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
Lost Mail
Author Message
Reply with quote
Post Lost Mail 
LOST MAIL.


It seems like the delivery of mail to civil servants, and the transfer of correspondence between Ministers of the Crown and civil servants has one problem in common – they go missing! And it seems like most of us have experienced this BUT, and this is a big but, when you do get the reply from them that they have not received your letter and ask you to send a copy, when you do so that is the end of it. You hear no more from them. Basic questions, which for some reason they find tricky, are never answered and these are people who labelled themselves as Crown and public servants who are required to maintain high standards of fairness, impartiality and integrity.

Where has it all gone wrong for the service supplied by UK crown and public servants who can no longer be relied upon to supply a fair, impartial and honest service.

We have all had ‘the lost in the post’ attitude towards our efforts to obtain a simple answer to a simple question and I am no exception.

My ‘lost in the post’ was from the office of the Private Secretary to HM the Queen and after two years my request for an answer has not been resolved.

It all started on 9th. December, 2006, when I sent a letter to Sir Robin Janvrin asking if British Malaya/ Borneo veterans who had received approval from Her Majesty the Queen to accept the PJM would be notified in writing as shown in Rule 6 viz.

o ‘the grant of permission whether restricted or unrestricted will be conveyed by letter to the UK citizen concerned from the Sovereign’s Private Secretary’.

This was almost a year after the PJM was approved, but permission to wear was restricted.

I wrote again to Sir Robin Janvrin asking if I was to receive a reply to my previous letter. I then received a telephone call from a lady who gave her name as Rowena Bell of the Private Secretary’s Office at Buckingham Palace who said my earlier letter had not been received and if I had a copy could I send it to them. I sent a copy of my original letter to Rowena Bell at Buckingham Palace but heard no more – no doubt it got lost in the post again!

On 15th. November, 2007, I again sent a letter to HM’s Private Secretary at Buckingham Palace, again requesting the information first requested on 9th. December, 2006, but to date have received no reply or no acknowledgement.

No wonder there is such hostility in our country amongst ordinary people against a civil service which professes to co-operate and act in fairness when the opposite is experienced.

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
Referring Rule 6; this "ruling states restricted or unrestricted". The note to Jack Straw was not within this Rule, the main bone of contention; it stated that the PJM was approved 'but not to be formally worn'; that is, it was not unrestricted or restricted - it was forbidden to wear it, full stop. Restriction implies that, as stated in rule 6, it is confined to specific formal occasions or events connected with the Country who awarded the medal - Merderka Celebrations, or Remembrance Services which normally include all Wars and conflicts, not the panic stricken reaction, politically motivated to allow a fortnights wear to avoid embarrassment to themselves - then re-imposition, still in contradiction to their own rules (Rule 6).

I believe Part C was written (although they are in denial) purely to preclude the PJM from being formally worn when, in accordance with the then Minister's wishes for the decision to be reviewed after the original rejection was challenged. Evidence, if needed, that they are a law unto themselves.

Pm.gov petitions seem to epitomise democracy in action; the current Downing Street petiton regarding the treatment of Gurkhas has, the last time I looked, circa 40,000 signatures; I'm waiting with interest their negative reply to the petition, probably full of "we will review/revise the rules waffle, remembering the number of other petitons which have been turned down - not just PJM related.

On the other hand, the Joanna Lumley lead campaign; todays reading shows the current total as 127,182 not counting the 382 signatures I have just sent off! No waffle with this petition - a Demand for an Immediate, Unconditional right to UK residency, retrospectively for all those who have completed their terms of service, and for those still serving.

It might seem to be off-topic but: Reviews/revision of rules = discretion = control = power, and a window for creative rule making; Remember PART C of the 2005 Regulations? The Gurkhas do not need the same creative review that we suffered.

Let us hope that with Public and Media backing, this "Absolutely Fabulous" effort will be successful - no apologies for the pun.



Last edited by GLOman on Thu Dec 04, 2008 11:18 am; edited 2 times in total
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Gurkhajustice. 
The current total is 138,985 for the Lumley led campaign, as against the epetition (gov.uk) which closed on 26th Nov 08, which only managed circa 40.000.

It will not need a science Phd to guess that the gov.uk will explain the reasons for rejecting the appeal on the grounds that the Home Office will carry out a review of ALL CASES by Christmas, as promised (of course, retaining the right to choose who will/will not be eligible to stay, disregarding the 138,985 votes received as at 12-55 UCT 03-12-08 for an unconditional right to remain in the UK, serving or having served in the Gurkhas).

The MPs who made statements in the House regarding the arrest of a member of Parliament, underlined the absolute need for the independence of MPs to continue to criticise the Government using material which does not threaten the security of the country; the Leader of the Lib.Dems also underlined the neccessity for the independence of Civil Servants being maintained, and their integrity(?) protected from criticism by or using material supplied by disaffected civil servants to Ministers and (all party) MPs. Which sent a chill down my spine, and most likely a warm feeling in the hearts of those whom we have criticised over three years for the manner in which they have denied, and continue to do so, in the matter of the PJM.

Effectively, it means that civil servants of the Ceremonial Offices of the Home, Cabinet and Defence offices, would be able to continue to misinform, or deliberately mis-advise the Ministers of these Offices using outdated rules, rules introduced after the acceptance in the case of , say such as the PJM, which is well documented on this site, without fear of contradiction, although, as we know, there are some Ministers who are willing to accept their arguments without question. More seriously, it appears that Top Civil Servants in the Home and Cabinet Offices (and probably the Foreign Office and MOD) are able, apparently without reference to Departmental Ministers or The Speaker of the House of Comons, to order a Police investigation which might lead to the arrest of an MP, and the search of his office in the Palace of Westminster.

I'm hoping the Lib Dem leader got carried away in the heat of the moment, and did not realise the implications of giving the civil servants carte blanche to do as they wished, including the gagging of Elected Representatatives of the Electorate; the Fight4thepjm, has, I believe, on more than one occasion been told "that we run the Country".

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
GLOman wrote:
Andy,

You quote from Rule 6; this "ruling states restricted or unrestricted". The note to Jack Straw was not within their Rules, the main bone of contention; it stated that the PJM was approved 'but not to be formally worn'; that is, it was not unrestricted or restricted - it was forbidden to wear it, full stop. Restriction implies that, as stated, it is confined to specific formal occasions or events connected with the Country who awarded the medal - Merderka Celebrations, or Remembrance Services which normally include all Wars and conflicts, not the panic stricken reaction, politically motivated to allow a fortnights wear to avoid embarrassment to themselves - then re-imposition, still in contradiction to their own rules (Rule 6).

I believe Part C was written (although they are in denial) purely to preclude the PJM from being formally worn when, in accordance with the then Minister's wishes for the decision to be reviewed after the original rejection was challenged. Evidence, if needed, that they are a law unto themselves.

Pm.gov petitions seem to epitomise democracy in action; the current Downing Street petiton regarding the treatment of Gurkhas has, the last time I looked, circa 40,000 signatures; I'm waiting with interest their negative reply to the petition, probably full of "we will review/revise the rules waffle, remembering the number of other petitons which have been turned down - not just PJM related.

On the other hand, the Joanna Lumley lead campaign; todays reading shows the current total as 127,182 not counting the 382 signatures I have just sent off! No waffle with this petition - a Demand for an Immediate, Unconditional right to UK residency, retrospectively for all those who have completed their terms of service, and for those still serving.

It might seem to be off-topic but: Reviews/revision of rules = discretion = control = power, and a window for creative rule making; Remember PART C of the 2005 Regulations? The Gurkhas do not need the same creative review that we suffered.

Let us hope that with Public and Media backing, this "Absolutely Fabulous" effort will be successful - no apologies for the pun.



I recall a few months before Merdeka '07 how there were murmurings on the forum of some sort of demonstration in HRH Duke of York's presence, I recall mentioning it in reply to others but can't find the posts through the 'search' system, it was fairly obvious that a 'mole in a furry suit' or a casual reader saw this on the forum and 'instructed HMQ' [aka Janvrin] to allow this three week 'grace'

The goalposts have been moved so many times by Whitehall but we have different ways of kicking balls, the opposition do not know what is going on, another forum akin to this one is equally perplexed. Watch this space! Shocked


_________________
--------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
Here is a copy of a letter that I wrote to HM a couple of months before my Wife & I went to Malaysia for Merdeka.



Pinjat Jasa Malaysia Medal (PJM)

You’re Majesty,

I know that you are aware of the PJM Medal awarded by the King and people of Malaysia to all Commonwealth Forces that defended Malaysia from the day of its independence 31st August 1957 to the end of hostilities in 1966 and that British Veterans are the only Commonwealth Veterans not to have your permission to wear this Honourable Medal.

I am informed by the MoD and the FCO that it will be a grave discourtesy to You’re Majesty if I am to wear this Medal without your permission, the MoD/FCO also inform me that it will not be policed. So are they telling me to ignore protocol and be discourteous to your good self? This I could not do.

This August my Wife and I are travelling to Malaysia to take part in the 50th Anniversary Celebrations and I shall be required by protocol to wear my medals which gives me a problem. If I wear the PJM I am discourteous to you You’re Majesty, if I do not wear the PJM I am discourteous to the King and People of Malaysia. I cannot win dammed if I do and dammed if I don’t.

I along with all the other British Veterans seek your permission to wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia Medal.

I thank you for your time and remain your obedient servant



Paul Alders

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