Herewith my e-mailed response to the MoD article Owen mentions.....
==============================================

To whom it may concern:

On behalf of the membership of the 'Fight4thePJM' Association...representing all eligible recipients of the Pingat Jasa Malaysia and their (currently denied) right to wear that honour, I really must strenuously protest the latest demonstration of misinformative prose to emanate from your office.

Regarding your article "Malaya Veterans Defiant Over Medals " (7th November).

Why would you consider it necessary to include reference to an incident (alleged !) from 1948, in an article that purports to comment on the qualifying service requirements for the PJM? ...which decoration is specifically awarded for service between 1957 and 1966 only.

Has this been inserted into the narrative out of ignorance?....or perhaps malice?

In addition, with reference to the oft-repeated and completely spurious, 'double medal' ,allegations of the GSM and the PJM to which you refer. How is it possible that you, of all organizations, can remain unaware that most UK veterans, who served between 1957 and 1966 do NOT have a British medal?

Added to that fact, there are 40+ 'wearable' medals that violate the (so-called) 'rules' to which you refer, including the Malta Medal, and the Russia Medal (both enforced double medals, given permission to be worn 50 years after the events).

It would seem to me, in the interest of historic accuracy and common decency, that your retraction would be quickly forthcoming and I look forward with much interest to reading same.

I remain Sirs,

Yours Truly

John Gordon Fenton.
Chairman: 'Fight4thePJM' Association.


_________________
...................'Jock'
Paroi...Rasah...Batu Signals Troop.

Jock, well aimed mate, a direct bullseye there, congratulations.


_________________
--------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------

OOOOooo!

Crossed rifles for you, Jock, and very nice too if of the brass variety. Only pulling the wotsit. Well aimed indeed, mate, as usual.

Mike.


_________________
Mike Barton

I have decided Mike...that no longer, will I contemplate the 'taking of prisoners'....


_________________
...................'Jock'
Paroi...Rasah...Batu Signals Troop.

Did we ever, old mate.....just clutched our jungle carbines and hoped others would know what to do with theirs. We had other things on our minds.....you the hump on your back......me the compass and the dodgy map. IN HOC SIGNO runs the story, of those who guide the blind and the deaf.

Mike.



Last edited by MB on Thu Nov 08, 2007 7:55 am; edited 1 time in total
_________________
Mike Barton

""



Last edited by StanW on Mon Apr 14, 2008 12:24 am; edited 1 time in total

Blimey, I'm glad I came accross that article. It wound me up a treat as well. good job I haven't got a cat.

Owen

Quote:

John Cooper wrote:
Jock, well aimed mate, a direct bullseye there, congratulations

Overcome with enthusiam (not to mention a modicum of irritation) I continued in this vein by writing the following to the Editor of The Guardian, as this Mod Oracle article was published therein:
=====================
Dear Sir/Madam,

On behalf of the membership of the 'Fight4thePJM' Association...representing all eligible recipients of the Pingat Jasa Malaysia and their (currently denied) right to wear that honour, I really must strenuously protest the promulgation of misinformed nonsense that you have clearly been 'fed' by the MOD'

Regarding David Pallister's article "Malaya veterans stand defiant over new medals on Remembrance Day parade" (7th November).

Why would it be considered necessary to include reference to an alleged incident from 1948, in an article that purports to comment on the qualifying service requirements for the PJM? ...which decoration is specifically awarded for service between 1957 and 1966 only.

Has this information been provided to David and consequently inserted into the narrative out of ignorance?....or was it perhaps provided with malice aforethought in an attempt to 'fudge' the issue?

In addition, with reference to the oft-repeated and completely spurious, 'double medal' ,allegations of the GSM and the PJM to which David refers.... How is it possible that the MoD, of all organizations, can remain unaware that most UK veterans, who served between 1957 and 1966 do NOT have a British medal?

Added to that fact, there are 40+ 'wearable' medals that violate the (so-called) 'rules' to which the MoD refer, including the Malta Medal, and the Russia Medal (both enforced double medals, given permission to be worn 50 years after the events).

These veterans depicted are not 'snubbing protocol'...in fact it is the MoD that is snubbing the veterans service.

It would seem to me, in the interest of historic accuracy and common decency, that you might justifiably re-establish contact with your MoD sources and request that, in future, they provide you with information of a factual and topical nature, rather than 'bafflegab' designed only to defend their own, completely indefensible, position?

I remain Sir/Madam,

Yours Sincerely,

John Gordon Fenton.
Chairman: 'Fight4thePJM' Association.


_________________
...................'Jock'
Paroi...Rasah...Batu Signals Troop.

Well said Jock.

Let's see if they have the bottle to follow this up with the MOD, and publish.


_________________
Pingat Kami - Hak Kami
651 Signal Troop,
Semengo Camp,
Kuching.

""



Last edited by StanW on Mon Apr 14, 2008 12:25 am; edited 1 time in total

I leave you with the following picture, at least it helped me to unwind!

Stan


They must be foreign, British Police NEVER have a kip on duty. They are as coiled springs always ready for action

Owen

The current sparsity of contributions led me to do a bit of surfing around our site. There are many gems to be found, and I found one.

"Dirty Tricks", MoD Oracle: from an article originally published in the Guardian.

"A former Royal Navy sailor, Harry Booth, said he felt the MoD's view was very silly "I can wear my other medals, why not this one?" Followed by,

"A Ministry of Defence spokesman said yesterday there had been no recent MoD ruling. Instead there is a long standing rule, he said, that comes from the honours and declarations committee which answers directly to the sovereign rather than a government department"

True; honours and declarations committee. Presumably, in the light of our own experience, the honours part concerns the honours awarded to civil servants merely for doing their job; the declarations part concerns the declaration and imposition of
rules which restrict some medals, and totally bans the PJM from being worn, entirely against the provision of Part C of their own 2005 rules, re-written to enforce their ban.

In the light of the above, perhaps honours and declarations committee is the correct name after all!

It is not intended, as they do, to offend Her Majesty, but, considereing their arrogance, one has to wonder if, in fact, The Queen is answerable to them and not the other way round. In the case of the PJM, it might appear so.

GLOman wrote:

In the light of the above, perhaps honours and declarations committee is the correct name after all!

It is not intended, as they do, to offend Her Majesty, but, considereing their arrogance, one has to wonder if, in fact, The Queen is answerable to them and not the other way round. In the case of the PJM, it might appear so.

I couldn't agree more, David.

The HD Committee is definitely not answerable to HM. It seems that the Queen is answerable to them. Indeed, whenever I get an acknowledgement of my letters to HM, she says she's forwarded the correspondence to ... yup ... a Government Department!!

So how does that work?

All the best - and thanks for your continuing and indefatigable support.

Barry


_________________
BarryF, who fought for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia

YUP, indeed, Barry. I have often wondered just how up to date HMQ is with our case. Was she for instance actually involved with the 97 Merdeka celebration amnesty re the PJM. Until that time I had assumed that her stance on our plight (should she be aware of it) was to sit tight in the knowledge that the "Queen's blanket" as McDangle and I now call the 68 LG inclusion, was there for the guidance of all concerned. Could it be that the Monarch we all swore allegiance to and put our lves on the line for is still unwilling to reciprocate on our behalf or kept, as it were, in the dark?

Without wishing you to break any confidence should you deem so doing counterproductive, did any of the replies from HMQ saying that your enquiries had been forwarded to whomsover bear the Royal signature, or was it the scrawl of a flunky? If the latter I personally feel that we have not been abandoned by the only person able to end our prolonged struggle with the stroke her pen.


_________________
Mike Barton

MB wrote:

Without wishing you to break any confidence should you deem so doing counterproductive, did any of the replies from HMQ saying that your enquiries had been forwarded to whomsover bear the Royal signature, or was it the scrawl of a flunky? If the latter I personally feel that we have not been abandoned by the only person able to end our prolonged struggle with the stroke her pen.

Mike,

I have received 8 acknowledgements from Buck House. They have all been signed by the same person - never HM, but then I wouldnot expect that. The person who sign the letters is HM's senior correspondence secretary and I am as certain as I can be that she does all she can to ensure correspondence on the PJM is seen by HM. I have met this lady, Sonia. I was in the company of Paul and Gerry at Buckingham Palace. As I recall, Paul was very attentive to her in a very gentlemanly way, of course!

But, at the end of the day, the decisions are taken by suits in the MoD, FCO and Cabinet Office. Even the Queen is unable to question them.

So we have the situation whereby:

1. The 'system' will tell you and MPs that the decision was 'independent' - Pan-Departmental even.

2. The 'advice' is given by suits via an HD Committee that consist only of ... suits.

3. The Committee advises the Queen.

4. The Queen, when asked for help by us, passes the 'Buck' to the Departments.

5. The Departments are staffed by the same suits who gave the advice in the first place but this time they say "It's nowt to do wiv us cos it's non-political and down to The Queen".

Spot the missing link!

It doesn't add up.

As any accountant will tell you, acoountability (when absent) doesn't add up.

Thank you for your ongoing support, Mike.

Barry

PS The missing link ... can you spot how the HD Committee, briefed by the civil servants at the start and the same civil servants at the end, are NOT ACCOUNTABLE! Unelected ... and NOT ACCOUNTABLE.


_________________
BarryF, who fought for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia