StanW wrote:

Barry & David, please bear with me on this one - slightly off topic!

JKF - Life Guards took over from "Royals" (now Blues & Royals) Ipoh 63.

I posted here earlier about HMS REPULSE. Sgt Pete Watts now lives in Duluth, Georgia - stones throw away from Carolina? JKF, you can contact Pete at peterwatts@bellsouth.net for HCav reunion. Either way, I shall be thinking of you both on the 13th May!

StanW

Honi-Soit-Qui-Mal-Y-Pense

Stan.
I will send him a note and see if he replies. Thanks for the info.

Keith.
________
Toyota f engine history



Last edited by KJF on Thu Mar 10, 2011 10:04 am; edited 1 time in total

Received this reply today. Spoke to Ms Nicola Brown who advised that
the letter had already gone to FCO. I rang FCO and asked for assurance
that my letter to Mrs Beckett would be seen by her personally and not "answered
on her behalf by one of her officers" without Mrs Beckett ever having seen the
letter. I don't think this went down too well - I am awaiting a return call - it might help
if they know I'm "on the case".

GLOman wrote:

I am awaiting a return call - it might help

Just wondering - are you still awaiting?


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

I'm not surprised it didn't go down too well ............ not a lot you say to these people ever does. As Alice said "Curioser and curioser". I just can't wait for the outcome of this one.

Tony


_________________
Veni vidi vinci

Slightly off subject, I know, but I came across this footage of a group of PJMers just after they had read the London Gazette Notice of 3rd May 1968. It has been sent to various other folk, who may not quite appreciate it !! Make sure the sound is on on your computer - enjoy !!!

http://www.mediaplayer.telegraph.co.uk/?item=f52eeaf7-6878-4ed4-a23b-fe68f2b73ad4

Tony


_________________
Veni vidi vinci

No, I did not get a return call. I rang them again. I spoke to someone (James)
in Mrs Beckett's Office who would not give me his surname (mind you, he sounded
very inexperienced). It was after 5.30pm. I pointed out:

1) that my call had not been retrurned.

2) That my letter to Mrs Beckett and that of HM were to be seen personally by Mrs Beckett:
HM's letter, as in their reply to me, was to be passed to Mrs Beckett for her to note that I
had made an approach to HM.

3) I was told that, normally, letters (mine & others) regarding the PJM were passed to an officer
to reply on her behalf. I made it quite plain that my letter was addressed to Mrs Beckett and
should therefore be passed to her; the same applying to the letter from Her Majesty.

4) I also made it plain that on no account should it be passed to Mr Brennan to reply! Pointing out
I wanted a reply direct from Mrs Beckett herself.

5) I made it clear that I thought he was uncooperative, and that I would check again to see that my
wishes had been carried out.


One is normally warned that telephone calls are recorded. I have nothing to fear - I HOPE IT WAS!

SHAME IS YOU HAVE TO BE SO SPECIFIC,IN TELLING THEM WHAT THEY SHOULD PROVIDE ,ITS AS IF THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING,SORRY DISREGARD MY LAST,TREAT EM LIKE A NAUGHTY CHILD AND REPEAT THE QUESTION OVER AND OVER AGAIN ,TILL YOU GET THE RIGHT ANSWER,AS CONVERSATION WAS RECORDED WAS THERE ANY MENTION OF WHAT DOES GET ATTENTION ( CASH FOR YAKNOWWHAT),I HEARD A RUMOUR THE ARMED FORCES ARE TO BE DISBANDED,APPARENTLY INDEPENDANCE WITHOUT BLOODSHED IS POSSIBLE,PROVIDING ITS THE HIGH COMMISSIONER WOT HITS THE BEACH FIRST,TROOPS OUT OF IRAQ N 'STAN SOON ,WE HAVE A SECRET WEAPON BOYS,YIP ITS A WEAPON OF MASS DECEPTION.

""



Last edited by StanW on Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:32 pm; edited 1 time in total

I rang Mrs Beckett's office again this morning. They cannot guatantee that
either My letter or HM's will be seen by Mrs Beckett. She will only get to see it
if some minion decides that she needs to see it! NaturallyI protested, to be told,
"THATS THE SYSTEM"! I explained the problem appeared to be that where certain
officers have their own agenda, it is unlikely to get any further than their office,
although a REPLY IS MADE ON HER BEHALF.

My View; if she gets to see it, it will be a miracle!

To exacerbate the situation, I got this;



This continues the LIE that these regulations are:

a)FCO Regs Section A, Point 14 as produced in 1969 are still exant!

b) that they are relevant to the PJM

c) my (our) interpretation of the LG5057 and the DIN, although he doesn't mention that, is incorrect.


I've just stopped shaking, honestly. Cuppa, then a rethink!

GLOman wrote:

I've just stopped shaking, honestly. Cuppa, then a rethink!

David,

Enjoy a relaxed cuppa!

We have a letter from Brennan that says the 1969 Regulations were superseded ... so he himself says his Para 14 attack on the Gazette issue does not work. Consequently, neither does Coney's. That'll teach Coney to regurgitate Brennan's knee-jerk ramblings.

Brennan goes on to say that Rules and regulations are superseded by The Queen's decisions and so are irrelevant to a medal like the PJM ... so he shoots himself in the foot yet again!

The Queen has said the PJM can be received. She has not said it cannot be worn - the civil servants said that (*** ). Therefore the London Gazette Notice applies no matter how much those suits wriggle. Those eligible under it can wear their PJM ... and if you were not in Crown Service when the medal was conferred on you in 2006, then you can wear it.

When judging where these people are coming from, remember Coney once told me I could put my PJM back in my cornflakes packet for all the medal meant to him as a 'real' medal!

Barry

*** If the Queen had signed a recommendation that we should not wear the PJM, the civil servants would never have dared say "wear it if you want". They would have been inciting us to contradict The Queen's decision. Even they would not do that .... what would Thee Queen think ... "They told me to zap the wearing of the PJM, I zapped it, now they’re telling the lads they can wear it if they wish!”

The Queen has said that we can wear it … that (by Brennan’s own words) supersedes any Regulations … therefore the Gazette applies. And as the contemporaneous HD Committee said it applied so long as you were not in Crown service when the medal is conferred (Jan 2006), then that must stand. That is also confirmed by Brennan when defending the 5-year myth by saying they cannot revisit earlier decisions and change them. He put that bit in bold type thinking he was scoring a point! He did ... in our favour.

Thank you Mr Brennan for confirming we can wear the PJM!


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

Someone correct me if i an wrong, but my understanding is that the MOD are not involved in this medal business. So how is it that people keep getting letters from them answering Questions etc put to the Foreign Secretary and others?? I am confused to say the least... Dave.


_________________
I like it here on MY planet. If you wish to visit, you are welcome,
but your sanity is not my responsibilty!

Dave Woolmer wrote:

I am confused to say the least... Dave.

So are the MoD, the FCO and the Cabinet Office. In any order that you like!

They don't know their arse from their elbow.


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

John Feltham wrote:

Dave Woolmer wrote:

I am confused to say the least... Dave.

So are the MoD, the FCO and the Cabinet Office. In any order that you like!

They don't know their arse from their elbow.

John,

The first thing civil servants are taught is to speak out of their arses but no-one has come up with how to teach them to see out of their arses, for obvious reasons.

GLOman wrote:

I rang Mrs Beckett's office again this morning. They cannot guatantee that
either My letter or HM's will be seen by Mrs Beckett. She will only get to see it
if some minion decides that she needs to see it! NaturallyI protested, to be told,
"THATS THE SYSTEM"! I explained the problem appeared to be that where certain
officers have their own agenda, it is unlikely to get any further than their office,
although a REPLY IS MADE ON HER BEHALF.

My View; if she gets to see it, it will be a miracle!

To exacerbate the situation, I got this;



This continues the LIE that these regulations are:

a)FCO Regs Section A, Point 14 as produced in 1969 are still exant!

b) that they are relevant to the PJM

c) my (our) interpretation of the LG5057 and the DIN, although he doesn't mention that, is incorrect.


I've just stopped shaking, honestly. Cuppa, then a rethink!

From what I understand about a Civil Servant, they are employed by the Crown and as such I would like to believe that a letter passed to Margaret Beckett's office from her Majesty (The Crown) should not, indeed cannot be intercepted by an employee and NOT pass it to the intended recipient?

As your letter was attached I would feel very indignant if it were seperated from Her Majesties communication to Margaret Beckett.

And by what right and by who's permission does a Civil Servant employed by the Crown, think or feel they have the right to intercept and reply to something the recipient has never seen, let alone read and understood?

I do know that the intercepting of US Mail and I am sure the Royal Mail, before it reaches the hand of the intended name on the address line is a criminal act.

In this particular case, opening a Royal communication and making a determination as to the importance of something from Buckingham Palace and Her Majesty and then forming an opinion and a reply, before shoving it under Margaret Beckett's nose to sign, would seem to me to be casting her Majesties wishes and true intent into the limelight and something I am not sure she intended.

The secretaries and Civil Servants have empowered themselves and office holders are quite happy it seems, to let this slide and continue, instead of reading and acquainting themselves as to the questions and or information enclosed.
Then and ONLY then should the recipient make a qualified response after due investigation of the content...(fat chance it seems).

As for the other re hashed out of date argument from Mr Coney, he needs to stop playing musical chairs as he always seems to be the one left out.
They also need to stop playing pass the parcel and open the thing up and read what has been sent in from the PJM committee and read the plain, simple rules, just like we did. It isn't our fault that they cannot connect the dots of the rules they keep changing and think they are updating.
The left hand obviously doesn't know what the right hand is doing.

Keith.
________
Babimac



Last edited by KJF on Thu Mar 10, 2011 10:04 am; edited 1 time in total

Keith,

I've posted a copy of my email reply to Coney under the post "Queens Approval given in 1968"
You might like to see it - I know he won't!

Regards,

David

PS my letter to Mrs Beckett was separate from the letter from me to HM plus enclosure with it.
My letter was simply to let her know the HMs was on the way.