We have said that the absurdity of the "you can receive it but can't wear it" approach by civil servants has been going on too long and that the dinosaurs in the Cabinet Office and elsewhere should get a grip and enter the modern, international, world.

40 years ago MPs were saying the same thing - they wanted to abolish the absurdity that The Queen should approve an HD recommendation that a medal could be received but not worn.

Read this:









Last edited by BarryF on Sun Jun 15, 2008 1:51 pm; edited 1 time in total
_________________
BarryF, who fought for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia

[quote="BarryF"]We have said that the absurdity of the "you can receive it but can't wear it" approach by civil servants has been going on too long and that the dinosaurs in the Cabinet Office and elsewhere should get a grip and enter the modern, international, world.

]


Dinosaurs, fossils, whatever, these people certainly live in the Stone Age. Will the next step be wearing ostrich feathers in hats and black stockings with a garter.


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

Knockout stuff from our research team.

Does this letter and the London Gazette entry, run concomitantly.

Or was the letter the instigator of the Gazette entry.

Yours Aye

Arthur

40 years ago? 1968. Perhaps then, the London Gazzette entry was the result of this letter. Just a thought. Dave.


_________________
I like it here on MY planet. If you wish to visit, you are welcome,
but your sanity is not my responsibilty!

Arthur R-S wrote:

Knockout stuff from our research team. Does this letter and the London Gazette entry, run concomitantly. Or was the letter the instigator of the Gazette entry. Yours Aye, Arthur

Dave Woolmer wrote:

40 years ago? 1968. Perhaps then, the London Gazzette entry was the result of this letter. Just a thought. Dave.

You are both on target here - this was one of the incentives (pressure from MPs like Don Touhig today) that, a year later, led to The Queen issuing Her London Gazette Notice (the one she signed!) that gives you The Queen's permission to wear the PJM. She has never signed anything to say you can't wear your medal - only that you can! Even the suits have had to cough to that now). And soon I'll be posting some really damning evidence from the Archives against the current set of civil servants and their various and conflicting arguments about the London Gazette Notice.


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

Arthur R-S wrote:

Knockout stuff from our research team. Does this letter and the London Gazette entry, run concomitantly. Or was the letter the instigator of the Gazette entry. Yours Aye, Arthur

Dave Woolmer wrote:

40 years ago? 1968. Perhaps then, the London Gazzette entry was the result of this letter. Just a thought. Dave.

Arthur, Dave - you are both on target here. This was one of the incentives (i.e. pressure from elected MPs like Don Touhig today) that, a year later, led to The Queen issuing Her London Gazette Notice (the one she signed!) that gives you The Queen's permission to wear the PJM if you are eligible (i.e. not a Crwon Servant when it was conferred in 2005/6). She has never signed anything to say you can't wear your medal - only that you can! Even the suits have had to cough to that now.

And soon I'll be posting some really damning evidence from the Archives against the current set of civil servants and their various and conflicting arguments about the London Gazette Notice.

Barry


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

Instead of two vacancies in the HDC, they might just as well have a total clear out and start again.

Anyone up for it?

Yours Aye

Arthur

BarryF wrote:

Arthur R-S wrote:

Knockout stuff from our research team. Does this letter and the London Gazette entry, run concomitantly. Or was the letter the instigator of the Gazette entry. Yours Aye, Arthur

Dave Woolmer wrote:

40 years ago? 1968. Perhaps then, the London Gazzette entry was the result of this letter. Just a thought. Dave.

You are both on target here - this was one of the incentives (pressure from MPs like Don Touhig today) that, a year later, led to The Queen issuing Her London Gazette Notice (the one she signed!) that gives you The Queen's permission to wear the PJM. She has never signed anything to say you can't wear your medal - only that you can! Even the suits have had to cough to that now). And soon I'll be posting some really damning evidence from the Archives against the current set of civil servants and their various and conflicting arguments about the London Gazette Notice.

......Clearly the '69 London Gazette notice was intended to provide a 'common sense' solution to a process that was then recognised to be fundamentally flawed and impossible to intelligently implement.....How completely bizarre that 40 years later the current HD Committee insist on returning to the discredited past and in the process, not only denying the applicability of that Gazette notice (which HM actually signed let me emphasise!) but also attempting to label a bunch of septuagenarian civilians as 'Crown Servants' in order to deny them their rights under it....there is a deficit of democracy and quite possibly, of morality, involved here.


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

I doubt if the current mob of civil serpents, sitting in their one thousand pound chairs, know anything about this series of documents that tell it as it was and now, should be.

The problem is that they should know. They are paid to give advice. Clearly they have been lacking in their advice. Not only lacking but wrong.

They have no shame.


_________________
Merdeka, Merdeka, Merdeka,
from the HD Committee and its decision.

HDC Vacancies.

Posted on Members Forum in response to Phredd's post. I thought I'd put it here as well.

In view of the latest evidence uncovered by our "On top form" team leaders, the application form, as it does, shows the determination of the current HD committee to ignore the wishes of Parliament in respect of the PJM, approved by HM and in the London Gazette 5057, the same committee which requires the successful applicant to have, it would appear, the same mind-set as those already in post.

It also demonstrates just how far the undemocratic HDC have come without opposition from Parliament and HM in ignoring the London Gazette 5057 and JSDP 761, para 21 and so far getting away with it with their contrived explanations and deliberate misinterpretations of current rules; SO FAR!


SECTION TWO: PERSONAL QUALITIES AND EXPERIENCE

MEMBER OF STATE HONOURS COMMITTEE

The role of Member requires someone who is an acknowledged expert in one of the subject areas of the Committee; has the respect of their peers, and has a good knowledge of other areas of the Committee’s work. Drawing on your own work and other experiences use this section to demonstrate how you meet the requirements. Use examples to back up your description.

Demonstrate how amenable you are in accepting even their questionable advice; no chance for those of an independent mind then.


SECTION THREE: PERSONAL QUALITIES AND EXPERIENCE

The role requires someone who is used to handling large volumes of written evidence quickly, reading (reaching?) conclusions and being prepared to explain and defend them in discussion. The individual needs to be able to work with other members of the Committee to produce agreed recommendations. Drawing on your own experiences, use this section to demonstrate your skills. Use examples to back up your descriptions.

*Reading conclusions and being.....) implies that one reads them and automatically concurs with the findings; perhaps that is exactly what it means - those selected are not expected to reach conclusions!


Work with the HD Cttee, ie, do as you are told, and defend their decisions with explanations "to produce agreed recomendations" (agreed by them), ie, lie by omission, obfuscation, misrepresent the truth, conflate regulations with " what are mere procedures", misinform Ministers and Members of Parliament, and imply that what has been signed on behalf of Her Majesty is as valid as Her own signature, notwithstanding that they have admitted that on no document advising that the PJM should not be worn, does Her signature or intials appear unlike Her edict in LG 5057.

Tremendous work digging in the National Archives !!!!

Now we know why the present HD Committee rarely meet nor write things down.

Methinks a hard lesson is about to be learned by some of our beloved Civil Servants. The old adage, "You can fool all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time".

Particularly when they wear, with the Queens permission, the PJM.

Well done and thanks.


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

Tremendous work indeed! Well done to all those associated with this research. Let's see what 'spin' the Whitehall doctors will try put on this.