Dear Mr Steele,

Please refer to your email to Meg Munn, which has been passed to me for reply.

You suggested that the Five Year Rule was brought in to apply specifically to the PJM. This is not the case. There is evidence of the existence of the "Five Year Rule" (or an earlier two year rule) dating back to at least 1855. The Rules have been reviewed and revised on a number of occasions over the last one hundred and fifty years and, regardless of the circumstances of their birth, they are extant. They have been approved by successive Sovereigns and more recently by the HD committee on a number of occasions. Questions over their provenance, while of historic interest, have no direct bearing on the case of the PJM. The PJM was considered under the Rules that were current in 2005. The Rules apply to all foreign awards that are designed to be worn. Although exceptions have been made under the Five Year Rule, these do not set a precedent. Each case is considered on a case by case basis. The HD Committee has looked at the case of the PJM three times now. They do not intend to look at it again.

You raised the point that Sir Robin Janvrin, as a state servant, had accepted a foreign commemorative medal, with full permission to wear it. This medal was awarded by Antigua and Barbuda, which is a Realm country where The Queen is Head of State. The Queen's permission is not required for a British citizen to accept and wear a medal set up by Royal Warrant or Statute in one of Her Realms, because the award is not from another head of state. There has, therefore, been no contravention of the Rules on Foreign Decorations and Medals, which apply only to foreign countries and Commonwealth countries where The Queen is not head of state.

I hope that this clarifies these two points.

Yours sincerely,

Tanya Collingridge

Fred - That missive that Tanya wrote is that verbatim?

Yes John, it is.

StanW wrote:

But nevertheless was for an event that took place more than 5 years previously??

Yes/No will do.

Yes

StanW wrote:

Please correct me if I'm wrong but as I see it, permission to wear was simply not required on the grounds that events took place on British Soil??

Yes/No will do.

Yes/No

But .... knowing you have detailed knowledge of the PJM, Stan, I have to explain the first the "No": Permission to wear was automatic cos HM used a different rubber stamp and didn't have to rely on the HD for the "OK" because she is Head of State of Antigua making it a Realm rather than a Foreign country (i.e. where she is not Head of State).

Then the "Yes": The events did happen in the UK ... sort of. Unlike you and me and all PJMers, several people (e.g. secretaries of the HD) have been awarded their wearable A & B 25th Anny medal because they turned up at their offices in the UK to be told the news. They didn't have to put their lives on the line on the other side of the planet. Typical ... yet another case of who you know (or work for) rather than what you do!


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

""



Last edited by StanW on Mon Apr 14, 2008 12:27 am; edited 1 time in total

Sorry to jump in front of Fred, John, but I have just read the above and need to have a dig. Sticking to V words rather than those beginning with F and O, I can only say that verbatim or no the content was crtainly NOT veridical.

MB


_________________
Mike Barton

Fred

That missive that Tanya wrote is that verbatim?


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

Miss Collingridge says 'they do not intend to look at it again'.

Well I have news for her - yes, they will look at it again because our elected representatives in our elected parliament will tell you lot of desk pushers in the civil service what to do and the day is coming fast when British citizens will no longer accept your arrogant prevarication and lies.

We will wear our PJM with pride because we fought for it and earned it and some died earning it. No unelected civil servant is going to tell me what to wear or what not to wear. Get your priorities right Madam and don't start dishing out orders to us, you will not win.

Dear Tanya,

What a load of b******s. (Apologies webmaster but I just needed that)

Isn't Malaysia a Realm??


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

So the HD Committee considered the PJM issue three times and they still got it wrong! I believe this underlines their intrasigence because they have not listened to anything anyone has said. But I also see that it's not the HD Committee who make these decisions but the civil servants in the MOD/FCO/Cabinet Office who tell them what they should decide. So it's the civil servants who have 'considered' the PJM three times and failed three times.

I wonder how they view Ian Pearson's declaration that as the Minister who had to declare the recommendation he now says it was a flawed declaration and should be amended.

Also, those people must be very arrogant not to take into account all the submissions made to them knowing that most MPs back us, most people back us, most organisations back us.

I think they have destroyed all trust in the system.

Kev

Redcapfred wrote:

You suggested that the Five Year Rule was brought in to apply specifically to the PJM.

I agree - it was the double medal rule that was brought in to the Foreign Decoratiosn Rules to deny the PJM.

Redcapfred wrote:

The HD Committee has looked at the case of the PJM three times now.

I only know of two.

Redcapfred wrote:

They do not intend to look at it again.

Whatever their intentions may be, we live in a democracy that does not have a written constitution and nothing that affects the citizen can be ruled out forever - particualrly by civil servants. Therefore to make that statement is contrary to our (unwritten) constitution. Ergo, it is unconstitutional and TC (I leave that to your interpretation!) should know better.

Redcapfred wrote:

The PJM was considered under the Rules that were current in 2005.

Hmmm ... the PJM was offered in 2004. So which rules is TC referring to? Those that were in existence when it was offered? Or those the civil servants manufactured after the medal had been offered and only brought in in November 2005 and applied retrospectively (which is against your human rights)? TC may have dug yet another a hole for herself and the HD Committee.

I detect a degree of arrogance here - and a contemptuous disregard for our constitution and our rights.

It is time that this whole mess was discussed in the public domain on a question and answer basis ... let's see how they perform then!


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

Redcapfred wrote:

The HD Committee has looked at the case of the PJM three times now. They do not intend to look at it again.


Yours sincerely,

Tanya Collingridge

I wonder what those three dates were?........and the end piece appears to be rather arrogant and aloof, is this Ms Colligridge making the statement on behalf of the HDC or Ms C's own comments


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

Redcapfred wrote:

Fred - That missive that Tanya wrote is that verbatim?

Yes John, it is.

Thanks Fred, check your Inbox re PM


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