GLOman wrote:

I received this, this morning. It comes as no surprise!

This letter has been received by veterans complaining about an MoD web site page that inferred we were chasing gongs because we could see so man y medals on the chests of recently serving personnel and, in so doing, we were "disaffected veterans".

That page hae been removed and some may see any ongoing discussion about this MoD letter as being pedantic and only looking back. Not so. This letter exemplifies for me the difficulties we have experienced, and those who have gone before (e.g. Suez, Arctic Convoy) have experienced, in obtaining simple, factual responses from MoD civil servants.

Let us examine just two statements in his reply:

1. “The piece was published quite some time ago”

Not so. I kept a copy of that web page before it was removed and I can read the underlying HTML source code.

• I see a date/time stamp of “2003/09/30 11:23:29”.

Furthermore, the MoD couldn’t resist including reference to the PJM on that page - but in so doing made another error of judgement because they referred to the PJM Ministerial Statement decision and that was only known on the 31st January 2006.

• Therefore, the page must have been updated some time after January 2006 - less than a year ago not "quite some time ago".

In any event, the timing of publication per se is irrelevant. In this letter the MoD have tried to obfuscate the facts in order to put a slant things. They simply can’t help themselves. It is the fact that it was ever published at all, purporting to be representative of how the MoD views veterans and their interest in claiming medals or the right to wear them without causing a grave discourtesy to the Queen that matters - and that it was allowed to remain on the MoD Veterans Agency web site until being recently removed following representations from PJMers.

For PJMers, it is the fact that it refers to the PJM in the context of veterans chasing “New Medals for Past Service” that is also offensively misleading. The PJM had already been accepted when reference to it was inserted into this offensive page. We are campaigning for the right to wear the, not to receive it.

That VA web page was offensive to veterans in more ways than one and the timing of publication does not diminish that, or excuse what the MoD did.

2. “long before the PJM was instituted”

Not so. As mentioned above, that page has a date stamp of 30th September 2003.

• That is, just a few months before the PJM was instituted not "long before the PJM was instituted".

• And the page was actually updated in 2006 - after the discredited PJM recommendation was announced, let alone before it was instituted.

In conclusion, these statements by Richard Coney are untrue and are designed to mislead. If he didn’t write that web page or update it or write this letter (that was a big 'IF'), then he should find out who did and fire them for a) being unnecessarily offensive to veterans and b) misleading the public when crying into his beer.

Wouldn’t it have much more simple and straightforward just to say “Sorry. No offence intended. The page has been removed.”

No. That is not how it works. These civil servants can never be wrong - or be wrong-footed (except by themselves, as in this instance). That’s not allowed. They are always right and anyone who questions what they do is wrong.


In case you have forgotten what that page stated, you can view it here (this image courtesy of GLOman):




And if you wonder why the MoD civil servants would be so stupid as to publish a page like, read these two pages … Mr Coney features in both. He probably felt peeved he’d had his hand caught in the till of myths yet again and just couldn’t resist having a pop at British veterans but used the MoD web site to do so. In so doing he encourages me to point again to these pages from Portsmouth Today that probably irritated him in the first place. The moral of this story is, I think, clear (not a word in the vocabulary of certain civil servants, methinks).

http://www.portsmouthtoday.co.uk/CustomPages/CustomPage.aspx?PageID=43131&sectionID=8708

http://www.portsmouthtoday.co.uk/CustomPages/CustomPage.aspx?PageID=43131&sectionID=8708


Barry



Last edited by BarryF on Sun Feb 25, 2007 12:21 pm; edited 3 times in total
_________________
BarryF, who fought for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia

""



Last edited by StanW on Sun Feb 10, 2008 5:05 am; edited 1 time in total

StanW wrote:

Barry,

Re: I see a date/time stamp of "2003/09/30 11:23:29".

I think you will find that the date stamp you refer to above as being webpage date on the VA website is in fact the date the MoD first registered "SmartSource Data Collector" Software used to log your visit i.e. cookies etc. see (http://weblogs.chem.ox.ac.uk:7099/wrc/help/webhelp/hlp_lds_sdc.htm)

Hi Stan,

My point was that the date stamp indicates that the page could not have been published before that date. And that date was not "quite some time ago" nor "long before the PJM was instituted" in the context of thje PJM being instituted in 2004.

In fact, the page was probably published some time after September 2003 thus reducing the timescales of their claim. Consequently, I stand by my point that the MoD letter is designed to mislead.

StanW wrote:

I'm sure that "New Medals for past service" was not on their website, in that format, before I applied for my PJM last year - Jan/Feb?

I do not know when the page was actually published, but I can't remember seeing it when the VA first published info on how to apply for the PJM.

What I do know is that Richard Coney's letter was knowingly misleading. Such letters have been at the root of most cases where veterans have enquired about medals such as for the Suez campaign where information was suppressed within the MoD in order to prevent the HD Committee having the necessary info to assess whether they should review the veterans case. Then there was the Arctic Convoy situation. And now us.

StanW wrote:

... I too had expected a far higher standard of truthfulness from such a senior civil servant.

I agree, Stan.

Initially, I conducted my correspondence believing that we would get a fair hearing. I now know better. Myth and legend is now intrinsic in what they say and do ... and that is so because they are allowed to get away with it by the politicians. Civil servants have told us that they run the country, not HMG!

We are dealing with some less than honest civil servants (not all) who are contemptuous of veterans. That MoD page is tantamount to a declaration that we are disaffected veterans chasing new medals for past service - disaffected, allegedly, because we see so many medals being worn by today's service personnel who have those medals as a result of a "full Service career". That beggars belief - particularly for PJMers who do not have a medal at all. And it beggars belief in the context of the MoD instituting a double-medal (the Accumulated Camapign Service Medal) - a new medal for past service.

I just want these people to be straightforward and honest. That way we can sort out difficulties quickly and openly. The fundamental problem is that as soon as we 'delve' into openness, the suits have a problem because their deceit, myths and legend will enter the public domain.

Barry


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

What makes me laugh Barry, is that the Civil Service can put a spin on anything, but are too stupid to realise that we continue to tear their misinformation to shreds.

They have neither our intelligence, or wit, to compete with us when it comes to ironing out the wrinkles in written documents or other statements.

It makes me cringe that these subnormal individuals can regulate our lives with impunity. Still, as veterans, we have all the time in the world to tear their pointless rhetoric to pieces.

We have to tell them of that fact, otherwise they would never know.

Yours Aye

Arthur

I have written again to Her Majesty, asking her to use her good offices:

Way to go David.....all good stuff!


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

I had originally decided to withold my reply to Mr R.T.Coney, but after some thought
I saw no reason to do so:

Great letter David, let us hope that Mr Coney, can give you an honest, straightforward reply without beating about the bush.

JohnC


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

John,

A copy of Mr Coney's letter to me, a copy of my answer to him, and a further copy of the
original website page has gone with my further letter to Her Majesty for which I now await a reply!
pse see above.

David

John Cooper wrote:

Great letter David, let us hope that Mr Coney, can give you an honest, straightforward reply without beating about the bush.JohnC

That's the best joke that I have read in a long time John!

Well done.


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

Recieved this yesterday from coney and not best pleased at his sarcasm and total lack of answers to the questions posed to the Queen. More timewasting from the suits. Paragraph 4 is quite interesting though... what do you think?

Roger, Join the Club!

Roger, I make no suggestion as to what your next step might be. However,
having received a patronising letter from Mr Coney, I replied in a positive
manner and am now awaiting his reply. Unless he reads this forum, he will
not know that I have again written to Her Majesty referring to the patronising
tone of his letter and the inadequacies of his reply, attaching both a copy of
his letter to me and my reply to him and a further copy of New medals for past
service which he claims was not intended to offend veterans but which it plainly did-
this time with the offending parts highlighted in YELLOW! I have a feeling that the next
letter from DS Sec may well come from the Head of Department defending Mr Coney -
a precedent which was set some time ago, if I remember rightly.

Regards

David

I'M BIT CONFUSED HERE LETS SEE,THE LATEST UTTERINGS FROM 'PHONEY DICK' TELL US QUEEN HASN'T REFUSED PERMISSION TO WEAR P.J.M. RIGHT PERMISSION HAS NOT BEEN GRANTED TO WEAR OKAY,AND WEARING OF FOREIGN AWARDS IS NOT POLICED,PHONEY MATE DO US ALL A FAVOUR ,EAT YOUR DICTIONARY SIDEWAYS TALK SENSE,IF H.D. BODS ONLY MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH MIGHT,OR MIGHT NOT BE USED,THIS MEANS THE QUEEN MADE THE FINAL SAY SO 'AS FONT OF ALL HONOURS',SO UNLESS THE QUEEN MADE A UNILATERAL CHOICE,IT WAS MADE ON AND BY THE ADVICE OF H.D. BODS.NOW UNLESS MY MEMORY IS GOING ,A REVIEW WAS AUTHORISED WITH AN INITIAL REPORTING DATE ON THE 'END OF NOVEMBER',I TAKE IT YOU DIDN'T MISS XMAS,BUT LOOK ON THE WALL ,NOT IN YOUR DICTIONARY IT IS NOW THE END OF FEBRUARY,AND THE LETTERS SENT IN BY OUR CAMPAIGN,ARE GOING ROUND IN CIRCLES WITH BOG STANDARD REPLIES,TO DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS,IN THE RECENT PAST ,DEPARTMENTS HAVE REFUSED TO COMMUNICATE WITH CAMPAIGNERS,AND THE VETERANS AGENCY WHO EXIST TO HELP AND ADVISE THE PEOPLE WHOSE EXISTANCE IS THE REASON FOR BEING ,HAS SEEN FIT TO BE CRITICAL OF ITS VETERANS,THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT HAS EVEN BEEN USED TO AVOID ANSWERING,LEGITIMATE QUESTIONS,ON MANY OCCASIONS,LEGISLATION HAS BEEN BROUGHT IN ON THE BASIS OF 'IF YOU HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE YOU HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR'. THE CONTINUING SILENCE BY THOSE WHOSE BRIEF IS TO PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE SYSTEM,ARE INCREASINGLY BY THEIR ACTIONS,LOOKING LIKE A STALINISQUE OLD GUARD,AND MAKING A MOCKERY,WHETHER PERMISSION HAS NOT BEEN GRANTED,AS OPPOSED TO NOT BEING REFUSED SUNSHINE ,THE RESULT IS THE SAME FOR A RECIPENT,SO PLEASE STOP BEING A CLEVERDICK PHONEY DICK.GET YOUR HEAD IN THE DICTIONARY, LOOK UP C.D.F. AND IF YOU CAN'T FIND IT ASK, SNOTTY JAVRIN WILL KNOW

In the letter quoted above, Civil Servant, Richard Coney claims that "No Insult to the Agong, Government and Peoples of Malaysia" was intended by HMG's decision to not allow its veterans to wear the Malaysian Service Medal (Pingat Jasa Malaysia).

What planet does Richard Coney live on?

The Veterans of Australia, Fiji and New Zealand have been given permission to wear this award and this man, Coney, has the gall to tell us that no insult was intended to the Agong, Government and Peoples of Malaysia,

Mr Coney, there are other countries in this world, other than the United Kingdom. And they are not totally daft. They know when some thing is rotten. They can smell it.

We can smell it. The people of the United Kingdom can smell it. Including the peoples of Scotland. The peoples of Wales and Northern Ireland can smell it. And you appear to think that peoples of Malaysia can't smell it? Get real.

As was proved in the Newspaper report in the Portsmouth newspaper. Mr Richard Coney has been very wrong before. He is wrong again. His opinions are dead. When will he do the right thing and keel over? Give in to the mountain of proof that has been provided from around the world to prove that his pontifications are WRONG WRONG WRONG.

Mr Coney, I have it on very good authority that the Agong, Government and Peoples of Malaysia are EXTREMELY miffed at HMG's decision which HMG are apparently still clinging to. For how long? Well that is up to HMG.

The Malaysians are a cultured people and do not demonstrate their displeasure. BUT, they are DISPLEASED. I am not a Malaysian but I do understand their culture - do you Mr Coney? No, you have already demonstrated a total lack of understanding of our Commonwealth partners.

Members of the MoD demonstrated their lack of understanding of our Military Forces the other day, when the MoD demanded payment for the funeral of a UK Air Force man killed in Afghanistan, from his family. What a disgraceful lot you really are.

Does HMG really think that if the HD Committee come down and tell us AGAIN, that we still can't wear the PJM, that we are going to fade away and that that will be end of this sorry saga?

Get a life. Of course not.

This silly silly decision will be defeated this year or next year or some year in the future. But it will be defeated.

Mr Coney, I understand that this Forum is required reading in the MoD. Good onya mate. What a pity that you don't understand a veteran.

What a pity that most of your colleagues were in nappies when we were "out there". You have no idea of our anger and disgust at the behaviour of all who are "against us."

We are here NOW and we will be here in the FUTURE.


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

John Feltham wrote:

We are here NOW and we will be here in the FUTURE.

John,

You speak for me also. A brilliant message for Mr Coney et al in the Government Departments.

I'll only 'go home' when the job is done.

Not before.

Barry


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