It gets better and better ...

Update as at 07/01/2007:

MPs continue to sign up to support the PJM.

Don Touhig's EDM 356 now has 137 signatures.

Michael Mates' EDM now has 61 signatures.

We've just added up the total number of signatures supporting the PJM in 2005/6 ... 342 from 186 individual MPs! Staggering support!

Are a handful of civil servants going to continue to maintain that 186 MPs are wrong and a couple of them are right?

Thank you, our elected representatives, for supporting the British veterans that the unelected civil servants continue to snub - and for supporting our just case that those same civil servants continue to disregard.

And we know of several more that have signed but the details have not yet been updated on the Commons web site.

Our campaign has exceeded all expectations - especially those expectations of those Government Departments where a handful of civil servants are even now trying to find a way to say they are the only ones in step.

Read all about it at http://www.fight4thepjm.org/lobby_mp.htm

Check out your MP to ensure he or she has signed up!


_________________
BarryF, who fought for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia

Barry,
Make the suits aware of this increase in support from our MPs also make them aware that more would sign but because of their position are not allowed to under the rules.

Paul Alders wrote:

Barry,
Make the suits aware of this increase in support from our MPs also make them aware that more would sign but because of their position are not allowed to under the rules.

Paul,

I sent them a Billy Doo by Recorded Delivery. It went to Ian Keityh (MoD), Tanya Collingridge (FCO) and Denis Brennan (Cabinet Office). I asked each to give a copy of my letter to their respective HD Committee members.

I'll send them another one soon. And I'll send one to those HD Committee members (e.g. Sir Robin Janvrin) who are not covered by the Departments i.e. covered in both the literal and horsey sense!

These suits and the Govt Depts all read this web site (Fight4thePJM is "cult viewing" in the MoD, FCO and Cabinet Office) and I do point out in my EDM posts the numbers of MPs supporting us. In those posts, I also highlight in red a reminder to the unlected suits that we are supposed to be living in a democracy.

Barry


_________________
BarryF, who fought for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia

George F wrote:

This evidence throws up serious questions about The Queen's signature on the PJM medal award to UK citizens.

Why are commonwealth citizens allowed to see such letters but UK citizens are prevented from viewing such letters because of an exemption clause?

George F

Could it be that there is not a signature by Her Majesty on The UK Document, George??


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

Reality check, says that no such signature exists. If there was, any honourable organisation would have produced it by now.

The term 'Exemption' is a misnomer for 'we've screwed up and we don't want you to know about it'. Used specifically for hiding a multitude of sins. Beware, lest your sins find you out, springs to mind at this juncture.

Hiding behind a dicredited rule, merely endorses the correctness of our case.

Yours Aye

Arthur

Quote:

Arthur R-S wrote;
The term 'Exemption' is a misnomer for 'we've screwed up and we don't want you to know about it'.

"Excusatio non petita, accusatio manifesta"

...or alternatively, for those Francophones among us... "Qui s'excuse, s'accuse".

..................(He who excuses himself, accuses himself)....

Doesn't matter which language one uses to express the thought... Arthur sums it up most succinctly when he writes;

"Hiding behind a discredited rule, merely endorses the correctness of our case."


_________________
...................'Jock'
Paroi...Rasah...Batu Signals Troop.

Had The Queen signed a document or had The Queen given a command that the PJM could not be worn then -

a. a command by The Queen that British Citizens cannot wear the PJM is a command by our Sovereign with no discussion whatsoever required with Civil Serpents.

b. the command by The Queen should have been published.

c. The Queen would have been able to deal with a Petition personally as it was HER command that refused the wearing of the PJM (or was it?)

d. The Queen would not have had to plead Constitutional Head and refer it to the Foreign Office.

e. there would be no protection required (as they make out at present) for The Queen or government policy.

Finally, there is no discourtesy to Her Majesty the Queen by those who wear the PJM if The Queen is not involved in the non-wearing decision.

In my opinion Her Majesty the Queen did not authorise the non-wearing of the PJM, she allowed veterans to accept it and a civil serpent or the HD Committee issued this illegal instruction not to wear. Hence their attempts to stifle requests under the FOI Act and to misquote the exemptions of this Act to fit their purpose. It is a funny old world when unelected Civil Serpents who have no legal authority over British Citizens tell you your PJM cannot be worn as authority to do so has not been given THEN refuse to to say who made this decision and whose authority you would be breaching if you did say 'stuff 'em' and wore it. It is all highly illegal, undemocratic and against our Human Rights.

We have the God given right to know who said we cannot wear the PJM.

George F wrote:

This evidence throws up serious questions about The Queen's signature on the PJM medal award to UK citizens.

Why are commonwealth citizens allowed to see such letters but UK citizens are prevented from viewing such letters because of an exemption clause?

George F

Answer to your question. Because, just like the Aussie one, the Queen didn't actually sign it.

hmmmm! Just had another look at the Aussie document - and - the Queen DID sign it. At the top. But it isn't the PJM Letter.



Last edited by John Feltham on Tue Jan 09, 2007 12:25 pm; edited 2 times in total
_________________
Merdeka, Merdeka, Merdeka,
from the HD Committee and its decision.

mcdangle wrote:

In my opinion Her Majesty the Queen did not authorise the non-wearing of the PJM, she allowed veterans to accept it and a civil serpent or the HD Committee issued this illegal instruction not to wear. Hence their attempts to stifle requests under the FOI Act and to misquote the exemptions of this Act to fit their purpose. It is a funny old world when unelected Civil Serpents who have no legal authority over British Citizens tell you your PJM cannot be worn as authority to do so has not been given THEN refuse to to say who made this decision and whose authority you would be breaching if you did say 'stuff 'em' and wore it. It is all highly illegal, undemocratic and against our Human Rights.

We have the God given right to know who said we cannot wear the PJM.

Right on, Bro.


_________________
Merdeka, Merdeka, Merdeka,
from the HD Committee and its decision.

mcdangle wrote:

In my opinion Her Majesty the Queen did not authorise the non-wearing of the PJM, she allowed veterans to accept it and a civil serpent or the HD Committee issued this illegal instruction not to wear. Hence their attempts to stifle requests under the FOI Act and to misquote the exemptions of this Act to fit their purpose. It is a funny old world when unelected Civil Serpents who have no legal authority over British Citizens tell you your PJM cannot be worn as authority to do so has not been given THEN refuse to to say who made this decision and whose authority you would be breaching if you did say 'stuff 'em' and wore it. It is all highly illegal, undemocratic and against our Human Rights.

We have the God given right to know who said we cannot wear the PJM.

Ever since I had my first of three letters on this subject Andy, I thought PORKIES!

By not showing the said document to the outside world, I regard that as guilty by association, it is not for us to determine whether Queenie signed it or not, we have nothing to prove, but the suits have everything to prove!


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

Correct John but Her Majesty the Queen has the authority to recommended to her citizens that 'one would not be amused' if you were to wear the PJM and the government could pass a law which could prevent you wearing it, BUT the Civil Service and all the unelected who-has connected with them are Paper Tigers with no bite whatsoever and they cannot instruct, command, or make us British Citizens do anything. They obviously think they can and we will have to resist this with all the legal and democratic rights we have available to us.
We have stumbled upon a conspiracy to prevent British Citizens from wearing a medal which they thought would be easy to get away with and now they have been found out they are compounding their errors with lies and prevarication to such an extent that they are now in a hole they cannot escape from so they have decided all they can do is deny everything and ignore everyone and we will go away. Boy, are they in for a shock.

We are not the only ones suffering from a 'not fit for purpose' civil service and I can only hope there is someone out there who will someday clean out this den of vipers and allow our paid services to act for our country and its people, instead of for themselves.

Did the Civil Serpents honestly think that, by making such an edict, that of acceptence, but not wear, but not policed, would placate us. That we would all roll over and play possum. Well, they figured incorrectly. They forgot who they were dealing with.

As I wrote in my initial letter to the Prime Minister, this is all about honour. If they want subservience, they had better look elsewhere. We are not part of the Civil service, where those individuals, cling tenaciously to their grubby little positions, fearful of the overbearing and tyrannical higher ups.

I would suggest that the naievety of those individuals responsible for this disaster, is par for the course, considering the total foul ups that have eminated from Whitehall.

Speaking of Whitehall, I have been informed that a certain Civil Servant goes in three days a week for a few hours. He receives a salary of £200,000. If his job was axed, along with several others who are on a far greater salary, for doing precisely sod all, we could afford to equip our troops properly.

Back to the plot. I ask, why they are dragging the situation out so long? They know that they can never win this battle, so why persist. The petulent school bullies are trying to run the playground, and you know what happens to bullies.

Yours Aye

Arthur

Arthur R-S wrote:

Back to the plot. I ask, why they are dragging the situation out so long? They know that they can never win this battle, so why persist. The petulent school bullies are trying to run the playground, and you know what happens to bullies.

Yours Aye

Arthur

I raised this subject elsewhere the other day Arthur, it is hard to fathom what there is to discuss. Its a good job that this same HD Committee does not have to make decisions on whether to go to war or not, or whether our Power Installations need armed guards or not, it beggars believe that they are so tardy in their responses.


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

What can I say John, all of the above illustrates just why they should not hold public office.

Yours Aye

Arthur