Dear Sir,

There is an apparent, yet most confusing, flexibility in the interpretation and application of the 'rules' governing the wearing of medals. These 'rules', as administered by the Honours and Decorations Committee, reporting to the Queen, may obviously be interpreted to permit anyone of Royal lineage to wear medals, awarded for campaigns won by others long before the Royal wearers birth. This, apparently, has no deleterious effect upon the Imperial Honours system.

Conversely, those same 'rules' have the propensity to become so incredibly inflexible as to deny the legitimate veterans of two bitter and bloody jungle campaigns the right to wear the medal bestowed upon them by a grateful foreign nation. More than 35, 000 veteran recipients of the Pingat Jasa Malaysia have been told that, while they may accept this honour, they are not 'formally' permitted to actually wear it.

These veterans are also told that to wear their PJM in the absence of such 'formal' permission would constitute a 'dishonour to the Queen' . Specious FCO comments to the effect that 'wearing of the medal will not be policed' do nothing more than reduce the PJM to 'trinket' or 'keepsake' status while obdurately denying the hard-earned recognition of honest and honourable service.

Those among my comrades of 50 years ago who choose to wear their medal under such demeaning restrictions are, in fact, accepting the implied insult. Personally, I shall never wear mine until it is given Her Majesty's full permission to be 'received and worn' .

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


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

Another scorcher Jock - let's milk this one gents. Tony

'Jock' Fenton wrote:

Personally, I shall never wear mine until it is given Her Majesty's full permission to be 'received and worn' .

HMG propaganda has encouraged British veterans to wear their PJMs. If they do, we'll not question their decision - it is a very personal one.

We all have to make our decisions in the light of the facts and, in the case of the discreditied PJM decision, those facts have been hidden by the civil servants.

But two facts are hidden no more ... I've posted them at http://www.fight4thepjm.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=9556#9556.

The documents there demolish HMG's deceitful plan to lull British veterans, and the world's media, into a false sense of security so that civil servants do not have to face up to their disgraceful decision that encourages a discourtesy to the Queen.

Barry


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

PJM Presentation Ipswich 30th January 2007

The ceremony lasted from 1800-1910hrs, there were 6 vacant seats in the hall. The ceremony was presided over by The Chairman of The Suffolk County Council in full regalia, I am not sure of the total number of medals presented but the East Anglian Daily Times puts the figure at 'nearly 150 veterans receiving their PJMs'

There were no TV crews in attendance but the local press were and so too was the SCC Publicity Department, on a telephone call a few minutes ago I understand that 8 out of every 10 recipients did not wear their medals.

email your views here to The Ipswich Evening Star

http://www.eveningstar.co.uk/content/feed/commentOnArticle.aspx?brand=ESTOnline&category=News&itemid=IPED31+Jan+2007+06%3a48%3a07%3a540

or here to The East Anglian Daily Times

http://www.eadt.co.uk/content/feed/commentOnArticle.aspx?brand=EADOnline&category=News&itemid=IPED30+Jan+2007+20%3a49%3a24%3a360


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

John Cooper wrote:

PJM Presentation Ipswich 30th January 2007 email your views here to The Ipswich Evening Star
or here to The East Anglian Daily Times

I did and this is my comment.

Quote.
The FCO representative who informed you, that veterans can wear the Honourable PJM (Malaysian Service Medal) is wrong. Why don't they put their name to their statement? Is it because it is a bare-faced lie?

I draw your readers to Defence Instruction and Notice - DIN 10-002 dated January 2006, paragraph 21, wherein it states clearly that to wear the PJM is "is a grave discourtesy to Her Majesty The Queen."
End of quote.


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

John Feltham wrote:

I did and this is my comment.

Likewise (to EADT and similar to Ipswich Evening Star):

Sir,

I refer to your article "Medals for Veterans, 40 years on", 31st January 2007 and I note that the FCO manages to achieve the last word with more misleading propaganda from civil servants in London.

The fact of the matter is that the wearing of Malaysian Medal, the Pingat Jasa Malaysia (PJM), is policed. It is policed by the veterans themselves.

The FCO and MoD have told you that it's really OK if we wear the medal on the grounds that wearing of unauthorised medals is not a crime and is not policed. They are misleading you, and their statement is tantamount to inviting British veterans to cause difficulties for The Queen. Why? Because the Queen was advised by a few civil servants to approve acceptance of the PJM by British citizens "on condition that it is not worn" (I quote the FCO/HMG). Furthermore an MoD directive (Para 21 of Defence Instruction and Notice 10-002 of January 2006) specifically states "they [ex-Service personnel] are expected to conform to the general instructions published in the London Gazette and in particular not to add any order, decoration, medal or emblem to which they are not verifiably entitled or which has not been approved for acceptance and wear. The wearing of unauthorised awards is a grave discourtesy to Her Majesty The Queen." Why didn't the FCO spokeswoman tell you that?

British veterans, based on years of discipline and loyalty to The Queen, police themselves and will not do anything knowingly to cause offence to Her.

Thus the hope that the civil servants nurture, that you will be convinced that the Fight4thePJM campaign is unnecessary and that we will be happy with our souvenir and that we'll "fade away", are dashed. We shall fight until this mean-spirited and incongruous recommendation is amended and we can wear the PJM with the Queen's permission, alongside our Commonwealth ex-comrades in arms with whom we served in Malaysia and to whom she has already given that permission.

Thank you very much for placing our just case before the people.

Barry Fleming
Fighting for the Right to Wear the PJM at
W:http://www.fight4thepjm.org/
E: mailto:barry@fight4thePJM.org
"Pingat Kami - Hak Kami"

Stockbridge Cottage
Hungerford
RG17 9QP

T: 01488 668 100


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

George,

Herewith a copy of Coney's email. I have highlighted the discourtesy part, not Coney.

Dear Mr Cooper,

The policy relating to the acceptance and wearing of foreign medals by British citizens is administered by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. This is not a matter for the Ministry of Defence. You should write to the Honours Unit, Old Admiralty Building, London, SW1A 2PA.

However, the information you have been given is correct. The Queen has granted permission for British citizens to accept the medal, but as a souvenir or keepsake only and not for wear. There is no right of appeal. It is not a matter of law or of your statutory rights. As a civilian you can do what you like. You are not breaking any laws if you choose to ignore the decision, but it is considered a discourtesy to The Sovereign if you do. Many veterans will wear the medal regardless. No-one will actually tell them not to.

The FCO will be able to provide you with more information if required.

I hope this is helpful.

R T Coney
DS Sec – Honours 1
MOD
London

Just to keep these emails in one place this was my correspondence (my last with the MoD until I got the ASBO, I think I was the first to receive one, followed by McD and Paul A) with the MoD, I might add that absolutely none of this has been forgotten, a time and place is to follow have no fear...............The items in bold type I have added to in emphasising the points raised.....
Keith, Ian Mr" <Ian.Keith798@mod.uk>
To: "JOHN COOPER"
Mr Cooper



This Department deals with hundreds of other people on a wide range of subjects – not just the PJM – and I regret that we are not resourced here to enter into long exchanges with individuals by e-mail or telephone.



I have informed you of the appropriate way to contact the MOD if you have an enquiry and it will be dealt with in priority order along with all of the others that we receive. I did not refer you to a Question and Answer page on the website but a section on how to contact the MOD via the internet. If you prefer to write, the address is:



MOD Ministerial Correspondence Unit
5th Floor, Zone A
Main Building
Whitehall , London
SW1A 2HB



If you wish to speak to someone, then you should contact the Veterans Helpline Freephone 0800 169 22 77.



Having informed you of this, I must ask you to desist from continuing to e-mail or telephone Richard Coney and myself direct on this.


Ian Keith





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: JOHN COOPER Sent: 11 August 2006 07:42
To: Keith, Ian Mr
Subject: RE: Pngat Jasa Malaysia medal.



Dear Mr Keith



Sir



Good morning



As the head of your department at The Ministry of Defence, you have chosen to reply on behalf of Mr R Coney, I therefore wish to receive a reply to each point I have made in a previous email to Mr Coney, the failure to do so will require myself to ask Sir Gus O'Donnell for his views.



As a citizen of the UK of 67 years, I wish to know my rights of appeal against decisions that have been denied to myself, please do not point me to a Ministry of Defence website that has a Question & Answer page, I have read these pages on numerous occasions.



The Foreign & Commonwealth Office may be the Department to take issue with the PJM but as I have been contacted by a member of your staff rather than an FCO Official I need these points clarifying



Thank you, I look forward to your reply



Yours sincerely



John Cooper








JOHN COOPER wrote:

Mr Coney, Ministry of Defence



Dear Mr Coney



In response to two emails I have received from you on Monday 7th August 2006.



Between your First and Second Email letters the dropping of Dear Mr Cooper reverts to Mr Cooper, do I detect some bitterness in this?



I have had many dealings with the Ministry of Defence ‘Civil’ Servants over the years and I have found you Mr Coney to be the most uncivil, I wish you to clarify some points that you have made in which you are A Civil Servant and are therefore a spokesperson for Her Majesty’s Government which makes your communication to me Official Government Business. This and previous correspondence has not been marked Private or Confidential, I do speak as an individual as I am doing here and although I belong to various organisations I cannot represent any others in an official capacity nor do I wish to do so.



I might also remind you that there is a Civil Service Code, so between us let us both be CIVIL!



I am about to dissect both of your emails to myself and would hope you will reply to each in a manner befitting your official role in life after all you are communicating with THE Mr John Cooper and not just A Mr John Cooper in which you referred to me in reply to a friends letter.



1> I at no stage marked my email to you Private or Confidential and neither did you do so in return



2> At no stage did I state that I was not aware of the NON WEARING rule nor did I intimate this.



My email specifically informed you that I was fully aware of the situation and you were also aware that your Department was in the frame for the problem. I said "The department I am addressing this letter to has denied me my rights to wear this medal as a civilian via Her Majesty The Queen, can you please inform me what my rights of appeal are against this, in my opinion, unfair decision. " My question was clear - as was my knowledge indicating that I was into going for an appeal. .



3> Further "I am not representing a group of people here, it is an individual request by myself" ... This couldn't be clearer. There is no innuendo here ... I was stating I wanted to know an answer in the context of an individual citizen.



4> When I said "there are laws in the UK and the EC giving me the right to appeal, please advise me of my statutory rights. ", I was again clearly setting out the question.

So my email requesting information was entirely straightforward



5> You wrote “. The Queen has granted permission for British citizens to accept the medal, but as a souvenir or keepsake only and not for wear. There is no right of appeal. It is not a matter of law or of your statutory rights. As a civilian you can do what you like. You are not breaking any laws if you choose to ignore the decision, but it is considered a discourtesy to The Sovereign if you do. Many veterans will wear the medal regardless. No-one will actually tell them not to”.



a) ” …………. but as a souvenir or keepsake only…………. ” Who made this statement Mr Coney, you or the Queen or another Civil Servant, I need you to be clear on this point.



b) “There is no right of appeal. It is not a matter of law or of your statutory rights.”

Where, Mr Coney, did this comment originate? Is this quote recorded anywhere in The Library of The House of Commons, this quote is most important to me as I wish to appeal against this unjust action from an unelected body of people and I certainly need to know my statutory rights, we have rights for everything in this country and within the EC, please do not fob me off with any lame excuse that comes to mind.



6> Mr Coney wrote ” For the record, I did not imply that the medal is a “trinket”, and I would never refer to it as such. However, the fact remains that the medal has not been authorised for wear, as veterans have been aware for the last six months, following the Written Ministerial Statement released by the FCO on 31st January 2006. The terms “souvenir” and “keepsake” are not derogatory, though it would appear that you interpret them as such”


I withdraw the remark TRINKET unreservedly but I still need to know where the terms souvenir/keepsake originates from, apart from your own documentation can you show me where The PJM Commemorative Medal is shown otherwise from within Whitehall ?

The tone of your email to me was a slight and yes not only was I offended but extremely angry as was one friend from Malaysia who responded to me overnight:

“Where do they get these people, John? I suggest Mr Coney comes to Malaysia/Singapore and pays a visit to any of the cemeteries here, especially the Memorial Wall at Terendak. He can then explain to the relatives of those remembered on that wall that their loved ones gave their lives for nothing more than what he considers a mere bauble!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am bloody gobsmacked".



Now that I have had time to take stock of the situation, I await your full reply



Yours sincerely


John Cooper



Malayan Veteran

War Pensioner

RAF 1956-69


"Coney, Richard Mr" <Richard.Coney506@mod.uk> wrote:

Mr Cooper,



My response to your e-mail was intended to be prompt, helpful and provide you with a simple, factual answer. You said in your letter to me that you were not representing a group of people, but wanted advice about the medal prior to receiving it. You appeared not to know that the medal had not been authorised for wear.



It was not my intention to be either “impudent” or “insulting” to you, or indeed to anyone else. If you interpreted my letter as such I apologise. It is apparent that I should have taken the simpler approach and just referred you to the FCO.



For the record, I did not imply that the medal is a “trinket”, and I would never refer to it as such. However, the fact remains that the medal has not been authorised for wear, as veterans have been aware for the last six months, following the Written Ministerial Statement released by the FCO on 31st January 2006. The terms “souvenir” and “keepsake” are not derogatory, though it would appear that you interpret them as such.



If nothing else, this exchange of e-mails this morning has demonstrated the dangers of responding immediately to queries by e-mail, when your request for information should have joined the queue and would have been dealt with in the strict order that it was received, probably next week.



I apologise again unreservedly for any perceived slight.



For further information about the status of the PJM, please refer to the FCO for further information, as I suggested in my original letter.





R T Coney

DS Sec – Honours 1

MOD

London






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: JOHN COOPER
Sent: 07 August 2006 09:21
To: Andrew Nicoll; Coney, Richard Mr
Cc: Gerry Law; Gord Fenton; hamish; John Cooper; John Feltham; Paul Alders
Subject: Re: Pngat Jasa Malaysia medal.



Andy



Mr Coney failed to add the word TRINKET, didn't you Mr Coney, man have you just got up the noses of 35000 Ex Malayan Vets!!



John Cooper


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

The Queen is the font of all honour and it should be herself that makes the decisions on the accepting and wearing of them ASSISTED BY civil servants and not dictated to by them and, most certainly not used as a screen behind which to hide!

To wear the PJM is not insulting to her it is defying this quango and corrupt government, both of which are perfectly ok in my book. To not wear it is insulting to the people who awarded it and to those who died that we can wear it. I put Queen and Country first in all things but in this issue I will follow my instinct which is to wear and be damned.

John

You know when you've been QAUNGO'd. Sorry Britvic, I couldn't resist it.

Yours Aye

Arthur

The unelected suits and on one occasion that I know of, Ian McCartney MP, stated in documents placed in the public domain that:-

‘ The wearing of non-British awards is not policed and it is a matter for the individual concerned whether they wear a non-British award without authority’.

Firstly, by suggesting that the PJM can be worn if the individual wishes to wear it albeit without authority, they are in fact being gravely discourteous to Her Majesty the Queen by suggesting such actions by veterans.

Secondly, in our country we have -

a. Sikhs who wear a turban. There is no law against this so it cannot be policed.
b. Lots of Muslim women wear a veil. There is no law against this so it cannot be policed.
c Youths who think it is cool to wear a hood all day long. There is no law against this so it cannot be police.

Then we have the Pingat Jasa Malaysia. There is no law against the wearing of this medal so it cannot be policed.

The suggestion by the civil servants that the wearing of the PJM will not be policed is a contradiction in terms. If it is not a law it cannot be policed and they say it will not be policed just to try and impress that they are able to police the wearing of the PJM if they wanted to.
They are paper tigers trying to growl like a real tiger but nothing is happening. They have no power in regard to British Civilians wearing foreign awards and they have no statutory rules to enforce this.
They are constantly harassing British Citizens by using this phrase that ‘it will not be policed’ when they know it cannot be policed and to use this phrase repeatedly in this manner against those over whom they have no direct control is tantamount to breaching the Human Rights of these individuals who are legally entitled to privacy and security in their family life without undue influence over them by the authorities. Those bureauprats who continue with this should sit down and ask themselves if it is wise to do so.

I DON'T WANT TO CAUSE RUPTIONs,BUT THERE WAS A STRIKE BY CIVIL SERVANTS ON 31/1,YOU MIGHT HAVE YOUR THOUGHTS BUT I THINK PEOPLE SHOULD SEPERATE,THE POLICY BODS,FROM THE RANK N FILE,WHO ACTUALLY HAVE VOTED WITH THEIR FEET AGAINST LOTS OF GOV POLICY,NO I AIN'T A CIVIL SERVANT,NEVER BEEN SERVILE AND DEFINATELY NOT 'KIN CIVIL EITHER,JUST WOULD LIKE TO FLAG UP ,THE DIFFERENCE.

My daughter is a civil servant (rank and file) and she is not to happy with some of the idots incharge.

It is widely acknowledged that the UK has a first class civil service. I realised from earlier postings in the Forum that only a few civil servants (not the service as a whole) appear to be indecisive when re-considering the wearing of the PJM by British Veterans. It would be a great pity should more Veterans decide to wear the PJM out of frustration in the delay of the promised directive.

I wish this dilemma could end soon, and also with due respect given to the deep feelings of many Veterans who served with distinction in Malaysia. The best solution is to: Allow the PJM to be worn by the British Veterans without any ambiguity in the directive.

Adrian Villanueva
(Singapore)