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
RETROSPECTIVE LAW.
Author Message
Reply with quote
Post RETROSPECTIVE LAW. 
In 2001 a British subject named Brian Haw started a protest about the war in Afghanistan in Parliament Square. The then Prime Minister decided to stop this protest and he brought in a law (one of the many thousands he brought in against the British people) to stop protests around Whitehall.

As Brian Haw’s protest was pre-legislation and new laws are not retrospective (which is normal for new laws) he is the only person to be legally entitled to protest in Parliament Square.

If it is the law of our country that new laws cannot be retrospective then can anyone tell me why Jack Straw MP, when Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, introduced ‘revised’ rules on the acceptance and wear of foreign awards on 21st November, 2005, which were promulgated through (not in) parliament and the retrospective double medal rule was accepted by the Cabinet Secretary and his HD Committee.

We veterans are entitled to be treated properly under the law of our land and if the present coalition is serious about reinstating our democratic rights they should destroy these previous retrospective in-house rules which are being applied to British private citizens.

Also, the London Gazette of 3rd May, 1968, says ‘UK citizens, not being Crown servants’. The suits say that this means ‘never having been Crown servants’ and previous service as Crown servants by those eligible for the PJM means that they cannot take advantage of this Royal Warrant. By making this retrospective they are in breach of our statutory law which says that our laws (and this would include orders, rules and instructions from the government) cannot be retrospective, so the London Gazette declaration does apply and we all have permission to wear the PJM unrestricted from Her Majesty the Queen and those who oppose this Royal Command are being discourteous to Her Majesty and should be drummed out of the civil service forthwith without lump sum or pension. Oh! I forgot, they are above the law.

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: RETROSPECTIVE LAW. 
mcdangle wrote:
In 2001 a British subject named Brian Haw started a protest about the war in Afghanistan in Parliament Square. The then Prime Minister decided to stop this protest and he brought in a law (one of the many thousands he brought in against the British people) to stop protests around Whitehall.

As Brian Haw’s protest was pre-legislation and new laws are not retrospective (which is normal for new laws) he is the only person to be legally entitled to protest in Parliament Square.

If it is the law of our country that new laws cannot be retrospective then can anyone tell me why Jack Straw MP, when Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, introduced ‘revised’ rules on the acceptance and wear of foreign awards on 21st November, 2005, which were promulgated through (not in) parliament and the retrospective double medal rule was accepted by the Cabinet Secretary and his HD Committee.

We veterans are entitled to be treated properly under the law of our land and if the present coalition is serious about reinstating our democratic rights they should destroy these previous retrospective in-house rules which are being applied to British private citizens.

Also, the London Gazette of 3rd May, 1968, says ‘UK citizens, not being Crown servants’. The suits say that this means ‘never having been Crown servants’ and previous service as Crown servants by those eligible for the PJM means that they cannot take advantage of this Royal Warrant. By making this retrospective they are in breach of our statutory law which says that our laws (and this would include orders, rules and instructions from the government) cannot be retrospective, so the London Gazette declaration does apply and we all have permission to wear the PJM unrestricted from Her Majesty the Queen and those who oppose this Royal Command are being discourteous to Her Majesty and should be drummed out of the civil service forthwith without lump sum or pension. Oh! I forgot, they are above the law.




mcD that's an interesting post you have there.even JS would have trouble giving a satisfactory answer to that one. I think this post should be emailed to DC and see what he makes of it.

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
JS said after being the architect of the revised 'retrospective' rules and asked about them, 'they are too complicated for me to understand'.

Also when found out having erronously claimed for expenses he was not entitled to said 'accountancy is not my best point'.

So you can imagine just what nonsense this birdbrain would answer to the retrospective law analogy listed above. It would most likely be too complicated for him to understand. He just denies everything.

The recent IC Decision Notice showed that the HD Committee Chairman (I am not pc and he is a man) reported the PJM meeting on 7th. December, 2005, to JS who sent it, with a covering letter to the Queen's PS, Sir Robin now Lord or Baron. He also sent a copy to an unnamed person in the Cabinet Office. Wow! we will never guess who that was but try DB.

The Queen's Private Secretary Lord, Baron Sir Robin, declared by letter to JS that the Queen had agreed to the HD recommendation on 21st December, 2005, that the PJM could be accepted but not worn, YET, the day before, on 20th December, 2005, the FCO Honours Secretary Chris Edgey told the Malaysian High Commission the Queen's decision. Now how could he do this if the Queen had not yet declared her decision. We have the documentary evidence to prove this as Megg Munn recorded it in a written statement in parliament.

And they think we are wrong when we suggest there is something very dodgy about the decision not to give us permission to wear the PJM. Devious barstewards!

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post bulgarian medal 
london gazette 24/9/2010 queen accepts the bulgarian st george 2nd class medal to go to air commodore rw judson r.a.f. 8027799c for his efforts with the bulgarian forces in afghanistan.

View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Reply with quote
Post  
Will

Well spotted! Smile

Sauce, Goose, Gander comes to mind! Confused


_________________
--------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: bulgarian medal 
willhastie wrote:
london gazette 24/9/2010 queen accepts the bulgarian st george 2nd class medal to go to air commodore rw judson r.a.f. 8027799c for his efforts with the bulgarian forces in afghanistan.


more ammunition for the cause of the PJM,or is it once again one law for them and one for the rest of us.

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