Ever had that feeling that 'they' are writing or re-writing the rules as they go along to suit their own purposes.
On the question of how 'they' have interpreted the Foreign Decoration rules, I have just re-read the MoD's satellite department, the Veteran's Agency, statement regarding the PJM:
"Permission to wear the PJM will not, however, formally be given. It is long standing Government policy that non-British medals will not be approved for events or service:
that took place more than 5 years before initial consideration, or in connection with events that took place in the distant past (e.g. commemorative medals);"
Note the word ‘initial’. This is it's first appearance in any rule that I have come across.
(http://www.veteransagency.mod.uk/medals_folder/medals_pingat.htm)
Now compare this with what they said earlier:
Retrospective Awards
Since the end of World War II, the HD Committee has maintained a policy that it will not consider the belated institution of awards and medals for service given many years earlier. The reason for this policy is that the present HD Committee cannot put itself in the place of the Committee which made the original decision and which would have been able to take account of the views of the Government and of other interested parties at the time of the decision. The HD Committee has made it clear on a number of occasions, (most recently in February 2002), in response to requests for the institution of belated awards that it will not reconsider this policy. They will not reconsider cases that took place more than five years ago.
(http://www.veteransagency.mod.uk/medals_folder/medals_medal_instituted.htm)
Now compare this with the Rules set out by the Foreign Secretary:
“Requests made in respect of services rendered more than five years previously, or in connection with events in the distant past (e.g. commemorative awards), will not be entertained.”
(http://www.fight4thepjm.org/the_pjm_foreign_decorations_rules.htm)
What is my point all about? It is about the HD Committee originally saying that they could not reconsider an award that had been previously considered a long time ago. This was the one and only reason they allowed the Suez Canal award 40 years after the event – they said it was OK for them to consider the case because, they said, it had not been considered before and as a result their considerations were new (i.e. initial) and they did not have to put themselves in the place of decision-makers at the time. As a result, the Suez medal received unrestricted permission and is a wearable award.
On the basis of their own explanation as to the application of the 5-year rule, ‘they’ know from my submissions that I have stated clearly that the PJM cannot fall foul of the +5year rule because it is not being ‘reconsidered’. It is a recent award. And so those evil 'scribes' in the MoD and the HD Committee have now tried to counter my specific argument by changing the rules and changing their whole interpretation of this sub-rule.
Do not be misled. What has changed is fundamental. And the change has been brought in solely to deny us the right to wear the PJM. No longer is it a case of them being unable to reconsider earlier decisions. Now it is a case of not considering awards at all for services +5years ago from ‘initial’ consideration.
I have been in the business of ‘words’ (their use and abuse - the army trained me!) for many years and I can tell you that ‘they’ are snidely making seemingly subtle changes that fundamentally change the rules that result in the abuse of your civil liberties. And ‘they’ do so in order to deprive you of your right to wear the PJM. And they do so behind the shameful shroud of secrecy that they call “Honours in Confidence” within the discredited Imperial Honours System. Which world do they live in for crying out loud! Not mine.
Get bloody angry! I bloody am! Bloody this ... bloody that ... where's me bloody inkwell ... !
_________________
BarryF, who fought for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia
