jireland wrote:

Barry, I think that what you have just said is the whole matter in a nutshell. Now if they had given us the right to wear in the first place they may never have had a Tiger by the tail!

Best wishes
John

John, perhaps you could tell us or ask someone into political law about the legality of an unelected committee making recommendations to The Queen to restrict civilians from wearing a medal they fought for and earned.

The Queen is the Constitutional Head of our Country and takes advice from Her Ministers (the present government) YET an unelected bunch of Civil Servants makes recommendations to her which causes an order (not to wear the PJM) to be made against civilians. Now shouldn't these recommendations have gone from the unelected bunch back to the government who then passed the recommendations in parliament then asked the Queen to sign them. The way in which they have done it is undemocratic and unlawful and I feel we have a case against the H and D Committee on EVERY decision they have made over the past 50 years or so where British Civilians are involved. Surely they are acting independently of our Parliamentary procedures and our democratic goverment as they have no authority to make any kind of recommendations that affect British Civilians.

My own feeling is that this is an infringement of Protocol 1 Article 1 of The Human Rights Act Protection of Property whereby the State has interfered with the right to wear this award after having allowed it to be given. There are only two reasons for this to be lawful and they are that a. it is in the general interests of the public and b. that a law exists to allow them to do it.

Of course Article 14 could also be brought into play, Prohibition of Descrimination. You must be able to show that you have been treated differently to someone else in a similar situation and I quote from Blackstones Guide to the Human Rights Act 1998, 'where it is established that people in factually similar circumstances are treated disimilarly, a case of Prima Facie descrimination arises. However Prima Facie descrimination can be remedied by the existance of an objective and reasonable justification, which must be established by the respondent state'.

I think that our 'State' would have just a little difficulty in doing that!

John



Last edited by jireland on Mon Jul 03, 2006 8:52 am; edited 1 time in total

George et al

You wonder why the HD Committee have rubbed us up this way! Its akin to trying to win a penalty shoot out after extra time and then ballsing it all up again, for the life of me I cannot understand why they labour the hard way of doing things!


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

We have been treated differently to other Commonwealth Citizens over the same award all of which rely on The Queens consent.
Also double medalling has occured and is still occuring with the issue of the ACSM which was introduced in 1994 for which to qualify you must have accrued 36 months of active service from 1969. Ergo Northern Ireland veterans who received a GSM then received the ACSM after 36 months for service in the same theatre for which an award had already been given and in most cases over 5 years later.

John



Last edited by jireland on Mon Jul 03, 2006 8:51 am; edited 1 time in total

I wrote to the CRE (Campaign for Racial Equality) and suggested the PJM case with the right to wear issue against us Brits not having the same rights as ANZACs I did receive a reply but that was not favourable to our cause.

Anyone else want to try?


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

I have just sent Michael Ancram this letter.
United Kingdom’s Defences

Dear Mr Ancram

I have just finished reading your paper, “The Fork in the Road – British Defence in Crisis”, and I have to say that what you expound does not surprise me. It does, however, frighten me. I am a veteran of 14 years service with the Royal Air Force during the Cold War period and I fully understood the need then for the nation to be on the highest alert for any hostile action against its sovereignty. The thawing of East-West relations has removed that threat, at least for the time being, but the rise of international terrorism has brought with it a different threat.

Since 1945 all of the conflicts fought by British service personnel have been what are euphemistically termed “bush wars”. These include Cyprus, Aden, Malaya, Borneo, Brunei, Northern Ireland, Korea (a special case), Falklands and more recently Iraq (twice) and Afghanistan. All of these conflicts share one common strategy – the need to move numbers of combat-ready troops into the right place at the right time and with the appropriate level of logistics to ensure that they can operate. This is not possible with our current levels of commitment and deployment.

The question of whether military action is justified is often not possible to assess until after the event, but you are correct in saying that if we wish to be major players on the international players, and wish to continue playing Tonto to the United State’s Lone Ranger, we must invest in the equipment and technology to enable us to perform that rôle. If we cannot afford, or are not prepared to undergo the expense, of our historical place, then we must pick up our ball and go home.

But the argument is not just about equipment, logistics or the moral justification of military action. Our service personnel are, and always have been, highly professional and loyal. If they are ordered into battle they will obey that order without complaint and will perform their duties to the best of their abilities irrespective of the tools they are given. Likewise our generals are similarly professional men. All that they ask for in return is that the nation for which they fight, and often make the supreme sacrifice, acknowledges that service and sacrifice. Even that is now being denied them. We have seen recent cases where our soldiers have been hauled before Civil courts to justify military actions taken in the heat of battle. How can they be expected to carry out their duties when they must be continually looking over their shoulders to avoid falling foul of those back home who, although never having worn the uniform of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces, sit in judgement upon them from the comfort of the leather armchairs?

Earlier this year a group of those soldiers returned from Iraq and at a ceremony attended by the “leadership” of the country, they were presented with their Iraq medals. However, as soon as the cameras were turned away those medals were taken away. It transpired that the medals were from a small pool and that there were none yet available for those who had returned. What sort of callous manipulation is that?

As a veteran of the Borneo Campaign of the 1960s I too have seen the crass disregard that is given to those who serve this nation. I refer to the matter of the Pingat Jasa Malaysia. I’m sure that you are aware of the details of this case so I shall not burden you with a further rendition of them. Suffice it to say that the veterans of Malaya/Borneo are being deprived of the just right to wear a medal, earned by honourable service and offered by an honourable member of the Commonwealth.

Your hard hitting paper refers to the Falklands Conflict and the fact that should similar conditions prevail today, we would be unable to mount such a Task Force. According to reliable news sources, there have been recent rumblings of the Argentine's claims to the Falklands. I can see that before too long, and I mean within the next couple of years, Argentina will once again mount a challenge to our sovereignty over those islands. We shall have no option this time but to capitulate and show the world that our soft underbelly is no longer protected by a hard carapace. It also means that those valiant soldiers who sacrificed much in 1982, would have made those sacrifices in vain.


_________________
Gerald Law (ex RAF Borneo Veteran)

John, I do not think that we come into their zone of responsibility as this award was not issued on any racial basis purely on National ones and we are, lets face it, of the same racial group as our Ozzie and NZ cousins. Now if the Fijians and Ghurkas only had received it as against the rest of us then we might have had a case there but it is only us, the poor benighted Brits who have been kicked below the belt so to speak.

When Teflon picks up his Medal of Honour then we really will have grounds to complain!

John

jireland wrote:

John, I do not think that we come into their zone of responsibility as this award was not issued on any racial basis purely on National ones and we are, lets face it, of the same racial group as our Ozzie and NZ cousins. Now if the Fijians and Ghurkas only had received it as against the rest of us then we might have had a case there but it is only us, the poor benighted Brits who have been kicked below the belt so to speak.

When Teflon picks up his Medal of Honour then we really will have grounds to complain!

John

I wholly agree with you John, but nationally we HAVE been discriminated against, I'm not saying racially by the colour of ones skin but nationally we have been discriminated against. Personally the Human Rights Act to me in this country of ours ought to be scrapped but whilst New Labour introduced this to these islands, I feel we may have a case against the unelected HD Committee and get this ruling overturned, in doing this it will make HMG look absolutely stupid and also OUR Queen who took (alledgedly) the advice of her Ministers (FCO) decision

Gerry Law mentioned we need a good QC on our side, I really would like to know where we stand on this matter. I do hope that HMG has a sharp piece of string because this matter will run as long as it takes..................


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

It seems that for the last three months I have had only fleeting visits back to the U.K and I have now spent time reading up on what has been going on. Firstly, a big thank you to all of you who have been very busy working on all our behalf.
I was away for "veterans" day and was not surprised to hear it was a big non event. I, like virtually everyone I speak to these days have become so disallusioned with this country and a self seeking, immoral government and lawyers (who seem to be running the country now) In fact I am beginning to think that getting permission to wear the PJM from this government actually devalues it. I like all of you will wear it with pride whenever I see fit. Somehow the thought that some nasty little faceless civil servant says I can, is an insult to me and all of us. I hope the spineless officials who are reading this take note because the GOOD people of this country are sick to death.
A wise man once said..."If you spend a long time arguing with an idiot, you will sound like an idiot yourself"

The time has come for legal action....there a some very knowledable people on this forum who's understandin of law is far greater than mine...lets take the gloves off, I am fed up writing to idiots!


Bob Bryant
40 Commando R.M. Borneo vet.

bob_bryant wrote:

...lets take the gloves off, I am fed up writing to idiots!


Bob Bryant
40 Commando R.M. Borneo vet.

Welcome back Bob

You and I are of the same opinion, somehow we have to move forward and get these eejits over a barrel legally, someone will come up with the answer I have no doubt!


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

George F wrote:

The two groups

I would like to add one more group because it relates specifically to all British citizens. British citizens share a common origin (their nationality), and a common tax regime (e.g. UK Inheritance Tax). Born in the UK or of UK-Domiciled parents? Then you have UK Domicile and are potentially liable to UK taxes. Unless you take steps to change your Domicile, and that can take up to twenty years, you remain UK Domiciled by Birth even though you may live abroad. If you are UK Domiciled you are liable to pay UK taxes on your worldwide assets - UK Inheritance Tax - wherever you may be resident and wherever those assets are based. The additional group I refer to comprises two sections with two things in common - their citizenship and their taxes:

A) Dual Nationality Inhertitance Taxpayers: Somebody who lives abroad and takes up the nationality of their country of residence has Dual Nationality ... but they may still be considered UK Domiciled by the Revenue. If they are so considered, then they are liable for UK taxes. As are ...

B) Single Nationality Inheritance Taxpayers: Those citizens who have only one nationality.

BUT, that infamous PJM recommendation means that the Head of State has said that A) can wear the PJM (allegedly), B) cannot.

In my opinion that is discrimination amongst a single group of British citizens, and a single group of UK taxpayers.

Barry


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

George F wrote:

Barry, were is this recorded? Its not in the official 31st January Ministerial statement.

All individual personal lettters sent out to veterans by some ministers and civil servants, either from the FCO, MOD or the cabinet office have in many instances been riddled with contradictions, and are all smokescreens. Meaning only one thing. They are only personal opinions, but officially are not worth the paper they are written on.

Only what is documented in the PJM medal Ministerial Statement is at present official HMG policy.

George,

I have just posted this on another section of this Forum:

The statement regarding Dual Nationality is in a letter to Hamish:





The Cabinet Office oversees these Honours issues and so I believe their letters are authoritative. Wrong, but authoritative!

Barry


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

George F wrote:

HMG and the HD committee will have to be made to admit they were wrong, and that they fudged and corrupted the British Medal wearing policy and imposed such conditions only for Uniformed Armed Forces upon British Civilian Citizens. Namely 35,000 Malay Borneo Veterans.

George F

You'd have to get the HD into court. Somewhow I can't see them standing in the dock.

But they should be.


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

John Feltham wrote:

You'd have to get the HD into court. Somewhow I can't see them standing in the dock.

But they should be.

The HD Committee is unassailable. It has only received (dodgy) info, cogitated (momentarily), and then made a (mean-spirited and ill-advised) recommendation to the Queen to whom they are answerable ... and only to her. The Queen will have to turn up in court! P'raps not. But she acts on the advice of her Ministers (allegedly), and so it is Margaret Beckett (cos she's FCO and they are responsible for the PJM) and, because she's probably unassailable in her Ministerial capacity, it's "the Government".

The Government is not unassailable. You can sue the Government under, e.g., the Human Rights Act.

Barry


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

George F wrote:

I dont consider this letter authorative, and I will give you my reason why.

No1) It is only a personal letter by a third rate secretary from the cabinet office to one single veteran living in Australia

George,

I think it is authoritative because Ms (for she is a woman in answer to your last point) Eleri Pengelly is the Deputy Ceremonial Officer in the Cabinet Office Ceremonial Secretariat. Only the Head of that Secretariat, Mr Denis Brennan, is above her.

And the fact that she is extolling the virtues of her Department's understanding of the effects of the shameful Recommendation gives us good reason to challenge the Government on the question of discrimination.

Ms Pengelly is confirming that there is one rule for British citizens (those with Dual Nationality) and a quite different and discriminatory one for other British citizens (those with Single Nationality). All are British. All are potentially UK taxpayers. Some have been banned from wearing the PJM.

Governments do not like revolting taxpayers! They're still smarting from the aftermath of the Boston Tea Party!

Barry


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