GLOman wrote:

"Having considered it in such detail, carefully weighing up the arguments for and against, I am told - having read, I assume, the correspondence from the Veterans Minister and my Rt Hon friend the Memeber for Makerfield - that the committee does not plan to reconsider the matter and that Ministers do not plan to overule the committee's advice to the Queen. ...........but I shall say something in a moment that might worry it [the HD Committee] a little" - Dr Kim Howells 11 Dec 07 - .............."The HD committee's plans will ultimately be determined by decisions of Parliament"."!!

GLOman,

Check to-days BBC News site - quangos to be axed - Cabinet Office - main honours advisory committee.

Is 'call me Dave' and his gang really going to take on the Cabinet Secretary and his numpties? Bring it on!! He has my support.

Having very carefully re-read this particular thread, I have come to the conclusion that, while section 37 of the FoiA is a mighty fine thing, then there are some possible exceptions.

If the communication is actually received and read by Her Majesty, then the Act would be satisfied. On the other hand, if Sir Robin, Lord Janvrin, Baron Brainless RN rtd, was the recipient and dealt with it without the knowledge of the Queen, then the communication is not covered by the act, as it only pertains to direct communication with any member of the royal family.

Likewise, any communication received, or written by Her Majesty's private secretary, without the knowledge of HMQ, also is not covered by the act. Therefore, they have illegally used an act of Parliament to cover their rear ends. In effect, correspondence intercepted by her secretary does not constitute direct communication.

Chris Edge OBE, really did lift the lid on the can of worms, when he advised us to do our own research, as I suspect that what he knows is covered by the official secrets acts and he would be in breach of it, if he tells.

The plot thickens more and more.

Arthur R-S

Arthur,

Unfortunately all is not what it seems with the Freedom of Information Act (FOI Act). We are told Her Majesty the Queen acts on the advice of her ministers but we in the F4 know that she also acts on the advice of civil servants who have no authority whatsoever to make rules or orders which can be imposed on ordinary British citizens, even in the case of medals for which the rules and etiquette and royal prerogative were all introduced for Crown servants such as HM Forces in uniform. Even the lie factory at the MOD said ‘when you leave the forces these medal rules do not apply’ or words to that effect.

The FOI Act exempts communications with Her Majesty the Queen and her family. In the usual civil service obfuscation this has been extended to include even those who work for her family and her Private Secretary, is now classed as part of the royal family. You couldn’t make it up. It is even said that ministers who compile a memo mentioning that the information therein could be passed to the Queen are exempt under the FOI Act from having the contents revealed to the great unwashed.

The Queen, is of course, above the law but this has now been extended by the civil servants to include them all hence the reason we cannot be told what recommendation the HD Committee made to Her Majesty the Queen about the PJM. Did they ask HM to accept the PJM and decline to give permission for it to be worn. Or did they recommend something else which they do not want us to know about. They have even gone so far as to suggest that ordinary people like us veterans asking to see this recommendation are causing danger to the Constitutional position of the Queen quote ‘disclosure of the requested information would not be in the public interest because it would undermine the confidence central to the convention which in turn would undermine the Constitutional position of the Queen’ unquote.

In a modern 21st century we are all equal in the eyes of the law except The Queen, but this now also includes the Royal family, and all their little serfs and helpers and all who deal with them so it is only the rest of us who are equal, which is a most unequal situation.

The Queen is above the law and the HD Committee, using their close proximity to the Royal personage also believe they are above the law and discriminate whenever they like.

They say that Her Private Secretary sending a letter to the Foreign Secretary is sufficient to order 35,000 British veterans not to wear the PJM with the penalty of being discourteous to Her Majesty when not obeying this written order. Yet they all (ministers and civil servants) say ‘You can wear it if you wish’ – ‘No-one will tell you not to wear it’ – ‘It is not illegal to wear it’ – ‘You can wear what you want’. So who is actually being discourteous to Her Majesty? All this ridiculous prevarication in the name of British Honours is bringing the whole British system, the Queen, and the Honours Committee into disrepute throughout the world.

If to-days news that the coalition government will abolish the Cabinet Office main Honours and Advisory committee and change its status then we can only hope that the new honours committee will be bereft of career civilian servants with their heads stuck up their (or others) rectums.

Until ALL Government/Whitehall departments are answerable to Parliament those pancake elevation experts will continue to make rules that they can hide behind.
Let’s hope this Coalition Government goes someway to readdressing the balance
Paul

Dear mcdangle, I washed behind my ears last week, so I am exempt from that statement.

With regard to the wearing of medals, I am concerned with the notion of being able to wear what you like, when you like, as being no longer in the service of the crown.

If that were the case, then the much bemedalled Walter Mitee character, at last years rememberence parade would be acting within that remit. How then can he be charged under the Army act for wearing unauthorised medals.

We of course deplore the act of wearing something we are not entitled to, otherwise, who could then stop someone from wearing the full kit of VC GC MC etc. It is all open to interpretation.

Law is somewhat confusing, because, when a law is passed, it leaves too many loopholes, which will be exploited by any individual who has a mind to, even those in ignorance of the law.

Having said that, why are we then not arrested and charged under the army act for wearing unauthorised medals, after all, does it not say, accept, but not for wear. Which court in the land would have the brass neck to find any of our members guilty on such flawed evidence.

There would be such a political backlash, the likes of which, the civil serpents would never recover from. Since making this iniquitous ruling, no civil serpent has made a move to have anyone arrested and charged under the act. Reason is simple, Chris Edge's can of worms would get out and spill over, and with dire consequences. Keeping the lid on it is their only salvation, and they know it.

Arthur R-S

The Royal Household also [apparently] encompasses those who work within The Royal Family.

I for one have been a disobedient servant and will continue to do so up until the day I see that justice has been done, five years ago the HD Committee backed by the CO/FCO thought we would take their decision lying down, for at least once in their lives they have got this one wrong and don't they know it


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

Andy,

I saw this listed in the Electronic Telegraph, rather than the BBC MHAC. Is this actually going to replace our H&D Committee?

Seems likely that the Cabinet Ceremonial Officer will still have his hands on the reins on awards, though perhaps with a Minster to DIRECT HIM, and not the other way around. Now, perhaps with rationalisation, those of the HD Empire in the MoD, Foreign and Home Offices. etc,Ceremonial Departments, indeed all of those involved in what was undoubtedly a conspiracy to defraud veterans, may ceased to exist.

I would like some assurance that the 'MAIN HONOURS ADVISORY COMMITTEE' is the reformed H&DC, and that H&DC not being part of the 'Main' HAC is still going to function as a secret cabal under the Cabinet Ceremonial Officer, DS Sec officers, Lt Cols, Lt Cmdrs and Admirals et al who, having joined the HDC Club, forget the their roots and their responsibilities to serving soldiers and veterans, perhaps eventually for a Civil List OBE?

Main Honours ADVISORY Group; hopefully, purely for advice or guidance, and no longer for Departmental Policy making either overt, covert or downright dishonestly, previously carried out by 6 or 7 Departments over different ministries.


Published: 11:20AM BST 14 Oct 2010

"CO

Main Honours Advisory Committee

No longer an NDPB - Will remain as an advisory group, administered from within the Cabinet Office"

PS Afterthought, now it is no longer a NDPB, is it too much to hope for that new recruits will be named to run the MHA Cttee under a Minister, and scratch one Cabinet Ceremonal Officer!


Best Wishes,

GLOman

GLOman,

See the following taken from the Cabinet Office website.

It would appear to me that the Main Honours Advisory Committee is the one we know as the HD Committee as it is head of all the honours committees and is chaired by the Cabinet Secretary and has a Permanent Secretary ot two on it.



HONOURS COMMITTEE POST



FURTHER PARTICULARS


Background

1. A new system of 8 committees was formed in 2005 to advise the Cabinet Secretary on the composition of twice-yearly lists of recommendations for honours which are put by the Prime Minister to The Queen. Much of the detail of the new committees is based on a report to the Cabinet Secretary by Sir Hayden Phillips in July 2004. The report can be found at http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/cabinetoffice/corp/assets/publications/reports/honours/honours.pdf. An essential part of the new structure is that the Chairs and the majority of the members are independent of the government.

2. Nominations for honours are referred to the committees by members of the public, government departments and others. Each committee considers nominations in one of eight sectors of society (see below). All the recommendations will have gone through a rigorous and highly competitive appraisal and internal selection process. From these nominations, each committee has to select those it wishes to recommend to the Main Honours Committee.

3. The committees are intended to cover all aspects of national life. They bring together experts and specialists in order to assess the relative eminence, contributions, service and achievements of competing candidates from each of the fields.

4. Selections made by sub-committees are referred to the Main Honours Committee, which is chaired by the Cabinet Secretary or his nominee, and which also includes the chairs of the sub-committees and the Permanent Under Secretary of State of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Chief of the Defence Staff. Another Permanent Secretary is also a member. The Main Committee reviews the work of the sub-committees, reassesses any sensitive or controversial recommendations or omissions and seeks to ensure that the balance between the various sectors is satisfactory. In the light of all this, the chair of the Main Committee submits a list of recommendations to the Prime Minister who submits them to The Queen. The Prime Minister does not alter the recommendations.

5. Once the final list is agreed and The Queen’s informal approval is obtained, the Honours and Appointments Secretariat in the Cabinet Office sends sounding letters to all those on it asking if they are content for their names to be put forward to The Queen.

Andy,

I tried the www. you gave and the result seems to be that they seem to be 'at it' again; the old run-around?


Page/Document not found (the www).
Following the formation of a new government on 11 May 2010 all websites run by the Cabinet Office have either been updated or closed. Historical copies of all sites were taken prior to update or closure, and are now available on the National Archives website.

Page/Document not found
Apologies - the content you are looking for does not exist on the National Archives website.

Regards,

David

Have not had time to read all this yet so I give you "Good and True Men" the link >>

http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/newsroom/news_releases/2010.aspx

I hope you can find somthing here.

Phredd

GLOman,

Try the following url - http;//www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/425372/further-particulars-1


This should take you to the Honours Section which describes the various honours committees plus the main honours committee at paragraph 4.

If you cannot find it this way go to the Cabinet Office Home Page -left side scroll to honours and awards and then at the bottom (in blue) honours committees further particulars.

If this is not successful then I will copy and paste it to you.

The url shown previously was included with the particulars shown on the Cabinet Office Home Page and I also found it was useless.

May I suggest we pause and think about this one for a little while? On the question of did she sign this, did she sign the other, I very much doubt if the queen knows or cares what the PJM is - or am I being laughably naive here? We were accused of lacking in loyalty when this whole business began in 2005 by people waving the ‘oath’ flag at us - the words we spoke when we joined up.

I was a sallow youth of 18 when I signed on the dotted line. Jobs were difficult to find and few and far between in 1963, and merely an excuse or not, I had not the faintest of ideas of what I said or meant when I raised the hand and spoke the oath; and as far as I was concerned it was simply something in ‘tongues’ and I resent any implication that It should have dawned on me as I matured. It didn’t – finished.

Because during the 26 years I ‘served’ thereafter, for whatever reason I began to question the very culture of ‘royalty’ and ‘highness’, and indeed with what it all meant. It suddenly took on the mantle of ‘inherited privilege and inherited wealth’ not anything to be too loyal towards in the 21st century – and as someone stated some time ago in a totally different thread on this site - the lack of ‘loyalty’ now being shown us in return is laughable.

No doubt what I have just said will raise the hackles of some people, but think about the medal itself. It features, on the obverse the crest of Malaysia with the inscription JASA MALAYSIA ‘Malaysian Service Medal’ below, and on the reverse an outline of the country with the initials below P.J.M. It is a generous show of gratitude to those of us who ‘did our bit’ and those who did far more than simply their bit, but died for their freedom. There is no effigy on it, no Latin inscription – and I am fiercely proud of mine and as an emblemble of gratitude will continue to wear it, ‘loyal’ or otherwise, signature or not.


_________________
Veni vidi vinci

Shocking words Tony (I agree with every one of them)

That's us two off the Palace Christmas Party list.................oh I forgot, it's been

cancelled.

How's Martha doing?

Very best wishes,

John


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

Semengo13 wrote:

Shocking words Tony (I agree with every one of them)

That's us two off the Palace Christmas Party list................. "GET OUT MY PALACE" >>

John

In the lingo spoken by a another famous lady from London

Phredd

Shocking words indeed John, but as I too agree entirely with Tony I'm more that happy to be the third with no invite to the cancelled jollies at Buck House.

As a National Service bod I suppose I too raised my hand and trotted out the oath, but after some 53 years only have a vague recollection. Even my some 19 months in Malaya had begun to fade (apart from the buttock-clenching flash backs) by the time I received the PJM in 2007. However, nothing will ever dim the moment of pride I felt when the postman handed me the package from the MHC and I asked my wife to open it because I was shaking with surging emotions and memories.

Such moments belong to all of us who were so honoured after so long at time, and should any civil serpent read what we have written should be ashamed that they have brought us to the point of doubting the worth our oath to the Queen. None of us broke the faith, but the barrier they have deliberately erected between us who swore the oath and the lady who accepted it is nothing short of traitorous in my humble opinion.

Mike.


_________________
Mike Barton