|
Page 1 of 1
|
Author |
Message |
Arthur A
Joined: 31 Mar 2006
Posts: 1
|
"What does Formal mean?".
I am new to the site and have just spent the last hour or so reading the information and comments.
Has anyone any clarification regarding the statement about wearing the JPM.
Does
“Permission to wear the PJM will not, however,
formally be given.”
Mean
a) Formal permission is required before it can be
worn
Or
b) In can be worn but this is an informal arrangement
Or
c) By not giving formal permission, it can be worn
but it is not ranked in the order which medals are
worn.
Or
d) Some other meaning
Arthur A
|
Sun Apr 02, 2006 7:03 pm |
|
|
GerryL
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 423
Location: West Sussex
|
Formal
Arthur
Welcome to the group. We have been trying to get those responsible for making the statement, to define what they mean by formal. So far, they have remained silent on the matter. I suspect that in their determination to cloud the whole issue of the PJM with wordy confusion, they have overcooked themselves. In fact, in law, there are no powers that can deny anyone the right to wear whatever they like, as long as they do not attempt to gain from the act. The PJM has been honourably earned and honourably offered by the Malaysians. It will be worn with pride by most, if not all, of the veterans on this site. As you can deduce from the submissions made here, the HD Committee has committed several errors in coming to their decision. My advice to you is that if you qualify for the PJM, then apply for it and wear it next to your GSM/CSM as appropriate.
_________________ Gerald Law (ex RAF Borneo Veteran)
|
Sun Apr 02, 2006 7:36 pm |
|
|
BarryF
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2721
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
|
Re: "What does Formal mean?".
Arthur A wrote:I am new to the site and have just spent the last hour or so reading the information and comments.
Has anyone any clarification regarding the statement about wearing the JPM.
Welcome Arthur,
Newbie or not, you have posed the $64 question. We don't know the answer but we suspect the choice of words is a smokescreen because the powers that be have got their knickers in a twist over the PJM. It was poorly understood, totally undervalued, and badly advised on. As a result the medal recommendation had to go to the Queen, "the fount of all honours" and she is normally asked only about the right to accept and wear – not about keepsakes that cannot be worn.
Having launched the British response to the gracious offer by the King and Government of Malaysia, the Government and its constitutionally constipated QUANGO, the Honours and Decorations Committee, found itself in a cul-de-sac and promptly came up with a hotchpotch of words that conveyed nothing concrete to anybody. Even they do not know. Ask them. They can’t answer the question.
We believe that the PJM was granted wearable status (otherwise it should not have been sent to the Queen for her consent) and some mean-minded dinosaur has found some words which they think converts the PJM into what they always wanted … a trinket.
Unhappily for them, they did not anticipate people like you asking logical questions about their illogical utterances.
So, we shall get an answer and, as a PJMer on this site, you’ll be amongst the first to know.
All the best, Barry
_________________ BarryF, who fought for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia
|
Sun Apr 02, 2006 8:05 pm |
|
|
BarryF
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2721
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
|
Re: Formal
GerryL wrote:I suspect that in their determination to cloud the whole issue of the PJM with wordy confusion, they have overcooked themselves. In fact, in law, there are no powers that can deny anyone the right to wear whatever they like, as long as they do not attempt to gain from the act.
Exactly so, Gerry.
It is vital for us all to take on board that a British citizen does not need permission to accept a foreign decoration – but he or she does need permission to wear it in line with other medals if you have uniform regulations to abide by. Civilians do not have any such regulations.
So you can accept this foreign decoration and, no matter how much they try and convince you otherwise, you are legally and morally entitled to wear the PJM. 'They' will try and infer that you are going against the wishes of the Queen. Bullsh*t. The Queen is the head of the Commonwealth and is in no position to discriminate as between citizens of the independent countries that make up the Commonwealth of Nations. More importantly, having been loyal to the Queen all my life and knowing her dedication to the Commonwealth, I know that she does not begrudge us that little bit of pride, that little bit of joy, when we do wear the PJM.
'They' employ carefully chosen words aimed at deceiving the unwary into succumbing to the deprivation of their civil rights. Words in phrases like the wear of the PJM "will not be policed". “Police”? Which police… the state secret police? I issue a challenge to those who contrive to deprive you of your rights while hiding behind crude rhetoric as well as behind the Queen's regal gowns: "Which law (legal or moral), or which of the Queen's Regulations, do we civilians contravene when we wear the PJM on our blazers? Tell us. And tell us which ‘police’ force you have in mind when issuing your poorly camouflaged threat".
As a soldier, I was always told that if I wanted to maintain any authority, I should never, ever, make a threat I was not prepared to follow through on. The hot air coming from the HD Committee and the MoD does nothing in the cause of maintaining either their authority or their dignity.
_________________ BarryF, who fought for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia
|
Sun Apr 02, 2006 8:29 pm |
|
|
|
The time now is Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:23 am | All times are GMT
|
Page 1 of 1
|
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
|
|
|