Kentsboro wrote:

I am posting this particular subject here, because I can't remember where I first saw it mentioned !! Old age you understand.

Tony. That about says it all.

Thank you.

Barry


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

Quote:

Kentsboro.

Originally appeared in Media News. I've sent emails to julianclegg@bbbc.co.uk and to emil.pykett@news.co.uk : Portsmouth Today. Terrific email to the "Lions Den"!
David

Thanks David.

And another thing! Go down the list from Medals for Past Service to the PINGAT JASA MALAYSIA
AND READ THE BLURB THERE, poor Baroness Symonds the instigator of it all (with the help of civil servants) doesn't get a mention. Mind you it is hardly suprising, omissions ("eg the Crown) are not unusual.

Might as well rub it in!

David

Re the nonsense on the Veterans Agency site and other Civil Servent comments, it is starting to sound like the last throes of a discredited, deceitful and dishonourable service as it crashes through the undergrowth looking for somewhere to hide. A service that has no conscience when it comes to telling their "terminological inexactitudes" to try and get out of the hole they are in.

I know, I should stop being nice and say what I mean, but that's just the way I am.

Any bets on the 31st of January again? It's a Wednesday too.

Whenever, we will still be here...........watching and waiting and preparing. Tick tock, tick tock (Acknowlegement to John C for the use of his excellent phrase)


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

I have sent this to Brown at the MOD

Minister, I have pasted below an article from the Veterans web site about which I am particularly incensed, in it there is reference to ‘disaffected veterans’ claiming medals such as the PJM and that you are wishing to put the record straight!

How dare you suggest that these veterans are disaffected in such a derogatory fashion, the reason that there is a huge upsurge in requests these days is that ex service personnel are no longer willing to accept the party line. The PJM debacle is an absolute disgrace and is symptomatic of a government that is willing to send troops to war but not to accept that they have any responsibility for them afterwards. As the Minister of Defence you have a duty and a responsibility to ensure that they are properly equipped and that their welfare does not suffer in any way, in this you have failed.

I would suggest that if you had any honour, you should find out who wrote this article and irrespective of their rank, discipline them. Then remove the offending article and apologise to the thousands of ex service personnel whom you have so crassly insulted by its publication.

John Ireland

Councillor

North Wiltshire District Council

I think that it was a little unwise to inform the Defence Secretary that he had a duty of responsibility and care, etc etc.

He was quite happy living a life of ignorant bliss. Now you have gone and upset him, by telling him, that he, as the Defence Secretary, must bear the responsibilty for all of the failings of this Government. You have given him a guilt complex, in which he will have to take time off and see a therapist, at great expense to the taxpayer. I am hoping that I will get the job, as it will keep me out of mischief in my retirement.

With regard to culpabilty and the apportion of blame. You are indeed having a laugh. That is the only reason the Civil Service survives, in that when the crap hits the fan, there are a lot of bushes to hide behind. There is a no blame culture, probably engendered by the Civil Service, as hiding behind the official secrets acts, no longer seems to work.

We are systematically removing their bushes, and they are getting scared, that all of their indescretions will be seen in the harsh glare of daylight. They might have to face up to certain realities which they would rather not do. It presupposes that there may be other hidden things that they do not want to see daylight.

A Royal Commission would have a field day looking into the workings, or should I say, the non workings of the MoD. It could well be, that a lot of people could go to jail...and horror of all horrors, lose their index linked pensions.

Just remember Civil Serpents. All you had to do, was say yes to the PJM for unrestricted wear and you would not have brought all of this trouble down on your heads.

Yours Aye

Arthur

Kentsboro wrote:

I am posting this particular subject here, because I can't remember where I first saw it mentioned !! Old age you understand.

For those who have not seen the particular article, go to the Veterans Agency web site, select "New Medals for past Services" and be amazed.

Tony,

Herewith my sixpennyworth:

barry.fleming@bafleming.co.uk
30/01/2007 12:02

To "'Keith, Ian Mr'" <Ian.Keith798@mod.uk>

cc: denis.brennan@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk, eleri.pengelly@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk, sarah.gillett@fco.gov.uk, tanya.collingridge@fco.gov.uk, "'Faiers Yvonne VA '" <YVONNE.FAIERS@VETERANSAGENCY.GSI.GOV.UK>,"BENYON, Richard" <BENYONR@parliament.uk>,

Subject: Veterans Agency - Pingat Jasa Malaysia

A number of PJMers have kindly sent me a copy of their emails to you, and messages generally, regarding a page on the Veterans Agency web site which raises important issues - seehttp://www.veteransagency.mod.uk/medals/new_medals.html.

There are a number of key points that I do not understand and I write to ask for your observations:

1. Why is the PJM mentioned in the context of "disaffected individuals" and "disaffected veterans" seeking new medals for past service? We are not seeking a new medal ... it was offered by Malaysia, it can be received, and many veterans already have their medal. We are seeking an amendment to the basis on which the PJM can be received.

2. Why is the MoD discussing Foreign Decorations policy on one of their web sites, having professed that they have no material input into the administration of such requests and awards?

3. Why has the PJM eligibility term been extended to 1967?

4. Why is the PJM now referred to as a "Campaign Medal"? If the MoD cannot make up its mind about the status of the PJM, how can they properly advise the HD Committee of their views.

5. Is the MoD so far out of touch that they do not understand the motivation of veterans seeking the right to wear the PJM? That motivation has nothing to do chasing new medals as a result of seeing the array of medals on today's uniforms. It has everything to do with righting an incongruous decision that, alone amongst Commonwealth citizens, the British have been told they can receive the PJM (a unique award that commemorates unique service) but must not wear it - a decision that has been judged everywhere, notably but not exclusively in the Scottish Parliament, to be 'ludicrous'.

6. In the context of this poorly-written web page, are some MoD civil servants so out of touch with the real world that they are not aware of the hundreds of MPs who now support us (including all the Shadow Defence Teams), and the 160 MPs who have signed the ex-Veterans Minister's (Don Touhig') EDM 356 (not to mention the total of 371 signatures from 206 MPs on EDMs supporting the PJM)? And the MP (a senior Shadow Spokesperson) who, during a BBC program last week, was so incensed by the PJM recommendation that she has written to The Queen?

7. Indeed, is the MoD so out of touch that they are not aware that the BBC is about to present a People's Petition to HMG following programs in which 100% of listeners supported our case?

8. The VA web site writer is using taxpayers money to complain about the media and about the MoD being unable to present its side of the story to them. In the case of the PJM, that is untrue and misleading. The vast majority of articles or broadcasts I have read or heard includes a statement from an HMG spokesperson. But why does the MoD/HMG use those statements to the media in order to mislead the public - in our case by stating (just one example) that the rules forbid us from wearing two medals for the same service? They know double-medalling is a specious argument - and in the case of the PJM they know that many veterans do not have a British medal. It is the media who should complain about being misled by that sort of obfuscation, not the MoD.

I am appalled (not for the first time) by the use of carefully chosen but inappropriate words like "disaffected" by some civil servants in order to colour their stories and to bring damage the public perception of veterans. Pages such as the one on the VA web site only serve to bring the MoD and the Honours System further into disrepute - and add weight to our argument.

Having said that, my purpose in writing is to seek answers - I look forward to receiving your responses to my questions in due course.

Yours sincerely,


Barry Fleming
Fighting for the Right to Wear the PJM at
W: http://www.fight4thePJM.org
E: mailto:barry@fight4thePJM.org
"Pingat Kami - Hak Kami"

Stockbridge Cottage
Inkpen Common
Inkpen
Hungerford
Berks
RG17 9QP

T: 01488 668 100


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

BarryF wrote:

Having said that, my purpose in writing is to seek answers - I look forward to receiving your responses to my questions in due course.

I'll send you a breathing apparatus set - you're going to require one.


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

BarryF

That should get them gagging on their Earl Grey and biccies!

Quote:

BarryF wrote:
Having said that, my purpose in writing is to seek answers - I look forward to receiving your responses to my questions in due course.

If one is to believe the MoD's own clearly expressed 'standards'.....a response is promised within 10 working days....(I'm going to hold myself above the obvious sarcastic reference to the word "working " in that sentence...too easy!!)


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

George F wrote:

"disaffect"
to alienate the affection or loyalty of; also : to fill with discontent and unrest

"disaffected"
: discontented and resentful especially against authority : REBELLIOUS <disaffected youth>

I thought it was worthwhile repeating those defintions, George. Thank you for them.

They underline why 'individuals' and 'veterans' are very angry at that Veterans Agency page.

If they think they can get away with 'sad' ploys like that, they have another think coming.

Barry


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

Jock.
The response to your email or letters is not 10 days as you state but 10 working days, now do you understand the problem.

Cuppa anyone.

I have sent this to Don Touhig with a copy of the offending, or should that be offensive, article.
Dear Mr Touhig

I am writing to you once more to bring to your attention the latest piece of twisted think-ing from the Civil Servants regarding the PJM issue. The accompanying extract taken from the Veterans Agency web site and is not only riddled through with untruths, it is also a blatant attack on the integrity of those Veterans the Agency is supposed to support.

Firstly, it is accusing us of being seekers of medals because we see today’s Ser-vice personnel wearing many medals. This is a not a gross distortion of the truth – it is a downright lie. There has never been a campaign aimed at persuading the British govern-ment to institute a second medal for service in Malaysia/Borneo. The campaign began when Baroness Symons announced in 2005 that the Malaysians had offered the PJM and that the British had vetoed the award out of hand. Following extensive campaigning, the HD Committee came up with their infamous “accept but do not wear” fudge. So the final sentence in the first paragraph “this has encouraged then to seek campaign medals for past service” is a blatant lie. The PJM was instituted by the Malaysians with no encour-agement from anyone in UK.

The second paragraph carries an error in dating, which demonstrates that the writer of the article has no knowledge of the subject about which he writes. He claims that the PJM is for service up to 1967. I don’t know where he gleaned this nugget as the final date for qualification is 12th August 1966, with a “cooling off” period up to 31st December 1966 providing that the service commenced before 12th August 1966.

The final paragraph is the most damning. The writer seems to believe that the MoD has been treated unfairly in this matter by the Press. He is essentially accusing the constituency MPs of knowing nothing, but of being swayed by the pressure imposed by the Veterans. What an insult to our elected representatives. And from the pen of an un-elected individual who appears to be operating under a cloak of anonymity. In fact, we have sent countless emails and letters to the MoD, as also phoned many times. Their an-swer has always been the same – “not our problem, it’s all down to the FCO”. We have even offered to meet anyone from the MoD face to face. All such invitations have been rebuffed.

Lastly, I am sure that I reflect the views of many who believe that the Veterans Agency is not the appropriate vehicle for denigrating those Veterans. They see the use of the phrase “disaffected veteran” as a means of discrediting the very people they are pur-porting to support. Even given the mean-minded and obfuscating approach that we have come to expect from these people, we would never have thought that they could sink to this level. One can only suppose that the writer is able to limber under the body of slum-bering snake, so low has he sunk. It’s a shame that he cannot be forced into some sort of military service. As the old saying goes “when you have walked a mile in my shoes…”.


_________________
Gerald Law (ex RAF Borneo Veteran)

And a slight variation on a similar theme.
Dear Mr Blunkett

Following on from our previous dialogue concerning the Civil Servants and their level of accountability, I am writing to you once more to bring to your attention the latest piece of twisted thinking from the Civil Servants regarding the PJM issue. The accompanying ex-tract taken from the Veterans Agency web site and is not only riddled through with un-truths, it is also a blatant attack on the integrity of those Veterans the Agency is supposed to support.

Firstly, it is accusing us of being seekers of medals because we see today’s Ser-vice personnel wearing many medals. This is a not a gross distortion of the truth – it is a downright lie. There has never been a campaign aimed at persuading the British govern-ment to institute a second medal for service in Malaysia/Borneo. The campaign began when Baroness Symons announced in 2005 that the Malaysians had offered the PJM and that the British had vetoed the award out of hand. Following extensive campaigning, the HD Committee came up with their infamous “accept but do not wear” fudge. So the final sentence in the first paragraph “this has encouraged then to seek campaign medals for past service” is a blatant lie. The PJM was instituted by the Malaysians with no encour-agement from anyone in UK.

The second paragraph carries an error in dating, which demonstrates that the writer of the article has no knowledge of the subject about which he writes. He claims that the PJM is for service up to 1967. I don’t know where he gleaned this nugget as the final date for qualification is 12th August 1966, with a “cooling off” period up to 31st December 1966 providing that the service commenced before 12th August 1966.

The final paragraph is the most damning. The writer seems to believe that the MoD has been treated unfairly in this matter by the Press. He is essentially accusing the constituency MPs of knowing nothing, but of being swayed by the pressure imposed by the Veterans. What an insult to our elected representatives. And from the pen of an un-elected individual who appears to be operating under a cloak of anonymity. In fact, we have sent countless emails and letters to the MoD, as also phoned many times. Their an-swer has always been the same – “not our problem, it’s all down to the FCO”. We have even offered to meet anyone from the MoD face to face. All such invitations have been rebuffed.

Lastly, I am sure that I reflect the views of many who believe that the Veterans Agency is not the appropriate vehicle for denigrating those Veterans. They see the use of the phrase “disaffected veteran” as a means of discrediting the very people they are pur-porting to support. Even given the mean-minded and obfuscating approach that we have come to expect from these people, we would never have thought that they could sink to this level. One can only suppose that the writer is able to limber under the body of slum-bering snake, so low has he sunk. It’s a shame that he cannot be forced into some sort of military service. As the old saying goes “when you have walked a mile in my shoes…”.


_________________
Gerald Law (ex RAF Borneo Veteran)