![Reply to topic](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/lang_english/post_reply.gif) |
Page 1 of 2
|
Author |
Message |
mcdangle
Joined: 12 Feb 2006
Posts: 1027
Location: Scotland
|
![Post Post](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/icon_post.gif) Information Commissioner Decision Notice.
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, 2000.
In January/February, 2008, two members of the fight4thepjm committee made requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act, 2000. Initially both did not know the other had made such requests for information.
In July, 2008, following refusals by the authorities to release the information requested, complaints were made to the Information Commissioner.
Over two years later, on 29th. March, 2010, the Information Commissioner wrote to each party a letter each 15 pages long, on their two complaints.
Owing to the complexities and length of each report from the IC it will take some time to digest his findings but briefly his decision is as follows:-
Cabinet Office - may I be given a copy of the recommendation made by the Honours and Decorations Committee and presented to Her Majesty The Queen that the Pingat Jasa Malaysia can be exceptionally accepted but it cannot be worn.
Foreign and Commonwealth Office – can I be advised as to where the recommendation that the PJM can be worn temporarily in Malaysia issued by Her Majesty The Queen on the advice of the HD Committee is kept, and can I obtain a copy of this written recommendation.
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER - Your complaint has been carefully considered and in this case the Commissioner has found that the FCO/Cabinet Office were correct to withhold the information you requested. The enclosed Decision Notices sets out the reasons for this decision.
So there we have it. Our transparent system of government is not so transparent after all.
There may be an appeal to this decision so we cannot divulge all the details given by the IC for his refusal until this is decided. However, here is some of what he said -
1. Section 37(1) provides that – Information is exempt if it RELATES TO –
a). communications with Her Majesty, with other members of the Royal Family or with the Royal Household.
b). the conferring by the Crown of any honour or dignity.
So any correspondence which they deem could be for the Queen, her family, or any member of the Royal Household – does this include Her Private Secretary – is in the opinion of the IC taboo.
2. Her Majesty’s Government (HMG) rules on the acceptance and wearing of foreign awards preclude the acceptance of medals for events in the distant past or more than five years previously. Furthermore, the rules do not allow for a foreign award to be accepted if a British award has already been given for the same service. All British citizens require permission from HMG to accept and wear foreign state awards.
No they don’t. British citizens according to HMG rules require permission to accept and wear from Her Majesty The Queen (looks like he has not read the rules properly). Also what has the rules got to do with asking to see the recommendations requested?
3. Decision Notice – Summary –
a). However, the Commissioner found that in its handling of the request the public authority (the FCO) breached Section 17(1) (Refusal of a request) and Section 10(1)(Time for compliance). The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
b). The Commissioner is concerned that the public authority (the FCO) took over three months to complete the Internal review and the Commissioner considers this a significant failure to conform to the Code of Practice.
I don’t suppose anyone will be surprised at the ‘no steps to be taken’ comment.
4. The Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations, and Medals (HD Committee) which provides the Sovereign with independent and non-political advice on the honours system, considered the request by the Malaysian government to award the PJM.
He has just confirmed that the HD Committee is independent and non-political yet is invoking non-statutory rules and restrictions upon British private citizens.
5. In December, 2005, the HD Committee recommended to the Queen that veterans and others eligible should exceptionally be allowed to accept the PJM, offered by the King and Government of Malaysia, but that official permission to wear the medal should not be granted.
He has just confirmed that the HD Committee made the recommendation to The Queen and that official permission to wear the medal should not be granted. It is in the public
domain so why can’t we actually see this recommendation? What are they hiding?
6. The Queen subsequently approved the HD Committee’s recommendation and the government announced the decision to parliament on 31 January, 2006.
The Queen has approved the recommendation – so why are 35,000 veterans being refused permission to confirm Her Majesty’s decision by having the recommendation published. The London Gazette Royal Decree by Her Majesty in 1968 was published and is still extant and as this decision clashes with that Royal Decree it should be properly explained.
7. The public authority has argued that disclosure of the information would undermine the constitutional right of the Sovereign, by convention, to counsel, encourage and warn the government and thus have opinions on government policy and to express those opinions to Her Ministers.
They must be joking. Asking for this information would undermine the Constitutional Head of our Government is absolute infantile fantasy. The London Gazette 1968 publication about HM allowing the acceptance and wear of foreign awards is not undermining The Queen so why would an innocuous request to see a recommendation that the PJM can be worn temporarily be such a serious matter.
8. Disclosure of the report would still, in the Commissioners opinion, undermine the confidential nature of communications between The Queen and her advisers, in this case the HD Committee, at significant detriment to the public interest.
‘At significant detriment to the public interest’ – what planet is he on. Releasing this information about the PJM which would restore constitutional rights and human rights to British citizens is not detrimental. They just don’t want to produce anything about the Queen’s involvement in the PJM because there is something seriously wrong with it and does Her Majesty know?
9. Consequently, 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.
Is The Queen’s constitutional position not already damaged by allowing the HD Committee to advise her that the PJM cannot be worn, then advising her that it can be worn temporarily, and that the in-house, non-statutory rules give authorisation to restricting the freedom of British citizens what to wear in public areas.
10. Furthermore, the Commissioner believes that significant weight should be attributed to the argument that disclosure could undermine the political neutrality of The Queen.
The Commissioner has already stated that the HD Committee is non-political and independent so how can HD Committee recommendations undermine political neutrality and releasing the information can then become political.
11. Linked to this argument, is the fact that disclosure of the withheld information could further public debate regarding the constitutional role of the Monarchy. Similarly disclosure of the information could inform the broader debate surrounding reform of the British constitutional system.
What does the broader debate regarding the constitutional role of the Monarchy and the broader debate surrounding the reform of the British constitutional system have to do with the release of information showing that Her Majesty The Queen was wrongly advised to prevent the wear of the PJM. Has he just let something out of the bag here. I rest my case m’Lord!
Hopefully we will be able to produce both letters on our website soon and everyone can read them at their leisure.
|
Fri Apr 02, 2010 8:51 am |
|
![](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/spacer.gif) |
Arthur R-S
Joined: 05 Aug 2006
Posts: 860
Location: Brandon, Suffolk
|
![Post Post](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/icon_post.gif) Tangled web
Nice one McDangle,
Oh what a tangled web they weave, when first they practiced to deceive...
Makes you wonder, doesn't it, that the ethos of British government is based on one lie compounding another.
Are you still glad to be British? I'm still wondering.
Yours aye
Arthur R-S
|
Fri Apr 02, 2010 9:14 am |
|
![](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/spacer.gif) |
John Cooper
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2158
Location: Suffolk
|
As Andy has said there is much to go through, when time permits we will place the notices on here for all to see, bear with us as we have to download these items, digest them and [possibly] make an appeal within a month
Disappointed you bet! ![Evil or Very Mad](images/smiles/icon_evil.gif) We have lost this skirmish but the main battle and the rest of the war is still there to be won
ps I have to go out but one for you all to digest!!
So any correspondence which they deem could be for the Queen, her family, or any member of the Royal Household – does this include Her Private Secretary – is in the opinion of the IC taboo.
Now there is an interesting point we received The Queen's decision via that Sir Robin fellow that the ICO forced the Cabinet Office to release a document where he typed his own name wrong.
_________________ --------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------
|
Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:58 am |
|
![](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/spacer.gif) |
John Cooper
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2158
Location: Suffolk
|
![Post Post](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/icon_post.gif) Re: Information Commissioner Decision Notice.
mcdangle wrote:FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, 2000.
2. Her Majesty’s Government (HMG) rules on the acceptance and wearing of foreign awards preclude the acceptance of medals for events in the distant past or more than five years previously. Furthermore, the rules do not allow for a foreign award to be accepted if a British award has already been given for the same service. All British citizens require permission from HMG to accept and wear foreign state awards.
No they don’t. British citizens according to HMG rules require permission to accept and wear from Her Majesty The Queen (looks like he has not read the rules properly). Also what has the rules got to do with asking to see the recommendations requested?
I have this info annotated as a note on my own document, you are right Andy this has not been considered probably because of the time period between submission and decision
3. Decision Notice – Summary –
a). However, the Commissioner found that in its handling of the request the public authority (the FCO) breached Section 17(1) (Refusal of a request) and Section 10(1)(Time for compliance). The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
b). The Commissioner is concerned that the public authority (the FCO) took over three months to complete the Internal review and the Commissioner considers this a significant failure to conform to the Code of Practice.
I don’t suppose anyone will be surprised at the ‘no steps to be taken’ comment.
a> and b> above Andy, does not appear on my documents unless I have missed this out
5. In December, 2005, the HD Committee recommended to the Queen that veterans and others eligible should exceptionally be allowed to accept the PJM, offered by the King and Government of Malaysia, but that official permission to wear the medal should not be granted.
He has just confirmed that the HD Committee made the recommendation to The Queen and that official permission to wear the medal should not be granted. It is in the public
domain so why can’t we actually see this recommendation? What are they hiding?
Yes, what are they hiding?
6. The Queen subsequently approved the HD Committee’s recommendation and the government announced the decision to parliament on 31 January, 2006.
The Queen has approved the recommendation – so why are 35,000 veterans being refused permission to confirm Her Majesty’s decision by having the recommendation published. The London Gazette Royal Decree by Her Majesty in 1968 was published and is still extant and as this decision clashes with that Royal Decree it should be properly explained.
In all of the notes I have made on my documents, 'where is the proof that The Queen approved anything' unless of course Sir Robin Janvrin took it upon himself to represent The Queen without authorisation, you will also note that the ICO forced the hand of The Cabinet Office to actually produce this document under the FoIA 2000, if Sir Robin was [then] a member of The Royal Household why cannot other documents we have requested be shown 7. The public authority has argued that disclosure of the information would undermine the constitutional right of the Sovereign, by convention, to counsel, encourage and warn the government and thus have opinions on government policy and to express those opinions to Her Ministers.
They must be joking. Asking for this information would undermine the Constitutional Head of our Government is absolute infantile fantasy. The London Gazette 1968 publication about HM allowing the acceptance and wear of foreign awards is not undermining The Queen so why would an innocuous request to see a recommendation that the PJM can be worn temporarily be such a serious matter.
8. Disclosure of the report would still, in the Commissioners opinion, undermine the confidential nature of communications between The Queen and her advisers, in this case the HD Committee, at significant detriment to the public interest.
At significent detriment, that is utter bilge unless of course HM The Queen did not sign anything, are we getting warm????????‘
At significant detriment to the public interest’ – what planet is he on. Releasing this information about the PJM which would restore constitutional rights and human rights to British citizens is not detrimental. They just don’t want to produce anything about the Queen’s involvement in the PJM because there is something seriously wrong with it and does Her Majesty know?
Some of us have thought this all along Andy, I had my doubts that day in June when Barry, Gerry & Paul submitted the Petition to Buckingham Palace, this may well have been placed on The Queen's desk but did she ever see it, I doubt for one moment that HM has seen any documentation regarding the approval of the PJM. May I respectfully suggest that there is 'a closed shop' operating between the HD Committee and that it is The Queen's Private Secretary that 'signs off' documents that do not involve State Affairs, I consider this to be a treasonable offence on letters that many of us have that [color=red]'The Queen approved the acceptance but not the wearing of the PJM' I would also like to state that withholding this information is undemocratic, unconstitutional and unless we have it, in writing, that The Queen signed this document by her own hand then it must be considered that someone/somewhere is hiding the truth[/color]
9. Consequently, 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.
Is The Queen’s constitutional position not already damaged by allowing the HD Committee to advise her that the PJM cannot be worn, then advising her that it can be worn temporarily, and that the in-house, non-statutory rules give authorisation to restricting the freedom of British citizens what to wear in public areas.
10. Furthermore, the Commissioner believes that significant weight should be attributed to the argument that disclosure could undermine the political neutrality of The Queen.
The Commissioner has already stated that the HD Committee is non-political and independent so how can HD Committee recommendations undermine political neutrality and releasing the information can then become political.
11. Linked to this argument, is the fact that disclosure of the withheld information could further public debate regarding the constitutional role of the Monarchy. Similarly disclosure of the information could inform the broader debate surrounding reform of the British constitutional system.
What does the broader debate regarding the constitutional role of the Monarchy and the broader debate surrounding the reform of the British constitutional system have to do with the release of information showing that Her Majesty The Queen was wrongly advised to prevent the wear of the PJM. Has he just let something out of the bag here. I rest my case m’Lord!
Hopefully we will be able to produce both letters on our website soon and everyone can read them at their leisure.
_________________ --------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------
|
Fri Apr 02, 2010 2:01 pm |
|
![](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/spacer.gif) |
John Cooper
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2158
Location: Suffolk
|
![Post Post](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/icon_post.gif) Re: Information Commissioner Decision Notice.
mcdangle wrote:FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, 2000.
Continued...........
..................Is The Queen’s constitutional position not already damaged by allowing the HD Committee to advise her that the PJM cannot be worn, then advising her that it can be worn temporarily, and that the in-house, non-statutory rules give authorisation to restricting the freedom of British citizens what to wear in public areas.
I have a further complaint outstanding from the IC Office and the ICO have given the Cabinet Office notice to respond to this request forthwith
10. Furthermore, the Commissioner believes that significant weight should be attributed to the argument that disclosure could undermine the political neutrality of The Queen.
The Commissioner has already stated that the HD Committee is non-political and independent so how can HD Committee recommendations undermine political neutrality and releasing the information can then become political.
I take this to read that The Queen never saw any such document and are clutching at straws [sic]
11. Linked to this argument, is the fact that disclosure of the withheld information could further public debate regarding the constitutional role of the Monarchy. Similarly disclosure of the information could inform the broader debate surrounding reform of the British constitutional system.
What does the broader debate regarding the constitutional role of the Monarchy and the broader debate surrounding the reform of the British constitutional system have to do with the release of information showing that Her Majesty The Queen was wrongly advised to prevent the wear of the PJM. Has he just let something out of the bag here. I rest my case m’Lord!
Andy I do not appear to have this statement above written into my documents, that is a most odd statement to make and I wonder why it has been made
Hopefully we will be able to produce both letters on our website soon and everyone can read them at their leisure.
_________________ --------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------
|
Fri Apr 02, 2010 2:10 pm |
|
![](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/spacer.gif) |
John Feltham
Joined: 12 Feb 2006
Posts: 764
Location: Townsville, North Queensland
|
![Post Post](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/icon_post.gif) Re: Information Commissioner Decision Notice.
mcdangle wrote:FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, 2000.
5. In December, 2005, the HD Committee recommended to the Queen that veterans and others eligible should exceptionally be allowed to accept the PJM, offered by the King and Government of Malaysia, but that official permission to wear the medal should not be granted.
The Queen was handed a recommendation that the PJM be accepted. You'll recall that there was a fishy smell about the day that it was announced...some hours after the Governor General of Australia was presented with his PJM by the Chief of Staff of the Malaysian Army.
But "official permission" was not granted.
There appears to be two sets of permission granted here. One by HM The Queen and the other by some 'official'.
And as I understand it in this case, HM's prerogative cannot be exercised by an 'official'.
There is no sign of the "The Royal Sign Manual" on any document that we know of.
It smelt at the beginning and its still smells.
_________________ Merdeka, Merdeka, Merdeka,
from the HD Committee and its decision.
|
Fri Apr 02, 2010 2:45 pm |
|
![](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/spacer.gif) |
mcdangle
Joined: 12 Feb 2006
Posts: 1027
Location: Scotland
|
John,
Ref the above. This is on page 9, paragraph 38, of my request for information under ref. FS50207213.
I have sent you copies of my IC report as far as it relates to the request to see the recommendation of the HD Committee that the PJM can be accepted but not worn.
I have not sent copies of the other one which was to see the document which confirms that HM agreed to the temporary wear in Malaysia, as I am still looking at it.
Andy.
|
Fri Apr 02, 2010 2:56 pm |
|
![](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/spacer.gif) |
John Cooper
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2158
Location: Suffolk
|
Can anyone interpret these 'weird signals' coming from the ICO to our Chairman?
_________________ --------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------
|
Sat Apr 03, 2010 12:37 pm |
|
![](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/spacer.gif) |
John Cooper
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2158
Location: Suffolk
|
As I write this thread has 110 hits since Andy first wrote on here regarding the scribblings of the ICO, someone surely has something to say on this matter, we have constantly hammered the CO/FCO/ICO on this subject for two years all but a few days, there is a message there that is without doubt how do others interpret this?
Someone................
_________________ --------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------
|
Sun Apr 04, 2010 2:28 pm |
|
![](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/spacer.gif) |
GLOman
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
Posts: 668
Location: Northamptonshire
|
John Cooper wrote:Can anyone interpret these 'weird signals' coming from the ICO to our Chairman?
.
Yes, indeedy! The overall message, in my opinion, is "if you think I am going to insist on certain papers being put into the public domain, think again. There is no way that I will jepordise the careers of the senior civilian servants, my colleagues, ie, those from the cabinet office, Phoney or others from the MoD, the Palace and the minions who consistantly repeat parrot fashion what they are told to do, (and of course they have to consider there annual assessments, so the chances of a whistle blower are nil), and the author of the infamous 2005 regulations which included Part C". "I question the length of time that the various departments have taken over these matters, but for the same reasons above I have no intention of taking the matter any further, and perhaps give your organisation an opportunity to "unfairly" criticise their action" and require the disciplining of those concerned".
Quote 10. Furthermore, the Commissioner believes that significant weight should be attributed to the argument that disclosure could undermine the political neutrality of The Queen". Because of suspected maladministration by her former Private Secretary and the advisers to the HDC, and the HDC themselves, many in our organisation, still trying to maintain our sworn loyalty to HM, are however, trying hard not believe that perhaps she is heavily involved and has been all along. These people are responsible for the offence of underminig HM; something which the wearing of the PJM, recognised and accepted by HM, would never do!
Regarding George VI, that he personally chose to regulate Awards,Decorations and Medals is, I think, a total myth; It is more likely to be the civil servants who posited the idea in the first place over their concern (cost and work involved) over the number of VCs, GCs, Mc, MMs, DSOs and DCMs, awarded in WWI. And, as always, stated that His Majesty has graciously....... etc, I cannot believe otherwise!
"The Commissioner has already stated that the HD Committee is non-political and independent so how can HD Committee recommendations undermine political neutrality and releasing the information can then become political. Unquote. The HDC, and by implication the Heads of the *FIVE, yes, five ceremonial departments who act as advisers totally ignore the Members of Parliament and Ministers and aver that they are responsible to no one accept except HM, are ergo, unpolitical"! * Target for cut-backs!
Finally:
There is another signed by Carol Mahon - (hyphen something) re; no record of a similar waiver or precedent - I'll keep looking.
D^
|
Sun Apr 04, 2010 9:44 pm |
|
![](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/spacer.gif) |
John Cooper
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2158
Location: Suffolk
|
David thank you! ![Smile](images/smiles/icon_smile.gif) The analysing continues apace.............
_________________ --------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------
|
Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:44 am |
|
![](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/spacer.gif) |
Paul Alders
Joined: 04 Mar 2006
Posts: 931
|
Carol Mahon needs to be informed that the PJM is not a Campaign or a Commemorative Medal it is a Service Medal, the FCO confirmed this when they stated it is up to the Malaysians to classify the PJM as it is their medal.
See the citation.
LG Notice 5057 still stands but for the Senior Civil Servants to admit this would be to admit to their mistakes and pigs do not yet fly.
|
Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:49 am |
|
![](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/spacer.gif) |
mcdangle
Joined: 12 Feb 2006
Posts: 1027
Location: Scotland
|
David and all,
Many thanks for taking the time to record your opinion on the IC Report that states we are not being given the right to see information that we are told restricts us from wearing the PJM. This is just another piece of nonsense as your have rightly said.
Your committee has been pouring over these four documents from the IC until we are cross-eyed - some will say no change there then? and it is surprising how we all come to similar conclusions.
Although the IC has refused our transparent right to see the documents in this conspiracy he has told us a great deal more than we knew before and it looks like the constitutional democratic convention in our country and the right of our Sovereign to confidential discussions with her Ministers has been undermined already but not by the F4 but by these people in our government and civil service who have acted well beyond their official responsibility.
Watch this space for more!
|
Mon Apr 05, 2010 10:05 am |
|
![](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/spacer.gif) |
GLOman
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
Posts: 668
Location: Northamptonshire
|
Andy,
I found what I have been looking for: "As far as we are aware this arrangement is without precedence and wholly exceptional" sgd C Mason-Mahon
There are only two rules, even by their twisted 2005 rules;
Permission to accept and wear a foreign award will be granted on either:
An unrestricted basis - allowing the award to be warn on any occasion.
A restricted basis - allowing the award to be worn only on particular occasions associated with the foreign state that conferred it.
According to their own 2005 rules, page 3, in the House of Commons Library version, any veterans awarded the PJM could have rightly worn it during the celebratory period; not just those actually going to Malaysia.
Paragraph 2 on the same page; page three, states quite clearly that it can be worn;
" by any member of the UK Armed Forces serving in the UK or other official on exchange, loan or attachment to a foreign state who is involved in a military operation or emergency on behalf of that state".
Perhaps the author of Standard note SN/1A/3914, dated the10 February, 2006, Clare Taylor, International Affairs and Defence Section, should appear before a Parlimentary Committee and explain why, in the light of paragraph 2, it was necessary to totally preclude the PJM from being worn in a Part C, when there had not been one before, and by whom was she briefed.
I reckon this nonesense goes way up high, via the palace, to the House of Lords, and bewteen 5 different Ceremonial Departments including the Cabinet Office.
Who can we trust to take up this challenge, or is the thought of expenses, position, Decorations or even Knighthoods, or a politically awarded life peerage too much to risk for the truth and the return to honest government with integrity.
The letters of both Marion Moore and C Mason-Mahon are copies of the originals which I possess.
Regards,
David
Last edited by GLOman on Mon Apr 05, 2010 8:01 pm; edited 2 times in total
|
Mon Apr 05, 2010 5:57 pm |
|
![](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/spacer.gif) |
John Cooper
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2158
Location: Suffolk
|
Start sharpening those pencils lads and lassies, it looks as if they will be needed soon.......
_________________ --------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------
|
Mon Apr 05, 2010 6:26 pm |
|
![](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/spacer.gif) |
|
The time now is Sun Sep 01, 2024 3:43 am | All times are GMT
|
Page 1 of 2
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|