 |
Page 3 of 4
|
Author |
Message |
BarryF
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2721
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
|
 One Way Traffic
I would like to add another point:
In the context of all the thousands of messages and questions over the last 18 months, and I have read virtually all of them, at no time have I seen anything from the MoD, FCO or Cabinet Office that might in any way be helpful to British veterans.
Nothing.
Zilch.
They even encouraged us to make journeys to London to look up records in the National Archives knowing full well there were no relevant records there.
The message from them is: “Do as you are told. If you want to change anything we will not help you even though we may know of something that could help you.”
We have had to do this on our own. It’s been all one way traffic. By definition, therefore, they have concealed or withheld information.
And I consider that to be very uncivil of them - even though it's par for the course.
And that makes me even more determined.
_________________ BarryF, who fought for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia
|
Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:17 pm |
|
 |
jireland
Joined: 20 Apr 2006
Posts: 566
Location: Wiltshire
|
I will continue with this fight until we win (or until Barry quits whichever is soonest) because like him I think that this issue is much more important than the medal, it's about the rights of veterans to be treated fairly in the very country that they have served. Morally we are in the ascendant.
John
|
Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:47 pm |
|
 |
petenic
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 45
|
I thought it interesting to review the Human Rights aspect of the issue of the directive to not permit the wearing of the PJM (or certainly not to formally acknowledge and permit its wearing).
Not all rights set out in the Human Rights Act 1998 have been incorporated into British Law. However Articles 2 to 12 and 14 have plus those in the First and Sixth Protocols.
Of interest is Article 8 - Right to Respect for Private and Family Life.
This article clearly defines that "Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life". It goes on further " There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right such as in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society".
Article 8 is a qualified right. This means that interference with the right can not be condoned. Any interference can be justified but only if -"it is in accordance with the law, this means that there has to be clear legality. It must pursue a legitimate aim under one of the six legitimate aims set out in Article 8 for the prevention of disorder or crime. It must be necessary in a democratic society"
Article 8 and other qualified articles are largely concerned with preventing the Government, the Police, or other state bodies interfering with people's rights.
My questions are:
1. Where is the "clear legality" to prevent qualified persons from wearing the PJM?
2. Why would the wearing of the PJM constitute "disorder or crime"?
3. Why is the failure to allow the wearing of the PJM "necessary in a democratic society"?
Wouldn't it be interesting to see the response from Government to these which may well constitute a serious breach of the Human Rights Act 1998, to which our current government signed up to to enable it to remain in the EC.
|
Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:46 pm |
|
 |
John Cooper
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2158
Location: Suffolk
|
Pete
Thanks for clarifying that, and this from someone in Malaysia and not entitled to the PJM, well done mate, keep the info rolling in.
_________________ --------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------
|
Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:03 pm |
|
 |
robmorris
Joined: 17 Feb 2006
Posts: 56
Location: Blackwood Gwent
|
 petentic
Pete, this information is the lynch-pin of our whole argument...HUMAN RIGHTS and "emporer AARTONE" has signed up to it bless him i will be writing to Margaret Beckett argueing Article 8 of the Act......Rob Morris
|
Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:12 pm |
|
 |
mcdangle
Joined: 12 Feb 2006
Posts: 1027
Location: Scotland
|
 petenic
I seem to have this feeling that I know you from somewhere.
Good point about Article 8 of the Human Rights Act. I have been preaching 'illegality' on behalf of the suits against our democratic rights for some time and this now convinces me that I am on the right road. I cannot see how Rules which are non-statutory and are ignored by 'suits' when it suits (?) them, Royal Prerogative exercised by Ministers - I though it was ROYAL Prerogative, no appeal and its not a matter of your statutory rights, can be applied against British Citizens in our 21st. century democracy.
The Civil Service say they run our country but we are the people who are going to prove them wrong. Parliament runs this country on behalf of the people and anyone who thinks otherwise is treading on very dangerous ground.
|
Fri Oct 27, 2006 4:00 pm |
|
 |
petenic
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 45
|
Ah yes, the name mcdangle does seem familiar!!! Glad this was of interest. I really do believe, as you guys have mentioned previously, that the core of this issue is that your statutory human rights have been interfered with, nay trampled into the dirt, and that the government has acted in an undemocratic and possibly illegal manner. Hence their reluctance to answer your questions properly. I seriously wonder whether any of the "Men In Black" are aware of this, or if they are, whether a concious decision was made to ignore the law as it is laid out under the Human Rights Act. The law is for all and is not made to be selective in its application.
Rob...Good on you mate.
John..pleasure as always to pass on what I can source. A fight for justice is for all who believe that the law is enacted and enforced for the betterment and protection of those treated unfairly or unjustly. Just read some good stuff on Che Guevara. Now there was a bloke that knew how to deal with tyranny and dictatorships!!
|
Fri Oct 27, 2006 4:30 pm |
|
 |
John Cooper
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2158
Location: Suffolk
|
petenic wrote: Just read some good stuff on Che Guevara. Now there was a bloke that knew how to deal with tyranny and dictatorships!!
Goodness me Pete you will be advocating the right of having Genghis Khan as our leader and Pol Pot as his deputy next, eh! but hang on isn't that what we have already
_________________ --------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------
|
Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:38 pm |
|
 |
whitemouse
Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Posts: 24
|
 Re: GEORGE F.
[quote="George F"][quote="mcdangle"]..................has not been approved for acceptance and wear. The wearing of unauthorised awards is a grave discourtesy to Her Majesty The Queen.[/i]
Is it not a grave discourtesy to the Queen, that this government is deeply involved in the sordid awarding (read 'selling') of honours to questionable recipients ?
Or perhaps that does not count under this ( mal)administration ?
|
Mon Oct 30, 2006 10:37 am |
|
 |
jireland
Joined: 20 Apr 2006
Posts: 566
Location: Wiltshire
|
Sorry, Ghengis is a lefty!!!
J
|
Tue Oct 31, 2006 12:28 am |
|
 |
jireland
Joined: 20 Apr 2006
Posts: 566
Location: Wiltshire
|
And I think that Whitemouse has just hit the nail right on the head as far as I am concerned.
John
|
Tue Oct 31, 2006 12:29 am |
|
 |
roger spencer
Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 41
Location: Costa Calida Spain
|
What a crazy country we have! I have just watched the service and parade at the cenotaph that as always stirs my personal memories of friends lost over a number of years and campaigns. Then as normal the lunacy of the UK system of government and the uncivil servents that are entrenched in Whitehall make me fume. Not for us veterans the luxury of a senior civilservants pension package, nor the awards in the Honours List. So I think that we should cut out that part of the system and act as follows:-
Only address correspondence to Buckingham palace for attention of the Queen.
or:-
As we (as a veterans society) administer the application forms and send to the MHC . send nothing through anyother channel.
Radical? YES! so what ?
|
Sun Nov 12, 2006 4:38 pm |
|
 |
MB
Joined: 09 Oct 2006
Posts: 807
|
 Reply to Roger Spencer's post of 12th Nov 12th.
Hi Roger.
I'm glad you are one of the few who put their name up front. I actually joined the site after you but have made my point to the extent of being chewed up by the pirahnas, or is it pihranas? who will tear you apart in our own camp for not going with the flow.
You have hit on a point of particular importance in suggesting that we should somehow find a way to address our fight directly to our Queen. Even as a National Service man in the 1950s I remember raising my right hand and swearing an oath of allegiance to her. An oath works both ways or it is not worth anything. I trust that lady we served, and I am sure that if she were to be made aware of our present plight would brush aside the suits and in an instant and solve our problem. If we believe less of her then the oath we all swore could be called into question. Could the suits cope with that? Could I having said it?
I have no way of knowing how to write to her Magesty than fly to the moon, but given the chance would do so for all of us forgotten servicemen of the 50s and 60s.
No war-cries in Malay from me , mate, but thank you for bringing forward a very valid piont...Mike Barton.
_________________ Mike Barton
|
Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:22 pm |
|
 |
'Jock' Fenton
Joined: 12 Feb 2006
Posts: 1222
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
 Writing to the Queen
http://www.royalinsight.gov.uk/output/page249.asp
Hi Mike.....I think, if you access the URL above, you'll discover that the process and protocol for writing to the Queen is a lot less complicated than Lunar flight.
Of course it'll be her 'Correspondence Secretary' that'll respond to your letter...and if you ask a question relating to ANY governmental issue the letter will be forwarded to the Minister of that Department....where Civil Servants will decide whether or not the Minister actually sees any of it....sound vaguely familiar????
Semoga Berjaya...
_________________ ...................'Jock'
Paroi...Rasah...Batu Signals Troop.
|
Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:42 pm |
|
 |
jireland
Joined: 20 Apr 2006
Posts: 566
Location: Wiltshire
|
Do not forget, if the Queen is the Colonel in Chief of your Regiment or Corps, you have the right to write to her in that capacity and the right to appeal to her.
John
|
Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:04 pm |
|
 |
|
The time now is Fri Feb 07, 2025 10:34 am | All times are GMT
|
Page 3 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
|
|
|