Image of the PJM Medal
Banner Text = Fight For the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia Medal
Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
Dr Liam Fox
Author Message
Reply with quote
Post Dr Liam Fox 
I wrote to the PA of the Defence Minister Dr Liam Fox MP stating that I had not received a reply to my letter and that I would not be surprised if he had not seen it as certain Civil Servants have stopped my correspondence reaching Ministers in the last Government.
You will see by the reply that there is going to be a review of medals; make your MP aware of this and give your MP the facts.
I know many of you have done this but we must keep up the lobbying of our MP's.

Copy of the email received
Mr Alders
By far your best course of action is to ask your own MP to write on your behalf to Dr Fox. By convention, Ministers always respond to MPs and see the replies. However, a review is going to look into the whole issue of medals and it will take some time. A new government cannot turn things around overnight.

Yours sincerely

Ione Douglas (Mrs)
Parliamentary Office of the Rt Hon Dr Liam Fox MP
Secretary of State for Defence

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Dr Liam Fox 
Copy of the email received
Mr Alders
By far your best course of action is to ask your own MP to write on your behalf to Dr Fox. By convention, Ministers always respond to MPs and see the replies. However, a review is going to look into the whole issue of medals and it will take some time. A new government cannot turn things around overnight.

Yours sincerely

Ione Douglas (Mrs)
Parliamentary Office of the Rt Hon Dr Liam Fox MP
Secretary of State for Defence[/quote]


Paul,

'A new government cannot turn things around overnight' - why not? The Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister can use the Royal Prerogative and have the Queen do the decent thing and state that owing to the decision on the non-wear of the PJM being flawed and unlawful it has been rescinded and British veterans can now be given official permission to wear the PJM in line with acceptance and wear being given by the Queen to all other Commonwealth veterans. They did it quick enough when they turned the non-wear of the PJM into 'Temporary Wear' in Malaysia in 2007.

I fear they are only wasting our time and that the 'review' will be carried out by civil servants who will never admit having made a huge bollocks of it all.

Andy.

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post  
Exactly, Andy.

We have been waiting too long, with too many hollow promises given by the now new government when they were in opposition. We have members of the F4 dying every day without having seen an honourable conclusion to what should have been seen a simple adjustment of policy by the UK mandarins. May they one day be made to see their error and apologise before the last of us goes to the grave unrecognised and so far reviled as a set of upstarts.


_________________
Mike Barton
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Orders of the Military Board 
It may or may not be pertinent to the continuing obstructionism by the CS but I emailed the contact address recently (barry.fleming@...etc.) with details of the infamous "5 year rule" found in the Australian "Defence Act 1903" which I assume mirrors KRs at the time. This was from a 1941 copy, no way to know offhand what amendments might have been incorporated within the 1941 version since 1903 or whether there was in fact divergence from the British "template". Not what we want to know perhaps but "forewarned is forearmed".

So, just wondering whether:
  • the email has been received
  • whether this might be have been all along some sort of "ace up the sleeve" of the CS


Not that I would consider it a killer of the argument for "the right to wear" but it does tend to undermine some of the Fight4 assertions about the "rule" IFF (if and only if) it also applied within UK jurisdiction at some relevant time. I can quote Appendix and paragraph numbers here and the actual paragraphs if appropriate. In terms of clarifying "permission is given by Letter and not by Royal Warrant" it might even assist understanding of the argument for the case.

Steve


_________________
Former 'nasho', RAE Borneo (Confrontation)
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Orders of the Military Board 
[quote="Rectalgia"]It may or may not be pertinent to the continuing obstructionism by the CS but I emailed the contact address recently (barry.fleming@...etc.) with details of the infamous "5 year rule" found in the Australian "Defence Act 1903" which I assume mirrors KRs at the time. This was from a 1941 copy, no way to know offhand what amendments might have been incorporated within the 1941 version since 1903 or whether there was in fact divergence from the British "template". Not what we want to know perhaps but "forewarned is forearmed".


What do documents from 1903 and 1941 have to do with the fight4thepjm campaign when HM The Queen's permission for all recipients of foreign medals (who were not in Crown Service) to have unrestricted permission to wear was published in the London Gazette in 1968?

Ted

View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Orders of the Military Board 
Ted Phillips wrote:
...What do documents from 1903 and 1941 have to do with the fight4thepjm campaign when HM The Queen's permission for all recipients of foreign medals (who were not in Crown Service) to have unrestricted permission to wear was published in the London Gazette in 1968?Ted
Hi Ted,

It perhaps (just my thought at this stage) relates to a minor detail of a (small) part of the point-by-point rebuttal of the raft of reasons given why British veterans are deemed not to have that "unrestricted permission to wear", as thoroughly documented in the various items in the side-bar to this site. That is the question, "What 5-year rule? Where did it come from?

It is, indeed, a non-issue (and examples of its irrelevance have been explored) but unfortunately there are apparently some Civil Servants acting for HMG who do not seem to see that. By and large they are being left behind by the tide of custom and common-sense, nevertheless their general obstinacy remains the crux of the fight4thepjm campaign.

The question of what constitutes or constituted Crown Service and its relevance to the PJM is yet another matter for their pettifogging pedantry which, in its totality, some see as an actual affront to Her Majesty. That is the part that rankles ...

Coming back to why I raise my point at all - it is in anticipation that those obstructionists will have an advantage if they know more than "we" know. After all, we fight on their terrain. Fair enough?

Steve


_________________
Former 'nasho', RAE Borneo (Confrontation)
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post For sale 
I have for sale, 2000 pairs of blinkers in assorted sizes, ex MoD civil service. Very worn, so don't expect too much by way of perfection.

RO5, will be taking the payments, cash or cheque, it doesn't matter. If north of the border, then Crusher will be more than willing to take your paltry sum of a fiver each. Five, that term seems to becoming up quite often, I hear.

Funny how the Government go on about us not betreying them, yet do exactly that to us. Seems a bit one sided if you ask me.

yours sincerely

Arthur R-S

View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:
Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
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