![Reply to topic](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/lang_english/post_reply.gif) |
Page 1 of 1
|
Author |
Message |
John Cooper
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2158
Location: Suffolk
|
![Post Post](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/icon_post.gif) Independent Medals Review announced
http://www.modoracle.com/news/Government-Announces-Independent-Medals-Review_25647.html
_________________ --------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------
|
Wed May 02, 2012 5:48 pm |
|
![](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/spacer.gif) |
Rectalgia
Joined: 19 Jan 2010
Posts: 1512
Location: Perth, Western Australia
|
![Post Post](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/icon_post.gif) The Review
(Nearly said "Revue" but fair's fair, give it a go.) Ah well, they said they would and they have ... Sir John Holmes, career diplomat who's seen the world and dealt with a lot of cantankerous old bustards in his time, knows the political game and "the art of the possible". I don't expect a lot of such reviews but always prepared to be pleasantly surprised (and "rebuilding the Armed Forces Covenant" has a hopeful air to it).
Not holding out much hope for the MoD squad though. "Mod Oracle" indeed. Truth in advertising though - sniff petrol fumes on demand and deliver cryptic utterances after. Is that the image they were wanting? Should imagine they have more than a few classical scholars amongst their number well qualified to advise on that much, at least.
Oz had a whole lot of lads like that, used to sit around their desert camps on tribal lands (or "unallocated crown land", poor little sods) getting zonked whilst ever their livers and brains held up to it. Wondered what became of them - thought maybe the plan to add denaturing substances to the petrol supplies in the outback might have put a stop to it, but maybe they just made a swap with Whitehall.
No matter, the Government committed and the process has started. Positives, thanks to fight4thepjm and others that took up the cudgels.
_________________ Former 'nasho', RAE Borneo (Confrontation)
|
Thu May 03, 2012 6:51 am |
|
![](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/spacer.gif) |
Rectalgia
Joined: 19 Jan 2010
Posts: 1512
Location: Perth, Western Australia
|
![Post Post](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/icon_post.gif) The review - interim report
Well, so far pretty conservative (as expected), but nice to see the PJM heading the list in:
"ANNEX F
FOREIGN AND INTERNATIONAL AWARDS APPROVED FOR WEAR BY UK CITIZENS
1. Foreign and Commonwealth"
Interim Report: Military Medals Review - Sir John Holmes July 2012
Quote:...
Recommendation 1
The risk and rigour principle should remain the basis of decisions about campaign medals. Particular care needs to continue to be taken about consistency in setting the qualifying criteria for individual medals, to ensure both fairness for that medal, and fairness compared to other comparable medals. There is also a strong case for a separate medal for campaign support, particularly as the nature of warfare changes.
Recommendation 2
Campaign awards should continue to be determined in a timely fashion, with a strong presumption that they should not be revisited later. Five years after the conclusion of the operations concerned is a reasonable cut off and review point for this. However this should not be elevated into a blanket refusal to reconsider cases where the criteria set out in paragraphs 30-33 of Section 3 are met, leading to a prima facie case that the original decisions may have been unsound or unfair in some way. The existence of a strong campaign in favour of a review of a particular past decision should not be a deciding factor in favour of a review itself or a change of mind but can strengthen the presumption of the need for such a review.
Recommendation 3
Avoiding double medalling for the same operational service should continue to be an absolute rule for British medallic recognition. It should also remain an important aim in cases where a combination of a British medal and a medal or medals from another country or international organisation is offered. However the current muddle about how the latter policy is applied, and how international medals are dealt with overall, should be reviewed by the MOD, FCO and Cabinet Office as a matter of urgency, on the basis of a fresh study of international comparisons, with a view to new, simpler and more consistent rules about when international medals can be accepted and worn.
Recommendation 4
The membership of the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals (HD Committee) should be broadened to reflect outside views, expertise and interests, and a new sub-committee should be created to look specifically at military issues. As well as appropriate officials, up to five outside members should be appointed to this sub-committee, which could be broken down as follows: three experienced and credible figures not active in front line politics, and representing a broad spectrum of views; an independent military expert; and a representative of the Armed Forces Covenant Reference Group. The Committee itself should meet in person more regularly, particularly when there are controversial issues to discuss, and the sub-committee as often as necessary.
Recommendation 5
The reconstituted HD Committee, on advice from the new military sub-committee, should be asked to look again rapidly at the main long-standing controversies to try to draw a line under them, on the basis of the criteria set out in paragraphs 30-33 of Section 3. It should start with the longest-standing issues, notably that surrounding the Arctic Convoys from the Second World War. An independent expert should be commissioned on a temporary basis to advise the sub-committee on these controversies rapidly but fully, starting from the material provided to the Review.
Recommendation 6
The reconstituted HD committee, having taking advice from the new subcommittee, should recommend to The Queen texts codifying the basic principles and rules underlying campaign medal decisions, based on the conclusions of this Review. These texts should then be promulgated publicly, in order to provide greater transparency and a fully agreed basis for future decision-making.
Recommendation 7
The idea of a National Defence Medal as a recognition of military service of whatever form is worthy of consideration but is in a separate category from military campaign medals and should be treated accordingly. Its merits, and examples from other countries, should be looked at by a Cabinet Office-led working group in the first place, before consideration by the reconstituted HD Committee and its sub-committee. Any recommendations should be made initially to the government, rather than The Queen, and would then need to be the subject of wider political and other consultation, since this is a decision of broad national significance which would require a broad political and public consensus.
Recommendation 8
In the event of changes to past medalling decisions with significant cost implications, veterans should not be asked to pay for their medals, but the direct cost to the MOD budget should be minimised where possible through recourse to different kinds of volunteer funding, in particular to cover extra administration costs.
...
- Read the whole thing via the link.
_________________ Former 'nasho', RAE Borneo (Confrontation)
|
Wed Jul 18, 2012 7:10 am |
|
![](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/spacer.gif) |
John Cooper
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2158
Location: Suffolk
|
Item 49 refers to the PJM but I have only read brief extracts of the whole document
_________________ --------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------
|
Wed Jul 18, 2012 9:20 pm |
|
![](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/spacer.gif) |
Paul Alders
Joined: 04 Mar 2006
Posts: 931
|
Well we got a review which was one of the items we campaigned for, will it deliver all we want “Who Knows” but one thing will change and that is the HD Committee and a good job too. The old HD Committee was not fit for purpose.
Let’s hope that a fair & just system comes from all this hard work, all of you PJMers and our supporters should be proud of what you have achieved.
Whitehall will never be the same again.
|
Thu Jul 19, 2012 6:45 am |
|
![](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/spacer.gif) |
|
The time now is Fri Apr 26, 2024 6:19 pm | All times are GMT
|
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
|
|
|