....barring those recipients awarded the PJM from actually wearing this medal?

Some of you will know that I have been battling with The Cabinet Office, The Foreign & Commonwealth Office and finally The Information Commissioners Office as to whether HM The Queen signed off a document barring us from the wearing of The PJM. My first application to the FCO went in for sight of this document on 11th April 2006 and a reply to this from Ms Eleri Pengelly (FCO) was sent to me on 5th May 2006 explaining that the FCO did have a copy and that 'The Queen signed this document in the normal manner'

It was this last paragraph that concerned my doubts as to whether the Queen actually signed the said document. Much further correspondence later resulted in myself and others from having sight of this document under Section 37 of The FOIA, I even asked my MP, Sir Michael Lord, if he could confirm sight of this document. Mr Dennis Brennan did not refuse this request but produced more fudge to suggest that an internal inquiry had been asked by me for this to go ahead, I never asked for such action!

All the correspondence to The CO/FCO resulted in delaying tactics so I reported this matter to The Information Commissioner (ICO) 27 emails and letters (from me) later culminates in a letter on Thursday last that the case by The ICO was no longer being investigated as The CO had agreed to my request

This is the reply from The CO



Together with an attachment from Sir Robin Janvrin, Private Secretary to The Queen, due to [possible] Crown Copyright restrictions I thought it best to let you know the written contents verbatim:

The letter is headed Buckingham Palace, Honours in Confidence [Ref] 193117/05 Received in the Foreign Secretary's Office 29th December 2005

[The letter is dated] 21st December, 2005.

Dear Secretary of State

Thank you for your letter of 19th December. The Queen has approved the recommendation of the HD Committee Meeting of 7th December that the Pingat Jasa Malaysia may be accepted but not worn by those eligible to receive it.

Yours [????]

Robin
Sir Robin Janvrin
Private Secretary to The Queen

The Rt. Hon. Jack Straw, MP

[The parenthesis is my doing for the sake of accuracy]

That folks is it, there is no signature as I requested from the CO/FCO/ICO regarding HM The Queen, if I have broken protocol by publishing this so be it.

My reply to The Suits yesterday (yes we do work on Sundays!)

Your Ref IC249077/FS50170120

Mr Michael Pigott
cc Mr Paul Warbrick, Complaints Officer, Information Commissioners Office
FOI-Enquiries@ico.gsi.gov.uk

Dear Mr Pigott

In reference to your letter to me dated the 25th March 2008.

With due respect you have not answered my question, I first asked the question on 11th April 2006 and received a reply from Ms Eleri Pengelly on 5th May 2006 requesting sight of the document actually signed by Her Majesty The Queen barring Malayan/Malaysian Veterans from wearing The Pingat Jasa Malaysia. Since that date I have forwarded to either the FCO/CO or the ICO 27 emails reminding these different departments to this effect.

The letter you have forwarded from Sir Robin Janvrin to The Rt Hon Jack Straw MP is not what I requested. I would imagine that between the FCO/CO/ICO someone should have these copy letters/emails

Mr Pigott, your departments, within The Civil Service have placed every obstacle in my way with regard to the sighting of one simple document purportedly signed by HM The Queen.

In closing I am therefore extremely disappointed in your delaying tactics and am now asking of you within the statutory time limit to reply to this correspondence explaining why you are obfuscating the real issues regarding my initial enquiries.

Yours sincerely

John Cooper
etc


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

Looks like they have something to hide and are not prepared to divulge it. Sir Robin says the Queen HAS APPROVED but he has not said that Her Majesty has commanded or instructed that the PJM cannot be worn. She has approved the HD Committee recommendation, but the HD Committee is not in a position to tell anyone they cannot wear a medal.

Dennis Brennan in his letter dated 11th April, 2007, said - In the case of the Pingat Jasa Malaysia it has always been stipulated that an exception was made to allow the medal to be accepted only. He said ONLY. It would appear someone is not telling the truth - well when you have two different stories about the same thing then one is lying.

Looks like HM did not actually sign a document commanding her citizens not to wear the PJM and this is the reason why letters have not been sent to those who have been refused permission to wear as per the Rules. Sir Robin Janvrin refused to answer any correspondence on this subject.

If we are to be told not to wear the PJM, or that we do not have permission (which can only be given by the Queen) to wear, then we should be told properly. We have a legal right to be told properly and no matter how they try to fob us off we will not be satisfied until we are told properly and this means by our elected government in parliament.

Keep at em John.

That should look good on "GOD's" desk when he starts his enquiry, [?????????] presumably the letter is unsigned or not signed by Sir Robin J. Surely it is a/the signature which gives authority for the contents of a letter; ergo no signature, no authority; so who signed on his behalf? Mind you, if you don't sign it you cannot really be held responsible for its content; can you?

Could this be the result of one of the HD Committee's non-meetings, you know, email, phone call(s), back of fag packet etc,
chat in the rest room, cafe/resturant, gent's toilet and so on? And, as I have queried before, was there even a quorum or was it just one, two or three individuals who have something to hide and did this behind the backs of other committee members. Don't worry about the Sir Very Importants involved in the gerrymandering, the bigger they are the harder (hopefully) they fall.

If the review by the Head of the Civil Service is thorough and honest, we may see some Sirs (and not Sirs) very importants
buried in the hole that they have dug for themselves - I have some sympathy for the junior/deputies who will be dragged down with them, after all if the Boss says it's right, who are they to argue - "just sign the letter". We might even get a bit of whistle blowing - who knows. We can only wait and see.

I can pick holes in a lot of documents, I have many anomalies [some being kept for a very rainy day ]

But being a pedant here is a good example. Hope you read this forum DennisB!

In a letter to me on 12th March 2007 the aforementioned person wrote [that my letter to him was discourteous and he didn't have to reply to such letters but in this instance he would, sounds like Sir Humphrey in drag!) that A decision of 31st January 2006 by The Rt Hon Ian Pearson MP....... . That Mr B was not a decision that was a statement, the decision was made by the HD Committee on December 7th 2005


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

""



Last edited by StanW on Sun Apr 13, 2008 11:46 pm; edited 1 time in total

""



Last edited by StanW on Sun Apr 13, 2008 11:45 pm; edited 1 time in total

StanW wrote:

mcdangle wrote:

Looks like they have something to hide and are not prepared to divulge it. Sir Robin says the Queen HAS APPROVED but he has not said that Her Majesty has commanded or instructed that the PJM cannot be worn. She has approved the HD Committee recommendation, but the HD Committee is not in a position to tell anyone they cannot wear a medal.
Dennis Brennan in his letter dated 11th April, 2007, said - In the case of the Pingat Jasa Malaysia it has always been stipulated that an exception was made to allow the medal to be accepted only. He said ONLY. It would appear someone is not telling the truth - well when you have two different stories about the same thing then one is lying.
Looks like HM did not actually sign a document commanding her citizens not to wear the PJM and this is the reason why letters have not been sent to those who have been refused permission to wear as per the Rules. Sir Robin Janvrin refused to answer any correspondence on this subject.
If we are to be told not to wear the PJM, or that we do not have permission (which can only be given by the Queen) to wear, then we should be told properly. We have a legal right to be told properly and no matter how they try to fob us off we will not be satisfied until we are told properly and this means by our elected government in parliament.

Possibly the best piece of news I've heard todate John C. and I salute you!

So McD, or should I say Andy Nichol? after all, I've nothing to hide and this is the FOI thread!

So if for arguments sake Sir Robin Jarvin did sign on behalf of HM then who the hell signed on behalf of the Australians? Sir Robin Jarvin perhaps?? (re: something to hide?)

Now, If this were the case then I think we would have even better grounds to have a go at Sir Gus McDonnald! Unfortunately "they" seem to be one step ahead of the fight4thepjm team most of the time!

Stan

I cannot understand why you say YOU have nothing to hide. I do not see any mention of you in my post. If you are going to use my name then get it right, it is Andy Nicoll and not Nichol.

Quote:"I can pick holes in a lot of documents, I have many anomalies [some being kept for a very rainy day ] "

John, From where do youmake your posts?.....Its been hissing down here for years ! (Refused right to wear)

StanW wrote:

.....and If, as I suspect, Sir Robin signed both documents supposedly on behalf of HM, sureley British Malaya Boreno Veterans would then be entitled to compensation for their "hurt feelings" under discrimination laws, religiously or otherwise! [Sir Gus Mcdonald please note]

Stan

Stan....if you ever have any intention of helping (I sometimes wonder at your motives?) you might consider writing to Sir Gus...I'm not altogether sure that he logs-on here every morning just to find out the latest view of the world as perceived by StanW....and it's O'Donnel, not McDonald incidentally and just for the sake of accuracy...



I attach contact information.... should you decide to do something constructive this would be a fine opportunity.



Sir Gus O'Donnel KCB

Cabinet Office

70 Whitehall

London

SW1A 2AS


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

My letter to Sir Gus has been posted. I have hand written this letter and marked both the envelope and the letter Private & Confidential so let us see if there is a reply this also relates to the above correspondence with The FCO/CO/ICO


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

StanW wrote:

[
Possibly the best piece of news I've heard todate John C. and I salute you!

So McD, or should I say Andy Nichol? after all, I've nothing to hide and this is the FOI thread!

So if for arguments sake Sir Robin Jarvin did sign on behalf of HM then who the hell signed on behalf of the Australians? Sir Robin Jarvin perhaps?? (re: something to hide?)

Now, If this were the case then I think we would have even better grounds to have a go at Sir Gus McDonnald! Unfortunately "they" seem to be one step ahead of the fight4thepjm team most of the time!

Stan

It should be self evident to anyone, whose I.Q. approximates the numerical value of room temperature, that a cursory comparison between the resources available to the opposing sides in this campaign reveals a distinctly advantageous situation for the HD Committee's position.....It is true that their number of members is eight men....the same number of men that comprise the Fight4 team (not accidental).....there, however, the similarities end....the Fight4 team are not operating on fat salaries, with legions of civil service staffers at their beck and call to do their research for them and when one considers that the HD Committee not only own the rulebook, they also have the opportunity and the capacity to rewrite it occasionally, modifying terms to suit their arguments...and when all else fails, they always have the facility of hiding behind the Queen's skirts and FOI legislation.

My suggestion to anyone who is as disenchanted as Stan obviously is...that 'they' always seem to be a step ahead of the Fight4 is this......Lead, Follow, or just get out of the way!.....select one!


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

One step behind are we, well if we are and I mean IF at least we are not the first to step in the poo.
Who forced them with the help of our members to do a review?
Who brought up the Statement from the London Gazette less than 24 hrs after their 2nd rejection?
We do not always make public the information that we hold until WE think the time is right.
Here is a letter that I sent to Sir Gus yesterday, information that I have held onto for a very long time, today I make it public and this is only the tip of our iceberg.
30th March 2008

Sir Gus O’Donnell KCB
Cabinet Office
70 Whitehall
London
SW1A 2AS

Pingat Jasa Malaysia Medal (PJM)

Sir;

I respectfully wish to draw your attention to two miss-leading statements which originated from Mr Denis Brennan’s department in June 2007.
These two statements have since been used by the FCO and by Ministers. Meg Munn MP has even suggested that they should be placed in the House of Commons Library if this were to happen it would result in miss-leading Parliament.

The intention of these two statements is to deny Veterans the right to wear Foreign Medals that have been accepted by Her Majesty where She is not Head of State, see London Gazette 3rd May 1968. 5057.

Statement one

“These regulations do not relate to awards of campaign or commemorative war medals.”

This statement comes from FCO 57 106-1968-69 (file No TXH 1/5) and is not from the London Gazette file.

Statement two

“It is well understood that offers by commonwealth and foreign countries of general service or campaign medals are not considered under the terms of the Foreign and Commonwealth Orders Regulations but are dealt with separately by the H.D. Committee by submission of separate Reports to the Queen.”
This Statement comes from FCO 57/15-1967-68 (file No TPD1/13/2) and is from the file concerning the London Gazette Notice, but has been taken out of context.

The LG Statement clearly states that if the medal has been accepted then you automatically have permission to wear along as you are not a Crown Servant when the medal is conferred.

When I wrote to the Cabinet Office in July 2007 and ask which file these two statements originated from Ms Abby Oshodi informed me that they came from file CEREMONIAL OFFICE H31.
In August 2007 I ask for a copy of this file and Abby refused my request.

On the 18th March 2008 Ms Tanya Collingridge of the FCO in an email informed me that these statements came from an old HD paper in 1968 and she was unable to give me a file number as they do not keep files that are more than three years old.

If Tanya Collingridge did not have these files how was she able to correctly brief Meg Munn MP?

The PJM was first offered to the British Veterans on the 28th July 2004 and since then there has been a campaign to deny Veterans of the Malay/Borneo campaign their right to wear this honourable medal with pride.

I am confident that should the case for wearing the PJM be looked at with an open mind come Veterans Day I shall once again be able to add my PJM to my medal bar as I did so for the Merdaka Parade in KL Malaysia last year.

I thank you for your time and look forward to your reply.
Kind regards

So one hundred and two weeks after my initial enquiry it transpires HM The Queen did not sign a document barring us from wearing the PJM it was himself Sir Robin Janvrin, now what do you all make of that?




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

Well now, there's a surprise! I don't think. What is the next move then...............................................?

Regards

John

jireland wrote:

Well now, there's a surprise! I don't think. What is the next move then...............................................?

Regards

John

Make a few suggestions starting with you JohnI......


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