Well done Barry. An excellent reply and so well compiled. It aint over yet because civil servants are not going to get away with making restrictive orders against British Civilians whom they have no control over whatsoever. British veterans of Malaya/Malaysia/Borneo
have been shamefully treated and for what reason, so that a bunch of 8 civil serpents can think they have power over them to stop them wearing a medal. The 'it will not be policed' and 'will be grossly discourteous to Her Majesty the Queen' are only empty threats which do not impress anyone.
The HD Committee are so incompetent that they could not find the file with reference to the London Gazette of 3rd. May, 1968.
Someone pointed out that the 3rd. May seems a good date for us, watch out, it is also the date of the next Scottish elections and I would be so bold as to suggest that the many Jocks who served in Malaya/Malaysia/Borneo will not forget the treatment they have had from this bunch of elitist Civil Serpents.

What a load of b******s Mr Brennan.

Below a letter from my MP and my latest response.

"Dear Mr Rushton,
Thank you for your two further emails about the Pingat Jasa Malaysia medal. I was very sorry to hear that following a review the decision not to permit the wearing of the medal was upheld.I appreciate your disappointment in this matter and admire your persistence in continuing to campaign about it.

I do not, however, think that any purpose would be served in writing to the Chancellor about this. All that would happen is that my letter would be passed on to the appropriate Defence Minister who would set out the findings of the review committee.

I am sorry to disappoint you, but I wish you success in your continuing campaign.

Yours sincerely,

Hugh Bayley,
Labour MP for the City of York".


Dear Mr Bayley,

Thank you for your response to my last two communications. Perhaps you are right regarding the way any contact you make with the Chancellor would be passed to the MOD. Civil Servants in that Department and the Foreign Office have told us "we have no further comment to make on these matters". The silence has been deafening from those quarters since the May 1968 London Gazette article (which I copied to you) that our erstwhile researchers have uncovered, has come into the public domain. Still they will not admit they were wrong. I can only ask for any support you can give in the House when / if this situation is discussed as indeed Anne Moffitt MP has already asked questions in that place.

You complement the persistence we have shown in this matter. Thank you for that, We will continue to persist as long as it takes to have this wrong put right.

When we are referred to on the Veterans Agency website, on two seperate occassions, as "disaffected Veterans" (both times eventually removed after protests) it only serves to stregthen our resolve. Events in Malaya/Malaysia, many years ago, showed what mettle we can muster when required.

Thank you again for your interest and support.

John Rushton,
[/b]


_________________
Pingat Kami - Hak Kami
651 Signal Troop,
Semengo Camp,
Kuching.

Know anyone who justly deserves the attached...Mr Brennan perhaps?

As a National Service soldier I remember being asked to raise my hand and swear an oath to HMQ. I did this having been brought up by my grandfather and other old soldiers from WW1 while my father was away in N Africa and Italy. They told me that an oath is a two way deal and that I should trust in it. I also remember that our Queen and her family did not desert us as a nation during the darkest days of WW2.

I served my small part in the years following Merdeka, 1957-1959 in Malaya and was proud to do so, following family tradition. Fifty years later I did not expect to have to fight against the people who supposedly uphold the old traditions simply for the right to wear a medal offered by a grateful nation for services recorded and noticed. I can only hope that the lady I raised my hand to, in trust and thanks, half a century ago will not let me and those who believed in her and her anticedents down.

In my humble opinion a nation that forgets its better side in favour of a negative, civil service way of viewing its sons and daughters, is a disgrace. I do not think that the Queen we all raised our hand to really knows the enormity of it all.............MB.


_________________
Mike Barton

MB wrote:

As a National Service soldier I remember being asked to raise my hand and swear an oath to HMQ. I did this having been brought up by my grandfather and other old soldiers from WW1 while my father was away in N Africa and Italy. They told me that an oath is a two way deal and that I should trust in it. I also remember that our Queen and her family did not desert us as a nation during the darkest days of WW2.

I served my small part in the years following Merdeka, 1957-1959 in Malaya and was proud to do so, following family tradition. Fifty years later I did not expect to have to fight against the people who supposedly uphold the old traditions simply for the right to wear a medal offered by a grateful nation for services recorded and noticed. I can only hope that the lady I raised my hand to, in trust and thanks, half a century ago will not let me and those who believed in her and her anticedents down.

In my humble opinion a nation that forgets its better side in favour of a negative, civil service way of viewing its sons and daughters, is a disgrace. I do not think that the Queen we all raised our hand to really knows the enormity of it all.............MB.

Amen to that, Mike.

Barry


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

Can anyone explain this to me...

You can wear it, as it is unpoliced, but to wear it, is a grave discourtesy to Her Majesty the Queen. Which is correct. After all, the 'suits' do like to make themselves absolutely clear about things.

I mean, I am a simple man with even simpler tastes... Is it me who is confused, or is it them...?

Can someone write to Uncle Coney or Uncle Brennan, for a simple explaination of just what the hell they actually do mean.

Yours still confused

Arthur

Arthur R-S wrote:

Can anyone explain this to me...

You can wear it, as it is unpoliced, but to wear it, is a grave discourtesy to Her Majesty the Queen. Which is correct. After all, the 'suits' do like to make themselves absolutely clear about things.

I mean, I am a simple man with even simpler tastes... Is it me who is confused, or is it them...?

Can someone write to Uncle Coney or Uncle Brennan, for a simple explaination of just what the hell they actually do mean.

Yours still confused

Arthur

Arthur

You have written the letter, why not send it, they basically are not replying to us, you might even get a positive answer

JohnC


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

I wonder what Queens's Regulations state about wearing 'restricted wear' medals, whether it is a disciplinary offence to do so, the reason in asking is that my engagement in the RAF was from 1957-1969, 12 years service. I did not retire or resign, I just ended my engagement, but suppose I eventually became a Chelsea Pensioner and wore the Red Coat of The Royal Hospital and I wore my gongs including The PJM.

That uniform supports a crown if I were say a Flight Sergeant, therefore the uniform is a Crown Uniform,I would then be showing a grave discourtesy to HM The Queen according to Brennan, Coney and Co. What an absolute ba££s up that there are so many misgivings in wanting to do what you want to do.

Still I'm not in service of The Crown and I have Ma'am's permission as I am not a Civil Servant as I relinquished all claim to that on July 14th 1969


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

If the London Gazette is 'The Bible', then surely this Section 14 would have to have been published if it supercedes the 3rd May 1968 statement?

Fred

Redcapfred wrote:

If the London Gazette is 'The Bible', then surely this Section 14 would have to have been published if it supercedes the 3rd May 1968 statement? Fred

Exactly Fred, and even if (Section A Paragraph 14) as produced in 1969 was published in the London Gazette it only refers to the "acceptance of Orders, Decorations or medals offered in respect of services rendered before (a member of the armed forces ) retirement"

Example: The Kuwait and Saudi medals fall into the above criteria, these foreign medals were awarded in 1991 to service personnel who were in service of the Crown when they received these foreign medals The PJM medal was awarded in 2005 to civilian veterans who 99.99% were not in service of the crown The odd recipient of the PJM like The Queen's secretary (for service in Malaysia as a midshipman on HMS Devonshire 1965). Another example is the Duke of Edingburgh's secretary who was awarded his PJM medal in July 2006 at the MHC London along with 38 other veterans. Both these PJM medal recipients are still in the service of the Crown. Should the majority of PJM medal recipients who parade on remembrance day be judged as them?

Mr Brennan and The Queen's secretary & other HD committee members are playing scullduggery by associated the award of the PJM medal on the same grounds and FCO criteria as the Kuwait and Saudi foreign medals. PJM medal recipients and their supporters must be aware to the spindoctoring and chicanery these suits are up to, to cover up their mistakes, mean-spirtness & deceit.

lo_rre wrote:

Mr Brennan and The Queen's secretary & other HD committee members are playing scullduggery by associated the award of the PJM medal on the same grounds and FCO criteria as the Kuwait and Saudi foreign medals. PJM medal recipients and their supporters must be aware to the spindoctoring and chicanery these suits are up to, to cover up their mistakes, mean-spirtness & deceit.

I have two major problems with Mr Brennan's defence of the indefensible:

1. No policing He suggests that we can break rules because those rules are not policed! What next ... you can go and commit a misdemeanour so long as there's not a policeman on the other side of the road. He is on very dangerous ground.

2. Pick n Mix from defunct regulations He suggests we can pick whatever regulations we like to impose our will on others (even when the defunct rule is not relevant) When trying to say the London Gazette article does not apply to PJMers, Mr Brennan invokes a 1969 regulation that Government Departments have stated has been replaced. More dodgy ground! So we can now pick n mix from regulations and laws whenever they were in force – and we can use irrelevant ones to confuse matters even more. I'm going to walk in front of cars with a red flag to slow them down as they drive through our village at speeds in excess of 10MPH. Oh yes ... then there's the price of my pint … I’m off to the Crown and Garter this evening and I'll pay in £sd … 1969 rates, natch.

Our point about the London Gazette is that it remains in force until rescinded or amended by another Notice from The Queen. We have not yet seen such a Notice.


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

Exellent points Barry,

I think readers should note these points Barry has made and keep them as reference to ask westminister politicans questions when writing to them.

What annoys me is these suits can chop and change these medal wearing rules and regulations about whenever it suits them.

Unfortunately there is no supreme court of law in the UK above them, and I am wondering if the E U court of Human Rights can challenge them under a discrimative clause against UK citizens who are not in service of the crown.

The animosity, anger and embarrassment these suits have caused amongst veterans regards this one Foreign medal issue is unbelievable.

lo_rre wrote:

The animosity, anger and embarrassment these suits have caused amongst veterans regards this one Foreign medal issue is unbelievable.

Amen to that, lo_rre.

The civil servants advising and influencing the HD Committee have brought the British 'Honours' system into disrepute.

They have brought their reputations into disrepute, not us.

In one of his rather transparent attempts to pass responsibility from himself to British veterans, Mr Brannan (an advisor and HD Committee member) says veterans have questionned the integrity of the HD Committee (thus trying to bring outsiders on board) - his board). No we haven't. But I do question the integrity of those advising thr HD Committee who try to defend the indefensible in the way that Mr Brennan has - through half-truths, myths and ommissions. His "full statement", which is anything but, makes my point more eloquently than I ever could.

In an era when honours have been purchased by the privileged from the privileged, I think civil servants have got a bl**dy nerve to call loyal British veterans "disaffected" and publicly state that the PJM is so sub-standard it can't sit beside those medals that the HD Committee have recommended for Unrestricted permission to be worn on uniforms ... like the repetitive umpteen Omani decorations commemorating the accession of a middle eastern ruler. Those Omani medals apparently achieve a standard that the PJM does not! Err ...


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

We may have to have our day in Court yet. We were brought up on the old adage "Obey the latest order". However this implies that the latest order is a LEGAL Order.

We may yet have to go to court to prove this point if the suits come up with another "instruction".

Anyone know a human rights lawyer?

C----- B---- ? Does she work Pro Bono?


MIKE OSTLER
Ex RAF KUCHING

BarryF wrote:

But I do question the integrity of those advising thr HD Committee who try to defend the indefensible in the way that Mr Brennan has - through half-truths, myths and ommissions. .

Exactly Barry, this is why I challenged him to explain his unofficial letter (no reference number) to me. Is this because he does not want that letter recorded so that it cannot be used against him in the future.

When a civil servant who holds such high office writes letters with no reference number attached means he is still not sure of his subject.