As you all know we handed in a petition to Buckingham Palace in June 2006, the Queen instructed that the petition be sent to Margaret Beckett the then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for consideration.
Below is a reply to a Freedom of Information question that I submitted a few weeks ago, after reading the FOC’s reply you might want to write to your MP.
It would appear that some Civil Servant has dumped our petition in the bin if this is not the case, where is it?


FOI 0776-09
Thank you for your email of 15 September 2009, in which you asked:
On the 12th June 2006 three representatives of the PJM Veterans Association handed in a petition at Buckingham Palace requesting permission to wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia Medal, Her Majesty sent this petition to the FCO for the attention of Margaret Becket the then Foreign Secretary.
Under the Freedom of Information Act
I would like to know what happened to this petition?
Did Margaret Becket see this petition and what action was taken?
I am writing to confirm that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has now completed its search for the information. There is no record of having received this petition in either the Honours Secretariat or the Secretary of State's Office. If you have a copy that you would like us to consider, please send it to Monique Foulcer, at the above address.
If you are unhappy with the service you have received in relation to your request and wish to make a complaint or request a review of our decision, you should write to me within 40 working days.
If you are not content with the outcome of your complaint, you may apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. Generally, the Information Commissioner cannot make a decision unless you have exhausted the complaints procedure provided by the FCO. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.
Tanya Collingridge
Honours Secretary
Honours Secretary
Room 1/62 Old Admiralty Building
London SW1A 2PA
Tel: 0207 008 1027
Fax:
E-mail: tanya.collingridge@fco.gov.uk

It will probably encompass a reply similar to "Yes Prime Minister" , just par for the course for politicians and their high self regard at the expense of us 'mere mortals'

If you have never watched this----see how it resembles real life in the hall of Westminster.

The House of Cards Trilogy.

It is remarkably easy to paint the bulk of politicians as self interested autocrats detached from their supposed constituency. Partisan, factional, dishonest and hypocritical may seem unworthy of ourselves, but deep down we can appreciate that such traits are the markers of success for a parliamentarian. We practically expect it, and so Francis Urquhart is a natural leader to guide us through this intricate and often ugly process. With good humour and sound experience, the House of Cards trilogy exposes a perception of the sleaze prone British parliament that is easy to accept as plausible, which adds to the fun of one man’s pursuit of power by any means.
http://www.dvd.net.au/review.cgi?review_id=4526

Watch this short sequence


House of Cards - How to succeed in politics--


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jxo9VL615k&feature=related


plus-----Urquhart confronts The King..............

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzu7YDPkXJ0&feature=related

As you know Paul, I have always had my doubts as to anything that we have submitted actually gets to the intended recipient, these things are often usurped along the way. The one I like is 'Her Majesty The Queen thanks you for your letter etc......I have been asked to reply on her behalf etc.........and then it it goes on to say it has been forwarded to the right department for actioning. We all know the outcome of these stereotyped letters.

May I suggest that everyone who wishes their MP to be aware of such anomolies pen a letter [or send an email] to their MP stating how we have been subjected to the power of Civil Servants without Ministers even getting to hear about genuine problems where we are just fobbed off or our mailed brushed under the carpet.


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

Paul,

The senior they are the more they think they are untouchable and if I am not mistaken the law as it stands at the present time does not apply to those that inhabit the corridors of power at present. We have seen them stealing our money, committing fraud to get their hands on more public money, employing illegals, lying to invade other countries, etc. etc.

Destroying documents, telling big fibs and doing everything they can to members of the public who do not agree with them means nothing to them as long as they get their big salaries, promotion, and eventually gold plated pensons.

We can only hope for better days and better service from those in the public service who have long forgotten their education, morals and intelligence and act like a pack of dogs who bark a their master's command.

Petition of Right, 1628
An important document setting out the rights and liberties of the subject as opposed to the prerogatives of the crown (ie. Charles I). This action favouring the common man was championed by Sir Edward Coke (1552-1634), a prominent parliamentary adversary of the crown. His sparkling resume included public service as Speaker of the House of Commons, Attorney General, Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas and Chief Justice of the King's Bench.

III. And whereas also by the statute called 'The Great Charter of the Liberties of England,' it is declared and enacted, that no freeman may be taken or imprisoned or be disseized of his freehold or liberties, or his free customs, or be outlawed or exiled, or in any manner destroyed, but by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land.

NOTE - in these bygone days the importance of the 'Law of the Land' was respected but what a change from to-day.

When Senior Civil Servants can do whatever they like without fear of prosecution something is very wrong.
All Whitehall departments must be accountable to Parliament but they are not.
MI5 & MI6 are accountable to our elected representatives so why not the HD Committee?
When they make a mistake it can take 30 years before it comes to light.
It cannot be right when a Civil Servant can ignore the instructions of the Queen to present a document (your petition) before a Senior Minister.
Write too or email your MP and complain about this flagrant breach of the rules.
Parliament must be made aware of this.

For civil servants or any one else for that matter to prevent the delivery of a letter between the Sovereign and one of her Ministers is to my mind a criminal if not treasonable offence. Perhaps a spell in the Tower of London is called for for the Sir Humphreys of this world.

Hamish

I wrote twice to HM, the first letter attracted a reply from the Palace from the DS Services, and finally I received a reply from RTC!










I, of course replied to RTC:


E.D.Dilley, BA

February, 2007

Mr R.T. Coney,
Defence Services Secretary – Honours 1
Ministry of Defence,
Eighth Floor, Zone J,
Main Buildings,
Horseguards Avenue,
Whitehall,
London SW1A 2HB


Dear Mr Coney,

Thank you for your reply on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen.

You write “For the record, correspondence relating to the wearing of the PJM is a matter for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office”. Why, therefore, has my letter to Her Majesty regarding the wearing of the PJM been directed by Buckingham Palace to MOD Defence Services Secretary and not to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office? I, that is, the veterans, were promised by The Foreign Secretary, Mrs Margaret Beckett, that a decision would be made by the end of November 2006; you advise me that the matter is still under review and that you understand an announcement will be made in due course.

It is of course pure conjecture, but I suspect that someone made a serious misjudgement in the advice originally given regarding the original rejection of the gracious offer by the Agon of Malaysia; the intervention of the then Foreign Minister, Rt.Hon. Jack Straw MP who ordered a review, subsequent to which, after ten months, the FCO announced on 31 January 2006 that permission for eligible veterans to receive the Pingat Jasa Malaysia had been granted by HM the Queen. However, permission was not granted for Veterans in receipt of that award to wear” (Standard Note SN/1A/3914 – last updated on 10 February 2006 – placed in the House of Commons Library). It has been impossible to discover whether the caveat “permission to wear will not be formally given” is a separate instruction added later and not necessarily authorised by Her Majesty the Queen.

It is difficult not to conclude that there is an orchestrated campaign between the MOD, FCO and HD to continually “pass the parcel” between departments to avoid the question of which department should make the executive decision or accept the responsibility for continually obstructive behaviour.


I refer to your third paragraph: “New Medals for Past Service”. I find it incredible that you should say that no offence was intended when, for example:

“ …….many veterans contrast the number of medals available to currently serving Armed Forces personnel with the meagre issues of the past…….young servicemen and women of today have the opportunities to earn British medals for campaign service plus United Nations, European
Union medals and NATO medals for humanitarian and peace-keeping duties around the world”,
Implying that veterans cast envious eyes on the well earned medals of the present day Armed Forces which is outrageous.

“…….Seeing individuals proudly displaying a number of campaign medals has prompted some veterans to ponder about the overseas service they performed……….This has encouraged them to seek new campaign medals. At this point I have to say that the PJM was NOT sought, but was an unsolicited gift, an award offered by a grateful King and Country! It is a Service to Malaysia Medal and not as it is incorrectly described, a campaign medal! Again, the envy, as perceived by your department, of the veterans is highlighted; equally outrageous!


“……As result, there are a number of campaigns by veterans groups and individuals who feel that their service in the Armed Forces was not recognised by the institution of a dedicated campaign medal…………There are many examples…New Arctic Star or clasp Arctic to the 1939-45 Star…………

“…….The MOD receives a great deal of correspondence on these particular subjects and the many other campaigns from disaffected veterans. To call veterans disaffected is outrageous and hurtful.


“……..In addition, in recent months there has been criticism in the National Press about claims that the MOD has refused to allow veterans to receive a campaign medal offered by the Malaysian Government for service between 1957 and 1967. Three inaccuracies in one sentence: a) It was not a campaign medal but a medal for service, b) the veterans were not refused the medal, it was graciously accepted for them by Her Majesty it was the decision “would not formally be allowed to wear it” that was contentious, and c) the inclusive dates were from 1957 to the 12 August 1966, with a cooling off (or rundown) period ending on the 31st December 1966.

The piece, as you called it, “published some time ago”, from sources available to me, show a dateline 2003/09/30 - 11:23:29, not a particularly long time ago. The “piece” was also amended to include the PJM, an event which occurred on the 31st January 2006, so the page was undoubtedly updated after that date which reduces “some time ago” to circa 36 months! “Until the last few days the Department had not received any criticism from the veteran’s community”; (this is hardly surprising since it was on the Veterans Agency Website and difficult to find, “being tucked” away in an article covering other aspects regarding medals”) “…and only then from veterans involved in the campaign to overturn the decision that PJM could be accepted but not worn. The article came to the attention of members of our campaigning group after I had posted a copy of a letter I wrote to another Veterans Association requesting their support and attaching the text of the article. The article was finally removed after protests to The Veterans Agency, and, as I understand it, a discussion with a member of the Veterans Agency External Communications Team and Mr Ian Keith, DS Sec – Honours and Ceremonial, the sponsor branch and not as suggested in your letter by your Department’s concern for the feelings of veterans.

My view is that your explanation is inadequate both in terms of the continuing delay in answering the request for unrestricted permission to both accept and wear the PJM and the fact that it was not intended to offend veterans feelings which it obviously did – I believe that one would have to be totally insensitive, very naïve or optimistic that it would not attract criticism to think otherwise.

Yours faithfully,



E.D.Dilley



I then wrote to The Queen for a second time:





I am sure that there was no problem here unless it was advised by another Palace Officer that the letter was on the way. Just too make sure, naive perhaps, I sent a copy to Margaret Becket:







I aint not never had a reply from Mrs Becket - no sssssssurprise there then; so where have all the mailings gone; long, long ago?



Last edited by GLOman on Mon Oct 12, 2009 1:54 pm; edited 1 time in total

The Queen has asked me to thank you..............

As I said in a previous post David this reply is just protocol on behalf of Buckingham Palace. I have no proof but I doubt whether HMQ has ever seen any correspondence from any one of us regarding the PJM issue. I would think that the way some of these letters have been addressed to some of us purport to 'damned lies'.

I once wrote to the Attorney General on this issue of lies and how I could go about sueing HMG, I shall have to try and find the reply but it centred on HMG action through Parliament and not outside Parliament, more reading here but beware as to who is the Head Honcho!!

http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/


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

John,

I am sure it has not escaped everyone’s notice that MP’s are complaining that the civil service are acting retrospectively and unfairly in the action taken by Sir Thomas Legg who is urging them to repay allowances previously claimed in circumstances which suggest, in some cases, to be theft or fraud.

Its okay for MP’s to shout ‘unfair ’when it refers to themselves, then ignore the actions of an unelected committee, acting in secret and not being accountable to parliament making unlawful and unenforceable rules against British private citizens, such as the no-wear rule of the PJM.

Yes, one rule for them and another for the general public. THIS HAS GOT TO STOP!! and this ‘banana republic’ attitude replaced by a democratic government which rules on behalf of and for the people.

I have surfed the UK Statute Law Database and found this:-
Interception of Communications Act 1985, whereby mail intended for another, cannot be witheld by a third party.

Her Majesties secretariat had better take note.

Yours Aye

Arthur R-S