roger spencer wrote:

Hi Barry

I am sure that you are aware of the six pages that i have attached to this email... Guess where I found it.. On a civil service web site that led me to the cabinet office and then on to the UK honours system. My problem is that having read 6 pages of the usual diatribe that is the norm from the suits, I was amazed to see that the Queens permission for the PJM to be worn for Merdeka Day celebrations in Malaysia was on this letter. Is this a new letter? Did we have a copy? I then read it again and quess what, NO MENTION OF THE LONDON GAZETTE ENTRY AT ALL! Why not? Are they still insisting that it does not apply to us ..... If so you would imagine that they would have reiterated it again. By the way The last paragraph says:

The Cabinet Office,Foreign andCommonwealth Officeand the Ministry of Defece as the main departments involved in the PJM case have provided a full statement on the PJM and have no further comment to make.

I wonder if they think we have all gone home like bad boys!!!!.....................SOME HOPE!
Best regards Roger Spencer Sunny Spain

Roger,

Thanks for sending in the documents. Readers will not be surprised why the suits chose to bury this latest final, final, statement on one of their web sites. You'd have thought they would have had teh courtesy of sending us and other interested parties a copy!

Here are the papers Roger unearthered:
























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

Well done Roger for 'discovering' a well hidden message, looks as if there are a lot more questions to be answered now that they have tidied up their loose ends, aren't these people just pathetic, mind you if watching Helen Mirrens Queen aired on ITV is anything to go by it looks as if a few more million might be deserting the loyal flock behind the frock!


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

Having read (and re-read) this lengthy summation I have only one comment:

So that's how participatory democracy is supposed to work....?


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

Wonderful. A total load of B******s. Not a single word wth reference to the LG edict. As far as I am concered, HM has already given permission to wear the PJM. I have already worn mine on a number of occasions, and I shall continue to do so, as and when appropriate. Should I one day attend Rememberance at the Cenotaph, I will wear it then, and nobody, but nobody will make me remove it. Best wishes to you all wherever you are in the world. Dave.


_________________
I like it here on MY planet. If you wish to visit, you are welcome,
but your sanity is not my responsibilty!

Any request to award a medal that is not in accordance with the criteria set out in the Rules will normally be refused. - page 4.

Should this not be amended to include reference to awards made to their own people (Sir Robin 'three times a knight' Janvrin) who are permitted to accept AND wear the Antigua and Barbuda 25th. Anniversary medal, which is in breach of the five year rule. No, I dont think so, they will do what they want for their own pampered elitist group but when it comes to British citizens, who are supposed to live in a democracy, its follow the rules they lay down. No wonder they can spend £2.9 billion on new MOD offices, and £250,000 on paintings for the walls of their offices. They are accountable to no-one but this must change.

..



Last edited by MB on Thu Feb 14, 2008 12:17 pm; edited 1 time in total
_________________
Mike Barton

It's time to make a 'public' statement!!!

John

It is clear to me that this latest final, final, final statement is a statement which undermines their position, emphasises the fragility of their case, highlights the lack of integrity in the system ... and confiirms to me that they are guilty by their own omission - the omission of the London Gazette issue from their buttock-clenching apology.

I am now more happy than I have ever been that they cannot counter our LG claim. They never have been able to. And they never will be able to.

The PJM is a wearable medal - The Queen gave that permission formally in 1968 to all such medals and to all such recpients of such medals, and there is nothing that a discretionary 'rules' concocted and applied retrospectively by a group of bureauprats who have lost all credibility can do about it. I can still remember Denis Brennan's first set of responses to the LG case - they were knee-jerk excuses for him not telling the HD Committee and The Queen about the LG Notice. They were ill-considered, incorrect, ill-informed, confused and contradictory. He knew our case was good, and he was unable to counter it. And he still hasn't.

This statement shows how those suits have had to carefully re-word their previous final, final statement and all previous statements. They have messed up. Yet again.

I shall write the HD Committee a Billy Doo and will post it here. I hope others will too.

Barry


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

Barry, at no stage in this statement does the Malta Medal get a mention and yet it is an identical award to the PJM in every way!

That one award is the proof that the system is swayed by personality (the Duke of Edinburgh is a recipient) and as such undermines their entire argument. As they have allowed veterans to accept and wear that medal they have set a precedent and they cannot in all conscience deny them the right to wear the PJM; to do so is perverse. They do hold up two awards that have featured in our argument as a comparison but only the two that can be explained with some degree of certainty. They complain (in guarded terms) that we have questioned the integrity of those who have made this decision, yet they cannot see that by their own actions they have called into doubt the integrity of the entire honours system. I fear that by association they have also cast doubt upon the integrity of the monarchy and the soveriegn herself and for that reason alone a proper accounting is well overdue.

This statement taken in the context of the London Gazette entry is as valuable as toilet paper although there are times when that commodity is more valuable than any other! (along with a shovel)

John
(disgusted of Wiltshire)

It has been claimed that the decision discriminates against UK citizens. The governments of the nations of the Commonwealth are autonomous and independent of each other. Each government applies its own rules and judgement to its own citizens. UK citizens cannot rely on the decisions of other Commonwealth States to claim particular treatment from the UK government.

I understood that the HD Committee deals directly with the Queen on such matters, and there was no government intervention in such matters. That being the case, the above statement is nothing more than 'whitewash', as it is 'The Queen' who approves such matters, it can ONLY be the Queen, who discriminates against her UK subjects !

As has been pointed out in other messages, the Malta Medal meets all the same criteria as the PJM, but for that an exception to allow to accept AND wear was made, I would like to know what in the eyes of the HD Committee, AND the Queen, was so different for that exception to be made, and not for the PJM? (Yes, I do know that the Queen and Prince Phillip have fond memories of Malta, as it was where they spent their honeymoon, but then WE have fond memories of Malaysia !

I forgot to mention, surely, under the terms of the LG Statement, Sir Robin, being a Crown Servant, should be exempt from receiving and wearing his A&B Medal?

Belay that....HM is Head of State of A&B (Time for bed I think !)

..



Last edited by ro5=6372 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 7:26 pm; edited 1 time in total

The following, as sent to Mr Brennan:
=============================================================
September 05 2007

Dear Mr Brennan,

Having read the recent position of the HD Committee as stated, in 6 pages, at: http://www.honours.gov.uk/upload/assets/www.honours.gov.uk/pjm_rebuttal2.pdf

Permit me to register my dismay at its total misrepresentation and contrived disinformation...and it's one-sided nature. Once again we are treated to a verbose rewording of the previously stated position of the HD Committee regarding the Pingat Jasa Malaysia....and again, one that seeks only to provide the illusion of credibility to that committee's original, inept and unjust conclusion.

That this document miscarries is not in question...it misconstrues throughout but it fails massively via a singular 'sin of omission' on a salient point...the crucial item omitted from it's text is that of reference to the irrefutable wording of the May 3rd 1968 London Gazette Notice and it's relevance to the rights of all recipients of foreign medals...no literate person, considering the wording of that notice, could come to any conclusion other than that it, unequivocally, grants recipients of the PJM the right to wear that honour.

No revision of, or documented exclusion from, the London Gazette text has ever been published and consequently we must conclude that Her Majesty's 1968 word on the topic remains statutory and extant. HD Committee claims, unsubstantiated by documentary proof that this notice does not apply to the PJM are, therefore, guaranteed to fall upon deaf ears.

The suggestion (and rather transparent device to divert attention away from those whose actions are in question) that complainants have unjustifiably questioned the integrity of the HD Committee is noted...and rejected.

It is widely felt that the committee is itself, wholly responsible for the tarnish that exists upon it's current image....and also, regrettably, for the ever diminishing respect with which the entire system of honours is now being regarded.The author's of this sub-standard, subjective, 'explanation' will recall that it was they who introduced the word 'integrity' when they referred to our honourable medal adversely affecting the integrity of their 'honours' system. In my view this document does speak volumes for the integrity - of the PJM ... and the absence of it amongst the document's authors.


The document also fails generally by representing a unilateral apologia for an action when the authors should have addressed all of the issues raised by concerned and interested parties. For example, but not exclusively, why did they omit reference to the Malta 50th Anniversary Medal which was frequently raised by campaigners? And why did they omit reference to the 40-odd medals that have been set out for them, many of which impose a double medal, while so many others have double medal 'potential'?

The same applies with regard to the 5-year rule. Many have expressed concern that, with so many examples as precedent, but not exclusively the Malta Medal and the Accumulated Campaign Service Medal, that 'rule' is implemented as a means of preventing ordinary people from receiving earned honours, while being waived to ensure that the privileged may add to their "chocolate box" medals (Prince Charles' description), e.g. the 25th Anniversary Antigua and Barbuda Medal.

I accuse the authors of this document of deliberately misleading, by omission and disinformation, The Queen, Parliament, The Media, and the people. This matter will not go away. Justice will prevail.

Meanwhile, it is pleasing to note that even the Ministers who once had to front your recommendation are now supporting our case (presumably because they had not been properly briefed and now understand the truth of the matter) ... as do all right-minded men and women of integrity.

Yours sincerely.

John 'Jock' Fenton.
...address supplied...
=============================================================
For the benefit of any who might care to express themselves...herewith:
Mr Denis Brennan
Ceremonial Officer
Secretary to the HD Committee (Military Medals)
35 Great Smith Street
London
SW1P 3BQ

denis.brennan@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk



Last edited by 'Jock' Fenton on Wed Sep 05, 2007 2:21 pm; edited 1 time in total
_________________
...................'Jock'
Paroi...Rasah...Batu Signals Troop.

'Jock' Fenton wrote:

The following, as sent to Mr Brennan:

Great stuff, Jock.

That email says it all. They may disregard it, and may well not respond, but your message is now on record (as would be the absence of yet another response) and may well appear later when their actions are formally put under the microscope.

Barry


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