|
Page 2 of 4
|
Author |
Message |
scouserkev
Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Posts: 41
Location: guess!
|
John Cooper wrote:Going back to HMQ does anyone else think (even remotely) that Her Majesty DID NOT make this decision herself, I think it is important that we hear all your views.
I bow to the better knowledge of you and the other leaders of this campaign, John, because you see a lot more of the picture than i do, but I think the Queen did agree the recommendations and probably did sign them and I think she knew what she was doing. I was a monarchist but not any more because the monarch has a role to play in the honours system and I think she has let us down. I know this sounds like heresy but I always saw the Queen as somebody special who would stand up for her subjects and the Commonwealth if she could and if she thought it was right to do so. Her Fount of all Honours role is one of the few roles where the Queen, if she actively participates, is usually listened to. In the case of the PJM she heard or read the recommendations and, whatever those recommendations said, she should have backed her loyal British veterans as part of the Commonwealth forces who protected the freedom of Malaysia.
It's not every day that the Queen receives a request from a nation on the other side of the world to honour the citizens of the Commonwealth. In the last year she had agreed to the PJM being worn by Australians and then by New Zealanders. She would have remembered that when she got the recommendations about her British subjects. There was no way she could have forgotten what she agreed to before. No matter what was in the recommendations she should have questionned them and she should have made sure that the British were not treated differently to anyone else in the Commonwealth.
Then there is the Petition. Have you heard anything? If you haven't by now which is nearly six months later, then you can expect to get the big heave-ho from her.
I hope that the Rebuttal will change things and she will get my support if she agrees to an As You Were but not until because only then will I know that she acknowledges my loyalty and my service to her and to this country and to Malaysia.
|
Mon Nov 13, 2006 2:32 pm |
|
|
scouserkev
Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Posts: 41
Location: guess!
|
I want to add that I would respond to any call to the colours and to support the Queen. In that way nothing has changed because I am not a Republican yet! But loyalty has to be earned in my book and she is not earning mine at present.
If she has been so badly advised that was actually conned then I would review my thinking but not until I see the proof which, I believe, is exactly what you and teh other Fight4thepjm leaders are going to try and dig out for which you have my thanks. I think they should show us what was said to her and what she signed or agreed because only then will we know if she is for us or agin us. The air needs to be cleared and the suspicions destroyed.
|
Mon Nov 13, 2006 2:46 pm |
|
|
John Cooper
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2158
Location: Suffolk
|
Kev
I agree with all you say, I myself am still 51% monarchist!
If someone has me on a CCTV camera somewhere then I have absolutely nothing to hide, if I travel at 40MPH in a 30MPH I expect to be nailed. I am still (just) a loyal subject to The Queen but until I see evidence that The Queen signed this document in her own hand and the Government is hiding this document then someone somewhere is telling PORKIES aand should be brought to book as if caught speeding.
Can someone answer this question why is B Liar and the Cabinet Office Secretariat keeping it from view?
_________________ --------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------
|
Mon Nov 13, 2006 3:24 pm |
|
|
BarryF
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2721
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
|
John Cooper wrote:Can someone answer this question why is B Liar and the Cabinet Office Secretariat keeping it from view?
John,
Exactly so. They are either trying to protect The Queen (and who put Her in that vulnerable situation?) or themselves (what have they done that needs protecting?).
Or the whole thing is innocuous but they are so steeped in their own air of secrecy that they cannot see that more harm is being done by hiding the info than would be done if it was brought into the public domain - which is essentially the point you and others, including scouserkev and mcdangle, are making.
It is my view that it is now in the Queen's best interests and those of the public that your questions are answered.
This very unpleasant and divisive business needs to be laid to rest - it only requires one simple step to be taken by the HD Committee. Just one.
Barry
_________________ BarryF, who fought for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia
|
Mon Nov 13, 2006 3:41 pm |
|
|
John Cooper
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2158
Location: Suffolk
|
Barry and all
You will note my signature at the bottom of each of my posts, I do not need to change this because this is the absolute truth.
The whole of this present Government has sleaze running through it from top to bottom, I'm not 100% sure if some of this runs into the Royal Family or not! The trouble is in this country today, we are not able to debate the things we used to be able to debate, we were talking with some relatives over lunch today about this very subject.
I have no other agenda but the PJM but it sickens me that MY beloved country has been taken over by the PC Brigade and unelected Committees and that saddens me
_________________ --------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------
|
Mon Nov 13, 2006 4:44 pm |
|
|
Dave Woolmer
Joined: 03 Mar 2006
Posts: 48
Location: East Sussex
|
Hello all,
This question of whether HM signed or not is frankly very disturbing. My opinion is that i simply do not believe HM would say yes to Oz and NZ but not to us Brits. It is inconcievable in my mind. That said, maybe i have stayed loyal and been completely wrong . I HOPE NOT! Which makes me think HM was deliberately misled, which is of course what THEY are trying to hide.
As a matter of interest, i recieved my PJM by post at 10:55 Hrs on Sat 11 Nov. Hang in there guys, this campaign WILL BE WON, i have no doubt whatsoever.
_________________ I like it here on MY planet. If you wish to visit, you are welcome,
but your sanity is not my responsibilty!
|
Mon Nov 13, 2006 6:51 pm |
|
|
John Cooper
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2158
Location: Suffolk
|
Congratulations Dave on receiving your PJM, wear it if you wish!
I do find this PJM debacle as incredulous, you couldn't make up a soap opera based around their myths and being PC and non sexist, Mythes! Well I know the feelings, my innermost feelings are not printable here and I very much hope I do not have to use these words at 'the end of the month'.
_________________ --------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------
|
Mon Nov 13, 2006 7:22 pm |
|
|
GerryL
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 423
Location: West Sussex
|
Did HM sign?
Until recently I held the belief that HM did not sign any document that divided the Commonwealth and deprived her British Veterans of a fundamental right. I had this notion that she signed the approval for the Oz and Kiwi vets because she was advised that not to do so might well start a train of events that could lead those nations ultimately to withdraw from the Commonwealth. Remember that there is a strong Republican movement in Oz. My beleif was that she was then misled into signing the no wear edict. But over time I am not so sure. I am coming to the possibility that she knew exactly what she was doinf when she allowed the Oz and Kiwis to wear the PJM and that she kne exactly what she was doing when she withheld that permission from us. I cannot substantiate my theory but I just cannot see how she would have signed without knowing that she had acted differently in the other cases, and I honestly cannot see anyone signing on her behalf. My support and loyalty for the Monarchy is being sorely tested. The prospect of a President Blair frightens me but at least he could be voted out in due course. I am tending to the belief that the Monarchy, as it currently exists. has passed its "best used by" date. I am not quite anti Monarchy - yet - but my faith in the system is not as strong as it has been since I outputted my first infant burp 62 years ago.
GerryL
_________________ Gerald Law (ex RAF Borneo Veteran)
|
Mon Nov 13, 2006 7:25 pm |
|
|
Arthur R-S
Joined: 05 Aug 2006
Posts: 860
Location: Brandon, Suffolk
|
Did HM Sign
I should have thought that it was blatently obvious that 'transmitted in the usual way' means HOT AIR balloon.
Yours Aye
Arthur
|
Mon Nov 13, 2006 10:39 pm |
|
|
John Cooper
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2158
Location: Suffolk
|
You could not make this up, in answer to my original question
..........and the envelope was endorsed FIRST CLASS POST
_________________ --------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------
|
Fri Nov 17, 2006 11:41 am |
|
|
jireland
Joined: 20 Apr 2006
Posts: 566
Location: Wiltshire
|
I interpret this as meaning that it was dealt with by someone other than HM!!!
John
|
Fri Nov 17, 2006 1:14 pm |
|
|
John Cooper
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2158
Location: Suffolk
|
jireland wrote:I interpret this as meaning that it was dealt with by someone other than HM!!!
John
John I
I am taking these letters of refusal by HMG to either see the document or for The Cabinet Office to give me a straightforward YES/HM The Queen did sign the document or NO/HM Did not sign the document, if none of the three are forthcoming I am taking this as The Queen did not sign the document contrary what was said previously.
The word obfuscate has been much used in referring to HMG in these past 9 months and they have done exactly that obscure, confuse, bewilder. Someone, somewhere in HMG is hiding something, that there can be little doubt!
_________________ --------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------
|
Fri Nov 17, 2006 1:40 pm |
|
|
mcdangle
Joined: 12 Feb 2006
Posts: 1027
Location: Scotland
|
FOI Act.
George F and John.
That information you have posted above is of great interest. Edgey Chris said in his letter to me Ref. FOI 0789-06 dated 23rd. October, 2006, that my request to see the minutes of the meeting of the HD Committee on 7th. December, 2006, was exempt from the FOI because of Section 35(1)(a) - formulation or development of government policy and 37(1)(b) - conferring of any honour or dignity.
It now looks like he was very, very wrong in his interpretation of the FOI Act exemptions in regard to the PJM.
1. The PJM (as George F so rightly put it) is not an honour or dignity conferred by the crown.
2. No government policy ie formulation or development, was involved. Remember - the Honours and Decorations Committee act in secret and are responsible to no-one but the Queen.
Mr. Edgey said I could write to Jackie Barson, Deputy Director of Protocol, who has office 1/56 whilst Chris has 1/62 - so they should have plenty of time to get their stories together.
I am awaiting some information in regard to other minutes of HD Committee meetings which were deposited with the House library so that I can have a good case against them. If Jackie Barson writes and tells me I am wrong and Edgey Chris is right, which I fully expect, then I will take this further, and further, and further.
|
Fri Nov 17, 2006 5:00 pm |
|
|
scouserkev
Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Posts: 41
Location: guess!
|
Re: FOI Act.
mcdangle wrote:I am awaiting some information in regard to other minutes of HD Committee meetings which were deposited with the House library so that I can have a good case against them. If Jackie Barson writes and tells me I am wrong and Edgey Chris is right, which I fully expect, then I will take this further, and further, and further.
This sounds like a major frontal attack and so if the decision this month is in your favour will you still want to take these boyo's on or will you dump your chuff-chart and head for home? I ask because I see a lot of men and women lining up behind Fight4thePJM if the suits get it wrong again and there is a post suggesting you have contingency plans but I wonder if they will be needed if the suits get it right this time.
|
Fri Nov 17, 2006 5:19 pm |
|
|
mcdangle
Joined: 12 Feb 2006
Posts: 1027
Location: Scotland
|
Re: FOI Act.
scouserkev wrote:mcdangle wrote:I am awaiting some information in regard to other minutes of HD Committee meetings which were deposited with the House library so that I can have a good case against them. If Jackie Barson writes and tells me I am wrong and Edgey Chris is right, which I fully expect, then I will take this further, and further, and further.
This sounds like a major frontal attack and so if the decision this month is in your favour will you still want to take these boyo's on or will you dump your chuff-chart and head for home? I ask because I see a lot of men and women lining up behind Fight4thePJM if the suits get it wrong again and there is a post suggesting you have contingency plans but I wonder if they will be needed if the suits get it right this time.
My objective is to get the ludicrous non-wearing rule reversed and if British Citizens are no longer discriminated against by this decision being reversed and everyone can wear their PJM with honour and pride then I have accomplished my mission, and it is time to start tying flies for next year's fishing and do all the wee jobs around the house that have been neglected recently.
No need to continue with anything after that. The suits will continue to lie and cheat until someone in power can do something about them but that doesn't involve a wee hairy Jock fae Dumfries.
I say I will press the matter further and further and further because I am not going to give up until a proper and just decision is made. I cannot speak for everyone but I have not considered contingency plans for the future, just plans for the present which might possibly involve the future.
|
Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:20 pm |
|
|
|
The time now is Tue Oct 15, 2024 11:58 pm | All times are GMT
|
Page 2 of 4
|
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
|
|
|