Image of the PJM Medal
Banner Text = Fight For the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia Medal
Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
Date of Non-Wear Approval.
Author Message
Reply with quote
Post Date of Non-Wear Approval. 
A recent request was made to the Cabinet Office under the Freedom of information Act requesting what day and date Her Majesty the Queen approved the recommendations of the honours and Decorations Committee that the PJM can be accepted but not worn as stated in the letter from Sir Robin Janvrin to Jack Straw MP dated 21st. December, 2005.

The answer was as follows:-

Her Majesty’s approval was conveyed to Government through Sir Robin Janvrin’s letter of 21st. December, 2005. Therefore, the Cabinet Office would take the 21st. December, 2005, to be the date upon which the Queen approved the Honours and Decorations (HD) Committee recommendations. No other information regarding the date of the Queen’s approval is held by the Cabinet Office’.

If that is the case, then why did Jack Straw MP, the Foreign Secretary at that time, whose office received the letter from Sir Robin Janvrin on 29th. December, 2005 as per the stamp on the top right hand corner, submit a written answer to the House of Commons as follows –

Written Answers — Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs: Foreign Decorations (9 Jan 2006)
Jack Straw: The Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals' recommendations will be presented to the Queen shortly. An announcement about the Pingat Jasa Malaysia will be made as quickly as possible.

It will be seen that this written answer from the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw MP is dated 9th. January, 2006.

Also, the six page rebuttal document submitted by the joint MOD, Cabinet Office, and FCO, and entitled THE PINGAT JASA MALAYSIA, AND WHY ELIGIBLE BRITISH RECIPIENTS MAY EXCEPTIONALLY RECEIVE, BUT NOT WEAR, THE MEDAL, states on the first page -

‘In January, 2006 the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals (HD Committee) recommended to Her Majesty The Queen a special exception to the rules governing the acceptance and wear of non-British awards, to allow the Malaysian authorities to present the PJM and those who are eligible, to receive it’.

So now we have a document which is referred to as the formal document which confirms that Her Majesty the Queen approved the HD Committee recommendations that the PJM could be accepted but not worn. This ‘formal’ document is an internal, informal, letter from the Queen’s Private Secretary to the Foreign Secretary (Jack Straw MP), is signed ‘Robin’ and has a typographical error in the name of the signatory. It gives no indication whatsoever that Her Majesty most graciously gave permission for the PJM to be accepted and not worn; Her Majesty ‘exceptionally’ granted permission for the PJM to be accepted; Her Majesty over-ruled her previous Royal Decree in the London Gazette of 3rd. May, 1968 etc.

Added to this is the denial by the Cabinet Office that they do not know the date or day which her Majesty the Queen approved the HD Committee recommendations and have quoted the date of the letter (21st. December, 2005) as the assumed date YET other documentation (one approved by the Cabinet Office) show that Her Majesty the Queen approved the HD Committee recommendations in January, 2006, and certainly after 9th. January, 2006, according to a document submitted to the House of Commons by the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw MP.

The reader could be excused for asking ‘just what is going on, why is the Cabinet Office being so devious? Not only the reader could be asking this question, but also the Malaysian government who must be wondering just why the British establishment is treating their honourable medal in such a shameful manner.

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
McDangle's application of these documented facts to the calendar proves conclusively that the entire 'justification' (for want of a better term) of the PJM decision is nothing more than fabrication....a gross misrepresentation....a complete canard....we are confronted by a group of people who, if prevarication were declared an Olympic event, would most certainly be featured among the medallists.


_________________
...................'Jock'
Paroi...Rasah...Batu Signals Troop.
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
Put simply, Lies, Lies and more damn Lies, I thought I wrote that on here some two years ago, the hole is self-deepening isn't it?
Rolling Eyes


_________________
--------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
John Cooper wrote:
Put simply, Lies, Lies and more damn Lies, I thought I wrote that on here some two years ago, the hole is self-deepening isn't it?
Rolling Eyes


Indeed it is John.

It is a simple thing to remember. When you're up to your armpits in the smelly stuff, stop digging.

They haven't worked that bit out yet. They're still digging.

And the smell is getting worse.


_________________
Merdeka, Merdeka, Merdeka,
from the HD Committee and its decision.
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post MORE LIES. 
There is more and I believe we should publish everything which shows that British veterans of the Malaya/Borneo campaigns have been discriminated against and treated with the utmost contempt by a few Civil Service Mandarins who do this because they can do it and for no other reason.

The head of the HD Committee is the Cabinet Secretary, who is also the head of the Home Civil Service and his right hand man is the Private Secretary to HM the Queen. Between them they have breached the democratic rights of British Citizens and they have enlisted the aid of the mighty civil service machine to try and sort out a few elderly British citizens who will not lie down and do as they are told.

When it comes to dishing out honours and awards they are up at the front with greedy hands out. The Queen’s retired Private Secretary has ten honours plus he can be called Rt. Hon. and now is not only Sir, and Lord, but also Baron Janvrin of Chalford Hill. All for being an official in Buckingham Palace and sending out a letter saying the Queen had approved the acceptance of the PJM but not the wearing of it, and he couldn’t even be bothered to check that his correct name was on the document.

Let us examine their lies and deceit a little further -

They tell us that we were Servants of the Crown when we became eligible for the PJM and to prevent us obtaining our rights under the Queen’s Royal Decree in the London Gazette dated 3rd. May, 1968, we are told that under the Regulations we are classed as Retired Crown Servants. Well why do they always refer to us a British civilians?

Don’t take my word for it . Check the six page rebuttal of our case for wearing the PJM entitled THE PINGAT JASA MALAYSIA, AND WHY ELIGIBLE BRITISH RECIPIENTS MAY EXCEPTIONALLY RECEIVE, BUT NOT WEAR, THE MEDAL. They may refer to us in the heading as British Recipients but they repeat regularly that they are dealing with British or UK citizens, and not servants of the Crown. This document states:-

(a). although no official permission has been given for wear of the medal the wearing of awards BY CIVILIANS is not policed.
(b). each request to present a non-British award to BRITISH CITIZENS is considered on its merits.
(c). allowing double medalling leads to proliferation of the medals UK CITIZENS might wear.
(d). when any foreign state requests permission to present an award to a BRITISH CITIZEN the request is considered…..
(e). Heading – THE RULES GOVERNING THE ACCEPTANCE AND WEAR OF FOREIGN AWARDS BY BRITISH CITIZENS (but didn't Dennis Brennan say we were retired servants of the Crown?)
(f). It has been claimed that the decision discriminates against UK CITIZENS.
(g). UK CITIZENS cannot rely on the decisions of other Commonwealth states to claim……….

In his email of the 7th. August, 2006, when Richard Coney, DS Sec – Honours 1, MOD, made reference to HM the Queen giving permission for the PJM to be accepted as a souvenir or keepsake, he also said – as a civilian you can do what you want.

There are many other sources of the establishment referring to veterans eligible for the PJM as British citizens and in doing so they are defeating their own case that veterans of the Malaya/Borneo campaigns are retired servants of the Crown who are not covered by the Royal Decree in the London Gazette of 3rd. May, 1968. They are, on many occasions, stating quite unequivocally that they are dealing with British citizens, which of course, we are.

The HD Committee and all their little helpers (or forced labour) in the civil service are running around in circles contradicting themselves at every turn. You couldn’t make it up, could you?



Last edited by mcdangle on Sat May 17, 2008 1:29 pm; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: MORE LIES. 
mcdangle wrote:

The HD Committee and all their little helpers (or forced labour) in the civil service are running around in circles contradicting themselves at every turn. You couldn’t make it up, could you?


And as I said earlier :-

They're still digging......and......

Its even harder to dig when you're going around in circles

The smell is getting worse - indeed!


_________________
Merdeka, Merdeka, Merdeka,
from the HD Committee and its decision.
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Retired servants of the crown 
Ok, I accept that I am a retired servant of the crown, and as such, I am directed by Mr Coney that I am not subject to the regulations, and can wear my PJM, because it is not policed. Why then, is the MoD HD Committee et al, so vociferous in their adherence to a misguided dictat? Wouldn't it have been a lot easier if they had said... ok, wear it ... done deal.

My old Chief in the RN had a wonder turn of phrase... When you are up to your arse in alligators, it's hard to remember that the initial objective was to drain the swamp.

Civil Serpents take note.

Yours Aye

Arthur

View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:
Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
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