Image of the PJM Medal
Banner Text = Fight For the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia Medal
Reply to topic Page 11 of 14
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next
UPDATE ON THE WEARING OF THE PJM
Author Message
Reply with quote
Post Brennan 
John,

The sheer bl**dy arrogance of this man is starting to get me really annoyed.

"nothing more to add"...we shall see.


_________________
Pingat Kami - Hak Kami
651 Signal Troop,
Semengo Camp,
Kuching.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Reply with quote
Post  
Anyone that has had untruths told to them in writing from The MoD/CO/FCO please see this post

http://www.fight4thepjm.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1928&highlight=


_________________
--------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re McD's post 
Well done that man. What I find incredible , nay unbelievable, that Jack Straw is now the Minister for Justice... well...he would be... wouldn't he.

I am just wondering how much it has cost the Government, in that, I include all departments, and Parliament itself, in both financial terms and man /woman hours, to bolster up this total fabrication. I mean, but for our delaying tactics, we would have given them more time and money to screw the country up, even further.

I like to think that our particular campaign has in fact diverted their time and energy away from that task to a certain degree.

Better start breaking out the straight jackets and repainting the rubber rooms for them.

Yours very much bewildered

Arthur

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
Quite right Arthur. Straight jackets are clearly needed. Why Harriet Harman is even imagining she has two Super Hero's on her roof !!!


_________________
Pingat Kami - Hak Kami
651 Signal Troop,
Semengo Camp,
Kuching.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Reply with quote
Post  
Yes Semengo 13, it will probably be the only time she has had anyone honest above her.
In this so called democracy of ours, it is evident that we have the right to protest, but we do not have the right to be heard.

Having said that, there is clearly a mood within Government circles that will remove that right forever.
We are the people who fought for that democracy, and for other countries, who in their desire to thank those individuals, because they receive only partial recognition from an ungrateful Government, get a slap in the face.

Had HMG adequetly rewarded those individuals in the first place, then none of this would have occurred. I would conservatively estimate that HMG have spent on this fruitless exercise of theirs, enough cash to give every one of us twenty medals and still had change.

As a former tax payer I still have a right to know how my money is being spent, or should I say, wasted, by the Department of Unaccountability. I further object to any individual telling me to keep my mouth shut and my nose out of Government affairs, when they are so clearly in the wrong.

In conclusion, they can thank their lucky stars that it was the likes of us, that held back the Communist revolution. In the purges that followed the Russian Revolution in 1918, how may civil servants were put against the wall and shot? All of them. Do we get any thanks for saving the sorry arses... do we hell.

Ok rant over... the memsahib has put the kettle on and a nice cup of tea is definately on offer.

Yours Aye

Arthur

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
Arthur R-S wrote:


As a former tax payer I still have a right to know how my money is being spent, or should I say, wasted, by the Department of Unaccountability. I further object to any individual telling me to keep my mouth shut and my nose out of Government affairs, when they are so clearly in the wrong.


Yours Aye

Arthur


By a strange coincidence I have sent an email to a member of HMG this morning stating exactly what you say Arthur, I can't go into the specifics at the moment as I always like to receive a 'round the houses' reply, I say 'like' as there is no alternative regarding Civil Service speak, but I have made it abundantly clear to that person that I am seeking Civil Service Impartiality, all of you that have corresponded with HMG just go back through your received letters and see how that Impartiality Civil Service Code has been applied.

You can do something about it you know as I am right at this moment in time, PM me if you want to know how!


_________________
--------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post MOD Medal Procedures 
What is making me very angry is that all the regrets expressed by Brown, Des Browne and Jock Stirrup, and how we should honour the fallen, mean absolutely nothing at all.

Apart from "Foreign Medals" being accepted but not worn, including our own and the Kuwait and Saudi Medals, MOD DS Sec, and I think very likely including HD committee, have now decided that the United Nations Medal for Afghganistan, recently issued, can be accepted but not worn (this must be a first for a UN medal). Incidentally, isn't this HD committee remit?

The point I think that has been missed by those in MOD is that Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts were given the respectabality of a United Nations Sanction which got, in my view, Blair, Brown and Bush off the hook. If our forces are not operating under the aegis of the UN, then under who's authority are they operating? So why accept the UN medal and then not permit it to be worn?

If these are not weasel words from the above, then for God's sake, particularly the part time Defence Minister, ensure that these rules, or should I say "procedures" are chucked in the recycling bin and the HD committee et al be required to explain why they insist on making HMG look rediculous and unsympathetic to those they should honour.

Believe me, from the bottom of my heart, I am not being callous or insensitively using our fallen comrades just to make a point; it is for the honour of us all.

It is the "off the shelf, routine, politically correct public declaration of regret", and the "procedures" behind the scenes out of public sight when the Ceremonial Offices/ers from MoD, Cabinet Office or FCO are denying our servicemen and veterans the honours they are entitled to wear, without exception or restriction this, is to me, total hipocracy! This is what is making me very angry.

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
David

I myself have often wondered who the real enemy are, I think we all know the answer to that. Isn't it just a sad reflection on our society where a medal is presented for one sole reason to be worn with pride and yet as one old soldier said to me 'that has been denied to those who have defended the Realm and Faith'

Amateurs in a Professional World are these people purportedly masquerading as Human Beings, bah!


_________________
--------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Medal procedure 
David, nobody can ever level an accusation of callousness against you, and using our fallen comerades to underpin our arguement.

In all of this, none of us have ever chased a medal. They have always been offered to us in the first place. Funny that, in the light of allegations from certain quarters that we are.

They still cannot grasp the concept of ... give me a medal... or the alternative... congrats old chap here is the medal you never asked for.

Having said that, I have said before, that both my late father, and uncle, wore both united nations medals for Korea.

Which immediately turns HDC's arguement on it's head.

Yours aye and speaking on behalf of my late relatives, both double medalled, which of course doesn't happen.

Arthur

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Medal procedure 
[quote=Having said that, I have said before, that both my late father, and uncle, wore both united nations medals for Korea.

Which immediately turns HDC's arguement on it's head.

Yours aye and speaking on behalf of my late relatives, both double medalled, which of course doesn't happen. Arthur[/quote]

Well thats what the CO, the FCO and MoD keep telling us can never ever happen.

We must be wrong.


_________________
Merdeka, Merdeka, Merdeka,
from the HD Committee and its decision.
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Double trouble 
When I transfered to the Sea Cadets, being too long in the tooth for yo ho ho and a bottle of rum sort of things. I became the First Lieutenant at Streatham Sea Cadet unit, and our training officer Lt Alan Crabbe, also had the two Korean medals. Who, it will come as no surprise to have the nickname... Buster.

Was he related to the late Commander Crabbe RN the mysterious frogman? I really have no idea. I never once broached the subject with him.

Apart from that, whilst a jack dusty on the Maidstone, several of our stores killicks also had the same famous/infamous double medalling, which of course doesn't happen. I could name at least 100 instances in the Royal Navy of double medalling of the Korean medals.

Back to the plot, or lack of it from Government circles perspective. I trust those who now read our posts as a sine qua non, will be greatly illuminated by this information, as a tour de force.

I shall now type this slowly as I know that they cannot read very fast...

Double medalling has too many instances in the armed forces, which is irrefutable.

There have been too many photographs of military personnel, wearing foriegn decorations at the end of their medal bars, also irrefutable.

Lastly, but certainly not least, retrospective medalling.... The 50 year and 60 year Russian gongs, which is also double medalling, etc.

Ok clowns in the Government... remove heads from rear ends, or your bosses rear ends, and start smelling the roses. Now being armed with this information... what is your arguement again?

Yours Aye

Arthur

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Double trouble 
Arthur R-S wrote:
Double medalling has too many instances in the armed forces, which is irrefutable.


Arthur,

You make valid double trouble points sans any double entendres. You say it as it is. I do not understand why the suits are all at sea on this. It is very simple ... double medalling is an intrinsic part of British medal history. But, no matter how prevalent the habit, it is still irrelevant to the Foreign (Commonwealth) PJM!

I make no apologies for the length of my double meddle muddle that follows. My expo is long because it reflects the length of ribbon/riband on which these British double medals hang. Here goes ...


Introduction:

A majority of PJMers, including many conscripts, do not have a British medal for their service in Malaysia. The PJM does not replicate the British GSM eligibility terms and timescales.

Furthermore, we can confirm that double medalling was never a part of Foreign Decorations rules … that is until November 2005 when new retrospective rules were promulgated in the Commons Library to replace the 1969 Regulation (that did not contain any reference to double medals!).

The Ministry of Defence and others continue to try and sell the idea that the British simply do not allow two medals for the same service. In reality, they do and have always done so.

Double-medalling has always been an integral part of our British medal system. It should never have been raised and then waived in respect of the Pingat Jasa Malaysia, a Foreign award.

Here are some examples of double medalling – in chronological order:

Boer War:

You had to have the Queen’s South Africa Medal to be eligible for the King’s South Africa Medal - a clear case of imposed double-medalling.

WW1:

(When discussing major conflicts we always have in mind that the servicemen and women deserved more than a medal, or even two or three medals. We quote these medals only to demonstrate that the PJM and other recommendations and statements are based on a myth).

You had to have the British War Medal in order to qualify for the Allied Victory Medal - again, enforced double-medalling.

Furthermore, those on operational service before 1st January 1916 were eligible for one of the two Stars - resulting in treble-medalling.

In the North West Frontier of India before 1914 one was eligible for a single medal. During WW1 before 1916, these actions produced three medals for the same service - and two from 1916 onwards.

WW2:

Troops serving in India during WW2:

They became eligible for the Defence Medal (for 360 days non-operational service overseas). They also qualified for the War Medal 1939-45 after 28 days. A case of double-medalling.

The 1939-1945 Star:

This Star was awarded on six different occasions for service on the North West Frontier between 3rd February 1940 and 18th August 1942. It was therefore possible, with the War Medal, to receive and wear three medals in circumstances where one would have expected only a single medal. A case of double or even treble-medalling.

All those eligible for the 1939-1945 Star were also awarded the War Medal 1939-45 for 28 days service. More double-medalling.

Area Stars were for operational service and, for the Army and RAF, were normally for entry to a theatre. 180 days on operations and the 1939-45 Star would also be earned. Double-medalling.

In the Navy one normally had to qualify for the 1939-45 Star in order to be eligible for the Area Star. Double-medalling.

Atlantic Star:

The Atlantic Star has been much discussed in recent years. You could become eligible for the Atlantic Star only after you had qualified for the 1939-45 Star. You had to serve 180 days to earn the 1939-1945 Star and then a further 180 days to earn the Atlantic Star. A stunning imposition by the British of a double-medal.

There is more:

The 1939-45 Star had to be earned before beginning to qualify for the Atlantic Star, but
any of the period spent in the Atlantic could count towards the Atlantic Star, and so it would be possible to spend six months in the Atlantic earning the Atlantic Star, one day in the Pacific earning the Pacific Star and a further 180 days in the Pacific earning the Atlantic Star. Confused? We are. And so is the thinking that promotes the non-existence of double-medalling.

The Atlantic Star, Air Crew Europe Star and France and Germany Star:

All were alternative awards with the second award being denoted by a bar. No matter how it was presented (bars instead of separate medals), this was a clear case of double medalling.

Burma Star and Pacific Stars:

All were also alternatives and a bar was received as the second award. However, for some unknown reason, you would become eligible for the Pacific Star for service in Hong Kong (until 25th December 1941), China (until 15th February 1942), Malaya (until 15th February 1942) and Sumatra (until 23rd March 1942) but, after the very next day after the date in brackets, you earned the Burma Star (actually the bar if you already had the Pacific Star). More double-medalling.

Post-WW2

Korean War:

Two medals were awarded for the same service - the British Korea Medal and the UN Korea Medal. Double medals!

UN Congo:

UN troops in the Congo received the UN Truce Supervisory Medal with a bar Congo on the ribbon. This was for service from 10th July 1960 to 30th June 1964. In 1966 the bar was dropped and a new ribbon was introduced. British personnel seconded to Commonwealth forces were eligible for the award. Double-medalling.

Malaya/Malaysia:

Personnel on secondment to the Malay Regiment from 31st August 1957 to 31st July 1960 earned the Malay Active Service Medal in addition to the British GSM clasp Malaya. Double-medalling.

Personnel in North Borneo on 23rd/24th December 1962 would have received the GSM with clasp Brunei on the first day and after 30 days got the GSM 1962 with clasp Borneo. It is certain that many received two medals.

Oman:

Personnel on secondment or under contract to the Sultan’s Armed Forces in Dhofar Province for fourteen days from 23rd May 1965 to 30th June 1976 received the Omani GSM with bar Dhofar. In the period from 23rd May 1965 to 2nd December 1975, for thirty days service anywhere in Oman, they became eligible for the Sultan’s “As Sumood” Medal (Endurance Medal) which was approved for unrestricted acceptance in 1977. Then from 1st July 1976 the Peace Medal was instituted for one year’s service.

Those who served in Dhofar Province received both the Sultan’s “As Sumood” Medal and the GSM - another clear case of double-medalling. Indeed, most received two or three medals for the same service.

Former Yugoslavia:

There are at least ten medals for service in Former Yugoslavia that give scope for double-medalling (remember, the suit's case is that someone may potentially , i.e. has scope to have two medals for the same service):

1. UNPROFOR (former Yugoslavia);
2. ECMM (Former Yugoslavia);
3. UN Special Service Medal (Op Cheshire);
4. NATO Former Yugoslavia;
5. UNMIK (Kosovo);
6. NATO Kosovo;
7. NATO (Macedonia);
8. WEUM Former Yugoslavia 1992;
9. ESDP (Bosnia);
10. NATO Non Article 5.

Police in Macedonia were eligible for at least two other awards. While the rules are designed to avoid two medals for one campaign except where the full qualifying service has been done for each, we believe that many eligible for the UNPROFOR medal must subsequently have served with NATO and subsequently received the NATO Medal with bar Former Yugoslavia. We understand that many received two medals.

Other Operational Commands:

In similar vein to Former Yugoslavia, other areas offer more than one medal dependent on the organisation under which one served. Here are some examples with considerable scope for double-medalling:

Cambodia:

The UNAMIC UN Service Medal was for 90 days with the Advisory Mission from 1st October 1991 to 31st March 1992. The UNTAC UN Service Medal was for 90 days with the Transitional Authority from 31st March 1992 to 30th September 1993. It is highly likely that some personnel worked for both missions and became eligible for both medals.

East Timor:

The Australian INTERFET Medal (for 30 days service between 16th September 1999 and 10th April 2000) was issued to those working with the Australian forces and the UNAMET/UNTAET UN Service Medal (90 days from 7th June 1999) went to those under UN Command. Again, further scope for double-medalling.

Sierra Leone:

The British Forces got the Operational Service Medal Sierra Leone (with a bewildering variation of qualifying periods dependent on the Operation involved of one day; 14 days; 6 days; 21 days; 30 days; or 45 days from 5th May 2000 to 31st July 2002) while those with the UN got the UNOMSIL/UNAMSIL UN Service Medal (90 days from 1st June 1998). Again, further scope for double-medalling.

Afghanistan:

The situation is very confused. Initially our troops got the Operational Service Meda (5 days; 21 days; 21 days plus 6 sorties; 21 days; or 30 days from 11th September 2001). Since then there is a NATO Non-Article 5 Medal with bar NTM-ISAF (International Security in Afghanistan) and now troops appear to be under European Command ... or are they? More scope for double-medalling.

Congo:

In the Congo we have the Operational Service Medal Congo and MONUC UN Service Medal for those under UN Command (90 days from 30th November 1999). Scope for double-medalling.

The Iraq Medal:

... is given for service of 7 days; 10 days; or 30 days from 20th January 2003. There is also a NATO Non-Article 5 Medal with bar NTM-IRAQ (NATO Training Mission). Scope for double-medalling.

Finally, in respect of the Iraq medal, the List of Zones will no doubt overlap with those for the OSM Afghanistan and include Oman, UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait. More scope for two medals for the same service.

Russian “40th Anniversary of the end of the Great Patriotic War Medal”.

In order to qualify for this medal, you had also to qualify for a British WW2 Medal - an imposed double medal!

(This medal also breaks the 5-year myth having received Unrestricted Approval for wear 50 years after the event … it was first offered in 1985 but at that time the USSR was not politically acceptable. It became PC after the break-up of the Soviet Union)

Malta “GC 50th Anniversary of the end of the War Medal”

In order to qualify, you also had to have the British Africa Star – another imposed double medal!

(This medal also breaks the 5-year myth having received Unrestricted Approval for wear 50 years after the event.)

Accumulated Campaign Service Medal (ACSM):

We regard this medal as a classic example of double-medalling. It was introduced in 1994 specifically to award more than one medal to those serving in Northern Ireland for years who otherwise would receive just one GSM for their service.

Basically, the Accumulated Campaign Service Medal (a British medal) is awarded only if you have previous campaign medals - three years of General Service Medal operational service from 1969 is the requirement.

Originally, three years campaign service earning the GSM for the last seven clasps counted towards the ACSM. This has now been extended to include the South Atlantic Medal, the Gulf Medal, the Iraq Medal, and the Operational Service Medals for Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and Congo. Thus it is possible to have six medals over three years operations, and qualify for a seventh. Another NB: This medal can be awarded for service that was carried out some 37 years ago. Where does the 5-year rule come into it?

Conclusion:

And so it can be seen that double-medalling has been an intrinsic and “long-established” part of the British honours system!

I rest my case,

Barry

PS If anyone wishes to download these notes, click here: http://www.fight4thepjm.org/documents/Double_Medal_Myth_Excerpt_2.doc



Last edited by BarryF on Wed Jun 11, 2008 6:57 am; edited 1 time in total

_________________
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  
Phew Barry. When you see it in the great detail you have presented their argument (do they have one?) is even more ludicrous.

Stand by for the "triple medal" rule to suddenly be produced. Rolling Eyes The last actions of a discredited system of unaccountable and unelected committees.

I just hope that when "they" read this - yes you know who you are - even they may finally see the utter stupidity of their case.


_________________
Pingat Kami - Hak Kami
651 Signal Troop,
Semengo Camp,
Kuching.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Reply with quote
Post Double medalling 
Phew! That was a mouthful Barry. I think I need a drink after all that...better make mine a double.

Yours Aye

Arthur

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
Barry, you have forgotten quite a few!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

John

View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:
Reply to topic Page 11 of 14
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next
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