Image of the PJM Medal
Banner Text = Fight For the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia Medal
Reply to topic Page 2 of 3
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
The Key Civil Servants
Author Message
Reply with quote
Post  
George

You might not have seen this one

http://www.portsmouthtoday.co.uk/mk4custompages/CustomPage.aspx?PageID=43167&sectionID=8708

I feel a broadside coming from you on this one too!


_________________
--------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Artic Star 
George F wrote:
There were many more anomalies which would take a whole essay to explain.


Many are referred to in the Rebuttal which can be read at http://www.fight4thepjm.org/whatwesay_rebuttal.htm.


_________________
BarryF, who fought for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Reply with quote
Post  
John Cooper wrote:
By design Andy, all you had to do was put into a Google Search Engine RC, WALLAH! Very Happy


And here is one such "find" from another web site, in regard to the Suez medal.


Letter of information from: Mr R T Coney.
Defence Services Secretary (Secretariat) 1, Ministry of Defence.
Re: The issue of the Suez Canal Zone Medal.

Here is the text of a letter written by Mr R T Coney of the MoD referring to the issue of the Canal Zone Medal and sent to Jock Marrs during October 2003.

It has previously been printed on the Website's Forum page, but due to the amount of enquiries received since then asking for details regarding the issue of the medal, we have decided to reproduce it here as a more permanent source of reference.

Dear Mr Marrs,
As we discussed earlier, the matter of a medal for the Canal Zone has been resolved. You are aware that it has been decided to issue a new campaign medal for service in the Suez Canal Zone during the period 1951-1954 and we have talked about the process on several occasions. Just to remind you of what has happened in recent months, The Queen had agreed to the institution of the medal in principle, but the detailed eligibility criteria had to be drafted and agreed at all levels before the medal could be issued. The Committee on Grants and Honours, Decorations and Medals has the responsibility of submitting the qualifying criteria to The Queen for her final approval. The Government undertook to inform veterans when the process had been completed and the medals were available. As you now know, this work has been completed. The Queen has seen and approved the papers and in accordance with the established procedures, they were laid before Parliament on 23rd October 2003. I would therefore be grateful if you would bring the attached information to the visitors to your website, and your ex-service friends, and encourage any of them who served in the Canal Zone between the dates shown to apply for their medal. The Ministry of Defence is very keen to issue as many medals as possible to eligible individuals in the next few months. The four single Service medal offices representing the Royal Navy, Royal Marines, Army and Royal Air Force, plus the branches which deal with the Royal Fleet Auxiliary and civilians, are fully prepared for the influx of applications.

The Army Medal Office, which will receive the largest number of claims and has to stamp the names on all the medals, has established a new Canal Zone section to deal with these applications exclusively. Though it is stating the obvious, the quicker people apply for their medal, the sooner they will receive it. It is hoped that the majority of medals can be issued within the next few months, though it will depend on the response from the veterans and their families.

We understand that the attached instructions are detailed and lengthy, but we would urge you to provide your friends and readers with as much information as possible. As you know, there has been a great deal of controversy associated with the awarding of this medal and the circumstances surrounding its issue. In recent months, the veterans' community and the Press have circulated a great deal of inaccurate information, based on rumour and untruths. This has served only to worry those who were led to believe that the medal could still be a long time in coming. As you can see this is not the case. It is our intention to provide as much information about the qualifying criteria as possible to encourage those people who might qualify for the medal to apply, and in the process answer questions which might arise from those who are still unsure whether they might be eligible.
Yours sincerely, (Signed) R T Coney.

Complete Instructions and Criteria.
THE INSTITUTION OF A NEW MEDAL FOR SERVICE IN THE SUEZ CANAL ZONE 16TH OCTOBER 1951 TO 19TH OCTOBER 1954.

1) As announced by the Prime Minister on 11th June 2003, the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals has had under consideration the case for recognition of Service in the Suez C anal Zone between 1951 and 1954, with special regard to the hardships and dangers which accompanied duty there.

2) Their recommendations have been duly submitted to The Queen who has graciously approved the award of the Naval General Service Medal, instituted in 1915, and the General Service Medal (Army and Royal Air Force,) instituted in 1918, with clasp 'Canal Zone' for specified service as described below. The qualifying criteria have been published in a Command Paper which has been seen and approved by the Queen and laid before Parliament. Medals can now be issued by the Ministry of defence's medal offices. Applications from veterans and their families are welcomed at the addresses detailed below. All claims will be checked against official records held by the Department to confirm eligibility to the medal, or as instructed by the individual medal office.

3) The following categories of personnel will be eligible for the award of the appropriate General Service Medal with Clasp.

3a) Royal Navy, Royal Marines, Army or Royal Air Force personnel and equivalent Reserve Forces based in the Suez Canal Zone (described at Schedule 1)

3b) Civilians who served full time with the Royal Navy, Army or Royal Air Force during the qualifying period provided they wore their approved uniform of their organisation (see Schedule 2)

3c) Military personnel of Commonwealth or Colonial Forces, subject to the approval of their respective governments.

3d) persons of foreign nationality properly enlisted or enrolled in any of the qualifying categories described above.

4) Qualifying service for each of these categories will be thirty days or more continuous service in the Suez Canal Zone between 16th October 1951 and 19th October 1954.

5) Service at sea will not count towards the qualifying period. Nor will time spent in the Suez Canal Zone on official visits, inspections etc. by personnel based elsewhere.

6) If qualifying service was brought to an end before the completion of the specified qualification period on account of death, wounding or other disability due to operational service, the reduced period of service will be sufficient qualification for the award of the appropriate General Service Medal with Clasp. The Grant of a British Honour, Decoration or Medal of the status of the British Empire Medal or above, or of a Queens Commendation for Brave Conduct, for Service in the Suez Canal Zone between 16th October 1951 and 19th October 1954 will also qualify the recipient for the appropriate General Service Medal with Clasp.

7) The award of the Medals and Clasps will be made as soon as possible to qualified applicants. Veterans of the Canal Zone, or the next of kin of those who have died, will need to apply in writing to the appropriate medal Office, giving full name, date of birth and service number. The next of kin of those who served will be required to supply supporting documentation. In common with other campaign medals, all applications will be dealt with strictly in the order that they are received. Claims will be acknowledged on receipt, and medals will be issued as quickly as possible.

GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES OF THE SUEZ CANAL ZONE.

NORTHERN BOUNDARY. The Northern Boundary of the Area is the Mediterranean coast at Port Said between 32 degrees 15 minutes E and 32 degrees 20 minutes E.

WESTERN BOUNDARY. This follows the urban boundary of Port Said, then southwards to El-Tina forming a narrow corridor along the western Canal bank. This corridor is approximately one mile wide at most points but incorporates the 'Treaty' and 'Canal' roads and all camps along these routes. The boundary then follows the 'Erskine line' running directly west from El-Tina to the Bar el Baqar Drain and then SW along this Drain and the Drain Diversion to the edge of the cultivated area of the Nile Delta (near Faqus) continuing as far as El Tawila. From there it runs south to El Abbasa between El Qurein and El Isdiya. From El Abbasa the boundary runs south by east to El Ribeiqi then due south to the 30th parallel

SOUTHERN BOUNDARY. The southern boundary runs east along the 30th parallel to the edge of the Gebel Ataqa and along the line of the escarpment to Ras Umm Mughera. It then follows the coastline northward through Ras el Adabya and Suez to Port Taufiq.

EASTERN BOUNDARY. From Port Taufiq the boundary follows the line of the eastern bank of the Canal to the urban boundary of Port Fouad on the Mediterranean coast. This boundary incorporates installations along the east bank including The Marine quarantine station near Port Taufiq and the transit Camp at Port Fouad.

A full list of those civilian units which served in the Suez Canal Zone between 1951 and 1954 is no longer available. The following Bodies may have been involved.
British Forces Broadcasting Services
British Red Cross Society.
Church Army
Church of Scotland Canteen
Combined Services Entertainment
Forces Help Society
Hibbert House
Malcolm Clubs
Mission to Mediterranean Garrisons.
Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes.
Royal Fleet Auxiliary
St John's Ambulance Brigade
Salvation Army.
Soldier's and Airmen's Scripture Readers Association.
Soldiers' Sailors, and Airmen's Families Association
Women's Voluntary Service.
Young Men's Christian Association.
Young Women's Christian Association.
Members of other similar bodies which provided full time service in support of the Armed Forces in the Canal Zone during the relevant period will also be eligible for the medal (provided that they wore the appropriate uniform of the organisation concerned.) They or their next of kin, should submit supporting documentation when they apply for the medal, including evidence of their membership of the organisation and proof of their service in the Canal Zone between the dates specified in the Command Paper and detailed above. Applications should be submitted as appropriate to:-

Civilian Honours Unit,
Room 462, St Giles Court,
1-13 St Giles High Street,
London . WC2H BLD

Royal Fleet Auxiliary Medal Office.
SO3 RFA CS1A
Room F11, Lancelot Building,
PP29, H.M. Naval Base
Portsmouth, Hampshire. PO1 3NH

This ends the information from Richard Coney of the MoD. Please copy these and pass them on to other Canal Zone Vets who do not use a computer.


_________________
Merdeka, Merdeka, Merdeka,
from the HD Committee and its decision.
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post "insensitive and crass" - read on...... 
Arctic Convoy Medal

Posted 5th November 2002

I spoke to Cdr Eddie Grenfell a few days ago who told me the Foreign Office was "no longer objecting" to the Russian medal being awarded to British Arctic convoy veterans. More he could not say for the moment. This is probably old news to you blokes in the UK. But I thought I would at least drop my other boot.
All best
John England, Berlin

Arctic Convoy Medal

Posted 8th August 2002

Whitehall's reported decision (Daily Telegraph 7/8/02) not to allow British Arctic convoy veterans (either RN or MN) to receive the Defence of the Soviet Polar Region medal the Russians awarded to their own sailors way back then and are now offering to the Brits. Cdr Eddie Grenfell (RN Rtd) has already summed it well as a "decision taken by people who have never heard a shot fired in anger". Various MN veterans' Website forums are also very understandably running hot over it.
John England.



(Originally posted by Robin Hurst, site administrator of the T.S. Vindicatrix website)
DAILY TELEGRAPH 7th August 2002

Uproar over veteran medal veto
By Stewart Payne

The Government has angered British veterans of the Second World War Arctic convoys by telling them that they should not receive a Russian medal honouring their bravery. The Russian government wants to give surviving Royal and Merchant Navy sailors the same medal that it gave to its own sailors who helped to keep supply lines open. But Whitehall has decided the issue of the medal to British convoy men is inappropriate because it was originally intended for Soviet sailors.

In a letter to veterans, Richard Coney, a senior civil servant, said: "It is most unlikely that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which is responsible for dealing with such requests from foreign governments, will recommend to the Queen that permission should be granted to either receive or wear the medal. "Arctic convoy survivors received the Atlantic Medal but an Arctic medal, although considered, was never struck. There are 1,600 Arctic convoy survivors. One of them, Cdr Eddie Grenfell, from Havant, Hants, said: "These decisions are made by people who've never seen a shot fired in anger. They have no idea of the hell we went through. "Cdr Grenfell, who survived the sinking of his ship in the Arctic in May 1942, added: "We veterans are dismayed and disgusted by the Government's ungrateful attitude."

At the end of the war, the Soviet government commissioned the Defence of the Soviet Polar Region medal and gave it to its own sailors. The Russian government has now decided that the same medal should be presented to the British survivors.
Pavel Bogomolov, London correspondent for Pravda, said with the end of the Cold War his people felt free to honour British comrades. "Millions of people in Russia have come to realise how important the Allies were to us."
The convoys carried 22,000 aircraft and 13,000 tanks, helping to tip the balance in Eastern front. The British Government is wary about medals issued to its servicemen and women by overseas governments. To wear those given by foreign powers requires the permission of the Queen. Mike Hancock, Liberal Democrat MP for Portsmouth South, described the Government's attitude to the Russian plan as "insensitive and crass".


_________________
Merdeka, Merdeka, Merdeka,
from the HD Committee and its decision.
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post "it had been an irritation for many years" ....re 
Minutes of an Extraordinary Meeting of the Veterans Forum held in the Victory Services Club on 15 July 2003

Speech by Ivor Caplin MP Minister for Veterans

Present


Ivor Caplin

COBSEO Executive Committee

Maj Gen Mike Shellard
Capt Alun Ryle
Brig Ian Townsend
Maj Gen Michael Regan
Air Chf Mshl Sir David Cousins
Maj Gen Peter Sheppard
Lt Col Jerome Church
Cdre Toby Elliott
Cdre Martin Macpherson
Mrs Debbie Bowles


COBSEO Advisers

Cdr Tony Herdman
Air Cdre Ed Jarron

Other Government Departments

Siobhan Larking
Alex Johnstone
Howard Thompson
Carol Gardner
Paula Kitching
William Vineall
Roy Goodacre
Kenneth Robbie

Ministry of Defence

Liz McLoughlin
Malcolm Lingwood
Alan Burnham
Jonathan Iremonger
Cdre Annette Picton
Dr Anne Braidwood
Mike Sands
Brigid Rodgers
Gerry Mulrooney
Richard Coney


Minister for Veterans



Chairman COBSEO
Vice Chairman COBSEO
TRBL
ABF
RAFBF
SSAFA Forces Help
BLESMA
Combat Stress
FPS
War Widows Association




Veterans Scotland
RAFA




ODPM
DCA
DCA
DWP
DfES
DoH
HMT
Scotland Office, DCA



DG SP Pol
D SP Pol Veterans
CE VA
D SP Pol Pensions
D Resettlement
D SP Pol Medical Advisor
DD SP Pol Veterans
A/Hd GVIU
VA
A/Hd DSSec(Sec)


Chairman


Secretariat



Mr Guy Brewer
WO Gary Gray



Veterans Affairs Secretariat
Veterans Affairs Secretariat



In Attendance



Wg Cdr Stuart Lindsay
WO1 Mick Robson
Alex Cruttwell
Rob Foreman
Emran Husain



DGMO
Veterans Affairs Secretariat
PS/Minister for Veterans
DGMO
Veterans Affairs Secretariat



Apologies



Lt Gen Anthony Palmer
Cdre Barry Bryant
Cdre Barry Leighton
Robert Leader
Maj Rosemary Warne
Peter Thomas
Georgina Campbell
Paul Woods
Gwyneth Taylor
Gwyn Owens
Alan Nicholson
Rosemary Kennedy
Chris Stewart



DCDS(Pers)
KGFS
RNA
St Dunstans
Secretary COBSEO
FCO
Home Office
DoH
LGA
DCMS
Scottish Executive
National Assembly for Wales
Northern Ireland Executive


Item
(a)


Discussion and Decisions
(b)


Action
(c)

1
Minister's Address


1. Minister for Veterans welcomed delegates to the Forum and delivered a keynote address outlining his pleasure about being appointed Minister for Veterans and his priorities for the months ahead. A copy of his address is at Enclosure 1.



2
Communications Strategy



1. Minister for Veterans invited Gerry Mulrooney from the VA to brief the Forum on the Communications Strategy.

2. Gerry thanked members of Working Group 2 for contributing to the Communications Strategy. A useful and constructive approach had been taken to develop the Strategy and this had already resulted in some notable achievements. The Strategy would be simple and practical to implement with the primary focus being on raising awareness, particularly within the veterans' community, the charitable sector, Government service providers and the general public. The time was right to begin implementing the Strategy and addressing the challenges it would present. He recommended that WG2 should be dissolved and an implementation group established in its place which would, after the addition of a member from the Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA), be based loosely on WG2 membership.

3. Minister for Veterans thanked Working Group 2 for their work and invited comments on the recommendation that WG 2 should be dissolved and an implementation team established to take forward the Strategy.

4. Chair COBSEO stated that the paper had been well written, the recommended processes would be simple to operate and that there was plenty of opportunity for veterans' organisations to participate. COBSEO had no difficulty with accepting the paper. The Communications Strategy was an excellent example of how the partnership process should work.

5. Decision. It was unanimously agreed that WG2 should be dissolved and that the Communications Strategy be implemented.


































Gerry Mulrooney/D SP Pol Veterans


3
Review of Veterans Initiative
Working Groups



1. Minister for Veterans invited D SP Pol Veterans to brief the Forum on the Strawman Paper on the Review of Veterans Initiative Working Groups.

2. D SP Pol Veterans advised that the Working Groups had demonstrated an excellent example of cooperation between MOD, Other Government Departments, the Devolved Administrations and ex-service organisations. He further advised that many of the working groups had achieved excellent results, but that the time was right to re-focus our aims. He thanked those who had contributed to the Strawman paper and mentioned, in particular, the input from COBSEO. In summary, future work would be streamed in accordance with the 3 strands of the Veterans Initiative. An Executive Steering Group should be established to provide operational oversight and coordination of effort on behalf of the Forum, with the Veterans Affairs Secretariat providing administrative and secretariat support. The Executive Steering Group would take account of the output to date of the Working Groups, including the Kings College London (KCL) Report which would now be published in mid September 2003 to take account of the Parliamentary recess from 17th July to 8th September.

3. In response to the Minister for Veteran's invitation for comments on the Strawman Paper, Chair COBSEO advised that he and his committee had been fully consulted in the production of the paper and their concerns had been taken fully into account. COBSEO agreed that the KCL Needs Map had been properly focused on identifying the unmet needs of the more vulnerable veterans, but felt that this narrow base needed to be widened by future research. COBSEO were pleased to see that the work of WG8 and WG9 would be continued within the work streams. The final paper was eminently satisfactory. Sec Gen TRBL advised that the paper reflected his organisation's thinking and that they were content with the report. Veterans Scotland asked how links with the Devolved Administrations would be maintained. The Minister pointed out that at Task Force level, both the Scotland Office and the Scottish Executive would continue to be represented as would the other Devolved Administrations. There would be similar representation at Forum level Meetings between MOD and the Devolved areas of Government and this cooperation would also continue in key areas of mutual interest. DCA (Scotland Office) confirmed that there remained a constitutional remit for defence matters to remain within Westminster. Minister for Veterans advised that the MOD was alert to the need for proper involvement at all levels of Government and this was reflected in the approach taken in the Strawman Paper. The Minister congratulated D SP Pol Veterans and his team for the Strawman paper and expressed gratitude for the close cooperation provided by COBSEO.

4. Decision. It was unanimously decided that the recommendations of the Strawman paper should be implemented and that an Away Day should take place on 6 Aug 03 to discuss formulation of the way ahead.















































D SP Pol Veterans


4
Any Other Business



1. Normandy Commemoration Events. Chair COBSEO asked the Minister if he could update the Forum on MOD's involvement in Commemoration of the 60th Anniversary of the Normandy Landings.

2. Minister for Veterans advised that he had recently written to all MPs outlining MOD's commitment to the commemoration events. Participation from MOD would include 2 military bands and representation at Ministerial/Senior Armed Forces level. If MOD were invited, suitable Ministerial and Military representation would be made available for the Service of Remembrance and Thanksgiving at St Pauls on 20 October 2004 being organised by the Normany Veterans Association. Minister further advised that the Home Office had recently announced that free passports would be made available to those Veterans travelling to commemorative events as part of an organised trip and that the main celebrations were being organised by the French Authorities, with British interests being represented through our Military Attache in Paris. Minister advised that whilst he hoped that a member of the Royal Family would attend, this was a matter for the Royal Household to decide. MOD officials were in discussion with Ferry companies on concessionary travel arrangements for those attending commemorative events. It was hoped to make an announcement on the outcome shortly. Minister for Veterans summed up by saying that there was lots of interest in the 60th Anniversary and he would be personally attending some of the events in his capacity as Minister for Veterans. However, events would not be of the same scale as for the 50th anniversary and would be of a somewhat lower key

3. Controller ABF asked whether the commemorative service at St Paul's Cathedral would be officially recognised by MOD. Minister for Veterans advised that an offer of help and assistance had been made to the Normandy Veterans Association and that a response was awaited.

4. Sec Gen TRBL advised that this was likely to be a milestone and the last significant anniversary that the veterans themselves would be able to attend. It was important, therefore, that it received as high a profile as possible. He urged Government to match the commitment of other nations such as the US, who would be making a lot of the event. He concluded by saying that the 60th Anniversary should be played up, not down.

5. Minister for Veterans confirmed that the plans for developing educational material were aimed at raising the awareness of young people to provide a bridge between the 60th and 75th anniversaries so that young people could carry forward the torch of remembrance and commemoration. He emphasised his personal commitment to the 04/05 commemorative events.

6. Suez Canal Medal. Chair COBSEO advised that the recent announcement that a GSM would be awarded for Service in the Suez Canal Zone had been well received as it had been an irritation for many years. He asked if the Minister could say any more about the timescales for the recipients to receive their awards. Minister for Veterans advised that the Department was still awaiting the HD Committee recommendations which would then be subject to approval by HM Queen. Once approval was given, MOD would ask for medals to be minted. However, many checks would be needed before the medals could be issued. Minister hoped the first medals would be with recipients in time for this year's Remembrance Sunday. However, full issue was likely to take 2 years, as the Department had estimated that there were potentially up to 200,000 recipients.

7. Challenge Fund. CE Combat Stress asked what procedures were in place for making a case for Challenge Fund expenditure?

8. DG SP Pol advised that she would be writing to Chair COBSEO outlining procedures for suggesting ideas for expenditure. Minister for Veterans gave more detail on his earlier announcement of £2M being made available for the Challenge Fund by explaining that in the current year £500K had been allocated and £750K had been allocated for each of the FYs 04/05 and 05/06.


































NVA/DSSec(Sec)














D SP Pol Vets






DSSec(Sec)


















DG SP Pol


5
Closing Remarks



1. Minister for Veterans thanked everybody for attending the Extraordinary meeting of the Veterans Forum.


_________________
Merdeka, Merdeka, Merdeka,
from the HD Committee and its decision.
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Coney. 
John, I read this and asked myself - Coney said -The Queen has seen and approved the papers and in accordance with ESTABLISHED PROCEDURES, they were laid before Parliament on 23/10/03.

Now if there are established procedures on the acceptance of and wearing a Canal Zone medal and the Queen laid before Parliament the papers in regard to this award (Suez Canal medal), then why was this established procedure NOT followed in the case of the PJM. They are using the same old excuses they used with the Canal Zone medal in the first place ie. double medalling and 5 year rule so must have been guided by the foreign awards situation.
Would I be right in saying it is a case of double standards and the Civil Servants of this country interpreting rules to suit themselves and no-one else. If so it has got to stop.

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Coney. 
mcdangle wrote:
Would I be right in saying it is a case of double standards and the Civil Servants of this country interpreting rules to suit themselves and no-one else. If so it has got to stop.


Of course you are correct in stating that Andy, presently we will bring these people to their knees, by the way JohnF was this article on RC found on The Britains Small Wars Website as I was reading that again last night there. That site has a lot to offer and we have a good exchange of banners there too


_________________
--------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Irritants. 
I note in the speech by Ivor Caplin MP, Veterans Minister, on 15/7/03 he stated - 'the recent announcement that a GSM would be awarded for service in the Suez Canal Zone had been well received AS IT HAD BEEN AN IRRITATION FOR MANY YEARS.'

So thats what we are an irritation. Not members of Her Majesty's Forces who fought for our country. Shows just what the suits think of us.

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Coney. 
John Cooper wrote:
by the way JohnF was this article on RC found on The Britains Small Wars Website as I was reading that again last night there. That site has a lot to offer and we have a good exchange of banners there too


All three articles came from a Google search using this search criteria....

"richard coney"


_________________
Merdeka, Merdeka, Merdeka,
from the HD Committee and its decision.
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post AS IT HAD BEEN AN IRRITATION FOR MANY YEARS.' 
mcdangle wrote:
I note in the speech by Ivor Caplin MP, Veterans Minister, on 15/7/03 he stated - 'the recent announcement that a GSM would be awarded for service in the Suez Canal Zone had been well received AS IT HAD BEEN AN IRRITATION FOR MANY YEARS.'

So thats what we are an irritation. Not members of Her Majesty's Forces who fought for our country. Shows just what the suits think of us.


I think that I speak for many PJM Veterans that we will continue to be a irritation, until this disgraceful and dishonourable and apparently unlawful decison is changed to allow us to WEAR the PJM, in the manner which our Commonwealth comrades are able to do.


_________________
Merdeka, Merdeka, Merdeka,
from the HD Committee and its decision.
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re:    Medal remark branded ‘insult’IAN BRUCE 
George F wrote:
SCOTTISH HERALD
Medal remark branded ‘insult’IAN BRUCE
10 August 2006

Scottish veterans of an undeclared, 10-year guerrilla war which claimed 519 British lives reacted angrily yesterday to a Ministry of Defence official's description of their campaign medals as "souvenirs and keepsakes". Almost 100 of the UK dead in the Malayan "emergency" in the 1950s and 1960s were from Scottish regiments. The comment, over the Pingat Jasa Malaysia decoration offered by the Malaysian government, was made by Richard Coney, a senior MoD spokesman, in reply to a question about the ban on wearing foreign military awards at Remembrance parades.
He wrote: "The Queen has granted permission for British citizens to accept the medal, but as a souvenir and keepsake only and not for wear. There is no right of appeal." Andrew Nicoll, a former KOSB officer eligible for the PJM, described the comment as "impudent and insulting" and was joined by a number of other incensed veterans. Last night Mr Coney said: "The medal is not a trinket and I would never refer to it as such. However, the fact remains that the medal has not been authorised for wear" http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/67611.html


Perhaps we can all say our piece here to The Scottish Herald via The Letters Page to the Editor, I will be doing just that this morning, well done Andy and George

ps

Here is my version, get writing folks!

Ian Bruce/PJM Medal Article
To: On-lineEditor@theherald.co.uk

Sirs

Ian Bruce is to be commended on his article in The Herald regarding the non wearing issue of The PJM medal. Some ex Malayan/Malaysian veterans who are so incensed with these alleged 'illegal rules' have taken issue with Her Majesty The Queen who alledgedly signed the document barring The British Veterans from wearing the medal but had previously given other Commonwealth Veterans an unrestricted order to wear the same medal.

How can this be seen as democratic?

Yours sincerely

John Cooper
Name and address supplied


_________________
--------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Herald article 
First off:.....Well done Andy!!!
Second:...herewith my version of a 'Letter to the Editor'

Dear Sir/Madam,

Ian Bruce's article entitled "Medal remark branded insult" leaves me with a feeling of overweening sadness.

How terribly sad it is that the British Government's, unfathomably mean spirited, refusal to permit Malaya / Borneo veterans the right to wear the medal, bestowed upon them by a grateful Malaysian nation, denies veterans, such as Andrew Nichol, of a tiny bit of pride in their declining years.

The crass and insulting comments by Richard Coney of the MoD inspire the following questions...

Precisely what pernicious effect could the accepting and wearing of the PJM have upon the integrity of the Imperial Honours System and what possible harm can result from permitting elderly veterans the unrestricted right to wear their medal with justifiable pride?

We...all of us, should be absolutely delighted to see British veterans so honoured by a grateful foreign nation...what an incredible shame that their own nation refuses to accord them similar honour and respect.

The mind positively boggles at such a disgraceful exhibition of myopic, bureaucratic insensitivity.


John 'Jock' Fenton
(ex-Royal Corps of Signals & 17th Gurkha Division)


_________________
...................'Jock'
Paroi...Rasah...Batu Signals Troop.
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Coney. 
John Cooper wrote:
[ by the way JohnF was this article on RC found on The Britains Small Wars Website as I was reading that again last night there.


Bearing in mind that I am on a temporary dial up - I have just done another search for that letter and yes, it was from the site that you mentioned.

Letter of information from: Mr RT Coney. - 2 visits - 3:38am
... written by Mr RT Coney of the MoD referring to the issue of the Canal Zone Medal and sent ... This ends the information from Richard Coney of the MoD. ...
www.britains-smallwars.com/Canal/Coney2.html - 19k


_________________
Merdeka, Merdeka, Merdeka,
from the HD Committee and its decision.
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post "something that can be worn" 
John Cooper wrote:
I know this article was written a little while ago re The Arctic Convoy Medal well it is the same guy meddling in our medal

http://www.portsmouthtoday.co.uk/mk4custompages/CustomPage.aspx?PageID=43131


John,

I have been looking at your original post again. It was a valuable 'find' that has raised some fundamental issues - and I have seen yet another today that is relevant to our fight.

The Arctic medal was proposed and supported by Blair in 2004. The civil servants, Coney and Sinfield, got to work on the proposal and had meetings with lobbyists and the local MP. But all the time they were working on the myths and disinformation to defeat this medal and deny the Arctic veterans (like they have with the PJM). By June 2004, their evil work resulted in a "Commons Footnote", a Parliamentary written answer (like the PJM Ministerial Statement), telling everyone that the proposed Arctic Star had been turned down (like the PJM was as a wearable medal).

The lobbying continued (cf Fight4thePJM) and eventually that mean recommendation was overturned (there's hope then that our recommendation can be overturned).

As the MoD states on the Veterans Agency web site (probably written by Coney), the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues believe that the service given and the conditions undergone by the Arctic veterans warrant tangible recognition in the form of something that can be worn.

Now - if we get a review, they are up a gum tree. Because we already have a medal - and we're not about to allow the suits to turn that into an emblem - and "Medals Will Be Worn".

So the info from John's Portsmouth Today article not only provides us with valauable ammunition, it also points to a glimmer of hope for PJMers ... the MoD state that the tangible recognition should be in the form of something that can be worn. And that is all we seek.


_________________
BarryF, who fought for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Reply with quote
Post  
[quote="George F

Barry & John I likewise agree this "portsmouthtoday" article is very valuable towards our own cause.

However, it would be nice to know what date it was published and who was the journalist?

George F[/quote]

George date wise see here http://www.portsmouthtoday.co.uk/mk4custompages/CustomPageSummary.aspx?SectionID=8708 please allow a slow download as it is an archive file

Andy Nichol/McDangle has I believe written to the reporter, I will see if I can find his name:-

Found it

david.maddox@thenews.co.uk

You will note that the MoD are called The Ministy of Deceit in one of the articles!


_________________
--------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:
Reply to topic Page 2 of 3
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
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