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
Their No-Policing argument 'wearing' thin
Author Message
Reply with quote
Post Their No-Policing argument 'wearing' thin 
----- Forwarded by Barry Fleming/BAFleming on 05/02/2007 09:38 -----
"barry@fight4thepjm.org" <barry@fight4thepjm.org>
01/02/2007 16:23
To: tanya.collingridge@fco.gov.uk, denis.brennan@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk, Ian.Keith798@mod.uk, peter.ricketts@fco.gov.uk, Bill.Jeffrey480@mod.uk

cc: "BENYON, Richard" <BENYONR@parliament.uk>

Subject: No-Policing argument 'wearing' thin?


Dear Tanya Collingridge, Mr Denis Brennan, Mr Ian Keith, Sir Peter Ricketts and Mr Bill Jeffery,

I was interested to read a quote in yesterday's newspapers from an FCO spokeswoman to the effect that British veterans could wear their PJM if they wanted on the basis that such wear is not policed. You and I (and all addressees) know in our hearts, if not in our minds, that that is simply not the case.

Here are two documents from the MoD that spell out that the Queen has given her approval for the PJM to be received on condition that it is not worn.

Why would the FCO want us to disregard such an unambiguous statement?





Then there is the matter of the MoD DIN 10-002 of Jan 2006 http://www.fight4thepjm.org/documents/DIN_10-002_Jan2006.doc which clearly states that if ex-service personnel wear unauthorised medals it will be a grave discourtesy to the Queen.

No matter what HMG tries to say to the media, such wear is policed - by each veteran. British veterans, based on years of discipline and loyalty to The Queen, police themselves and will not do anything knowingly to cause offence to Her. Thus any hope that HMG nurture that we will be happy with our 'souvenir' and that we will "fade away" are dashed. We shall fight until this flawed recommendation is amended.

I wish to place this issue on the record in order to prevent the media being misled in the future. I am sure that the FCO, now they have these documents, will refrain from inadvertently misleading the media (as also happened in Malaysia last year) and also from indirectly encouraging British veterans from causing embarrassment to the Queen.

These matters are always sensitive. Please do not take offence. The FCO has had its say and I merely wish to set out my understanding of the position whilst trying to avoid the suggestion that I am a "disaffected veteran" (see the MoD Veterans Agency web site New Medals page http://www.veteransagency.mod.uk/medals/new_medals.html).

We look forward to hearing when the HD Committee has finished its 'considerations'. Meanwhile, I can confirm that support for our case gathers momentum every day. It's wonderful to know that we have several hundred MPs supporting the right to wear the PJM. Over 200 have actually 'signed up' (another 5 just today!) and we know many, many more support us who cannot, or do not, sign EDMs. We are confident of a majority in Parliament now.

With kind regards,

Barry

PS It was also interesting to note from that MoD letter that the Department had sat on thousands of PJM applications for several months.

Enc:
- - - - - - - - - - -
Barry Fleming
Fighting for the Right to Wear the PJM at
W: http://www.fight4thePJM.org
E: mailto:barry@fight4thePJM.org
"Pingat Kami - Hak Kami"

Stockbridge Cottage
Inkpen Common
Inkpen
Hungerford
Berks
RG17 9QP


_________________
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 Letters we have written- 
Coooorrr. Thousands of applications marooned on Coney Island in the vast WASTES of Whitehall!

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Letters we have written- 
GLOman wrote:
Coooorrr. Thousands of applications marooned on Coney Island in the vast WASTES of Whitehall!


Rabbit! Rabbit! Rabbit! ............but no names - no packdrill! Wink


_________________
--------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Letters we have written 
Point taken!

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Non-Wearing Rule. 
Whilst it may be that Her Majesty the Queen did in fact refuse permission for the PJM not to be worn everything, in my personal opinion, points to the fact the Her Majesty gave permission for the PJM to be accepted but the 'permission to wear the PJM will not, however, formally be given' is an afterthought by some unelected civil servant and this is what is causing all the establishment lies, deceit and non-co-operation. My opinion is strengthened by the fact that everything has been done to try and stop us finding out who actually made this statement.
Defence Council Instruction (Joint Service) 23/92 in regards to the Saudi Badge of Honour states 1. Her Majesty the Queen has been graciously pleased the Saudi Badge of Honour may be accepted as a keepsake. It is not to be worn.

The same applies with Defence Council Instruction(General) 92/92 which states the Saudi 'Liberation of Kuwait' medal was granted acceptance by Her Majesty the Queen with the words 'it is not to be worn' in the next sentence.

This suggests to me that Her Majesty the Queen did not refuse permission for medals or awards to be worn because the 1969 Regulations did not permit this, and it was only the rules deposited in the Commons Library by Jack 'the lad' Straw in November, 2005 that stipulated this. The non-wearing rule is imposed by a Civil Servant who could make this restriction in the past when dealing with service personnel but it is not legal to do this with British Citizens and they have dropped a big clanger this time and do not have the know-how to squirm out of it.

One other thing, it is only one person in the MOD who is saying that Her Majesty the Queen gave permission for the PJM to be accepted but not worn.

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Non-Wearing Rule. 
mcdangle wrote:
Whilst it may be that Her Majesty the Queen did in fact refuse permission for the PJM not to be worn everything, in my personal opinion, points to the fact the Her Majesty gave permission for the PJM to be accepted but the 'permission to wear the PJM will not, however, formally be given' is an afterthought by some unelected civil servant and this is what is causing all the establishment lies, deceit and non-co-operation. My opinion is strengthened by the fact that everything has been done to try and stop us finding out who actually made this statement.
Defence Council Instruction (Joint Service) 23/92 in regards to the Saudi Badge of Honour states 1. Her Majesty the Queen has been graciously pleased the Saudi Badge of Honour may be accepted as a keepsake. It is not to be worn.

The same applies with Defence Council Instruction(General) 92/92 which states the Saudi 'Liberation of Kuwait' medal was granted acceptance by Her Majesty the Queen with the words 'it is not to be worn' in the next sentence.

This suggests to me that Her Majesty the Queen did not refuse permission for medals or awards to be worn because the 1969 Regulations did not permit this, and it was only the rules deposited in the Commons Library by Jack 'the lad' Straw in November, 2005 that stipulated this. The non-wearing rule is imposed by a Civil Servant who could make this restriction in the past when dealing with service personnel but it is not legal to do this with British Citizens and they have dropped a big clanger this time and do not have the know-how to squirm out of it.

One other thing, it is only one person in the MOD who is saying that Her Majesty the Queen gave permission for the PJM to be accepted but not worn.


I agree with all of that Andy, in our own minds we seem to have that extra sense that someone has been telling Porkies! It is a question of how the worm wriggles off the hook that is what is causing this delay, that I have no doubt!


_________________
--------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------
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