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
My reply to Denis Brennan
Author Message
Reply with quote
Post My reply to Denis Brennan 
Denis
Many thanks for your letter via Lesley Bainsfair, now I asked you two questions,

Q1; Do you accept that the Pingat Jasa Malaysia Medal is a Service Medal?

Your Answer is “it is not a British Service Medal”
I never said it was, so I’ll try again
Do you accept that the Pingat Jasa Malaysia is a Malaysian Service Medal and not a Campaign or a War Commemorative Medal?

Q2; Do you accept that the London Gazette Notice 5057 of the 3rd May 1968 applies to Foreign Medals when they were conferred?

Your Answer was that the “LG Notice does not apply because we were Crown Servants when we earned the medal”
We both know that this is untrue it is when the medal is conferred if I’m wrong then show me a copy of the page from the FCO File that states this.
The File numbers are The FCO file numbers are FCO 57/15 - 1967-68 (TPD 1/13/2 part B) and FCO 57 106 - 1968-69 (TXH 1/5).
I have informed you before that I have a complete copy of these files and I have read them many times and nowhere does it state when the medal is earned.
Also your office has stated only this week that you do not have a copy of the guide lines in connection to the acceptance of foreign medals.

I’m willing to meet you and show you the evidence that the LG Notice does apply to the PJM and it is because of this notice that I have put my PJM on my medal bar.

I have offered to meet you three times in the past and you have said no each and every time, my MP Geoffrey Robinson has asked you twice once again you have said no.

You also state that before 1968 foreign medals were only accepted but not allowed to be worn this is not correct, there are many foreign medals before this date that have been allowed to be worn and by Crown Servants.
I do not know who’s doing your research for you but I suggest I loan you one of ours.

I thank you for your time and look forward to seeing you.
Kind Regards
Paul

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post My Reply to Dennis Brennan 
Power to your elbow Paul.

They keep saying "no" because they have nowhere left to go in the opinion of any reasonable person.

Your persistance is impressive, (which my MP said to me too on these matters Wink )

Thanks for continuing the fight.

Regards,

John


_________________
Pingat Kami - Hak Kami
651 Signal Troop,
Semengo Camp,
Kuching.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Reply with quote
Post MY REPLY TO DENIS BRENNAN 
Wriggle, he does. None of them have anywhere to go. They keep up this farce only because they can; because of the constitution of the ceremonial departments and the HD committee and lack of an independednt chairman.

As I have tried to express below, often departmental ethos, the banking brotherhood or whatever you wish to call it are all involved. We desperately need a freshness in all the dealings which affect our daily lives, particularly those which are 'establishment' led.

It is a long read, for which I make no apology,

Regards,

David

I must make it plain that I have no objection to what might be referred to as “old school tie contacts” as applied in terms of friendship and loyalty to ones old school, university, college or particular regiment or whatever. My objections are to such contact when it is extended to the world of Politics, Civil Service, The Armed Forces and Government and Commercial organisations when connections become more important than expertise and merit; who you know rather than what you know.

Poor old Neville Chamberlain (peace in our time) was, I have read, regarded by some as having reach his optimum level of competence when an Alderman in Birmingham but became Prime Minister anyway.

Having said that, the problem is that we are fighting a “long standing tradition” of the unedifying practice where people in positions perceived as important and influential are maintained in those positions by sycophants and jobsworths who, glorifying in the assumed reflected importance of their perceived superiors (in status or expertise), establish their own hierarchical levels and use this assumed authority to posit their own agendas; in accordance with laid down procedures and within regulations if possible, but ultimately assert their own ‘authority’ where this assumed ‘authority’ is threatened. Within the Hierarchy of the Civil Service, there, too, seems to be a misguided loyalty, where decisions can be taken at the very top by one or more persons wrongly assuming the right to invoke the Royal Prerogative when they have no authority to do so, particularly when the Sign Manual is involved and a London Gazette entry is ‘clarified’ by a Departmental Rule! This decision is then repeated parrot fashion by the middle and junior civil servants irrespective of its veracity, who in misplaced loyalty or a fear of retribution prevents them from questioning the legality or honesty of the answers they are required, and briefed, to make to those who have a right to honest and truthful answers.

We, that is, the Fight4thePJM, have been accused of showing lack of deference and questioning the integrity of the HD Committee; that is untrue. The association between the Ceremonial officers of the various Departments of State, including, especially, the Cabinet Office, and the HD Committee, who rarely meet and who apparently do not keep records, unsurpisingly allows for the claim that F4thePJM questions the integrity of the Committee. When five of the eight members come directly from MoD DS Sec, Home Office, Foreign Office and the Cabinet, of whom Mr Denis Brennan is the HD Committee Secretary, and includes the Queens Private Secretary, who is then advised of the decisions already taken by the departmental ceremonial representatives, and presents the decision to The Queen as that of the HD Committee, when these decisions have been arrived before the Committee meets or contact is made with all or less committee members which could permit one, two or fewer than the eight to make decisions on behalf of the other members; there is no record, and if there was the Freedom of Information exclusion clauses would surely be invoked, as they have been, citing government/Palace confidentiallity. We can never know.

So much for 21st Century democracy, when the government declines, so it appears, to question the decisions, logic and truthfulness of the answers given to them by their civil servants; this applies not only to the ceremonial departments of government, but in my view, to almost all others. In 2005, Jack Straw, then Foreign Secretary asked for a review of the regulations regarding the wearing of the PJM (it had already been accepted by Her Majesty). It is to his shame that he did not at the time, in and with the approval of Parliament (almost certainly given), order that the caveat, “permission to wear will not formally be given” be withdrawn immediately. A man of straw indeed; or perhaps dishonestly briefed to satisfy the civil servants agenda.


Departmental Ethos is present when a departments works for its own benefit within its own structure, i.e. the purpose of the department, through its organisation, the rules it makes, the procedures it follows; anything which does not comply or come within the scope of their rules is a none starter. We have experienced how, when contesting a decision or interpretation of the rules, standing or reviewed rules are rewritten to meet their agenda, every effort, both legal and illegal is used, although they are in denial.


In such a climate of eletism we have a Minister, a peer who cannot be personally questioned in the House of Commons per se, but only be called before a House of Commons Committee, for example, the Treasury Committee. This is taken from an unedited record of such a Committee enquiring into the RBS collapse and the pension of Sir Fred Goodwin to be published as HC 144-xii – Google will find it:

Questioner: Why did you not insist that he [Sir Fred Goodwin] was sacked?

Peers Answer: Because it was not for the Government to do that. We were not a shareholder in the bank. This was a decision to be taken by the directors of the Royal Bank of Scotland. Remember these are distinguished people. Sir Tom McKillop, the former Chief Executive…..

Questioner: Distinguished people? Distinguished people who have cost the taxpayers tremendous risks. Let us look at the future. Have you had a chance to discuss with Harriet Harman her proposals on retrospective legislation?

Peers Answer: I have not discussed Ms Harman’s proposals.

Questioner: So we can dismiss that then as purely hot air. Who is the legal action going to be against……………….

This peer had only been a politician for 6 months, but apparently, had held high offices in the banking world.

Other Distinguished People, perhaps: MPs involved in the expenses scandal, Madoff, a merchant banker, now in prison no longer a well-off Madoff! And of course, hopefully, a small number of civil servants who regard themselves as having teflon qualities until 'found out' yet not held accountable for their errors.

It is hardly surprising that calls for public enquiries are turned down, particularly in matters involving the civil service. For leaving 8 Chinook helicopters in a hanger for a great period of time, against the manufacturer’s advice vis-a-vis thecheaper MoD idea, really a false economy, which has now cost a few more billions. Is the reward for failure going to be OBEs CBEs and the recently introduced large and questionable bonuses for civil servants?

This might well come over as an anti civil service tract; it is not. It is a call for integrity, honesty, fairness, and acceptance of responsibility. Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling, and Lord Myners have all stated, unequivocally THERE SHOULD BE NO REWARD FOR FAILURE, and that should include civil service departments some of which are deemed unfit for purpose, those who are responsible to no one or “to The Queen” alone, who is unlikely to ignore the advice given to her by the same departmental civil servants who largely comprise the HD Committee, when the HD Committee, who has no independent chairman despite Tony Blair’s admonitions that all such committees should have an independent chairman. IT IS THEY, WHO ADVISE THE HD COMMITTEE WHO BRING IT SHAME - through deceit, misrepresentation, etc, etc, etc, who are responsible for all and any questioning of the integrity of that committee, and not the Fight4 the PJM committee and supporters, who make no false claims and ask only for fairness and who are subjected to derision by civil servants; medal chasers etc, Kellog Boxes, souvenirs, and the refusal to reply to correspondence from members of F4gthe pjm, all of which are the opposite to all the advice given in the Civil Service Code of Honour, instituted by the current head of the Civil Service who serves as Chairman of the Honours and Decorations Committee and who should, I believe , himself question those departmental ceremonial officers, review their arguments and rewritten rules against the rebuttals and the sound case posited by the leaders of the Fight 4 the PJM Campaign, and perhaps, at last hold those responsible for nearly four years of misinformation, misinterpretation and in some case ‘terminological inexactitudes’ (the abbreviation is fibs) and require early retirements, no Awards or Decorations, and thankful that they keep their pensions.

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

I like your latest post, you raise these important points of CS usurping HMQ's powers, it has taken me nearly 18 months to get this far but Saturday I finally received confirmation that the ICO is attempting to open up files under Section 37 of The FoIA, it might not succeed but there again.........

Just keeping you abreast of things regarding your post

Cheers

JohnC


_________________
--------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
An excellent summary David and unlike the obfuscation and garbage produced by the civil service lie machine it is the TRUTH.

The HD Committee whine that veterans questioned their integrity and as you pointed out this is one of their misrepresentations to combat the honesty shown by the fight4thepjm campaign. You don’t have to believe me, just look at their six page report, page 5, where they say ‘But the recommendation goes to the Sovereign from the Chair of the Committee on behalf of the Committee’. They want us all to think that the Chairman (I don’t do politically correct!) goes direct to the Queen when in fact the truth of the matter is that he goes to the Queen’s Private Secretary who goes, or doesn’t go, to the Queen, particularly in the case of the PJM.

The honours system is ran by one person who has changed his given name so that his initials blasphemously read the name of one who is known in certain religious quarters as the creator of the universe. With arrogance like this it is little wonder that also being the head of the civil service, the minions on the production line will not disagree with him and invoke his displeasure. The result is, of course, the absolute rubbish that intelligent people are forced to emit because of the bullying and bottom kissing system which is being adopted.

Wouldn’t it be reasonable for our elected parliament to recognise the danger of such a dictatorial system which uses secrecy and the Royal Prerogative to protect themselves and endow them with the misplaced authority to hide behind closed doors and refuse to negotiate with the people who pay them and tell the elected parliament to ‘get lost’.
Yesterday it was reported that David Lidington. Shadow Foreign Affairs Minister said ‘The government secrecy and ambivalence is having a corrosive effect on Britain’s international relations and in public trust in ministers’.
Do you really think that someone is sitting up and taking notice of this dictatorship which has evolved in our bureaucratic system, well don’t hold your breath.

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

One disguise of a political culture over the past 40 years has, I believe, been the touchy feely political correctness which has damned this Country of ours. This includes such pc nonsense as abbreviating Augustus to a more seemingly approachable form; approachable, of course largely to his superiors (perhaps HM) and his peers. I doubt if this approachability extends to those too far down the food chain. I believe, in fairness this does not just apply to the Civil Service, as in Whitehall, but permeates the corridors of Council Offices, and indeed Commercial enterprises. How ever, just try testing how approachable these people are and one is met by a barrier of what I term ‘goalkeepers’ – department heads, managers and others who divert complaints, questions and criticisms, particularly against themselves, well away from their Boss!

Moreover, they use a system of which we have had much experience, in that letters, emails, etc. expected from the department to which the initial correspondence was sent are answered by someone from a different department; for example, a letter written to HM or Foreign Office has been answered by someone in the Cabinet Office, or before his retirement, and a constraint placed upon him by his Head of Dept at MoD DS Sec, a well known someone known to us as “cornflakes”; a person who’s ability to ‘move goal posts’ or invent new rules seemingly from no where was without parallel. He apparently confessed that we should be allowed to wear the PJM it but that the decision to deny this had come from above (and, presumably, he was not prepared to incur the displeasure of his senior).

Normally it is children who behave in a certain manner when confronted with displeasure from a person of authority, usually a parent but could be a teacher; it is not unknown for adults to react in a similar manner. That is, focussing on a near or distant object, ignoring the presence of the person who is administrating an admonishment, criticism or interest on the assumption that if you cannot see them, they cannot see you, negating or reducing the effect such admonishment or criticism might have had. I’m sure the “trick-cyclists” must have a word for it. This syndrome becomes manifest in the refusal of some Heads of Departments to reply or to allow their staff to reply; OK! But we are still with you even if you kid yourselves we are not.



Last edited by GLOman on Tue Sep 01, 2009 9:33 am; edited 2 times in total
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
David, Me old M8.

I think you sum it all up with the words...."None of them have anywhere to go." They have had nowhere to go since they slammed the door of their bunker in our face back in 2007 and declared their intent of no further negotiation with us. That move was, in itself, clear indication that they were aware of their perilous position. Only fools or those who are afraid of undeniable truths resort to non-negotiation. Think of the ostrich with its tiny head in the sand and its enormous backside up in the air.


_________________
Mike Barton
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
I think the term you are looking for GLOman, is rationalisation. The ability to refuse to accept a truth by displacing it with something more palatable to themselves. It attempts to circumvent empirical testing.

That is to say, by example, a child breaks a window with a hammer. Although still holding the hammer, (the smoking gun as it were), tries to put the blame on another.
Sent to bed without any tea as punishment, the child then plays with another toy, forgetting anything that transpired before.

Poor old mum and dad, now feel guilty, for taking such draconian measures against the child. Meanwhile the child has successfully blocked out any complicity in the action.

I hope that answers your question.

Yours Aye

Arthur R-S

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

Arthur R-S,

Thank you for that. And doesn't it fit the relationship between ourselves and the serpents superbly. In the early days when correspondence become a matter of referring it to another department and denying, as did Phoney Dick, that it was not in the MoD DS Sec remit but in that of the Foreign Office. In terms of 'rationalisation', "its not me gov". An almost full time pass-the parcel designed to disuade others from entering into correspondence with the serpents evolved-didn't work tho', did it? The ASBO Paul received in a letter signed by 3 Department Heads, comes to mind.

His (Phoney Dick's diversions-other toys) were, of course, the Arctic Medal (eventually an emblem) and the 1952 Suez Medal. How these meanings seem to come together to fit their pattern of bad behaviour.

"As for the ability to accept the truth by replacing it with something more palatable to themselves" They have spent nearly four years doing this, including the rewrite of the regs and inserting a Part C precluding the wearing of the PJM, telling us that we are still "Crown Servants", and the use of the exclusion clauses in the Freedom of Information Act, among a number of things unpalatable to us at F4.

However I think that I can assure them that the parents, indeed, the extended family (of F4) feel no guilt. The 'child' may feel that he has blocked out any complicity in the action; this particular 'child' is deluding itself , I can assure it.

Regards,

David

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
It's time for the thumbscrews, David. The naughty but unrepentant child needs to be taught a severe lesson in how to behave as a grownup and responsible adult, that's of course, as Phoney Dick et al see themselves.

Unfortunately, his persona tells a completely different story, as we are well aware. My first question is, why say one thing, then do another?

Why is he covering up for those above him. If he is the honest upright ctizen he is trying to portray, then let him prove it, by telling us the unvarnished truth.

Resorting to evasiveness and misdirection smacks of childish behaviour. If this nation is run by a bunch of out of control schoolboys and girls, then it is no wonder that we are in this parlous state.

I suggest that they all read the Civil Service Handbook again and ask themselves an honest question. Exactly why did I join the civil service.

Yours Aye

Arthur R-S

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

Arthur R-S

What I found amusing was not so much the Civil Servants asking themselves a question; it was how they would arrive at an answer. They have appeared all along unable to give a straight answer to a straight question, let alone an honest one.

So? How would a Civil Servant reply to a question from himself? The first problem is that he is required to give an honest answer. The second is that an answer to a question should be clearly understood by the questioner.

From our dealings with the serpents we know how convoluted their answers can be. Their attitude is often defensive when well defined and unqualified explanations are required; usually no precise meaning is given and their answers almost always require some sort of qualification. With his mind-set and the general ethos of the Civil Service it is difficult from where I stand, to believe that he could satisfactorily answer any questions on why he chose the Civil Service that would have any relevance to the question or be of any help to him.

As far as a Senior Civil Servant supporting his bosses rather than incurring their wrath is concerned it is quite simple; don’t rock the corporate boat! Following the party line, whether it is fair and equal in its application or not. Rewriting rules to support departmental or interdepartmental agendas and correspond under difficult circumstances, e.g.dealing with determined F4 campaigners, probably meets with the Cabinet Ceremonial Officer’s assessment of real “risk and rigour” for which at the end of one’s service there could be OBEs, CBEs and hopefully even a Knighthood to be had for their cooperation and sense of duty!


Regards,

David

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
Aha! David, In answer to the question, 'why did I join the civil service', presents not one problem, but several.

In an attempt to clarify the situation, one can either answer the question ones self, or put it to a working committee.

If that does not garner a positive response, pass the question 'up stairs'.

If they cannot clarify the situation, it is passed ad hoc to the MoD, who frankly haven't a clue, but will no doubt formulate a working committee, to discuss the problem.

Should there be a negative return on that one, it is passed to to the Honours and Decorations Committee.

That usually elicits a response in the form of a knighthood, or at worst a CBE, for the original querant. The question being too difficult to answer.

In placating the querant in this manner, it is hoped that he will follow departmental policy and not ask that question again.

As it was, the question scared the crap out of everybody concerned, and was quitely shelved.

Yours Aye

Arthur R-S

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Her Majesty's Civil Service 
Just a bit of fun I first wrote in 2006 but still as current as ever Arthur.

All is explained on the workings of the Civil Service !!!

Yes Minister.

Minister:Good morning chaps, how are things?

Sir Humphrey: All is fine in the world Minister and of course we will let you know if that changes.

Minister: Thank you Humphrey. I’m off for some golf. (Exits stage left)

Nigel: But you never mentioned those hundreds of people at Fight4thePJM Sir Humphrey, and the 35000 veterans who fought in the Malayian War…….Oooops sorry !! The Emergency and the war against Indonesian attacks on Malaysia Ooops again, I mean the Confrontation. The ones who say they have been treated unfairly. You know, the ones who are using up our resources with their rebuttals, letters, petitions to The Queen and masses of e-mails.

Sir Humphrey: Isn’t it time you ordered some tea Nigel?

Nigel: But………

Sir Humphrey: (with some irritation) There is no need to bother the Minister with the ramblings of some geriatric Veterans Nigel. I know best. What do you think this is, a democracy?

Nigel: Well yes actually.

Sir Humphrey: (sighs heavily) You have a lot to learn dear boy. And learn you must if
you ever want to see your O.B.E.

Nigel: I see…….. (pauses) What will it be for Sir Humphrey? Will I be able
to wear it?

Sir Humphrey: (Sighs heavily again) Well………it’s not for anything really but it
comes with the job. Like a bit of extra for staying the course. Of course you can wear it, why ever not. Do you know nothing?


Nigel: But didn’t those veterans fight in the jungles and were not hundreds of
them injured and some killed. And didn’t they and their comrades
actually win?

Sir Humphrey: And your point is?

Nigel: Well shouldn’t they be able to wear their PJM medals? We can wear
ours and they really seem to have earned theirs.


Sir Humphrey: Have you ever considered a change of career Nigel. We can’t have
these veteran types having more gongs on their chest than us now can
we?


Minister: (Enters) I’m back. Anything happening?

Sir Humphrey: Nothing at all Minister.

Minister: You will let me know if there is?

Sir Humphrey: Yes Minister……………………….

Enjoy



Last edited by Semengo13 on Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:41 pm; edited 1 time in total

_________________
Pingat Kami - Hak Kami
651 Signal Troop,
Semengo Camp,
Kuching.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Reply with quote
Post  
Semengo 13 (John?),

I must have missed this first time round. Spot on!

Regards,

David

Arthur R-S,

Your mention of a working committee took me back quite a few years. I was reminded that a standing joke was that "a camel is actually a horse designed by a working party".
Relevant perhaps to the eight Chinooks modified by the MoD against Boeings advice for reasons now seen to be false economy and costing another fortune to re-re-modify!

David

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
David, Nothing surprises me anymore regarding the antics of the civil service.
If anyone, in the military, made dangerous and lethal decisions of that nature he/she would be subject to court marshal.

Correspondingly, our civil servant would be quietly shifted to another post, or promoted out of the way.

In their own book of regulations and how to open a packet of smarties, it mentions accountability. How strange then, that nobody is actually held to be accountable.

If I might diverge for a moment; the accounts of the European Union, have never been signed off by the Accountants in over twenty years. But, it has never stopped the European Parliament from accepting them as a true and accurate record.

Semengo, that piece was, and still is, priceless, and encapsulates the whole dismal affair in one fell swoop.

My wife wants me to go and water the garden. I told her that it was raining. She told me to put my raincoat on. That single comment, took me back to HMS Raleigh, when whilst under training, our course instructor, Chief ME Humphries, gave me an identical order. Made me quite nostalgic.

Yours Aye

Arthur R-S

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