaysia Confrontation worldwide.

I thank you for your continual support in this matter.

Regards

John

View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Reply with quote
Post Royal Approval or not. 
Looks like we have been correct from the word go in that the HD Committee have conspired to withhold the information that HM the Queen did not give permission for the PJM to be worn because the recommendation in regard to the PJM sent to the Queen only included acceptance of the medal but not the wearing or non-wearing, and Her Majesty's Private Secretary and the HD Committee have tried to pull a fast one but it has not worked.

They say that constitutionally the refusal of the Queen's Private Secretary is the same as the Queen's refusal but you can believe that if you like. What we have now is a prima facae case against the HD Committee who, in my humble opinion, have acted unlawfully and unconstitutionally against 35,000 British citizens to prevent them wearing an honourable medal granted acceptance by Her Majesty the Queen. The Queen did NOT refuse permission to wear!!!

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
let me paraphrase the immortal words of 'Bachman Turner Overdrive':

Oh, B-b-b-b-baby....'You ain't seen nothin' yet!


_________________
...................'Jock'
Paroi...Rasah...Batu Signals Troop.
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
For some very obvious reasons I do not wish to place all my correspondence here but it makes our case 'watertight' in the discrepancies over a period of 102 weeks when on April 22nd 2006 I first asked for sight of Her Majesty's signature on the said order, even my MP was fobbed off by an HD Committee member and totally ignored.

There are many different people in the CO/FCO who have egg on their faces today, they know who they are, having followed their own protocol and now the hangman to the gallows. Could I just ask you all that have discussed HMQ's signature with any official in Whitehall whether you have an anomaly, I do know of two other forum members who have that information.

Somehow I feel those thespians in The Great Whitehall Farce have just made their last curtain call.

What was it that Clint Eastwood once said.............


_________________
--------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
.......Clint said......

Go ahead, make my day”

“I tried being reasonable, I didn't like it.”

"A good man always knows his limitations”

You've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?”


any and all are appropriate.....select one!


_________________
...................'Jock'
Paroi...Rasah...Batu Signals Troop.
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
The one I thought was appropriate Jock was

Hang them High...............


_________________
--------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
'Jock' Fenton wrote:
.......Clint said......

Go ahead, make my day”

“I tried being reasonable, I didn't like it.”

"A good man always knows his limitations”

You've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?”


any and all are appropriate.....select one!


Jock, it must be 'make my day' they just have by admitting that they have deliberately misled everyone in regard to the non-wearing of the PJM and the question on my lips now 'was Her Majesty the Queen ever involved in any way with the PJM?'. It looks like her Private Secretary took an awful lot on himself.

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
Ever since our researcher unearthed the LG Statement of 1968 the suits have been batting on their back foot, what with the majority of MPs (who are able to) support the campaign, The Scottish Parliament are of the same opinion, it is just the unswerving 8 without a cox that appear to be rowing against the tide, an expression of sink or swim comes to mind.


_________________
--------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
For Better or for worse, for richer or poorer this is the Queen's Signature, I'll point out that this is Crown Copyright, if Barry/Admin wishes to remove this document then feel free, these people in Whitehall have done us a great dis-service over these past 3 years so they can have some of their own back. I'am beginning to think of the 'integrity of the system' did the HD Committee ever meet, did HM The Queen ever see our Petition............




_________________
--------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
As I disappear into ether-space for a few days, (Moving house) can I just say that the admission of the obvious i.e. that the Queen did not sign an order that the PJM may not be worn, is testement to the resilence, patience, doggedness and shear perseverance of the members of the committee and many, many supporting acts.

Well done John C. et al.


_________________
Pingat Kami - Hak Kami
651 Signal Troop,
Semengo Camp,
Kuching.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Reply with quote
Post  
I have placed a link to some previous correspondence here http://www.fight4thepjm.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=881&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 it makes for some interesting reading if you have had any dealings with the suits on this matter would you kindly place your corespondence here


_________________
--------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Sir Sir Sir Robin "rights" ... 
John Cooper wrote:
For Better or for worse, for richer or poorer this is the Queen's Signature, I'll point out that this is Crown Copyright, if Barry/Admin wishes to remove this document then feel free, these people in Whitehall have done us a great dis-service over these past 3 years so they can have some of their own back. I'am beginning to think of the 'integrity of the system' did the HD Committee ever meet, did HM The Queen ever see our Petition............


"did the HD Committee ever meet" .... No. They did not - we have that in writin. What is said in this letter contradicts what we have been told by the suits.

"did HM The Queen ever see our Petition" .... Almost certainly, no. But I shall publish again the letter I received from the Palace so people can make their own judgement.

As for your letter, John. I'm not going to remove it. Let them sue. I'd dearly like to see this one in a court of law!

Barry

PS It's interesting to note that they hid this letter from us for 2 years, only releasing it under severe pressure and only after Sir Sir Sir Robin had left office with his very own wearable 25 year anniversary medal - breaking his own 5 year rule - for which he no doubt signed his own letter of authority from HM!. What a wonderfully open, transparent, honest, democratic, and citizen-friendly system they operate behind the closed doors of Honours in Confidence. Well, it's all of that ... if you're one of them.


_________________
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  
Barry

I'm chuffed that you haven't removed that letter, I would like someone in authority to actually take me or even threaten to take me to court, that is when this campaign would really hit the headlines, so the two of us in the dock together, bring it on! Shocked


_________________
--------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
I would suggest that when this letter was released into the public domain as a result of the Freedom of Information Act it lost its 'In Confidence' status therefore taking anyone to task for its publication will not occur. If there was any continuation of its status then a note to that effect should have been issued with it outlining just how its contents were to be used or not as the case may be. Its like the PJM ruling, a paper tiger.

John

View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Reply with quote
Post "constituionally" 
Quote:
".................relating to your request as we are of the view (an opinon)that, constitutionally, there is no difference between The Queen signing a document signifying her approval and a letter written by her Private Secretary, on her behalf, relaying this approval. (Another opinion).

The letter from Sir Robin Janvrin is the formal document conveying Her Majesty's approval. There is no other information". Unquote.

This reply seems rather defensive to me. "There is no separate document held that bears the Queen's signature"; and "no difference; we are of the view........etc". Mr Pigott seems to be over emphasising the reasons in justifying the manner in which the process was carried out. Personally, I believe that there are reasons for questioning the process. It may be questioning the integrity of the HD Committee, per se, and those Ceremonial Officers in the MoD DS Sec, the Cabinet Office and the FCO who constitute that Committee and have previously intimated, presumably on the grounds "that there is no difference" that the "acceptance but not wearing" caveat was actually signed be The Queen. I believe that this assumption can and should be challenged. I'm sure that it will be!

Addendum:

".....conveying HM's approval but, did HM's approval state that it cannot be worn before or as it was conveyed? I know what I think!



Last edited by GLOman on Tue Apr 08, 2008 12:35 pm; edited 4 times in total
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:
Reply to topic Page 2 of 6
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  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