Image of the PJM Medal
Banner Text = Fight For the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia Medal
Reply to topic Page 16 of 17
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 15, 16, 17  Next
The Queen Gives Approval for Foreign Awards to be Worn
Author Message
Reply with quote
Post  
Sorry I am unable to post the actual letter as my scanner is on the blink, but today I received a copy of the following letter sent to my MP David Tredinnick by Derek Twigg =

30th April 2007

Dear David,
Thank you for your letter of 16 March enclosing an email from your constituent Mr F J Steele, regarding the Malaysian medal called the Pingat Jasa Malaysia (PJM). He referred to an extract from the London Gazette dated 3 May 1968 which, he suggests, grants veterans of the campaigns in Malaya and Borneo between 1957 and 1966 the right to wear the medal with the permission of The Queen.

I am aware that this document has been found and distributed widely to the Malaya/Borneo veterans' community. I am advised that the Ceremonial Office is investigating the entry to determine its true meaning and any impact it may have on the wearing of foriegn awards by British citizens and in particular, the PJM.

I will write to you again when I have received the necessary guidance from them.

DEREK TWIGG MP

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post London Gazette (5057) 03/05/68 
Fred,

I wish you luck. Unless, of course Derek Twigg imposes on them the
power that he has to get them to change it to "has permission to formally
wear", it is almost definite that he will accept their ruling, and turn the
request down again, in other words repeat their nonsense.

The second paragraph in Mr Benyons letter, after the first sentence,
is word for word from the letter I got from Honours 1, Coney.

I enclose both letters I received from Mr Coney - 2nd para, 2nd sentence ,
of first letter " I am advised that....."




Unless, as Jock puts it, he has the intestinal fortitude to put his foot down,
the answer Mr Benyon and you will get, will still refer to the superseded 1969 Regs
or the latest B******t they've come up with.

Regards,

David

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Coney. 
You will all notice that Phoney misquotes the London Gazette entry of 3rd. May, 1968, in that he states that it applies to UK citizens who are servants of the Crown - not as the gazette states UK citizens NOT BEING servants of the Crown.

I have already written to Mr Coney remarking on this error but he has refused to answer me. Is he deliberately misquoting HM's Royal Proclamation so that they can interpret this to mean that HM was referring only to servants of the Crown. Surely such misquoting of a public Royal Proclamation is being discourteous to our Sovereign. What use is a proclamation by the Queen in the London Gazette when bureauprats can change it at will, or interpret what it says into their own meaning. I would suggest asking The Queen but nothing gets past Snotty Janvrin who never answers or acknowledges anything.

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
I would agree that when the action, for which the medal commemorates, took place we were in the service of the Crown, however, at the time the King and kind peoples of Malaysia offered the medal, and was conferred by HM, we were NOT.

It seems to me that the HD Committee interpret the meaning of the LG statement to be what our status was at the time the action took place. We on the other hand, and I believe rightly so, interpret the LG statement to mean our status at the time of it being offered to us, and accepted by Her Majesty.

It needs a legal interpretation to decide the issue....NOT a bunch of Civil Servants !

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
Redcapfred wrote:
It seems to me that the HD Committee interpret the meaning of the LG statement to be what our status was at the time the action took place. We on the other hand, and I believe rightly so, interpret the LG statement to mean our status at the time of it being offered to us, and accepted by Her Majesty.


As you and Andy rightly point out, the LG Notice itself states that the Queen's decree applies to awards conferred upon UK citizens not being servants of the Crown.

The papers that promulgated the LG Notice clarify that position by stating categorically that it does not apply "in regard to awards conferred upon them [Crown Servants] during their official life time".

It could not be clearer ... unless you are a certain beleaguered civil servant who is dedicated to denying the PJM the status it merits.

If you were not in Crown service at the time the medal was approved by the Queen (c. 31st Jan 2006), then you can wear the medal on formal occasions.


_________________
BarryF, who fought for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Reply with quote
Post  
I have just sent the following reply to David Tredinnick cc Derek Twigg -


Dear Mr Tredinnick,

I thank you for your reply to my email regarding the PJM and the London Gazette statement, and the actions you have taken in obtaining a reply, however, as the Minister for Veterans has refered the matter back to the very same people who caused this issue in the first place to determine the true meaning of the LG statement, I do not hold much hope for a satisfactory outcome as for them it will now be down to a face saving exercise. Over the past several months they have tried to justify their actions by quoting defunct Rules which only goes to highlight the kind of people we are dealing with.

I do not think the LG Statement could be any clearer, it distinctly says "The Queen has been graciously pleased to approve that Orders, Decorations, and Medals, conferred with Her Majesty's permission (Which the PJM has been) upon United Kingdom citizens (Which we are) not being servants of the Crown (Which we are NOT) by the Heads or Governments of Commonwealth Countries (Which the King of Malaysia is) may in ALL cases be worn by the recipients without restriction (Which the HD Committee denies)

They seem to base their case on the fact that we WERE in the service of the Crown when the conflict took place (Which is true) and not on the basis that we were NOT when the medal was conferred. The Rules on which they wish to apply to a bunch of old men long since retired from service were designed to apply to those who currently ARE in the service of the Crown and wear the Queens uniform, not the likes of retired old veterans who will never wear the Queens uniform again (Not that we would not wish to)

When will Members of Parliament show it is they, NOT Civil Servants, who decide such matters?, as I point out, with them it is now a face saving issue and as such they are unlikely to voluntary change their stance. I can see that, at the end of the day, we will be left with no other choice but to refer the matter to the European Courts to determine the true meaning of the London Gazette statement.

Regards,
Fred Steele

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post LG Notice 
If the LG Notice had meant to exclude past servants of the crown it would it not have stated so....." to awards conferred upon UK citizens who have never been servants of the Crown ".

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post LG 
Bill,

actually it is ....NOT being servants of the Crown(when it was conferred), "never servants" means that
none of us would qualify since we were all in the Forces, and therefore servants of the Crown. I realise
that it is only semantics but the suits might use this as a get out" (they've tried everything else).

Best wishes,

David

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post LG Notice 
Yes David your right...6:38 am is to early to write things..body was up brain still in bed.
Cheers Bill..

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: servavnts of the crown 
I sent this email to Abby Oshodi which I borrowed from John Cooper, hope you don't mind John
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that this fellow's interpretation of a crown servant is a bit different from yours ? would you not agree

Norman.Marchant806@mod.uk
Thank you for your enquiry about Crown Service which you directed to my colleagues in the Service Personnel and Veterans Agency. Your message has been passed to the Veterans Policy Unit of the Ministry of Defence and I have been asked to respond.

The most concise definition of Crown service I have been able to find is on the HM Revenue & Customs website. It states :-

Generally speaking Crown servants are employees whose-
· Offices or employments are carried out under the Crown,

· Duties of employment are of a public nature, and,

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

Examples of offices or employments under the Crown are:

· HM Armed Forces

· Civil Servants

· Diplomats

Using these criteria, whilst you were serving in HM Armed Forces you were considered to be a Crown servant. My understanding is that the definition would cease on your leaving the Forces.

However, when members of the regular Forces leave the Service, they may be liable – for a set number of years – to be called out if they are needed to man or support an operation. During any period of recall, you would again be considered as being in Crown service.

Of course, even after leaving the Forces, you continue to be subject to the provisions of the Official Secrets Act covering any information, document or article which you had or have in your possession by virtue of your Crown service.

If you are unsure whether any subsequent employment you may have had qualifies as Crown service, you should contact HM Revenue & Customs direct.

I hope that this helpful. D.Birchall
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and this is the reply I got back
Dear Mr Birchall
Thank you for your email of 10 May 2007.
I am afraid I do not have anything further to add to statements already made.
Yours sincerely
Abby Oshodi
Deputy Team Leader
Ceremonial Secretariat

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: servavnts of the crown 
valentine wrote:


Dear Mr Birchall
Thank you for your email of 10 May 2007.
I am afraid I do not have anything further to add to statements already made.
Yours sincerely
Abby Oshodi
Deputy Team Leader
Ceremonial Secretariat


Could this be the reason Ms Oshodi does not wish to 'add to statements already made'?

“British veterans who fought a bitter and costly guerrilla war in Malaya 50 years ago are considering suing the Cabinet Office for "maladministration" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maladministration to win the right to wear a medal awarded by a grateful Malaysian government in honour of their sacrifice”

Malaya veterans may sue in medal conflict
IAN BRUCE, Defence Correspondent May 18 2007

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1408046.0.0.php

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
CHECKED OUT THE WIKIPEDIA DEFINATION OF MALADMINISTRATION,FROM WHAT I SEE THE ONLY THING THEY HAVE GOT RIGHT ON THIS ISSUE, IS TICKING ALL THE BOXES,TO CONFORM TO THE DEFINITION.

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Chelsea Pensioners. 
On BBC 4 (Freeview 9) on Sunday, 22nd. July, 2007, there was a programme entitled Chelsea Pensioner - Once a Soldier. It was about two ex-soldiers who were entering the Chelsea Pensioners Hospital. One of them had two GSM's with four bars with one of them being for Borneo. At the end he was seen in Chelsea Pensioner uniform, resplendent in his red coat, and on his chest he wore two GSM's and the PJM.
It would appear that the right to wear the PJM is accepted by everyone except the eight members of the HD Committee who are petulantly refusing to accept that the world is right and they are wrong. Perhaps they will stop throwing their toys out of the pram and get over their little tantrum and join the rest of us grown-ups in the real world.
I know you read this you numpties!!!

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Chelsea Pensioners. 
mcdangle wrote:

I know you read this you numpties!!!


Thats a polite word to describe them....I can think of others but even this UK Migrant to Australia, well versed in the Australian vernacular, would hesitate to use them in this august Forum.

"They (numpties) can think of any Australian vernacular to describe themselves. They'll all be the right one to describe them.


_________________
Merdeka, Merdeka, Merdeka,
from the HD Committee and its decision.
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
You recall the fiasco with the RN sailors captured(?) by the Iranians in the Gulf recently, well it transpired that some time previously the R Australian N was approached by these same fuzzy wuzzies. The diggers used some choice words along with the threats of what they would do if ignored and the fuzzies did f--k off as politely requested. Just goes to show dont it.

John

View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:
Reply to topic Page 16 of 17
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 15, 16, 17  Next
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum