BarryF wrote:

John Feltham wrote:

We are here NOW and we will be here in the FUTURE.

John,

You speak for me also. A brilliant message for Mr Coney et al in the Government Departments.

I'll only 'go home' when the job is done.

Not before.


Barry

John, You also speak for me......Mr. Coney comes across with a monumental arogance we have come to expect from his ilk.... like John and Barry say,s We Will Fight on till the job is done ..... ROB

Roger, I hope you don't mind but I have responded to the rather rude letter from Mr Coney, which you published earlier today. The general tone of the letter made me so angry, I could restraine myself no longer. This is what I wrote ::

************************************

"Mr T Coney
Defence Services Secretary – Honours 1
Ministry of Defence
Eighth Floor, Zone J
Main Building
Horseguards Avenue
Whitehall
London, SW1A 2HB
Date 27th February 2007
Dear Mr Coney

I write concerning one of your letters published recently on the Fight for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia (PJM) website.

I am a regular subscriber to the website, an avid reader of all communications between various parties, and a Veteran myself eligible for the PJM.

I was very disappointed to read your reply to one of your correspondents, in which you made references to various Dictionary definitions of words such as ‘Souvenir’ and ‘Keepsake. The more one reads the various communications between interested parties on the subject of the PJM, the more noticeable it becomes that there is a marked reduction in the standards of the diverse exchanges emanating from the Ministry of Defence.

I will not join in the ranks of those indulging in such self-satisfaction, and I am extremely saddened to see ‘cracks in the surface’ appearing of what should be dignified and restrained discussion. You, Sir, are not alone in giving the impression of becoming rather irritated by the persistence of many of the Veterans who, I personally feel, have fair and valid comments to make. It is indeed disenchanting to see an increasing number of fairly senior members of the Ministry of Defence ostensibly seeing our campaign as nothing more than an irritant, and rather infra dig.

The Veterans contributing to the PJM website are, without exception, extremely well educated and many are highly qualified and respected academically. We do not expect to be subjected to unbecoming communications from anyone with whom we may have slight differences of opinion.

I have deliberately avoided any mention of the subject of whether or not we should be allowed to wear our medals, as the purpose of this letter is simply to express sadness and surprise at your response to a correspondent. I hope I offend no one.

Yours sincerely

AJDavies


I hope, Roger, that I have not overstepped the mark.

Thanks - Tony

Hi Tony
No certainly not! Was waiting to see what the response was and letting myself calm down. Was very tempted to reply immediatelybut commonsense prevailled. but I think I will react similair to Gloman and forward the entire letter to the Queen.

One good thing that came out of Richard Coney's letter is that he has quite clearly stated that quote 'I SHOULD POINT OUT, HOWEVER, THAT THE PJM HAS NOT BEEN AWARDED BY THE QUEEN AS YOU SUGGESTED IN YOUR LETTER. THE MEDAL HAS BEEN INSTITUTED BY THE MALAYSIAN GOVERNMENT'. unquote.

In a previous request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office I was told that my request was exempt under Section 37(1)(b) of the FOI Act, 2000 - conferring by the Crown of any honour or dignity.

Now Mr. Richard Coney has just confirmed the MOD agrees that the PJM was not conferred by the Crown but by the Malaysian Government. Will have to apply again.

Does anyone have an email address for the pleasant Mr T Coney ?

Tony

If you mean R. CONEY
the email address is richard.coney506@mod.uk
his boss is Ian Keith
the email address is ian.keith798@mod.uk
also at the MoD is Bill Jeffrey a member of the HD Committee
his email address is bill.jeffrey480@mod.uk

Have only just got to read the letter, my understanding of the double talk is that Her Majesty the Queen has NOT refused permission to wear the PJM but she has NOT granted permission. That being the case why could an approach on behalf of the PJM Veterans be submitted to her to officialy grant permission to wear? She would then be required to give a direct "Yes" or "No", and we would then so who really is stopping the official grant.

Fred

Thanks for that Paul, I should have made it clearer - it's Mr T. Coney's address I want: he of the rude and condescending letters.

Tony

Actually It is MR R.T.Coney
DS Sec -Honours -1, etc.

Both of which initials refer to the insulting correspondent!

David

Thanks GLOman - got his email address ?

Tony.

I believe the key to his statement is that HM has not 'granted' permission for it to be worn, then follows with "One is expected to presume that if permission has not been granted for the medal to be worn, it may not", then that is it , there is no point in his mention of the fact that she has not 'refused' thereby putting the onus back on to us to decide, without involving the Queen in a direct "Yes" or "No".

Fred

Kentsboro:

Coney's email add. richard.coney506@mod.uk

'phone No.0207 218 7829
fax 0207 218 2613

actually, I think PaulA gave it earlier.

Regards,

Dave

Redcapfred wrote:

Have only just got to read the letter, my understanding of the double talk is that Her Majesty the Queen has NOT refused permission to wear the PJM but she has NOT granted permission. That being the case why could an approach on behalf of the PJM Veterans be submitted to her to officialy grant permission to wear? She would then be required to give a direct "Yes" or "No", and we would then so who really is stopping the official grant.

Fred,

We submitted one Petition to the Queen in June last year. She sent it to Mrs Beckett to consider.

In my view, if Mrs Beckett doesn't consider that Petition favourably then Mrs B, in exercising the Royal Prerogative, will be acting for the Queen in denying us formal permission to wear the PJM.

http://www.fight4thepjm.org/whatwesay_Petition_to_The_Queen.htm


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

I apologise if this is in the wrong place, but in view of some of the answers we have been getting it
is probably OK. This received by email tonight. I think the "Great Eight" and others signed this, SO?

Having just returned from a few days away, I see that the 'souvenir' and 'keepsake' references have arisen again from the same source.

When this first arose around the middle of last year, I wrote to Coney expressing my displeasure at his using this definition with regard to a medal issued for service such as this. I then drew his attention to the Oxford English Reference Dictionary's definition of the 'Medal' or, in Malay, 'Pingat'. That definition is:

medal a piece of metal, usually in the form of a disc, struck or cast with an inscription or device to commemorate an event etc., or awarded as a distinction to a soldier, scholar, athlete, etc., for services rendered, for proficiency, etc.

I further pointed out to him that nowhere in that definition were the words 'souvenir' or 'keepsake' mentioned. I received a reply from his boss apologising for any offence that references such as that would give. I no longer have copies of that correspondence but I know that it is on the forum somwhere.

Seems I will have to write again!