Here is a copy of an email I received this morning (6th Feb) stating that they are removing the offending statement on the Veterans Agency website, you know the one that calls us disenchanted gong chasers with time on our hands.

Mr Alders
Thank you for your Freedom of information enquiry regarding New medals for past service on the Veterans Agency website.
DS Sec – Honours and Ceremonial was the sponsor branch for the page, but having reviewed it and discussed it with Mr Ian Keith, arrangements have been made to remove it from the VA’s website pending review and updating.
Thank you
Clare
Clare Valentine
Veterans Agency External Communications Team
Room 6108
Norcross
Thornton-Cleveleys
FY5 3WP
01253 338816
Ext 68816

Paul Alders wrote:

DS Sec – Honours and Ceremonial was the sponsor branch for the page, but having reviewed it and discussed it with Mr Ian Keith, arrangements have been made to remove it from the VA’s website pending review and updating.

I think that we've been had Paul.

Its still there - just had a look, the lies I mean.

Here's a sample....

"Most people who feel strongly enough about these matters to write directly to the MOD, or to their constituency MPs, only know about these subjects from Arcticles that they read in the newspapers, or see mentioned on the television. The reality is often very different from the story presented by the media, which is, after all, written with the primary intention of selling the news. The MOD is often unable to present its side of the story. The following information might help to redress the balance."

I thought that that was what we were complaining about? The MoD does present its side of the story - but they always get it wrong.

You'll notice that they don't actually tell us what the "following information" is.

Yep - we've been had - AGAIN.

Now then, isn't that a surprise?


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

We are dealing with a bunch of 'crooks' the whole system is bent from head to toe. I just cannot believe that my country has let us down like this but worse is that it is our own kind that is twisting a knife into our backs. I can understand why 30000 indigenous Brits are leaving these shores monthly, like me they have had enough and the Head Honcho couldn't give a pair of Bolleaux!


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

Well done to all. Does this mean we are being heard at last.



Last edited by Bill Blyth on Tue Feb 06, 2007 9:03 pm; edited 1 time in total

Nah!

Yours Aye

Arthur

Credit where credit is due chaps, they have removed it as on reflection, even they probably thought it was ott, not for our sakes perhaps but certainly for the press as adverse comments they can do without at present, there is not enough room left in the papers!

John

FOR FAR TOO LONG THE ONLY THING THE MOD,SEEMS TO DO IS COVER UP ITS MANY FACETTED COCK UPS,AND EVEN THESE THAT WE KNOW OF ARE SHAMBOLIC.

Now you know why it is called The Ministry of 'Defence'. They have screwed up so much, that they have had to put up barriers and hide behind them.

Makes you think doesn't it?

Yours Aye

Arthur

I found the VAs reply to Paul's email interesting. Was there a need to be so explicit/specific re the sponsor of the page? Why not "it will be removed pending amendment and editing".

Is it putting the responsibility for the outrageous page firmly in its place?

Regards,

David

VETERANS AGENCY=V.A.COULD BE A COVER FOR "VOICE OF AARTONE".

http://www.omsa.org/modules.php?name=News&file=showarticle&postid=5353 Found this interesting article.No comment from me.It's worth a read and draw your own conclusions regarding the governments stance with regard to medals.


_________________
Regards Aye.Jon Windust

Regarding my request for a review (which is NOT what I asked for on 4th Jan 2007), I received the following in the post this morning:

**************************************************************
"CabinetOffice

Howell James CBE
Permanent Secretary, Government
Communication
70 Whitehall
London
SW1A2AS
Telephone 020 7276 0650
Fax 02072760822
E-mail howell.james@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk
6 February 2007

Captain A J Davies Esq.
…………………..
……………….
……………
Hampshire

Dear ……………….
REVIEW OF REQUEST UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
2000

Thank you for your letter of 4 January 2007 (dated 4 January 2006) asking for an
internal review of the handling of your Freedom of Information request of 7
December 2006.

I have fully investigated the case and I can confirm that I believe the original
decision that the information you requested should not be disclosed was correct.
As the original response you received explained, the exemptions that apply to this
information are section 37(1 )(a) (communications with Her Majesty, with other
members of the Royal Family or with the Royal Household) and section 37(1 )(b)
(the conferring by the Crown of any honour or dignity).

I have noted your assertion that section 37(1 )(b) is not relevant to the
consideration of this case because this case relates not to a UK medal but to one
offered by Malaysia. The basic premise of the UK honours system is that "The
Sovereign is the fount of all honour". It is for that reason that UK citizens must
request The Queen's permission to allow them to accept or wear foreign medals.
It follows, therefore, that any material relating to the consideration of whether that
permission might be conferred must fall within the remit of section 37(1 )(b) of the
Freedom of Information Act.

As you know, where a qualified exemption applies, we must carry out a public
interest balancing exercise to determine whether or not the information should be
disclosed. There is always a presumption in favour of disclosure and this was the
starting point from which I have reviewed the information you requested.
However, notwithstanding this presumption, the exercise is to determine where
the balance of the public interest lies.

(Original FOI request ref: F01246724)
(Internal review request ref: FOI247109)

In favour of disclosure there is a general public interest in the transparency of the
honours process: indeed the fact that The Queen approved the decision has been
stated many times. The decision on the PJM affects several thousand recipients
who have a genuine interest in it.

In favour of not disclosing the information is the importance of confidentiality in
protecting the honours process; and the importance of ensuring that
communications between the Sovereign and officials should remain confidential to
ensure that business can be conducted in a spirit of openness and trust; and,
given that The Queen's decision has been made known through a statement in
Parliament, there is no 'public interest' in releasing the document that confirmed
that decision or any further details relating to that document.
I therefore uphold the reasoning set out in Neena Thandasseri's initial response to
you.

You have also asked for an explanation of the decision taken on the acceptance
and wear of the PJM. This did not form part of your original request for
information and therefore does not fall within the terms of this review.

If you are not content with the outcome of this internal review, you have the right
to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The Information
Commissioner can be contacted at:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF

HOWELL JAMES
Original FOI request ref: F01246724
Cabinet Office
INVESTOR IN PEOPLE
(Internal review request ref: FOI247109)

**********************************************************
I would query, in the light of the alleged 'Honours for Cash' affair, that their rather bland and incongrous statement "In favour of not disclosing the information is the importance of confidentiality in protecting the honours process; and the importance of ensuring that communications between the Sovereign and officials should remain confidential to ensure that business can be conducted in a spirit of openness and trust;..............." is not really acceptable is it ? Tony

I have just these last few minutes received the same letter Tony.

It is not on! Mine goes back to September 22nd (actually it goes back to August)

I will stew over this for a few hours and seek others advice

John


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

Re: Hamishw's post British Defence in Crisis - MOD Staff who misled people......

Should Matthew Parris be contacted and initially referred to the now removed page from their website, the reason given for its removal and the above replies to questions about the truth re; did she;did she not sign....,communicated in the normal manner, etc? I hope that "they" don't think its removal from VA website is the end of the matter!

Right enough David.....but I don't much care whether they consider it to be the 'end of the matter' or no....insofar as we are concerned this show 'stays on the road' just as long as required to get the job done...


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