Image of the PJM Medal
Banner Text = Fight For the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia Medal
Reply to topic Page 3 of 6
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
The Queen, did she sign a document.....
Author Message
Reply with quote
Post  
JC there is'nt a dock or even a court room in the Country big enough to put us all in, for if one of us goes to court WE ALL GO.

Bring it on. "I have nothing to loose but my chains"

The chains that the HD Committe tried put on me.

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
I have started to do just that!
John


Dear Michael, further to my e-mail on the subject of the Queens signature, I attach the letter from her private secretary which is the only ‘official’ letter on the subject from the Palace.

You are aware that the author is a member of the HD Committee and also of the contents of the 1968 London Gazette entry so it is my contention that he is also the author of the ‘not to wear’ ruling from the Palace and not Her Majesty. It is my belief that she approved the acceptance of the PJM and that the HD Committee not being aware of the 1968 London Gazette entry (as later correspondence tends to show) added the ‘not to wear’ part mistakenly believing that to be correct. As it transpires, that is not the correct course of action in regard to this award, as the London Gazette clearly shows, when seen in conjunction with the existing ‘rules’ on honours and awards. That the HD Committee and the Foreign Office then attempted to justify their erroneous conclusion (mistake) by the use of clearly misleading and untrue assertions does no credit to them and is evidence that Parliament must have the final say in just how awards such as this are to be dealt with.

John

View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Reply with quote
Post  
I also draw this one to your attention, meaning in light of yesterdays announcement that the HD Committee might never have discussed the subject of the PJM, I'll also bet that The Queen was not consulted on the three week temporary wear of the PJM last August/September, two people between them decided on this course of action, Batman and Robin.

Anyone care to ask under the FoIA for sight of a signature no matter whose signature, authorising this 'approval'???




Re: PS ... or should I say "psssss ..."
BarryF wrote:
PS Here's a thought. The Honours Secretary left the Foreign Office very suddenly. On the day he left he contacted us to say goodbye.

Did he retire from Crown service because he didn't approve of the way the Cabinet Office and others were trying to stuff Malay-Borneo veterans? After all, he encouraged us to do our own research - did he hope we'd find that Gazette Notice? That's entirely unfounded conjecture, of course!

And we don't begrudge him his OBE conferred a few months after his retirement when he was "NOT in Crown service" for services carried out "WHILE he was in Crown service" ... precisely in line with our understanding of the various honours guidelines ... and precisely the position of the majority of PJMers!


Barry

I received this on the 4th April from Tanya who took Edgey's place, the highlighting is my own:

Tanya.Collingridge@fco.gov.uk wrote:
Dear Mr Cooper,

I can confirm that we do not hold any personal information on you. Due to the volume of correspondence the FCO receives from members of the public, we do not necessarily retain all letters or copies of letters from the public, nor would we retain copies of replies for our records. Correspondence in the form of emails between yourself and Chris Edge (who has now retired) would have been retained electronically for a short period and then removed automatically.

Best wishes,

Tanya Collingridge


So all you guys and gals that have expended a lot of time and effort in this campaign your letters/emails/faxes have probably disappeared into Cyberspace of File 13 like mine! Never mind aye, the lying and cheating that has been going on is plain for all to see, remember too that under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 I have that letter from The Cabinet Officer saying that "The HD Committee rarely ever meet and in fact has not met between 7th December 2005 and 14th February 2007 to discuss the PJM "[Eleri Pengelly]


_________________
--------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
Quote:
="John Cooper"] I'll also bet that The Queen was not consulted on the three week temporary wear of the PJM last August/September, two people between them decided on this course of action, Batman and Robin.



This exactly parallels my own thinking on the matter.....who would have been the most embarrassed if there had been a reported 'incident' at the Merdeka celebrations regarding the fact that one segment of the represented force was not permitted to wear their medal?.....wouldn't have been the veterans, our comrades of half a century ago.....they'd have waxed most eloquent on the topic if I know them at all....wouldn't have been their generous Malaysian hosts.....but it would, most certainly have been awkward for those responsible for the decision to publicly justify it.....and most especially if it was a decision clandestinely reached and implemented WITHOUT proper authority.


_________________
...................'Jock'
Paroi...Rasah...Batu Signals Troop.
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post FOI Act. 
Herewith a letter received from the FCO in regard to my request for information re the temporary wear in Malaysia. A letter has been sent to Jackie Bartson in disagreement with their decision that it is exempt under the Act.

12 February 2008

Room 1/69
Old Admiralty Building
London
SW1A 2AH

Tel: 020 7008 0993
Fax: 020 7008 0978
E-mail: Andrew.Partridge@fco.gov.uk


Dear

Freedom of Information Act Request Number 0049/008: PJM Medal

Thank you for your e-mail of 15 January to my colleague Tanya Collingridge regarding the Pingat Jasa Malaysia (PJM) medal. In your e-mail you asked:

In terms of the Freedom of Information Act can I be advised as to where the recommendation that the PJM can be worn temporarily in Malaysia issued by Her Majesty the Queen on the advice of the HD Committee is kept, and can I obtain a copy of this written recommendation.

Under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act we are obliged to respond to requests promptly and no later than 20 working days after receiving them.. However, when a qualified exemption is engaged and the public interest test is being considered, 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 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. In this case, however, we have not yet reached a decision on where the balance of the public interest test lies.

In your case we estimate that it will take an additional 10 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 26 February 2008. It if appears that it will take longer than this to reach a conclusion, we will keep you informed.

The specific exemption which is engaged in relation to your request is section 37 (communications with Her Majesty, with other members of the Royal Family or with the Royal Household)

If you have any queries about this letter, please contact me. Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future communications.

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 contact Jackie Barson, Deputy Director of Protocol, Room 1/56, Old Admiralty Building, FCO, London, SW1A 2PA write to me at the above address. You have 40 working days to do so.

If you are not content with the outcome of that internal review, you may apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. Generally, the ICO cannot make a decision unless you have exhausted the complaint 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


Yours sincerely,

Andrew Partridge



Andrew Partridge
Protocol Directorate

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post HM The Queen. 
Now we know that HM The Queen did not sign, or initial any document, confirming that she approved the acceptance but not wear of the PJM.

In 1968 Her Majesty The Queen wrote 'App ER' on the draft of the new 1969 Regulations on the Acceptance and Wear of Foreign Decorations and Medals.

If the Queen can be bothered to confirm her acceptance of Regulations in this way then why has she failed to do the same with an honourable medal which British citizens earned in the stinking swamps and jungles of Malaysia.

Seems like we do not rate the same importance as draft regulations by our Sovereign.

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

In view of recent revelations I am becoming accutely aware that HMQ has very little influence over very much that happens within HMG, whether that means someone usurping other peoples powers remains unresolved for the time being but as you and others know the fight continues unabated..........


_________________
--------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post The Queen 
JC

I agree. The Queen is the Constitutional Head of our country but her private Secretary is not and just because he wrote an internal letter to a Minister of the Crown it does not mean that this confirms to the British Government, The Agong and Malaysian Government, 35, 000 British veterans, the British people etc etc. that Her Majesty the Queen most graciously and exceptionally agreed the HD Committee recommendation that the PJM can be accepted but not worn. Only one person has said that Her Majesty agreed this recommendation and there is no confirmation whatsoever of this 'off hand' written communication to a member of the British government. This has the makings of a very serious diplomatic upset when a Civil Servant is the only person who has issued a directive, in a letter to a government Minister, and not in an official manner, giving authority that a foreign medal cannot be worn.

It has been recently said that the British people are entitled under the Human Rights Act to dignity and fairness. In the case of the PJM this is not so and we cannot even have a proper, legal directive from our Queen yet they tell us that we will be discourteous to HM the Queen if we wear the PJM without permission. How can we be discourteous to the Queen when we are refusing to accept an order from civil servants.
Also in the absence of some directive from Her Majesty the Queen how can they say that it will not be policed. They have no legal right to even suggest that it could be policed.

In the Written Ministerial Statement of 31st. January, 2006, Ian Pearson MP said 'Her Majesty the Queen has been graciously pleased to approve this recommendation'. I would ask 'has she? and if so, why have we not been properly and constitutionally advised of such a Royal directive'.

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post That Letter. 
Michael Piggott of the Cabinet Office Freedom of Information Team says that the letter from The Rt Hon Sir, Sir, Sir Robin Janvrin, now Lord Janvrin, is no different from the Queen signing a document signifying her approval and a letter written by her Private Secretary, ON HER BEHALF, relaying this approval.

Has anyone seen on the letter from Sir Robin Janvrin, who signs himself Private Secretary to The Queen to Rt Hon Jack Straw MP, Foreign Secretary, that it says he is relaying the information ON BEHALF of Her Majesty, or that he has sent the letter on behalf of Her Majesty, or Her Majesty has commanded me to advise you, or Her Majesty most graciously approves .... No this is one of the most blatant and shameless attempts to deceive British Citizens into believing that Her Majesty the Queen's Private Secretary can issue instructions in a Constitutional manner to British citizens. No way Jose!! Our elected Parliament must sit up and take notice of this breach of our rights.

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
One of our Eagle-Eyed forum members has spotted a glaring error in the letter from Sir Robin Janvrin to The Right Honourable Jack Straw MP. Sir Robin was of course The Private Secretary to The Queen, he signs his name to that effect but how can 'Robin' spell his own name wrong.









_________________
--------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
One would imagine, given the tone and tenor of previous communications with HM's ex private Sec'y that Her Majesty will have previously approved) that multiple spelling variations of his surname will be accepted as correct and falling within the expressed desires of HM and HMG...(no documentary proof of this approval will be made available under the FOIA of course).....Either that, or perhaps it goes to show that Mr Janvrin is not as infallible as he would have us (or HM) believe?....actually I personaly think that a spelling error was made in signing his name as 'Robin'......might it not equally be correct as 'Robbin'?


_________________
...................'Jock'
Paroi...Rasah...Batu Signals Troop.
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
'Jock' Fenton wrote:
One would imagine, given the tone and tenor of previous communications with HM's ex private Sec'y that Her Majesty will have previously approved) that multiple spelling variations of his surname will be accepted as correct and falling within the expressed desires of HM and HMG...(no documentary proof of this approval will be made available under the FOIA of course).....Either that, or perhaps it goes to show that Mr Janvrin is not as infallible as he would have us (or HM) believe?....actually I personaly think that a spelling error was made in signing his name as 'Robin'......might it not equally be correct as 'Robbin'?


Jock,

Perhaps it could be Sobin because he will greet if he sees this. How can a Constitutional Document be legal if the name of the signatory is incorrect, and how can it be a Constitutional Document when it is a. a letter in reply to a letter, and b. it is signed Robin.

Surely they are really pushing the boat too far out now by suggesting that anything signed by Sir Robin Janvrin or is it Sir Robin Janvirn is a Constitutional Document signed by the Queen. We may be doing them an injustice as Sir Robin Whateverhisnameis may have changed his name from Janvrin to Janvirn by deed pole recently.

No wonder we are heading along the fast lane to hell in a wheelbarrow when this is the best they can do on behalf of our Queen.

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

Robin has changed his name again, this time to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Janvrin,_Baron_Janvrin

I reckon when this letter, with the name error, gets round Buck House and The Corridors of Whitehall the Sir Humphreys will be squealing out of the woodwork, farcical just like Brian Rix used to do running around the stage like a chicken with its head cut off.

By God haven't standards slipped in this country, a lawyer would have a field day! Very Happy

Anyone seen Batman! Confused


_________________
--------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
He's got loads of awards as a civilian but nothing to show that he even got a GSM as a serving Naval Orrifiser!

John

View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Reply with quote
Post Contradictions. 
The letter from HM’s Private Secretary, Sir Robin Janvirn or Janvrin, or whatever he is calling himself to-day, is dated 21st. December, 2005, and it clearly states that Her Majesty the Queen has approved the recommendation of the HD Committee Meeting of 7th. December that the Pingat Jasa Malaysia may be accepted but not worn by those eligible to receive it

NOTE – he confirms on 21st. December, 2005, that the Queen has approved that the PJM can be accepted but not worn.

On 13th. March, 2007, in the document headed THE PINGAT JASA MALAYSIA, AND WHY ELIGIBLE BRITISH RECIPIENTS MAY EXCEPTIONALLY RECEIVE, BUT NOT WEAR, THE MEDAL, which was submitted in answer to the fight4thepjm 53 page rebuttal of their case for not wearing the PJM, it is stated

‘In January, 2006 the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations, and Medals (HD Committee) recommended to Her Majesty the Queen a special exception to the rules governing the acceptance and wear of non-British awards, to allow the Malaysian authorities to present the PJM and those who are eligible, to receive it’.

So the Queen’s Private Secretary says the recommendation was approved by Her Majesty before 21st. December, 2005, YET the HD Committee say that they did not send this recommendation to Her Majesty until January, 2006.

We all know that if you do not tell the truth you have to have a good memory. Seems like the HD Committee does not have a good memory and one has got to ask ‘what is wrong with this decision which is full of contradictions and obfuscation. Are they so really unfit for purpose'.

Again I say it is time our Parliament grasped the nettle and put paid to all this absolute nonsense.

View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:
Reply to topic Page 3 of 6
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  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