Image of the PJM Medal
Banner Text = Fight For the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia Medal
Reply to topic Page 2 of 2
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Queen Dismayed?
Author Message
Reply with quote
Post  
George F wrote:
Barry, it is complicated but I am convinced now there are two complete separate committees, with separate members


George,

One of the key issues for me, and one to which I think you are alluding, is that the Committee that made the PJM recommendation last December is a Committee that remains outside the alleged new order of openness. They continue to operate in precisely the way that was seen to be so flawed that in the Honours System that an independent Chair(Man/Woman) was considered appropriate to try and demonstrate fair play.

And so we return to the main theme of this topic for those of us who are questioning what went on behind the scenes ...

• what was the precise PJM recommendation? ...
• is the Queen withholding Her approval for the PJM to be worn? …
• if not, who is? …
• did the Queen sign off the recommendation? ...
• did she sign off the major change in the Foreign Decorations Rules? ...
• and when did she sign anything? ... and so on.

If the HD Committee operates a fair system then they will see the justice in our case and they will see that they were not provided with sufficient information and sufficient appropriate information when making their original recommendation - and they will proceed and amend it so that the Ministerial Statement can be amended.

If that does not happen then the HD Committee will be seen to be supporting the erroneous myths put out by civil servants that were applied retrospectively. And we shall then take off the gloves and fight the lot of them to the bitter end.

Hopefully, however, those eight men (no women) will 'do the honours' and fight for us and our ‘honour’ so we can all pack our bags and go home with a sense that something right and British still exists within the system in this country.

But I’m not sitting on the edge of my seat …

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  
'Jock' Fenton wrote:
Quote:
The point o noble colleagues is that she is 'dismayed'


Am I to understand that this comment is directly attributable to Her Majesty?....Or is it the opinion of a newspaper columnist speculating as to the Royal disposition?....not being resident in the UK and having the benefit of direct access to the newspapers it's difficult for me to decide whether this is a Royal 'quote' or creative writing.


Jock,

The paper said 'The Queen is said to be worried that the entire honours system could be tarnished forever by the cash-for-peerages scandal.
Both Lord St John of Fawsley, a constitutional expert and close friend of the Royal Family, and Royal Biographer Michael Thornton spoke yesterday of the Monarch's concerns.
Mr. Thornton said - 'I can completely understand the Queen's anxiety. She has my sympathy and must be extremely disturbed abd distressed that she is being treated as a kind of rubber stamp for Mr. Blair and his cronies. The Queen knows that the British Honours system and the scandal surrounding it has become a matter of lunacy'.

I will send the full article by email.

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
Thank you very much McDangle!
.....so it would appear that the comment is factual, considering it is directly attributable to two credible and identified sources.

I for one am highly delighted that Her Majesty has expressed grave concerns about the behaviour of her government and of the Honours system that it has so grossly abused...it's degeneration and the ensuing scandals can most appropriately be described as 'a matter of lunacy'.

Clearly, there will need to be a dramatic change in policy with regard to the Honours system....and I have a suggestion as to where a most common sense, obvious and simple modification might be made in order to indicate a modicum of progress towards fairness.....can anyone guess to which modification I refer??....(no prize is offered!!)


_________________
...................'Jock'
Paroi...Rasah...Batu Signals Troop.
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
As one of the most long established and revered monarchy's in the world I can only hope that HM The Queen does move towards sorting out the mess her government has created.
A nice example of getting to grips was the recent coup in Thailand, where there exists another of the worlds revered monarchy's. When the government of former PM Thaksin Shinawatra became too poweful and a threat to the monarchy, (which analysts have decided was the case), HM King Bhumiphol directed his closest aid former PM Premtinsulanatha to remove Thaksin. The results speak for themselves.
I'm not promoting a military coup for the UK, but HM has a good stated case with recent events in Thailand to get to grips with the dictatorship running, (sorry ruining) our country.
I hope the issue of the PJM is not detracted from in light of the honours for cash scandal.
Nice to see GeorgeW in Indonesia if only for a few hours reinforcing the relationship with a friend in the war on terror. Mmmm... and the British government, making friends with the most conservative Muslim nation in the world and member of the Commonwealth...mmm must have missed Emperor Antones friendly gesture towards Malaysia!!

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
I have just found this again, although it applies to The Suez GSM it surely applies to our campaign too. I copy and paste this and acknowledge it is from Hansard and therefore Crown Copyright



21 May 2002 : Column 46WH
Suez Veterans
21 May 2002 : Column 47WH

"the case must be considered against the standards of the time. Policy on medals changes over the years, and it is for each generation to consider whom it should honour."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 14 March 2001; Vol. 365, c. 300WH.]

21 May 2002 : Column 49WH
We are told that the committee now has a policy of no retrospection and that that is an iron rule. Who made that policy? No one seems to know. Did the committee make the policy? In a matter of such import, should such a committee be making its own policy in a modern democracy? Who sets the policies for the HD committee? To whom is the committee accountable? The House of Commons Library said:

"There appears to be no legal impediment to the retrospective creation of a campaign medal or the addition of a particular bar to an award."

Does the HD committee stand above the law? Even criminal justice cases can be reopened as we have recently seen. Both Australia and Canada have created retrospective awards for prescribed operations between 1945 and 1975. I have said that the matter seems to be locked in procedure; in fact, it seems to be locked in arcane procedure. The Library said that

"this process was not necessarily logical and is sometimes bureaucratic."

It has been claimed that there is a five-year rule beyond which retrospection cannot occur. It was said that King George VI decided that rule, although it has now been conceded that there is no proof that he did. Indeed, an HD committee official admitted in a letter last year that

"we do not have any record of the Committee's initial formal agreement to operate this rule".

Interestingly, I have been told that there are two instances when retrospective awards have been approved by the committee, although not actually made by it. They involve a Russian award that was made to British service men in 1985 and an award from Malta in 1995. The HD committee allows those medals to be worn.
21 May 2002 : Column 50WH
Such a report should be published, and so should the minutes of the HD committee, as it should be accountable.

People should not hide behind procedure, and we should not let it stand in the way of applying fairness and the basic human need to right a wrong. We do not ask that history be rewritten, but that it be properly acknowledged. I sense that the authorities are worried about opening the floodgates of retrospective awards with the case, but that is the worst of arguments, because cases should be decided on their own merits. The case has never considered properly, and the Government have a duty to ensure that proper action is taken and that mistakes are corrected. If no procedure exists to put matters right, such procedure should be established.

12.47 pm
21 May 2002 : Column 51WH
Recommendations on the institution of medals are made to the Queen by the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals, known for brevity as the HD committee. The committee is inter-departmental and is chaired by the Cabinet Secretary. Since the end of the second world war, the HD committee has maintained a policy that it will not consider the institution of awards and medals for service given many years earlier. Specifically, it will not consider operations that ended more than five years previously.
There are reasons for the policy. The committee is not qualified so long after the event to say that those who were in a position to submit a case but did not do so were wrong, if no contemporary claim were made. If a claim were made but rejected at the time, either by a Department or by the committee itself, those who rejected it would have had access to the full facts and their judgment would have been based on contemporary understanding of the situation.



_________________
--------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Five year myth 
George F wrote:
Exellent find John,

The five year MOD rule for retrospective British medals re corrupted into a five year FCO myth to prevent veterans from wearing the Malaysian PJM medal should be wide open for consultation.

George F


RAINY DAY GEORGE,RAINY DAY!!


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