I like it and I look forward to the reply.

GLOman wrote:

This will go first thing this morning:

David,

Great letter!

I have sent a PM with some suggested amendments.

Thanks for your ongoing support.

Barry


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

David, may I add to Barry's posting that it is indeed a great letter and a hard hitting one too.

John

A great letter and says it all.
If he takes the action required of him there should be a lot of employment vacancies in the FCO.
Phredd

phredd wrote:

A great letter and says it all.
If he takes the action required of him there should be a lot of employment vacancies in the FCO.
Phredd

The way the Mandarins in the Civil Service have been interfering with the running (ruining) of our country there should be more than a few dispensed with at the top and the resulting savings in cash could be used to help our armed forces. May I be as bold as to suggest they start with the antiquated HD Committee which has shown that it is entrenched in an imperialist system of bygone years and is not fit for the 21st. century.

[quote=The way the Mandarins in the Civil Service have been interfering with the running (ruining) of our country there should be more than a few dispensed with at the top and the resulting savings in cash could be used to help our armed forces. May I be as bold as to suggest they start with the antiquated HD Committee which has shown that it is entrenched in an imperialist system of bygone years and is not fit for the 21st. century.[/quote]

If that turns out to be true then there are going to be a heap of £1,000 office chairs going spare.

Can I put my name down now for one? At least I'll be at the front of the queue for something.


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

Terrific letter David. One may consider it a salvo right where it hurts. Always assuming of course that the targets have any feelings.

Best wishes,

John


_________________
Pingat Kami - Hak Kami
651 Signal Troop,
Semengo Camp,
Kuching.

I returned a letter email to Mr R Coney marking this Private & Confidential, as he is duty bound to reply to such a letter and not passed on to his superior. Mr Coney replied to me today not marked P & C so I feel I may share this with you




Further to this I received a letter from Tanya at The FCO under the FoI, there appears to be some banana skins appearing more frequently in the Corridors of Whitehall, anyone spot them?? That is in both letters............

Dear Mr Cooper,


FOI 0396 08

Thank you for your request for information, which we received on 7 May. I can confirm that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office does hold some information falling within the terms of your request.

The FOI Act obliges us to respond to requests promptly and in any case no later than 20 working days after receiving your request. However, when a qualified exemption applies to the information and the public interest test is engaged, the Act allows the time for response to be longer than 20 working days, and a full response must be provided within such time as is reasonable in all circumstances of the case. We do, of course, aim to make all decisions within 20 working days, including in cases where we need to consider where the public interest lies in respect of a request for exempt information. In this case, however, we have not yet reached a decision on where the balance of the public interest lies.

The specific exemptions, which apply in relation to your request, are:

Section 37(1)(a) (communications with Her Majesty, with other members of the Royal Family or with the Royal Household), 37(1)(b) (conferring of any honour or dignity).

Section 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy)

Section 27(1)(a) (international relations)

In your case we estimate that it will take a further 20 working days to take a decision on where the balance of the public interest lies. Therefore, we plan to let you have a response by 2 July. If it appears that it will take longer than this to reach a conclusion, we will keep you informed.

If you are unhappy with the service you have received in relation to your request and wish to make a complaint or request a review of our decision, you should write to: The Information Rights Team, Information Management Group, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, SG/124, Old Admiralty Building, The Mall, London SW1A 2PA within 40 working days of receipt of this reply. Alternatively, you can email your request to dp-foi.img@fco.gov.uk.

If you are not content with the outcome your complaint, you may apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. Generally, the ICO cannot make a decision unless you have exhausted the complaints procedure provided by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:

The Information Commissioner’s Office,
Wycliffe House,
Water Lane,
Wilmslow,
Cheshire SK9 5AF.

Please contact me if you have any queries about this letter. Please remember to use the reference number above in any future communications.


Yours sincerely,

Tanya Collingridge


Tanya Collingridge
Honours Secretary


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

The time when "authority" meant the unquestioning acceptance and obedience of Whitehall Mandarins, their acolytes and those regarding themselves as the ruling elite has gone. These people must realise, to put it crudely, that "f***ing b****cks has replaced "touching forelocks" as a reply to the imposition of made up/ departmental rules. Commander Sullivan MA RN writes "This policy endorsed by the cross-Government Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals (HD Committee) is not a legislative decision; rather it is one of procedure. If a veteran does decide to wear the PJM, then it is a matter for the individual. Therefore as there is no legislation specific to the wearing of the PJM, the right to appeal does not apply in this case". But, Commander, there is specific legislation relating to the wearing of the PJM; the London Gazette 5057 3 May 1968 and JSP 761, DIN 10 - 002 of Jan 2006, paragraph 21 are most specific and since these are extant, to continue to talk about "one of procedure" is absolutely ridiculous and does nothing at all to enhance the standing of your department.

Doesn't he realise that this is the crux of the whole matter; we can be discourteous to Her Majesty in order to let them off the
hook for their incompetence. If the Bill does reach the House of Commons and is passed perhaps they will then realise that their nice little niche is in danger of being reorganised and their power and themselves absorbed into one Ministry under a Minister, where "it's Departmental Policy Minister" is decided by the Minister alone and carried out by them according to his wishes and the rules as laid down by Parliament and not, as at present, by an unaccountable, secretive Committee of Civil Servants. My advice to them is "NEVER SAY NEVER!

Looks like the door has been slammed in my face, so I am now embarking on my final stage to see that justice is about to be done





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

What does he mean by "Official permission"? He is obviously referring to the conspiracy which resulted in the issue of Part C of the 2005 Rules of Engagement - Sorry, Rules for precluding the wearing of the PJM Part C, or which the Commander calls a "matter of procedure"!

David

You are absolutely correct, no one but Sir Robin Janvrin [did I spell that name right?] agreed that we could not wear the PJM, this then was passed to Jack the Lad to put the FCO's official version of events, they are liars and this will be addressed that is without a doubt. Might take a long time to do so but stay tuned.......


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

This letter has been posted today. I felt that the amendments were necesary for the sake of accuracy.





Isn't it annoying that however careful you are in reading through the letter perhaps twice or more, it is only when it has been sent and copied on here that you see the mistakes - Doh!

Would the exulted Commander Royal Navy, care to elaborate on the totally irrational decision on the relaxing of the restriction for the Malaysia anniversary celebrations and the rapid reimposition of them.

When I swore my oath of allegience to Her Majesty the Queen, I don't recall the wording 'civil servant' ever being in that oath. Anyone care to correct me?

Yours Aye

Arthur

Recently I was told in a letter by Meg Munn MP, Permanent Under Secretary of State at the FCO
that the double medaling rule was not retrospective as it had been in use for almost sixty years.

I asked under the FOI Act if they would supply me with the following:-

• Over the Sixty Year period prior to 21st. November, 2005, how many and what foreign medals have been refused permission to wear to British citizens, not being Servants of the Crown, on the grounds of double medaling in that a British medal had already been issued for the campaign for which the foreign medal was offered.

The FCO replied that they do not collate such information, so this means they have nothing on record which shows that the double medal rule had been used previously to prevent the wearing of a foreign award granted to British citizens, not being Crown servants.

In a letter dated 25th. April, 2006, Mr. R.T. Coney, (pity he does not have a middle name like Andrew or Albert, as it would be most appropriate) MOD, said –

On a final point, you should be aware that the decision taken to allow British citizens to accept but not wear the PJM is not unusual, though it was understood that the decision will affect far more people than is usually the case.

I asked Mr. Coney if he would answer the following:-

• Since 1969 how many cases have there been of British citizens, not being Crown servants, being given permission by HM the Queen to accept a Foreign medal but permission to wear it formally was not given and what were these cases.

He replied – I have established that the information you requested is not held by the Ministry of Defence (MoD). There is no policy or rationale which would require the MoD to collect data of this kind.

My second question to him was –

• What are the cases which you have referred to as not unusual when British citizens were awarded a foreign medal but not allowed to wear it.

His reply was – This question should be addressed to the FCO.

Coney and Meg Munn went on to try and justify the unjust ‘non-wear’ rule of the PJM by quoting the Greek War Medal and the Greek War Star awarded to British veterans who had already been given permission to be accepted but not worn. Documents issued by the Greek embassy in London clearly state that the Greek government were aware that these medals would not be worn as it was against the five year rule to do so. Nothing was said at that time about a double medal rule.

They both went on to try and justify their argument with the ridiculous facts about the Saudi Arabian and Kuwait medals awarded to all coalition troops with British service personnel being granted permission to accept these medals, but not for wear. They also quoted, that most recently NATO issued a medal to some British service personnel who served in Afghanistan but the British troops may not wear it.

This shows that both Coney and Meg Munn MP have deliberately tried to confuse the issue by referring to these medals in a double medal context when they have no similarity to British citizens not being permitted to wear the PJM because of a long-standing procedure namely double medaling when in fact -

A. there is no recorded incident during the past sixty years when a medal was refused wear to British citizens because they already had another medal for the same campaign.

B. there is no procedure, or long standing principle, or anything which allows these public servants to make such statements without any basis for making them.

C. they have deliberately reported incorrect circumstances about the PJM and British citizens to justify their opposition to this medal and have included it with medals issued to British troops and medals which were not given permission to be worn solely because of the five year rule.

So now we have –

There is no document signed or initialled or annotated with remarks by Her Majesty the Queen.

There is no document which shows that Her majesty most graciously, or Her Majesty Exceptionally, granted permission for the PJM to be accepted but not worn.

The letter from the Queen’s Private Secretary to Jack straw MP, Foreign Secretary of State was on 21st. December, 2005, and the Cabinet office state they accept this as the official document. Then why in the name of the weemen did the foreign Secretary of State, Jack Straw MP, supply a written statement to parliament on 9th. January, 2006, saying that the HD Committee recommendations would be forwarded to Her Majesty the Queen soon, when he should have known this was not the case. And why if it is such an important official document it is only signed with the Christian name of the sender who did not even notice that his own name was incorrectly typed below his signature.

There is no previous double medal case identical to the award of the PJM so all the double medal talk is a ploy to deceive that they have ‘procedures’.

Looks like their case against British citizens and the PJM is falling apart.