|
Page 1 of 2
|
Author |
Message |
BarryF
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2721
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
|
Our challenge to those who try to usurp our Monarch's Decree
Here is a letter to Mr Brennan of the Cabinet Office telling him that our view, having sought approporiate advice, is that the The Queen has given approval for eligible PJMers to wear their medal (Brennan does now disagree with this), and that his 'full statement' (that isn't full!) does nothing to change that. And we point to one MoD Notice that tells us pay regard to Gazette Notices and to disregard his incitement to cause discourtesy to The Queen.
(You can view and/or download the document in PDF format here: http://www.fight4thepjm.org/Correspondence/Brennan_Re_LGandCORebuttal_120407_v3.pdf)
GUARANTEED DELIVERY
Mr Denis Brennan,
Secretary to the Committee on the
Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals
Cabinet Office
35 Great Smith Street
London, SW1P 3BQ
12th April 2007
Dear Mr Brennan,
Pingat Jasa Malaysia (PJM)
I refer to your letter dated 12th March enclosing your ‘full statement’ and to mine of the 27th March rebutting your views on the 1968 London Gazette Notice.
I do not wish to prolong this continual and unedifying peeling of the onion any more than is necessary, but yet again you have promulgated statements that fall well short of the open and even-handed brief that MPs and MSPs and other interested parties have a right to expect from civil servants. In the attached information sheets, I set out the other side of the story – the one you have endeavoured to bury.
Government Departments have ‘toyed’ with British veterans over many months and have misled people and parliaments. It has taken two years of our lives (and we are all in our 60’s and 70’s), and considerable cost, to show the world that most of those eligible for the PJM have the right to wear it on formal occasions. Here are just a few reasons why we shall continue to campaign for all PJMers to wear their medal with honour:
• Acting ‘Ultra Vires’ Beyond your Remit. The Foreign Decoration Rules you rely on for your case have never provided for a recommendation such as that made for the PJM.
• Misleading MPs and Others. You have known all along that the right we are fighting for (formal permission to wear the PJM) already exists for eligible British private citizens.
• Contempt for our Medal. I was told by one civil servant that as far as he was concerned I “could put my PJM back in the Kellogg’s packet” for all its stature meant.
• Contempt for British Veterans. We have been labelled as “disaffected veterans” on a Ministry web site because we had the temerity to ask for permission to wear a medal that had been presented to us.
• Misleading the Scottish Parliament. In connection with our Petition to the Scottish Parliament, you wrote to Holyrood just a few days before promulgating your ‘full statement’ excusing your delay in answering their questions by hinting that the delay was in part necessary in case the HD Committee wanted to make a recommendation to The Queen (which would mean our case had succeeded). You are a member of that Committee and your ‘full statement’ makes it clear that you had no such intention.
The March ‘full statement’ that isn’t:
• I do not know who prepared the Commonwealth Day ‘full statement’ that you and Government Departments are promulgating, but I charge them with knowingly presenting a travesty of our case and of knowingly misleading MPs, MSPs, interested parties, and British veterans.
• This is not the first time this has happened - it is a “long-standing” practice as evidenced by the Suez Canal Zone medal and Arctic Emblem fiascos.
The 1968 London Gazette Notice that is:
• This Notice promulgates permission for eligible private citizens to wear their PJM. I charge you with abusing the Foreign Decoration Regulations when you re-interpret the contemporaneous HD Committee’s, and other interested parties’, intentions and explanations.
• You actually reverse your predecessor’s explanation! In so doing you have encouraged me to believe more strongly than ever that the Gazette Notice enables eligible PJMers to wear their medal on formal occasions.
The MoD Defence Instruction and Notice 10-002 of January 2006 that confirms both:
• Paragraph 21 sets out that it is incumbent on ex-service personnel to conform to London Gazette Notices when considering whether they can wear a medal.
• That DIN also gives the lie to your inducement to us to wear medals if we want to because ‘it is not policed’ – such inappropriate and under-hand Departmental incitement underlines the importance of public Notices and DINs.
In summary, the attached papers support the view that eligible private citizens have The Queen’s permission to wear the PJM – and that some civil servants (and I do not refer to the HD Committee) have acted outside their remit and in their advice have misrepresented the facts in order to circumvent The Queen’s decree in order that they may continue to withhold the permission that She has already approved.
My purpose in writing to you is to inform you of the above, and to confirm that I shall continue this matter until it is openly and fairly resolved for all those who have been presented with the PJM.
Yours sincerely,
Barry Fleming
Encs:
The Errors and Omissions in the Cabinet Office “Full Statement”
The London Gazette 3rd May 1968
_________________ BarryF, who fought for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia
|
Thu Apr 12, 2007 9:26 pm |
|
|
BarryF
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2721
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
|
Now we know what they mean by "it's not policed"!
They mean their incestuous and secretive mis-management of the Honours System. It is their system that is not policed!
And in an era of Honours for Cash and many other examples of incompetence and deception at the highest levels of the civil service, theiur system should be policed by independent persons.
Remember that in arriving at their 'full statement' they have policed themselves - and they are the only major Honours Committee without an independent Chairperson, despite Blair's insistence that there should be in order to avoid charges of 'manipulation'.
These are the people who try and deny you the right to wear an honourable medal in public but encourage the sale of stories to the public media by service personnel in order to make a political point.
That incompetent Des Browne tries to excuse himself by saying he didn't read what was put in front of him by his cicil servants! Just as, no doubt, he did with the PJM ... just as our caravanning Foreign Secretary no doubt did ... just as the Prime Minister did.
But I wager The Queen did not make that mistake because she takes Her honours responsibilities very seriously - and she is knowledgable. She knew what She was signing. And She knew the effect of the Gazette Notice.
Barry
_________________ BarryF, who fought for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia
|
Fri Apr 13, 2007 8:15 am |
|
|
BarryF
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2721
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
|
PS ... or should I say "psssss ..."
PS Here's a thought. The Honours Secretary left the Foreign Office very suddenly. On the day he left he contacted us to say goodbye.
Did he retire from Crown service because he didn't approve of the way the Cabinet Office and others were trying to stuff Malay-Borneo veterans? After all, he encouraged us to do our own research - did he hope we'd find that Gazette Notice? That's entirely unfounded conjecture, of course!
And we don't begrudge him his OBE conferred a few months after his retirement when he was "NOT in Crown service" for services carried out "WHILE he was in Crown service" ... precisely in line with our understanding of the various honours guidelines ... and precisely the position of the majority of PJMers!
_________________ BarryF, who fought for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia
|
Fri Apr 13, 2007 8:23 am |
|
|
John Cooper
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2158
Location: Suffolk
|
Re: PS ... or should I say "psssss ..."
BarryF wrote:PS Here's a thought. The Honours Secretary left the Foreign Office very suddenly. On the day he left he contacted us to say goodbye.
Did he retire from Crown service because he didn't approve of the way the Cabinet Office and others were trying to stuff Malay-Borneo veterans? After all, he encouraged us to do our own research - did he hope we'd find that Gazette Notice? That's entirely unfounded conjecture, of course!
And we don't begrudge him his OBE conferred a few months after his retirement when he was "NOT in Crown service" for services carried out "WHILE he was in Crown service" ... precisely in line with our understanding of the various honours guidelines ... and precisely the position of the majority of PJMers!
Barry
I received this on the 4th April from Tanya who took Edgey's place, the highlighting is my own:
Tanya.Collingridge@fco.gov.uk wrote:
Dear Mr Cooper,
I can confirm that we do not hold any personal information on you. Due to the volume of correspondence the FCO receives from members of the public, we do not necessarily retain all letters or copies of letters from the public, nor would we retain copies of replies for our records. Correspondence in the form of emails between yourself and Chris Edge ( who has now retired) would have been retained electronically for a short period and then removed automatically.
Best wishes,
Tanya Collingridge
So all you guys and gals that have expended a lot of time and effort in this campaign your letters/emails/faxes have probably disappeared into Cyberspace of File 13 like mine! Never mind aye, the lying and cheating that has been going on is plain for all to see, remember too that under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 I have that letter from The Cabinet Officer saying that "The HD Committee rarely ever meet and in fact has not met between 7th December 2005 and 14th February 2007 to discuss the PJM "[Eleri Pengelly]
_________________ --------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------
|
Fri Apr 13, 2007 12:28 pm |
|
|
ro5=6372
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 1763
|
LOOKS LIKE WE NEED MORE RETIREMENTS.
|
Fri Apr 13, 2007 2:35 pm |
|
|
Kentsboro
Joined: 11 Oct 2006
Posts: 431
Location: Hampshire
|
Our challenge to those who try to usurp our Monarch’s Decr
Barry – You sent one of your wonderful letters to Denis Brennan, (dated Friday 13th April) GUARANTEED DELIVERY, in which you lay down a true list of all the rather tedious repetitive nonsense and lies he has produced since the LG Notice was brought to his attention.
Has this man deigned to reply yet, or is he totally stumped and chosen to remain silent in the hope that this nightmare he is living will go away?
Tony
_________________ Veni vidi vinci
|
Tue May 15, 2007 4:31 pm |
|
|
BarryF
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2721
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
|
Re: Our challenge to those who try to usurp our Monarch’s
Kentsboro wrote:Barry – You sent one of your wonderful letters to Denis Brennan, (dated Friday 13th April) GUARANTEED DELIVERY, in which you lay down a true list of all the rather tedious repetitive nonsense and lies he has produced since the LG Notice was brought to his attention.
Has this man deigned to reply yet, or is he totally stumped and chosen to remain silent in the hope that this nightmare he is living will go away?
Tony
Tony,
I have not received a reply from Brennan to any of my letters over the last year or so ... and they are sent Guaranteed Delivery.
Denis Brennan's problem is that he does not have a satisfactory answer to the logic of our case. When he tries to explain the inexplicable, the inevitable result is yet another debacle for him and for those who support him.
I am not concerned about not receiving replies. Every time I write to him, a copy goes to 51 other people who have an interest in this matter, including the HD Committee, Ministers, MPs and others. It is not Brennan who is material to the PJM case any more. He has blown his cover in leading the HD Committee by the nose into a disasterous situation.
Mr Brennan has shown that he was never going to open up his 'mind' to our case, but I very much hope that the other recipients of the letters will give our case a fair hearing - that's all I have ever sought.
Indeed, we must not forget that it is not only us who judge the Honours System to be in disarray ... others do ... and they are going to review the whole system as well as the PJM.
The British Honours System has been severly damaged by this flawed PJM recommendation - one has to wonder what was so important, what was at stake, for a small number of bigoted civil servants to jeopardise the integrity of the system in order that they (it is not the Queen) may try and prevent PJMers wearing their medal. The good news is that they failed!
And that is down to our supporters all over the world.
Barry
_________________ BarryF, who fought for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia
|
Tue May 15, 2007 4:41 pm |
|
|
'Jock' Fenton
Joined: 12 Feb 2006
Posts: 1222
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: Our continuing challenge...
The convoluted, arcane and deliberately obfuscatory 'explanations' that we, all of us, have received from a plethora of 'suits' on the application of their so called 'regulations' (recently modified to read 'discretionary regulations' incidentally) demonstrate one thing only...that the authors of these communications are totally devoid of integrity, authenticity, transparency and conscience.
Having failed so miserably to destroy our carefully considered rebuttals of their indefensible position, in order to deny us fair treatment under the rules and regulations that they believe they have a right to interpret and manipulate to serve their own selfish ends, they now seek final refuge in petulant silence (the 'lets ignore them and perhaps they'll go away' strategy).
...Well folks, here's a newsflash for you.....we are NOT going to go away!
_________________ ...................'Jock'
Paroi...Rasah...Batu Signals Troop.
|
Wed May 16, 2007 12:02 pm |
|
|
Jon Windust
Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 45
Location: Portsmouth(Havant) UK
|
Brilliant Jock. Tell it like it is.
_________________ Regards Aye.Jon Windust
|
Wed May 16, 2007 12:28 pm |
|
|
Arthur R-S
Joined: 05 Aug 2006
Posts: 860
Location: Brandon, Suffolk
|
Well, one hoped that the Civil serpents would be the quiet, shy, retiring, types.
In essence, keep their stupid traps shut and bugger off into the sunset, but we can all live in hope, can't we?
Yours Aye
Arthur
|
Sun May 20, 2007 8:03 am |
|
|
Bill Blyth
Joined: 18 Oct 2006
Posts: 104
|
Suits
This may not be the right place for this but.. I was shopping with the wife when she suggested it was about time I had a new suit, I explained to her it is the Civil Service that needs new suits not me.
|
Sun May 20, 2007 10:25 am |
|
|
mcdangle
Joined: 12 Feb 2006
Posts: 1027
Location: Scotland
|
Democracy.
It is reported that in Edinburgh yesterday Prince Andrew, The Duke of York, said at the installation of the new Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland that -
'DEMOCRACY EMPOWERS THE CITIZENS OF THE STATE TO DECIDE ON HOW AND BY WHOM THEY WILL BE RULED'.
Well there we have it, that is democracy, so why do they keep telling us that we live in a democracy when the rulers we have decided to rule us are being ruled by unelected Civil Servants and are unable to tell them that they cannot make rules or laws (discretionary or otherwise) which place restrictions upon citizens of this country.
Seems like Prince Andrew's definition of democracy does not apply to this country and perhaps someone should just tell him so.
|
Sun May 20, 2007 11:29 am |
|
|
ro5=6372
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 1763
|
PORKY WILL BE ADVISING ON CLIMATE CHANGE NEXT,AS HE RACKS UP THE AIR MILES,DISMISS
|
Sun May 20, 2007 2:48 pm |
|
|
John Cooper
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2158
Location: Suffolk
|
Re: Our continuing challenge...
'Jock' Fenton wrote:The convoluted, arcane and deliberately obfuscatory 'explanations' that we, all of us, have received from a plethora of 'suits' on the application of their so called 'regulations' (recently modified to read 'discretionary regulations' incidentally) demonstrate one thing only...that the authors of these communications are totally devoid of integrity, authenticity, transparency and conscience.
Having failed so miserably to destroy our carefully considered rebuttals of their indefensible position, in order to deny us fair treatment under the rules and regulations that they believe they have a right to interpret and manipulate to serve their own selfish ends, they now seek final refuge in petulant silence (the 'lets ignore them and perhaps they'll go away' strategy).
...Well folks, here's a newsflash for you.....we are NOT going to go away!
I'll take Jocks above quote as according to the Bible
I wrote to Ms Sue Gray after much correspondence re The FoIA 2000 and HMQs alleged involvement with the Merdeka authorisation of The Right to Wear the PJM for a few short weeks to avoid an embarrassment to The Duke of York who was attending the event.
FOI 255550Wednesday, 2 July, 2008 7:50 PM
From: "JOHN COOPER"
View contact details To: sue.gray@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk
Dear Ms Gray Thank you for your letter of the 27th June under FOI 255550 Please refer this FOI request for Internal Review Would you also explain to me in laymans terms what you mean by your statement ....... Their candour in so doing will be affected by their assessment of whether the contents of their discussions will be disclosed in the near future...........
Thank you
John Cooper
14 weeks later I received this letter from Ms Gray, why do they bother, what on earth are these people on? They certainly are not on my planet, which I hope is Earth!
_________________ --------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------
|
Thu Oct 16, 2008 7:44 pm |
|
|
GLOman
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
Posts: 668
Location: Northamptonshire
|
"Free and frank Discussion
".....is that the willingness of individuals to enter into free and frank discussion may be affected if their discussion is likely to be disclosed in the near future". Effectively, this means that the HD Committee, in fact, the "other hat" of the Ceremonal Officers of the various department of which the Committee is comprised, are not prepared to be made responsible for the decisions they make or to be openly questioned on the logic of those decisions; no surprise here then. This explains why they consistantly, wrongly, I believe, use the Freedom of Information Act exclusions as often as they do, until obliged to supply the information requested; for example the eventual disclosure of the note to Jack Straw signed by Robin (Javrin/Janvrin), after circa two years of asking and the disclosure that Her Majesty's signature does not appear on documents stating that the PJM should not be "formally worn".
It would appear that author believes we are incapable of decoding civil service jargon/gobbledegook and require an explanation of its meaning; wrong!
John, the request for an internal review..........?
|
Thu Oct 16, 2008 9:59 pm |
|
|
|
The time now is Sun Nov 03, 2024 7:46 am | All times are GMT
|
Page 1 of 2
|
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
|
|
|