chanter wrote:

I have also just received the same email from Norman Marchant at the MOD. It's official - I am no longer a crown servant.

Well that is good news, some of these Civil Servants we have been dealing with do not have the nous of a fleas brain, they certainly cannot co-ordinate their statements regarding inter-departments utterances.

Time to hang the sods out to dry!


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

· Salaries are paid out of the public funds of the UK or Northern Ireland.

Excuse me for asking gentlemen but I was under the impression that that the United Kingdom comprised of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so when did Northern Ireland break away from the United Kingdom?


_________________
PER ARDUA AD ASTRA/HONI-SOIT-QUI-MAL-Y-PENSE

It seems to me (And they say it is confirmed in the LG Article) that the fact that the PJM was awarded for service during the time we WERE Servants of the Crown, is the issue, NOT what we were when it was accepted by Her Majesty, it depends on ones interpretation. I myself read the LG Article to mean our status when accepted by Her Majesty.

Redcapfred wrote:

I myself read the LG Article to mean our status when accepted by Her Majesty.

I agree with you - the 1968 promulgating papers confirm it as well.


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

What about sending the LG statement to the English departments of Englands top six Universities and request for an interpretation?

"My understanding is that the definition would cease once
you have left the Forces". "My understanding" seems about the
same as a "definite maybe". What is needed is a categorical " you are private citizens
once you have left the Forces"

MoD Medal rules:
2006DIN10-002 dated Jan 06
Wearing of medals after leaving the service:

21 On leaving the service personnel cease to be
bound by these instructions but they are expected
to conform to the general instructions published in
the London Gazette.....(particularly LG 03/05/1968)

Since these instructions are laid down in JSP 761, and concern SERVING members
of the armed Forces WHO ARE servants of the Crown, I posit that paragraph 21 explicitly
EXCLUDES those who have left the Services as NO LONGER BEING SERVANTS OF THE
CROWN except those who are subject to, and recalled as members of the TA or Reserves,
which, I doubt, applies to any member entitled (or not) to receive the PJM.


I have noted that Ms Abby Oshodi's Kamikaze enthusiasm in her new appointment has already
led to her making a boo-boo (see Paul's letter elswhere). Her seemingly overwhelming, and perhaps
misplaced, loyalty will most probably backfire on her and lead her to reflect that jumping in to
unknown territory is not the most prudent of things to do once the "carry the can" process begins!

GLOman wrote:

"My understanding is that the definition would cease once
you have left the Forces". "My understanding" seems about the
same as a "definite maybe". What is needed is a categorical " you are private citizens
once you have left the Forces"

David

If you read the whole paragraph thus Using these criteria, whilst you were serving in HM Armed Forces you [b]were considered to be a Crown servant. My understanding is that the definition would cease on your leaving the Forces[/b].

The operative word here is WERE, I do not think that there is any ambiguity in this where he then goes on to say My understanding..............

Anyone live near a Citizens Advice Bureau?

JC


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

I am led to believe that once you have served in the colours and then the reserves then you are no longer answerable to the crown except in a time of war.

Below is what is on my discharge booklet

valentine wrote:

I am led to believe that once you have served in the colours and then the reserves then you are no longer answerable to the crown ...

I agree, valentine.

The issue is relevant to the PJM case but, as far as I am aware, there is no difference of opinion between us and the Cabinet Office/FCO/MoD about the definition of Crown Service or our status once retired and with no Reserve commitments.

The argument is only about timing. The contemporaneous papers state that the LG Notice does not apply to awards conferred during one's official life. What does that mean? The argument is about whether it means:

a) The LG Notice does not apply to those in Crown Service at the time the services were carried out (Brennan's contention), or

b) The LG Notice does not apply to those in Crown Service at the time the medal was conferred (my view).

It cannot be both.

Indeed ... what they are now trying to say is that the LG Notice does not apply at all! Why? Because the Queen said you can't wear it. But their wording, with carefully placed commas, is very unclear. They do not want to state that the Queen said we can't wear it. Why aren't they clear on this point? Either a) because it is true but a public declaration would make her look out-of-touch and mean-spirited in the context of her Oz and Kiwi approvals or b) it is untrue because she didn't sign a paper to that effect and, if they publicise that she did not withhold permission to wear (they did), the LG Notice does apply and we can formally wear the PJM.

One other point regarding Brennan's attack on the London Gazette Notice. He says it was aimed at those awards given Restricted Approval. In fact, the contempraneous papers refer to that situation as an example. It is not an exclusive limitation. Therefore, the PJM falls within the auspices of the Notice.

I remain of the view that Mr Brennan has painted himself into a corner and will now say and do anything to try and prove he was right.

Barry


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

John

Point taken, although I read it I didn't have the benefit of [b], sub-
paragraphing, however, it matters not really - I think they are really tied
up in knots about this. I believe we all agree that the LG and the JSP 761
give us all the authority we need and I think that it is Panic, Bloody
Mindedness and the power they hold, or should it be abuse of
the power they hold to continue this face saving exercise/farce.

The research the MP did, and the pay book underline the fact the all
official docus references to Service and Ex-service definitions show
FCO, Cab.Off and MoD DS Sec to be totally isolated from reality!

I have made Ms Oshodi aware of my views regarding the civil servants
conduct during the PJM matter that as far as the Civil Service Code is
concerned, I felt that the "Must Not do" totally outweighed the "Must do".
I'M waiting fior a reply.



Pax, regards
David

BarryF wrote:

I remain of the view that Mr Brennan has painted himself into a corner and will now say and do anything to try and prove he was right.Barry

IMO this man has told so many porkies in regard to the "PJM Whitehall Farce", one more won't make any difference.

He's drowning and I wouldn't throw him a life-belt. Indeed I'd clobber anyone who tried to throw him one.


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

GLOman wrote:

snip 8<..........

I think that it is Panic, Bloody Mindedness and the power they
hold, or should it be abuse of the power

larger snip 8<.......

It is now just an abuse of power.

I think that is what Hitler did, didn't he?

And he got his just desserts, didn't he.


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

I have read with interest all the posts by you professional service people with regard to terms of service etc, and felt that your worries had nothing to do with a mere National Service bloke. Somewhere I have a discharge book, with a pinkish cover but cannot remember its contents or its implications.

I was discharged the army at a camp near Bordon in Hampshire circa Feb Mar 1959. It was mainly a routine job over a couple of days, but I was given an uncomfortable hour or so at one point before being made to sign the Official Secrets Act.
Some two and a half years later, in August 1961, I was actually ..."stood to"....for several days during the Berlin Wall crisis. I cannot now remember my terms of being on the Reserve, or whatever, and duration, but I dare say I was still under the same terms as you regulars in 1968, at the time of the LG inclusion.

Just a bit of musing on my part, and I totally agree with Barry. I shall wear my PJM come what may.

MB.


_________________
Mike Barton

MB
are you sure that it was for the Berlin wall crisis because I think that you were stood to for the Cuba missle crisis when we were all on stand by



Last edited by valentine on Sat May 12, 2007 10:24 am; edited 1 time in total

I can't rule that out, Valentine, since the fog of time is thickening.

MB


_________________
Mike Barton