Image of the PJM Medal
Banner Text = Fight For the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia Medal
Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at FCO.
Author Message
Reply with quote
Post Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at FCO. 
Herewith a letter received by my MP on my behalf from Gillian Merron MP at the FCO.
No real change then from the previous PUSS with the usual untruths being displayed in a somewhat different manner. I cannot help thinking that this lady is sailing too close to the wind of insults when referring to a decree by Her Majesty the Queen by Royal Warrant under the Royal Sign Manual as a 'blanket' decision.



View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
Surely, MacDangle, this "blanket" decision of 1968 to seemingly reinforce the Royal Sign Manual was meant to cover (without hiding) every future eventuality. This latest "PUSS" as you so aptly put it, seems to be as ignorant of the proven facts of our case as her predecessors. Can she, for instance, actually provide HMQ's specific document rescinding the now well publicised article of bedding known as (what we should perhaps now refer to as) "The Queen's Blanket?"

I was at least glad to note that the dear lady realised you had what she called, "an interest," in the matter, Andy.


_________________
Mike Barton
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
MB wrote:
Surely, MacDangle, this "blanket" decision of 1968 to seemingly reinforce the Royal Sign Manual was meant to cover (without hiding) every future eventuality. This latest "PUSS" as you so aptly put it, seems to be as ignorant of the proven facts of our case as her predecessors. Can she, for instance, actually provide HMQ's specific document rescinding the now well publicised article of bedding known as (what we should perhaps now refer to as) "The Queen's Blanket?"

I was at least glad to note that the dear lady realised you had what she called, "an interest," in the matter, Andy.


You've got it in one Mike. The Queen did not make a 'decision'. She 'approved' the recommendation of the HD Committee. No Royal decree was made which would alter previous decisions so this lady is twisting it all around to suit herself and is blaming 'The Queen's Blanket' as you so rightly put it. Perhaps we should ask all our supporters to get in touch with their constituency MP to ask for the document which shows the Queen has altered the decree published in the London Gazette. To the best of my knowledge the 1969 Regulations were the only rules on approval and wear of foreign awards which received the Royal Sign Manual with the other rules being issued through tampering with the Royal Prerogative.

Yes, I think time spent in the jungle and stinking swamps of Malaya in 1956 being bitten, nipped and sucked by all kinds of insects and leeches, with tinea, foot rot, prickly heat and sweat boils but to name a few, does somehow give me an 'interest' in this matter. This comment by a senior member of the cabinet who opposes our right to wear the honourable Pingat Jasa Malaysia shows just how out of touch she is on the subject of the PJM and the veterans who fought and suffered for it.

We are never going to penetrate their arrogance and conceit and their adversity to aything connected with our brave British troops and the veterans of this country, but they can be removed.

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Continued deceit! 
Oh Yea!

"................... This permitted British Citizens not being Crown Servants, who were given permission by The Queen to accept a foreign award to have unrestricted permission to wear it. Any rules made specifically for a particular medal at a later date, overrule any "Blanket" decision such as that given in the London Gazette". Does this mean the Her Majesty's signature on any document can be "clarified" (remember clarified? Marion Moore again) by a Departmental rule on the say so of a civil servant.

I would think this is a reference to the trumped up, deceitful, outrageous and spitefully written Part C of the so-called review of the 2005 Regulations to *"specifically preclude" the PJM from being worn, not withstanding that many of the senior civil servants, were in my view, deliberately and knowingly still misquoting the 1969 regulations. It is my view that this PUSS has, like others, been used to promote the arguments put forward by all involved at MOD, Cabinet Office, Foreign and Home(?) Offices. Moreover it has been denied, in writing, that the PART C was written simply to preclude the PJM from being worn, although I can think of no other medal or award which would be affected by Part C. Does this PUSS statement have any relevance at all in terms of constitutional law? At last it appears the clarification of which she speaks, presumably on advice, did 'amend' the LG has she has claimed, in so far that subsequent rules (Part C) regarding a specific medal, without the Royal Warrant Manual, can effectively overule such a document.

The effort of the civil servant, who came up with this piece of advice to her, must be near the top of the "Buggins-turn" list of awards, OBE, CBE etc to civil servants, for this piece of cheek.

The point she misses, is that their own rules, the 2005 rules, classify permission to wear as 1) unrestricted, 2) restricted,
to wearing the medal on visits to the country which awarded it (specifically) the PJM, and for periods which commemorates the event for which the medal was awarded takes place, ie Merderka etc. Nowhere in their regulations is a total ban, ie "not to be formally worn", stipulated; unless of course it has been recently added!

She needs briefing by one of us (I'm not volunteering) or by those Ministers and former Ministers who were initially involved
in the original discussions in their departments which lead to the ban in the first place, should we still have their support.

* something about which they are still in denial.



Last edited by GLOman on Fri Feb 27, 2009 9:29 pm; edited 2 times in total
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
"THEY," Andy, just see us as simple soldiers, too old to be of any kind of thorn in ,"THEIR," side. "THEY," do not realise that we have sons, daughters and grandchildren, as well as young politicians of all parties who know the truth of this great matter. In short, my friend, YES, "THEIR," thick hide can be penetrated and the cowardly innards exposed. "THEY" are merely trying to preserve "THEIR" status quo while we put our lives on the line, at the behest of our Queen, to allow the future of a great nation of people to survive. You and I heard the words of thanks on that wonderful day in Edinburgh in 2007. We remember those times and sacrifices of more than half a century ago, even though those who thanked us were were possibly not yet born when we did our...bit?

I rest my case....before I become too angry to hold back what I would really like to say.


_________________
Mike Barton
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
...............and 35000 votes plus supporters votes could sway some MPs in marginal constituencies to decide their own future, for us, agin us!


_________________
--------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
      A copy of a letter, received today 270209, from Gillian Merron to my MP, Mike Hall, is attached herewith:- >>>>






      This letter came out of the blue. It was not asked for.

      The work goes on behind our backs. THANK YOU MIKE.

      Phredd


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
Phredd
There is a certain degree of optimism in that letter; yes she did mention some of the same old rhetoric but she is going to write to other Ministers one hopes in support of wearing the PJM.
Many thanks to Mike and the other MP’s at this meeting.
I must point out that Tanya Collingridge an FCO Civil Servant was also in attendance at this meeting but according to my informant did not make any contribution during the meeting.

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
Well done Mike Hall MP, and perhaps to Gllian Merron MP for her interest, although she still appears to believe that the change in the 2005(6) rules - Departmental Rules -made on the authority of those Departmental Heads, who also make up the majority of the HD Committee, can clarify, or amend the LG 5057 of 3rd May 1968. These members of the various Ceremonial Departments also involved as HD Committee members obviously believe that their authority,can overturn Thee Queens edict, which, if I am right, was the result of decisions pre 1968 which included the concurrence of a previous, and more understanding (or perhaps less pompous) HD Committee than the present one.

I eagerly await further news.

Last but not least, my congratulations to Phredd; an outstanding piece of work!

David

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
Another thought. Surely we were given to understand that the London Gazette entries are carved in stone. Are we now to believe that the "stone" can be turned to putty in the hands of malicious civil servants and shaped as they so wish?

It really is about time that some member of this Government had the bottle to sort this out. Gillian Merron MP, PUSS at the Foreign Office, seems a likely canditdate to successfully draw Ministers and former Ministers together to seek a fair and just solution.

As David Blunkett once told to a Parliamentary Committee; when Ministers are told that it is Departmental Policy Minister, the Minister should leave no doubt in the minds of his Departmental Senior Servants that Departmental Policy "is what I say it is"!

The problem is, that the one who can really do something about it has lost his bottle a long while ago. Mr Brown MP PM is floundering in a sea of errors, in fairness, many of which manifest themselves after attempts made by others to hide them from his gaze, particularly where cases of corruption or sharp practices are revealed in a number of areas, with, it appears, little idea of what needs to be done, accepting arguably weak or inappropriate advice, based on others agenda, and subsequently responding with solutions which are too late, too weak and ineffective, reflecting a complete inability to lead from the front!

The thing that stuns me is the statement by the PM that failure should not be rewarded as regards Bank Officials, but is not applied to Ministers or Civil Servants, particularly the latter who now receive bonuses in addition to the Buggins Turn OBE, CBE, CB etc. to bring them in line with commerce, not though as far as accountability for their actions is concerned.

The thing that is missing is Leadership!

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
Exactly, GlOman. When a PM, (regardless of polital affiliations) has to run around like a demented plasterer filling in the cracks that appear on a daily basis, leadership is out of the window and all his energies are directed toward self preservation. If I remember correctly the PM promised a long time ago to, "look into," our case, but I doubt he is looking into much other than mixing the next batch of plaster just now.

Great tenacity, Phredd. Thanks.


_________________
Mike Barton
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post The FCO 
Well done Phredd and Mike Hall MP.

I note that both the above letters are dated the same day ie. 18th February, 2009, and in my one she states – ‘Mr. Nicoll refers to my comments that any decision taken by the Queen in relation to a specific medal must overrule any earlier decision’ and then she goes on to talk about the Queen’s ‘blanket’.
In the letter to Mike Hall MP she says ‘I clarified that the Gazette article had been superseded by the HD Committee’s decision on the PJM in 2006’.

So she tells ordinary Joe Public that it is the Queen’s decision but her colleagues in politics are told it is the HD Committee’s decision. So why the confusion? you may rightly ask. Has it got something to do with the fact that possibly, just possibly, the decision not to wear the PJM did not go before the Queen who only approved the PJM and the non-wear decision was made by tampering (as our legal eagle so succinctly put it) with the Royal Prerogative.

We have a letter from the FCO files dated 21st. October, 1967 from Michael Adeane (Lt. Colonel, The Right Honourable Michael Adeane G.C.V.O. K.C.B. Private Secretary to HM the Queen) to A. Lees Mayall (FCO) and headed Sandringham Norfolk. This letter states inter alia –

 ‘I have now laid this before The Queen who is pleased to give informal approval to the recommendations by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs that the Regulations should be amended so as to provide for the grant of unrestricted permission to United Kingdom private citizens in all cases to wear Commonwealth and foreign honours which in accordance with the regulations they have been allowed to accept’.

The Queen later formalised the regulations with the Royal Sign Manual.

We are now being told that the HD Committee’s decision overrules that of Her Majesty the Queen, or Her Majesty the Queen has overruled her earlier decision but nothing has been issued to confirm this. It’s just like the story put out by Phoney of the MoD that ‘The Queen does not refuse permission to wear, she just does not give permission’.

They are struggling to find justification for their unfair rules against British private citizens and are having to make them up as they go along. My question is ‘why are they so pig headed with such a minor matter of non-wear of an honourable medal from the Malaysians when they know full well that they cannot enforce their undemocratic demands upon us’. Surely they have more important matters to deal with. Perhaps in the not too distant future they will have much more time on their hands when they are unemployed.

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
"Unemployed," or the threat of it, is almost certainly why they are still being tight as the proverbial crab's backside, Andy. We have certainly rattled their cage and they are probably hoping that a possible meltdown of the present incumbents of government will somehow prolong their useless existence.


_________________
Mike Barton
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:
Reply to topic 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