|
Page 2 of 2
|
Author |
Message |
mcdangle
Joined: 12 Feb 2006
Posts: 1027
Location: Scotland
|
That Letter.
In a letter published on our site (I think it was to Paul Alders from Eleri Pengelly) it was said, during the other matters reported, that the document signed by the Queen on the recommendation of the HD Committee was held by the Cabinet Office in their files.
Sorry George, it has nothing to do with letters received from the Queen. The Cabinet Office, Ceremonial Secretariat, said they had the document. David Mundell MP was contacted to see if he could obtain sight of this document and he asked a question in the House and the Prime Minister's reply was published - no you cannot see it!! So there is such a document.
As I have said many times in the past, I do not believe that The Queen would be permitted to place herself in the position of discriminating against her own veterans and the sheer magnitutde of the opposition in the case of the PJM suggest to me a conspiracy of some kind. Ian McCartney MP and others (Chris Edge) said in letters 'The United Kingdom has no intention of discriminating against anyone'. Now there is a strange statement. They do not want us to find out the truth and are doing everything they can to prevent this, and I believe like some of the others, that it is important to amass as much documentary evidence as possible to prove our case. However, the optimists could be correct that it will be all over by the end of this month but I am not holding my breath.
George published details about Mr. Healey asking if HD Committee meeting minutes could be placed in the house library and also there was talk of a letter from the HD Committee Chairman (in the year 2000).
I have asked to see if such documents were deposited in the house library and will advise the result asap.
|
Sat Nov 11, 2006 11:19 am |
|
|
petenic
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 45
|
Cheers Barry, I will certainly source as much as I can from here. But never fear, mcdangle is on the case, and I am certain that once he gets his teeth into something it wont escape!!!
|
Sat Nov 11, 2006 11:34 am |
|
|
'Jock' Fenton
Joined: 12 Feb 2006
Posts: 1222
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
Quote:mcdangle is on the case, and I am certain that once he gets his teeth into something it wont escape!!!
I'll buy a ticket on that!!!
_________________ ...................'Jock'
Paroi...Rasah...Batu Signals Troop.
|
Sat Nov 11, 2006 11:51 am |
|
|
BarryF
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2721
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
|
Re: That Letter.
mcdangle wrote:In a letter published on our site (I think it was to Paul Alders from Eleri Pengelly) it was said, during the other matters reported, that the document signed by the Queen on the recommendation of the HD Committee was held by the Cabinet Office in their files.
Sorry George, it has nothing to do with letters received from the Queen. The Cabinet Office, Ceremonial Secretariat, said they had the document. David Mundell MP was contacted to see if he could obtain sight of this document and he asked a question in the House and the Prime Minister's reply was published - no you cannot see it!! So there is such a document.
As I have said many times in the past, I do not believe that The Queen would be permitted to place herself in the position of discriminating against her own veterans and the sheer magnitutde of the opposition in the case of the PJM suggest to me a conspiracy of some kind. Ian McCartney MP and others (Chris Edge) said in letters 'The United Kingdom has no intention of discriminating against anyone'. Now there is a strange statement. They do not want us to find out the truth and are doing everything they can to prevent this, and I believe like some of the others, that it is important to amass as much documentary evidence as possible to prove our case. However, the optimists could be correct that it will be all over by the end of this month but I am not holding my breath.
George published details about Mr. Healey asking if HD Committee meeting minutes could be placed in the house library and also there was talk of a letter from the HD Committee Chairman (in the year 2000).
I have asked to see if such documents were deposited in the house library and will advise the result asap.
mcdangle,
I found this letter posted by JohnC. Is it the letter to which you refer?
Regards,
Barry
http://www.fight4thepjm.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=6471&highlight=21st%20december#6471
_________________ BarryF, who fought for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia
|
Sat Nov 11, 2006 11:58 am |
|
|
petenic
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 45
|
An interesting scenario just came to mind, (as often does as the sun sets over here).
I wonder if HM Govt. has had the courtesy to advise the Malaysian Govt. that permission for the formal wearing of the PJM has been refused.
I know they have acknowledged and thanked the Malysian Govt. for the award of the PJM.
Be interesting if they haven't, as this could also be classed as a discourtesy, even though the so called regulations banning the PJM's formal wear are allegedly British rules.
If anyone has any knowledge of a statement from the British Govt. to the Malaysian Govt. on this issue (refusal for formal wear), I would be obliged for the details. I am trying to cover a paper trail that may or may not exist at the Malaysia end.
Many thanks.
|
Sat Nov 11, 2006 2:24 pm |
|
|
BarryF
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2721
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
|
petenic wrote:If anyone has any knowledge of a statement from the British Govt. to the Malaysian Govt. on this issue (refusal for formal wear), I would be obliged for the details. I am trying to cover a paper trail that may or may not exist at the Malaysia end.
Many thanks.
Petenic,
I was advised by a member of the F4 team with KL connections that the then best available info from the Malayisan Government was that the British Government had not advised the Malaysian Government of the detail of the Ministerial Statement. The effect of the second provision (formal permission withheld) was not understood in KL.
My experience (when discussing the PJM recommendation with Malaysians in London in July 2006) was that the implications of the Ministerial Statement and its effect in reducing the PJM's status from medal to unwearable souvenir were not understood. Indeed, some Malaysians expressed concern.
I hope you can obtain info from KL.
Perhaps the British High Commission can confirm whether the Malaysian Government was provided with an explanation sufficiently adequate to understand the implications of the British conditional acceptance and the differences between that acceptance and those of Oz and NZ.
Perhaps the best way for the BHC to explain things would be to illustrate the British position with a picture of Commonwealth Forces veternas standing side by side - every contingent except the Brits being shown wearing the PJM.
Thanks for your ongoing and unstinting support.
_________________ BarryF, who fought for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia
|
Sat Nov 11, 2006 2:48 pm |
|
|
petenic
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 45
|
Barry, many thanks for the information.
I have a private meeting with the Director Malaysian MinDef on Tuesday and wanted to be sure of the circumstances before I raised the subject.
I will also speak with contacts at the BHC KL and find out what was issued this side. All I can recall is a letter in our local newspapers from Boyd McLeary refuting statements made in the press regarding the PJM.
|
Sat Nov 11, 2006 7:24 pm |
|
|
|
The time now is Thu Dec 12, 2024 4:44 pm | All times are GMT
|
Page 2 of 2
|
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
|
|
|