|
Page 1 of 2
|
Author |
Message |
'Jock' Fenton
Joined: 12 Feb 2006
Posts: 1222
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
Chairman's Report...007 Update
Dear Fellow Members and Comrades all,
Once again I am charged with the responsibility of donning my Chairman's hat and reporting to you, the 'Fight4thePJM' Association Membership, on the latest developments in our campaign.
In Para 7 of our First Rebuttal (dated almost exactly 12 months ago) we said:
" ... This rebuttal provides a number of examples of medals being accepted for wear and we ask “Why not the PJM?”. The only response re-quotes the twin ‘two-medal/5-year’ myth. We demonstrate that the double medal objection is fundamentally misleading and, without it, the 5-year objection is even more transparently a device to exclude ordinary men and women from receiving the acknowledgement they so clearly deserve."
Based upon the latest findings of our ongoing research, we have now prepared and submitted a further update to that rebuttal document. This update covers the following significant points in considerable detail:
1. Back to Basics – The flawed Ministerial Statement.
2. The Antigua and Barbuda 25th Anniversary of Independence Medal.
3. The London Gazette Article. ...( No matter how they may try to dress it up – there is clearly one rule for civil servants and another for British veterans who placed their lives on the line!)
4. Formal support - Royal British Legion and Royal British Legion (Scotland).
5. Civil Servants - Their Attitude towards British Veterans.
6. The HD Committee...( who claim there are no guidelines in the Rules...but who managed to make an exception to them – for their own benefit!)
7. A list of Foreign Awards that have received Unrestricted Acceptance.
8. The Five-Year Rule Myth.
9. The Double Medal Myth.
Comprehensive detail of the resultant document may be accessed via the link at the end of this message. I earnestly urge all members to access this ... it is a thoroughly convincing and substantiated document and although it will no doubt inspire your anger, it makes for most interesting reading.
Together, we have made great progress since the start of this campaign...and it is certainly appropriate at this juncture that we look back with pride on our accomplishments, but in addition, we must steadfastly focus our thoughts on what yet remains to be done. Your 'Fight4' team welcomes the challenges along with the achievements and we are, I am delighted to report, 'going strong'.
In closing, I'd like to thank the many (too numerous to list) dedicated 'Fight4thePJM' supporters for their tremendous and continuing efforts. No matter what challenges lie ahead, the strength of our volunteer leadership and world wide membership commitment to promoting the rights of all those eligible for the PJM will continue to be the hallmark of 'Fight4thePJM'...for just as long as it takes!
Sincerely,
'Jock' Fenton.
Chairman: 'Fight4thePJM’ Association.
PS...readers may be interested to keep an eye on the events at Holyrood when the Scottish Public Petitions Committee consider our Petition ...Soon!
The June Update
This letter has been sent to all members of the HD Committee, Ministers, key MPs and a number of other people who are deeply involved in this case:
http://www.fight4thepjm.org/Correspondence/Update_21_June_2007.pdf
_________________ ...................'Jock'
Paroi...Rasah...Batu Signals Troop.
|
Sat Jun 23, 2007 9:52 am |
|
|
Semengo13
Joined: 13 Feb 2006
Posts: 442
Location: York
|
007 Update
Just penned this off to my MP to keep him up to date.
"Mr. Hugh Bayley MP, City of York. (and signatory to EDM 375)
Dear Mr. Bayley,
Still here I'm afraid and doggedly promoting the cause with persistence and tenacity !!!
Following recent events, the Fight for the PJM team (www.Fight4thePJM.org) have updated our Rebuttal Statement and circulated it to the H and D Committee members and relevant Ministers.
I thought you would like to be kept up to date, particularly as this issue was raised again by Don Touhig during the Defence Debate in the Commons this week when he referred to EDM 375 which he initiated and to which you kindly added your support to the other 178 signatories.
The following link http://www.fight4thepjm.org/Correspondence/Update_21_June_2007.pdf will take you to the document I refer too.
I would be more than happy to meet you at your next "surgery" in York if you would like to discus this matter further.
Regards,
John............"
(Details removed)
_________________ Pingat Kami - Hak Kami
651 Signal Troop,
Semengo Camp,
Kuching.
|
Sat Jun 23, 2007 1:35 pm |
|
|
MB_Veteran
Joined: 27 Apr 2007
Posts: 82
|
Thanks Jock & barry, the Direct Gov newsroom has already reacted to your letter.
http://www.directgov.gov.uk/en/Nl1/Newsroom/DG_068464
|
Sat Jun 23, 2007 2:49 pm |
|
|
'Jock' Fenton
Joined: 12 Feb 2006
Posts: 1222
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
Quote:Semengo wrote: Just penned this off to my MP to keep him up to date.
....Good man Semengo....persistence pays!
_________________ ...................'Jock'
Paroi...Rasah...Batu Signals Troop.
|
Sat Jun 23, 2007 3:02 pm |
|
|
John Cooper
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2158
Location: Suffolk
|
Nee Soon, interesting that you got that GOOGLE alert dated March today, I wonder why this shower has put this up again, any ideas?
_________________ --------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------
|
Sat Jun 23, 2007 6:08 pm |
|
|
MB_Veteran
Joined: 27 Apr 2007
Posts: 82
|
John Cooper wrote:Nee Soon, interesting that you got that GOOGLE alert dated March today, I wonder why this shower has put this up again, any ideas?
This is why I put it up, as I found it most unusual. Could it be Barry's letter and Don Touhig's speech on the PJM again has rattled a few suits cages within the cabinet office. Whatever has happened Brennan & co are not happy as they probably thought the March decision was final. Furthermore now Brown is about to take the PM's office many suits may be wondering who is going to get the boot.
|
Sat Jun 23, 2007 6:19 pm |
|
|
scouserkev
Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Posts: 41
Location: guess!
|
Sickening hypocrisy from HMG and the civil servants
Janvrin accepting the Antigua medal is just one more example of the sickening attitude of the privileged elite in this country. The only 'long established' rule is this - the Foreign Decoration Rules are there to prevent the likes of us receiving a medal but to ensure that they get any that are going even if they get them while in Crown Service.
What happened to the Crown Service Rule.
What happened to their 5-year rule?
Then there are the double medals that contradict the lies they told everyone about never double-medalling.
I don't have a medal from my time in the Far East but they keep telling the papers and MPs that I do.
Now that you have challenged the HD Committee and also the in tegrity of individal members of that Committee (and you were right to do so), I cannot see them ever agreeing to change their view. But I don't care. We have the London Gazette Notice and so I can wear my PJM with the Queen's approval and there is nothing they can say or do to stop me. Who's going to believe anything they say now that their true two-faced colours are visible to all.
They said the PJM challenges the integrity of the Honours System (cheeky s*ds), but it is actually them who have brought the system into disrepute and have embarrassed the Queen into the bargain.
Well done, Fight4thePJM! Their self-gratifying honours system will never be the same again. Thank God!
|
Sat Jun 23, 2007 7:25 pm |
|
|
'Jock' Fenton
Joined: 12 Feb 2006
Posts: 1222
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
Quote:scouserkev wrote:
They said the PJM challenges the integrity of the Honours System (cheeky s*ds), but it is actually them who have brought the system into disrepute and have embarrassed the Queen into the bargain.
....One might be forgiven for asking....What integrity?????
_________________ ...................'Jock'
Paroi...Rasah...Batu Signals Troop.
|
Sat Jun 23, 2007 8:03 pm |
|
|
MB_Veteran
Joined: 27 Apr 2007
Posts: 82
|
BarryF wrote:The Queen's Private Secretary, Sir Robin Janvrin, has been awarded a Foreign Medal 25 years after the event ... and he has Unrestricted Approval to wear it! The Medal marks the 25th Anniversary of the Independence of the State of Antigua and Barbuda.
Barry, this is powerful news and strong evidence to prove duplicity against Sir Robin Janvrin's actions on the HD committee in both December 2005 & March 2007 against veterans wearing of the PJM medal. I have hunted the internet and cannot find any written documentation to support that a medal was presented.
Could you please enlighten us on fight for the right were this info came from?
Antigua and Barbuda 25th Independence
http://www.independence.gov.ag/press_release/pr_aug_23_id1_06.htm
HRH the Earl of Wessex visited Antigua and Barbuda in 2003 and 2006. The latter to help celebrate the country’s 25th Anniversary of Independence.
http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1007029394365&a=KCountryProfile&aid=1019233966230
PS: Time is short and its imperative we have the above evidence to nail Jarvrin before he retires in September.
|
Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:28 am |
|
|
BarryF
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2721
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
|
The 'Sauce' of it all ...
The information was contained in an article in the June edition of authoritative The Orders and Medals Research Society. It was spotted not by me but by another erstwhile leader of the Fight4thePJM campaign as a clear contradiction ... and arguably hypocritical ... issue.
Please note: As advised in Jock's Chairman's Statement and in the address list at the head of the letter referred to therein, this information has been promulgated to all key addressees - including all 8 members of the HD Committee (and that includes Sir Robin Janvrin, star of the aforesaid learned journal). It would be counter-productive to overcook any reaction to what is, after all, just another example of the justice of our case as set out in writing over a year ago (*), and so we are asking supporters to be circumspect with this sort of information and not inundate people with confetti, especially those who we know support us.
Barry
(*)We said in our June 2006 Rebuttal (see http://www.fight4thepjm.org/whatwesay_rebuttal.htm) that the 5 year rule is invoked primarily to deny ordinary citizens of any rights to a medallic acknowledgement from a Commonwealth country (while putting their lives on the line) while being waived to ensure that the privileged elite of this country can receive an 'honour' (while doing absolutely nothing other than enjoy their privileged positions). If that is now not apparent to Mrs Beckett, then she should pack her bags and hook up her caravan and depart.
_________________ BarryF, who fought for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia
|
Sun Jun 24, 2007 10:46 am |
|
|
MB_Veteran
Joined: 27 Apr 2007
Posts: 82
|
Re: The 'Sauce' of it all ...
BarryF wrote:The information was contained in an article in the June edition of authoritative The Orders and Medals Research Society. .
Thanks Barry, This is all that is needed. No wonder it was not on the internet.
One must be a member of this society to see such information.
http://www.omrs.org.uk/
Membership of the Society shall be by election. So its understandable the delicate nature of using information from this society to embarrass the Private Secretary to the Sovereign. The info regards this foreign gong is therefore not in the public domain. One wonders how many other foreign gongs suits in the FCO are awarded and given permission to wear by the Queen?
|
Sun Jun 24, 2007 11:02 am |
|
|
StanW
Joined: 08 Jan 2007
Posts: 236
Location: Halesowen, West Midlands
|
""
Last edited by StanW on Sun Feb 10, 2008 5:30 am; edited 1 time in total
|
Sun Jun 24, 2007 2:45 pm |
|
|
GLOman
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
Posts: 668
Location: Northamptonshire
|
Iraq Reconstruction Service Medal
To HD Committee,
Please Sir,
What is the position of one who holds the Iraq (Campaign) Medal - Military, then retires from the
Forces and joins one of the organisations who's workers are eligible after 40 days for the IRSM?
Without doubt, if on their return to Iraq, they are working as FCO Civil Servants they will be eligible
- what about those working for other Firms? Question? How many will be turned down because of
double medalling rules?
|
Sun Jun 24, 2007 4:39 pm |
|
|
StanW
Joined: 08 Jan 2007
Posts: 236
Location: Halesowen, West Midlands
|
""
Last edited by StanW on Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:53 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
Mon Jun 25, 2007 7:27 pm |
|
|
ro5=6372
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 1763
|
JUST A THOUGHT,IF THERE IS AN IRAQ RECONSTRUCTION MEDAL,IT FOLLOWS THERE MUST HAVE BEEN DESTRUCTION IN IRAQ,I WONDER WHO QUALIFIES FOR THE IRAQ DESTRUCTION MEDAL IN GOVERNMENT
|
Mon Jun 25, 2007 10:41 pm |
|
|
|
The time now is Sun Oct 13, 2024 12:32 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
|
|
|