How dare they talk about honour when they do not know the meaning of the word!

John

I have asked Ms Gray [a new name I see, I just love them when they call themselves Ms ] what this means you will note I have asked this in laymans language.

I wonder what the 'round the houses' reply will be

Dear Ms Gray

Thank you for your letter of the 27th June under FOI 255550

Please refer this FOI request for Internal Review

Would you also explain to me in laymans terms what you mean by your statement

....... Their candour in so doing will be affected by their assessment of whether the contents of their discussions will be disclosed in the near future...........
Thank you

John Cooper



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

More of the same garbage, just a different Monday!! I wonder how embarrassing this is to our foreign friend?


Finalised:
OfficialRecord:
DocumentStatus:
FolderReferenceType:
DOCUMENT ATTRIBUTES SECTION: DO NOT MODIFY TEXT ABOVE
STARTDOCUMENT:
From: Deputy Director Protocol and
Assistant Marshal of the
Diplomatic Corps



14 July 2008


Mr John Cooper





FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST - FOI 0396-08

Thank you for your email of 9 June to Tanya Collingridge requesting an internal review of the decision, conveyed to you in her letter of 6 June, not to disclose the letter from the then Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, to the then Private Secretary to The Queen, Sir Robin Janvrin.
You asked in your Internal Review request if it would be possible to see only the parts of the letter which related to the Pingat Jasa Malaysia medal. I have conducted a full examination of the material of relevance to your internal review request and consulted with those who were involved with the initial decision to withhold the relevant material.
We have concluded that the information should remain exempt under Sections 37(1)(a) (communications with Her Majesty, with other members of the Royal Family or with the Royal Household), 37(1)(b) (conferring of any honour or dignity) and Section 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy) of the Freedom Of Information (FOI) Act. We consider that the exemption in section 37(1)(b) relates not only to decisions on individuals' eligibility for honours or medals, but also covers formulation of policy in relation to medals and honours. In addition, section 35(1)(a) covers the development of government policy on any subject. We believe that the public interest has been satisfied by the full statement made on the PJM by the Cabinet Office, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and MOD last year. The HD Committee needs to receive free and frank advice, and to conduct thorough and candid discussions about medals policy. Section 35(1)(a) is intended to include not only policy discussion by Government Ministers but also those who work for HM Government on the formulation of policy. Disclosure of the relevant information would inhibit the free and frank discussions and assessment of policy alternatives as well as the provision of advice under the same conditions.

In addition, some of the information will remain withheld under Section 27(1)(a) of the Act due to the harm that would be caused to our bilateral relations with Malaysia due to some of the issues raised in the letter, which go wider than the matter of the PJM. If the United Kingdom does not maintain this trust and confidence, its ability to protect and promote UK interests through international relations will be hampered, which will not be in the public interest. For these reasons we consider that the public interest in maintaining this exemption continues to outweigh the public interest in disclosing the information.

For the reasons above, I have concluded that the relevant letter from Jack Straw to Sir Robin Janvrin should remain withheld in full.

If you are not content with the outcome of this internal review, you have the right to apply direct to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:

Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 56AF








Jackie Barson


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

John,

What a load of unintelligable garbage. ((Sect 13) ammended from (Sect 12.5) Gobbledigook to the People Act-1756)

Thank God Jackie Barson doesn't have to explain anything complicated. Like how to make a cup of tea !!!


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

So what the hell was in that letter that would upset the Malaysians? Or have I read this wrongly? The mind boggles! Dave


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

Quote:

So what the hell was in that letter that would upset the Malaysians? Or have I read this wrongly? The mind boggles

!

Dave....I think what we have demonstrated here....is a shining example of 'bafflegab' elevated to the 'n'th power...

Ms Barson is misplaced in such a role.....with such skill at 'shovelling it' she'd be a natural in the Ministry of Agriculture...


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

I have replied to that garbage but by the Information Commissioner for him/her to ensure the FCO release what we are after. Everyone knows there was no letter to Her Maj, it was all stitched up at one end by Bren Gun and the other by the person that cannot spell his own name correctly. If what Jack the Lad told Batmans assistant [Robin] to stitch it up then they didn't take into account the views of those of us who were involved.

Their day cometh...........


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

The letter from the FCO states:-


We consider that

the exemption in section 37(1)(b) relates not only to decisions on individuals' eligibility for honours or medals, but also covers formulation of policy in relation to medals and honours.
In addition, section 35(1)(a) covers the development of government policy on any subject. We believe that the public interest has been satisfied by the full statement made on the PJM by the Cabinet Office, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and MOD last year. The HD Committee needs to receive free and frank advice, and to conduct thorough and candid discussions about medals policy.
Section 35(1)(a) is intended to include not only policy discussion by Government Ministers but also those who work for HM Government on the formulation of policy. Disclosure of the relevant information would inhibit the free and frank discussions and assessment of policy alternatives as well as the provision of advice under the same conditions.
---------------------------------------------
As you can see from the points highlighted above the FCO Internal Review Team have interpreted the Freedom of Information Act, 2000, as

1. we consider that
2. also covers formulation of policy,
3. government policy on any subject
4. is intended to include.

This is all supposition and opinion expressed by the writer of the letter. The Freedom of Information Act, 2000, clearly states the exemptions but the FCO has elaborated on them with their own personal opinions.

The Freedom of Information Act, 2000, is a statutory instrument passed by readings in our Parliament and given the Royal Consent by Her Majesty the Queen and placed on the Statute Book as a law of our country. If the exemptions had intended to be read as per the FCO interpretation then this statutory instrument would have included these facts. The only way this Act can be amended or altered to change what it actually says, is a court of law or our Parliament, but certainly not by Civil Servants.

The Freedom on Information Act, 2000, does not include the words given in the opinions expressed by the FCO and they have no legal right to change it into their own wording to suit their own purpose so that they can wield the exemptions against British citizens. What they are doing is not legal. They are not qualified or authorized to change the law of our land so their opinions on what they consider the FOI Act means are irrelevant and in breach of the Freedom of Information Act, 2000, and a complaint should be made to the Information Commissioner about this unlawful practice.

For nearly three years now British veterans of the Malaya/Borneo campaigns have had their democratic rights and civil liberties ignored by Civil Servants who are so self conceited and arrogant that they believe they are above the law whilst other citizens have to abide by it.

Dave Woolmer wrote:

So what the hell was in that letter that would upset the Malaysians? Or have I read this wrongly? The mind boggles! Dave

Indeed it does, Dave.

My understanding is that Jack Straw asked for a flexible approach to be adopted to the PJM (so that it would receive Unrestricted Approval for wear) and his letter you refer to was a request for an answer to his original submission.

The reason that they do not want to place that letter into the public domain is that they had already decided to fan their nose at him (he was the Foreign Secretary at the time) and had told the Malaysians but not him!

Furthermore, their eventual answer to the Foreign Secretary's letter was that after long and careful consideration (they took a year and state they considered all issues which would include Jack Straw's original plea for flexibility) they had concluded that our service to Malaysia, and the Malaysian Medal itself, did not meet their standard!

That's enough to upset anyone - the Malaysians, ex-Servicemen and women, Parliament, the Media, and the People of this country. Less than 10 unelected civil servants feel smug about this matter ... but they have had their knuckles rapped by our directly elected House of Commons for bringing shame on Malaysia and on the Queen and on this Country! They are miffed about that and are just being objectionably obstructive by refusing to disclose information to which we are rightly entitled.

Barry


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

Quote:

That's enough to upset anyone - the Malaysians, ex-Servicemen and women, Parliament, the Media, and the People of this country. Less than 10 unelected civil servants feel smug about this matter ... but they have had their knuckles rapped by our directly elected House of Commons for bringing shame on Malaysia and on the Queen and on this Country! They are miffed about that and are just being objectionably obstructive by refusing to disclose information to which we are rightly entitled.

Well it's more than sufficient to upset me Barry!.....and when I read an obfuscatory letter like that signed by Ms Barson my blood boils and my BS meter rapidly deflects into the 'extreme' range.

I do hope that the unelected individuals to whom you refer have not put their offending knuckles away just yet?....They are in for a further 'rapping' whether they know it or not....


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

I found this on the Legion Online Magazine www.legion-magazine.co.uk and I have posted it for your information

John


What not to wear
Are you perplexed by medal protocol? Col Alan Blacker, Field Legal Advisor at Manchester County Office, explains those things you wanted to know about medals but were too afraid to ask

Published: 3 June 2008
And now to the PJM, or the Pingat Jasa Malaysia Medal to give it its full name. There has much debate on this matter and even the mention of the medal is sure to raise blood pressures. My advice as a lawyer is that the rules governing service personnel do not have any bearing or force on the ex-service community. It is therefore straightforward; no one can issue a complaint against a former serviceman or woman for wearing the PJM next to or in line with service medals or at all. As to precedence, simply place it to the right of the medal for general service either the GSM or ASM. To debate the matter further is pointless and counter-productive.

The debate about its status has nothing whatsoever to do with the wearing of the medal. When issued, a medal – whether it is recognised by the crown or not – does nothing to its wearers entitlement, it can only have an effect on precedence and that is all. A foreign authority formally issues the medal and it can be worn without any complication next to UK medals. It is as simple as that

DELETED BECAUSE OF MASSIVE INCOMPETENCE (MY OWN)



Last edited by 'Jock' Fenton on Wed Aug 13, 2008 12:30 pm; edited 1 time in total
_________________
...................'Jock'
Paroi...Rasah...Batu Signals Troop.

All very interesting and perfectly understandable John, even to a simple mind like my own......but our arguments and claims, to date, have not been refuted by lawyers......They have been refuted by liars!


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

Quote:

All very interesting and perfectly understandable John, even to a simple mind like my own......but our arguments and claims, to date, have not been refuted by lawyers......They have been refuted by liars!

I do agree with you on that score Jock, I just thought that this was an interesting article for those with an eye on the bigger picture and in that I of course include you my friend!

John

To debate the matter further is pointless and counter productive - to whom?

The HD Committee did not consider when making the non-wear rule that they were dealing with British citizens and they went ahead and made a big boob. Now that they have been told they made a huge error they and their little followers in the civil service decided to compound it with lies, deceit and fraud. They believe themselves too powerful to be questioned by the peasants but we live in the 21st century and it is not pointless to ask them to change their mind and admit making a mistake and if they will not do so and continue with their petulant attitude then it is not counter productive to show them the error of their ways. Oppression by dictators must always be questioned and rectified in a democracy.

Good article John. Seems like everyone in this country, except the HD Committee, fully understands that the non-wear rule of a medal issued to British citizens is unlawful and makes a mockery of our legal and democratic system.