Image of the PJM Medal
Banner Text = Fight For the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia Medal
Reply to topic Page 12 of 14
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 11, 12, 13, 14  Next
UPDATE ON THE WEARING OF THE PJM
Author Message
Reply with quote
Post Too Phew? 
jireland wrote:
Barry, you have forgotten quite a few!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


But not, allegedly, a 'phew' or two. There must be more, I suppose, but the suits can't reduce this list. Well they can try ...

Anyone interested in the medals that break the '5-year slide-rule'? ZZZzzzzzzzzz

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 Double trouble 
Had the entire civil service/mod/hdc, removed said heads from rear ends, the solution is so blatantly obvious even my grandson was able to profer an opinion,,, here it is.

Why all of the different kinds of medals? It would be a lot cheaper to just give the general service medal to everyone who served, anywhere, with the right clasp. If adults are supposed to get smarter as they get older, how come they are acting so stupid. Do people get more stupid as they get older?
It would be logical, viable, and certainly a lot cheaper than striking a new medal and new ribbon every so often. Which would have avoided the double medal issue altogether.

Not bad from a twelve year old.

Yours Aye

Arthur

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
There are two issues as I see it.

The first has to do with the government's apparent inability to understand that it owes a responsibility to the people, to be open and transparent, outside of promising same...which , both politicians and bureaucrats appear to define as "closed and opaque". MPs enjoy the high privilege of being our elected stewards and, as such, owe us the courtesy of honesty and openness in their dealings. Similarly Civil Servants owe the public they serve frank and honest responses to civil questions

Not answering questions does not lead one to conclude that openness and transparency is being practised.

The second issue deals with both elected and bureaucratic responsibility. It is beyond my comprehension how some Government ministers and their bureaucrats could be unaware that their actions, in the case of the PJM, might be anything but toxic to the concept of democratic government.


_________________
...................'Jock'
Paroi...Rasah...Batu Signals Troop.
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
Way back in early May I sent a letter to Mr Cameron Smith asking three questions and making one comment.
This morning I recieved this reply :>>>>>>>




I have underlined my three questions in Red for ease.

Enclosed with this letter was the bumph about accepting but not wearing signed by Sir Robin ? and four pages of the "Rules governing the acceptance and wearing of foreign orders"

The letter is once again signed by the now infamous Abby Oshodi, Deputy Team Leader. (a rank I also had during my time with NHS Logistics Wink )

Phredd

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
Phredd

Typical reply nonsense again, these people have boxed themselves into a tight corner and there appears to be no way out for them.

Well done in trying and keep at 'em


_________________
--------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Commander A G Sullivan MA RN 
I received this today from the Commander.

I did not really expect to get a reply referencing my observations of Mr Coney; however, I was dissappointed not to receive reassurance that the Commander was not inciting me to be discourteous to Her Majesty by wearing the "not policed", only "procedural not wearing" of the PJM.

However, as he writes "The contents of your letters have been noted" - I can only hope so! He states "but we are unable to discuss the detailed policy relating to the acceptance and wear of foreign medals"; "we" may not be able so to do, Mr R.T.Coney has in his time most certainly done so.

At least polite, and not civil service 'officiousness', as it were.

David





Last edited by GLOman on Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:07 pm; edited 2 times in total
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
GLOman.....When the Commander uses the (Royal prerogative) 'We' in order to explain his reluctance to engage in any exchange of information regarding 'the acceptance and wear of foreign medals' it seems to me that he is not demonstrating politeness but merely highlighting the gutlessness of an organization whose minions are perfectly prepared to use any and all misinformation in their unscrupulous attempts to cover up their inital blunder....It's not possible to retain any respect for such 'jobsworthies'

They continue to run but there is no place, any more, for them to hide...


_________________
...................'Jock'
Paroi...Rasah...Batu Signals Troop.
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post The Commander 
If Commander A.G. Sullivan MA RN, did not want to become involved in the subject of the PJM then why did he voluntarily start writing about it to PJMers on behalf of R.T. Coney. No-one from our end asked him to become involved and give his opinions but now that he finds that he is being questioned and may have given the wrong advice, he jumps on his high horse and decides that the best form of battle is to hide behind his closed door.
He can throw his toys out of his pram and tell us elderly British citizens that he has nothing more to add and sees no reason to continue with this matter which to me is a show of weakness. One would not have expected this from a man in his rank.
No doubt his high rank in HM Forces has permitted him in the past to give his vacuous opinions without being challenged, but I say again Commander Sullivan MA RN, you are dealing with British citizens and you have no authority to tell us that we have no right of appeal on the PJM etc.

Stand up and fight like a man and answer your critics or apologise for your misdemeanours.

I think you will have found out by now that you are not dealing with a bunch of numpties.

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
Would that be the Armed Force Andy that allowed its personnel to be taken hostage and then they all blether their stories to the press for mega bucks

What a shambles, one would think that Veterans from The Armed Forces would be treated with a little respect and not shafted on from high!
Rolling Eyes


_________________
--------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Royal Warrant. 
During the past 200 years or so, especially since 1812 and possibly earlier, it has been a long standing principle and procedure (where have we heard that before) that before Regulations in respect of Foreign Orders and Medals are introduced, the reigning Monarch gives authority for this to happen, and when Her Majesty (or His Majesty whichever is the case) gives permission for a foreign order or medal to be accepted and worn, this is signified by Warrant under the Royal Sign-Manual (the Monarch’s signature). It is also published in the London Gazette.
Later the regulations show that -

1. It is The King's wish that no subject of His Majesty shall wear the Insignia of any Foreign Order without having previously obtained His Majesty's permission to do so, signified either:
• By Warrant under the Royal Sign-Manual, or
• By private permission conveyed through His Majesty's Private Secretary.
• Permission given by Warrant under the Royal Sign-Manual will enable the Insignia of the Foreign Order to be worn at all times and without any restriction.

Private permission will only enable the Insignia to be worn on the occasions specified in the terms of the letter from The King's Private Secretary conveying the Royal Sanction.

This Warrant under the Royal Sign-Manual and the requirement of HM’s permission to change the Foreign Orders and Medals Regulations (which were all published in the London Gazette) continued until April, 1969 when the Regulations concerning the Acceptance and Wearing by Persons in the Service of the Crown/Persons NOT in the Service of the Crown of Orders, Decorations and Medals conferred by Heads or Governments of Foreign States and by Members of the Commonwealth Overseas of which the Queen is not Head of State were introduced.

These changes in the Regulations were all dated April, 1969, and the draft was inspected and passed by the Prime Minister, The Lord Chancellor, the Foreign Secretary of State, and they were discussed by MP’s in the House of Commons. Eventually they were inspected by HM the Queen who appended ‘approved’ and Her initials which gave them a Warrant under the Royal Sign-Manual. The new regulations approved by Her Majesty that UK citizens, not being servants of the Crown, who have been given permission to accept a foreign order, decoration, or medal, can wear it without restriction, was published in the London gazette 5057 dated 3rd. May, 1968.

So where did it all go wrong for the Pingat Jasa Malaysia? An honourable medal conferred by the Supreme Head of Malaysia upon eligible Commonwealth troops. British citizens, as we now know were singled out for special treatment and not given permission to wear this medal.

New ‘reviewed’ rules were placed in the House Library on 21st. November, 2005, by the then Foreign Secretary of State, Jack Straw MP. These ‘reviewed’ rules changed the original 1969 Regulations (the words are there for anyone to read) but they were not issued by a Warrant under the Royal Sign-Manual, and there is no indication whatsoever that her Majesty the Queen even saw them. There definitely was no London Gazette publication about these ‘reviewed’ Rules.
We are told, Her Majesty the Queen most graciously gave her permission for the PJM to be accepted but not worn. If, under the long standing principles and procedures listed in the Foreign Awards Regulations since 1812 (a possible Common Law Rule) a Warrant under the Royal Sign-Manual was not granted for the PJM then, according to these long standing rules, the Queen’s Private Secretary was responsible for conveying the Royal Sanction to each and everyone eligible for this foreign medal.

The 1969 Regulations and the 2005 Rules both state quite specifically that whether or not Restricted or Unrestricted wear is given by the Sovereign for a Foreign Order, Decoration or Medal, a letter will be sent to the UK citizen concerned from the Sovereign’s Private Secretary. This has been the policy for nearly two hundred years.
So what does this tell us -

The PJM was dealt with by the Foreign Secretary at the time, Jack Straw MP, and the Honours and Decorations Committee in complete contradiction to long standing principles and procedures, and Regulations which date back to 1812.
• No Warrant under the Royal Sign-Manual was issued.
• New revised rules were not dated and not authorized by the Sovereign.
• The Sovereign’s Private Secretary did not issue a letter to all UK Citizens who have been refused permission to wear the PJM.
• A London Gazette publication and Regulations issued by a Warrant under the Royal Sign-Manual, were completely ignored.

This means that those involved with the PJM decision have been grossly discourteous to our Sovereign for ignoring the Royal Protocol and regulations by Warrant under the Royal Sign-Manual and the common law usage of foreign orders, decorations and medals rules which are long standing procedures and principles.
The following are the regulations referred to and it will be noted that the 1914 Regulations deal with British citizens in the service of the Crown. It is not the intention of this paper to become involved in the ‘Crown service’ discussion but only to point out the long standing use of the Warrant under the Royal Sign-Manual which seems to have been swept to the side by our present day bureaucrats.

Regulations respecting Foreign Orders (1812-46)
British and Foreign State Papers, 10:1019-20.

Regulations of the British Government, respecting Foreign Orders granted to British Subjects.
(Published, December 1823).

Regulations of His Majesty and of His Royal Highness the Prince Regent, respecting Foreign Orders.

1. That no British Subjects shall accept a Foreign Order, or wear its Insignia, without having previously obtained a Warrant under the Royal Sign Manual (directed to the Earl Marshal of England), granting them His Majesty's permission to accept and wear the same.

Regulations respecting Foreign Orders (1855)
London Gazette Issue 21711 published on the 15 May 1855. Page 1-2.

The Queen has been pleased to direct that the following Regulations respecting Foreign Orders and Medals shall be substituted for those now in force :

1. No subject of Her Majesty shall accept a Foreign Order from the sovereign of any foreign country, or wear the insignia thereof, without having previously obtained Her Majesty's permission to that effect, signified by a Warrant under Her Royal Sign Manual.


Regulations respecting Foreign Orders (1911)
Gazette Issue 28493 published on the 12 May 1911. Page 11

Foreign Office,
May 8, 1911.

The KING has been pleased to command that the following Regulations respecting Foreign Orders and Medals shall be substituted for those hitherto in force:

1. It is The King's wish that no subject of His Majesty shall wear the Insignia of any Foreign Order without having previously obtained His Majesty's permission to do so, signified either:
a. By Warrant under the Royal Sign-Manual, or
b. By private permission conveyed through His Majesty's Private Secretary.

2. Permission given by Warrant under the Royal Sign-Manual will enable the Insignia of the Foreign Order to be worn at all times and without any restriction.
Private permission will only enable the Insignia to be worn on the occasions specified in the terms of the letter from The King's Private Secretary conveying the Royal Sanction.

Regulations respecting Foreign Orders (1914)Gazette Issue 28833 published on the 22 May 1914. Page 10-12

Foreign Office,
May 20, 1914.

The KING has commanded that the following Regulations relating to the wearing of Foreign Orders and Medals by British subjects shall be substituted for those previously in force, the text of which was published in the London Gazette of May 12, 1911:—
Regulations Respecting Foreign Orders and Medals Applicable to Persons in the Service of the Crown.
Orders.
1. It is the King's wish that no subject of His Majesty in the Service of the Crown shall accept and wear the Insignia of any Foreign Order without having previously obtained His Majesty's permission to do so, signified either:
a. By Warrant under the Royal Sign-Manual, or
b. By private permission conveyed through His Majesty's Private Secretary.

2. Permission given by Warrant under the Royal Sign-Manual will enable the Insignia of the Foreign Order to be worn at all times and without any restriction.
Private permission will only enable the Insignia to be worn on the occasions specified in the terms of the letter from the King's Private Secretary conveying the Royal sanction.




REPLY TO THE ABOVE PAPER BY BARRY FLEMING.



An excellent exposé.

You have referred to HM’s Private Secretary signing on Her behalf. The civil servants will say that this is what happened in the case of the PJM and so what they did was perfectly in order.

This is not so!

The intention of allowing The Queen’s Private Secretary to write was to ease the Monarch’s workload and was limited to the Private Secretary writing to ‘private’, and therefore individual, people in respect of The Queen’s decision made in the light of Foreign Decorations Rules that the Sovereign had read, agreed, and had Herself approved – confirming such approval by her signature.

The Queen is supposed to be the Fount of all Honours – and so she should have the last ‘say’. She is also supposed to be the ultimate safety net that was put in place to prevent the worst excesses of political or personal agendas happening. Not any more, it seems!

*** This delegated power is not relevant to promulgating The Queen’s decision in respect of Honours Rules, or changes thereto, that she had not agreed to in writing.

*** Nor was it ever intended that the Private Secretary should write to anyone other than an individual.

*** It was never intended that a Private Secretary should write to a group of people (such as PJMers) which would include men and women from all walks of life … service personnel, retired service personnel, private citizens, state employees, those in the pay of the UK and those in the pay of the offering country (Malaysia in our case), those with single nationality, those with dual nationality – and the next of kin of those who died.

*** Nor was it ever intended that a civil servant, not even the Private Secretary, should write to those who had been asked by The Queen and Parliament to place their lives on the line – to write to tell them they had allegedly been right royally snubbed for the very service they had loyally given The Queen and Parliament.

The scope of possible eligible recipients and particularly the latter group mentioned, i.e. next of kin, underlines that any declaration given by HM’s Private Secretary is totally inappropriate to a Commemorative Medal such as the PJM – the protocol discussed in your paper can only apply to individual, living, people.

So, in the case of the PJM, why did The Queen’s Private Secretary write to the Foreign Secretary purporting to be acting for The Queen and informing the Foreign Secretary of a decision that withheld formal permission for the PJM to be worn?

Answer? Because this was the only way the civil servants could circumvent The Queen’s reluctance to restrict British citizens from wearing a medal that She had granted them permission to receive when She had already given approval for that same medal to be worn by citizens of all other Commonwealth countries of which she is Queen.

There are papers in the Foreign Office and the National Archives specifically stating that The Queen should never be asked to discriminate as between her British subjects and her citizens in the rest of the Commonwealth. We know that. The civil servants should know that. But the civil servants omitted to tell the Foreign Secretary and, through him, Parliament that that was exactly what they (the civil servants) connived to do for their own devious reasons – i.e. they schemed to go against official policy and abuse delegated privileges, embarrass The Queen and shame our country.

And so, at the end of the day, civil servants have duped the Foreign Secretary and Parliament and the country, and have introduced a bogus Royal Warrant into our democratic system which does not have the safeguard of a written constitution. Cromwell will be turning in his grave.

What a shambles – and, as had been stated on the floor of the Commons, one that brings shame to our country. No wonder the Rt Hon Don Touhig and Parliament want to make that unelected shower accountable to our directly elected House of Commons!

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
Quote:
The intention of allowing The Queen’s Private Secretary to write was to spread the Monarch’s workload but was limited to the Private Secretary writing to ‘private’, and therefore individual, people in respect of The Queen’s decision made in the light of Foreign Decorations Rules that the Sovereign had read, agreed, and had Herself signed.


A brilliant exposé indeed Andy.....Sterling work!
.......It is to be hoped that the solution to this problem will entail that HM's Private Secretary will now be instructed to write to every individual PJM'mer detailing their rights, in keeping with the 'rules'......I, for one, can hardly wait for my copy of THAT letter to arrive in the mail.....Im busy mentally composing my response to it already....I imagine that many of my Fight4 comrades might have similar plans????


_________________
...................'Jock'
Paroi...Rasah...Batu Signals Troop.
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Treason 
This is precisely why they have been repealing all of the Treason Acts, so they can conduct the nefarious business of undermining the authority of Her Majesty the Queen... and getting away with it.

Yours Aye

Arthur

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
In light of these revelations The Right Honourable and Baron Sir, Sir, Sir "Janvirn", the person at the centre of this disgraceful sleight of hand, should immediately hand back all the honours that he himself has received since the the award of the PJM to UK Veterans of Confrontation, as he appears to have lost what honour he ever had.

I would also call for his resignation, but he no longer holds the position that he held when these deeds were done. Did he see the writing on the wall?


_________________
Merdeka, Merdeka, Merdeka,
from the HD Committee and its decision.
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Baron Sir Sir Sir Janvrirn 
As a former military officer, and having acted dishonourably, I think that he should do the honourable thing and fall on his sword.

He can borrow mine if he hasn't got one... sort of poetic justice.

Yours ever hopeful

Arthur

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
Well folks the lies continue, you can bet your bottom dollar that the Queen did not give approval for the temporary wear of the PJM last August/September in Malaysia. I am asking this to be reviewed which means that nothing changes in 8 weeks time then we have to go to the ICO again. Have these people no HONOUR or INTEGRITY ?







Last edited by John Cooper on Wed Jul 02, 2008 7:40 pm; edited 1 time in total

_________________
--------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:
Reply to topic Page 12 of 14
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 11, 12, 13, 14  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