Freedom of Information Act, 2000.

In her letter to my constituency MP on my behalf the Permanent under Secretary of State at the FCO, Meg Munn, stated -

The double medalling rule is not retrospective, it is a part of a system governing the acceptance and wear of foreign medals, which have been in existence for the past sixty years.

YOUR FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST: 0259-08

I have been asked to reply to your letter of 12 March to Meg Munn asking:

"Over the sixty year period prior to 21 November 2005, how many and what foreign medals have been refused permission to wear to British citizens, not being Servants of the Crown, on the grounds of double medalling in that a British medal had already been issued for the campaign for which the foreign medal was offered."

I can confirm the Foreign and Commonwealth Office does not hold a collated list of the foreign campaign medals for which permission to wear has been refused.

So there we have it. They have no record of double medal refusals which makes me wonder 'what do they use to say that the double medal rule has been going for the past 60 years'. They just seem to say anything that comes into their head and believe that we will accept it.

Andy....being an 'old soldier' I am confident that you will be aware of that substance that is reputed to have the capacity to 'baffle brains'?


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

I received this in the post today, Meg Munn is still churning out the same old bovine excrement, is there no end to their lies!

OK let us make a note of this from an MP and a Government Minister this is the first time in three years that anyone has stated that the Queen relays her approval/disapproval by The Queens PS, Bullsh!t !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111


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

"Her Majesty's approval....was relayed to the Government by Her Private Secretary, writing on her behalf. This is normal practice". Was she aware that her PS was writing to the Government stating that the PJM "should not be worn"? After all, she had, at least initialled the entry promulgated in the London Gazette 5057; that's if she didn't actually sign it.

Paragraph 3 confirms what we already knew;"The fact that similar applications have been approved in the past does not mean.....etc", meaning that they can approve or otherwise at their will; like the the old Service catchall - when nothing else works -use "prejudice to the good order and conduct of the...etc" this negates everything else, and will always get them!. "Answers for exceptions to the rules are considered with care to preserve the integrity of the honours system" even to the extent of ignoring requests from democratically elected MPs such as the Rt Hon Derek Twigg MP, Veterans Minister and the Rt Hon Ian Pearson MP another Minister, on the grounds that, to quote Dr Kim Howells MP. FCO Minister "[the HD committee] were not sufficiently exercised by that correspondencce to change their minds".

Paragraph 5. "In reaching their decision on the PJM, the committee on the grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals were fully aware of the precedents both for making exceptions to, and upholding the relevant rules. It was agreed..............after Malayasian Independence".

Paragraph 6. "In reaching their decision............", exactly the same sentence as for paragraph 5!

We did not need to be reminded twice; we are aware that they are "fully aware of the precedents for making exceptions" (and also for "double medalling") - WE TOLD THEM

Tis a pity that their brains were not sufficiently exercised, over our correspondence.

Do the clowns who appointed the Honours and Decorations Committee, realise, that the longer this goes on, the greater the disasterous outcome to the Government and the humiliating climb down.

To quote the great Confucius, The best way to avoid a fight is to be somewhere else.

And I think you all know where we want the Honours and Decorations Committee to be...

Yours Aye

Arthur

Arthur,

My understanding is that membership of the HD committee is related to the position occupied in their day jobs, as it were; ie from the Ceremonial Departments of the FCO, Cabinet Office and DS Sec and the Palace, etc.

Its a sort of Civil Service corporate version of succession. The chances of someone who is of independent mind and integrity attaining a position on the HD Committee is probably nil since they will already be irrevocably cast in the same arrogant, elitist mould with a remit to maintain the tradition of sheer bloody mindedness and adherence to "procedures".

Regards,

David

If you want to by pass the suits when writing to Meg Munn try writing to:
Denis Bates
Researcher for Meg Munn
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA

I agree with you entirely David, but what rankles more than anything, is, that they are former military personnel who were members of that committee.

How could they then choose to treat us with contempt, indifference and disdain. If former military persons cannot look after the interests of other former personnel, then there is little hope for the future.

Nothing is worth a guilty national pride, which seems not to have penetrated the mindset of those who hold the reigns of power.

A friend of mine once said, when you hold the reigns of power, make sure that the the horse is not bolting at the time. Something that the 'suits' might like to consider.

Yours Aye

Arthur