The postman came this morning, and along with with the usual selection of stultifying catalogues, these important letters:

***************************************************************************************************

Caroline Lucas MEP
Suite 58
The Hop Exchange
24 Southwark Street
London
SE1 1TY

Dear Caroline

Thank you for your letter of 29 January about the Pingat Jasa Malaysia.

The current situation with regard to the PJM is set out in Written Ministerial Statement made by former Foreign Office Minister Ian Pearson on 31 January 2006. I enclose a copy.

Those seeking permission to wear the PJM have, in recent months, made a number of points relating to the medal, and the recommendations made by the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals (HD Committee) in December 2005.

These points will be considered by the HD Committee, and I that hope that the results will be known shortly.

IAN McCARTNEY.

********************************

Her secretary attached a hand written note saying “Caroline is minded to wait for the latest decision of the HD Committee but is not sure she can apply any further pressure should they rule unfavourably. She will, however, keep you informed should she decide to take any further action :: Cath Miller – office of Dr Lucas.

(Caroline Lucas is The Greens | European Free Alliance MEP)
**********************************************************

And now a letter from Sandra Gidley.

Dear ………..

Pingat Jasa Malaysia Medal

Following my letter of 18 January, as you know, I wrote to Her Majesty the Queen on this matter and I now enclose a copy of the reply from her Private Secretary which takes the line I expected but is nevertheless disappointing.

I am now away from my office for about a week, but I will consider further how best to respond to the letter and its contents and will take action upon my return.

I will keep you informed

Yours sincerely

Sandra Gidley MP.

***********************

The reply from Buckingham Palace ::

Dear Ms Gidley,

Thank you for your letter of 16th January to The Queen about the Pingat Jasa Malaysia (PJM).

You may be aware that representation for a review of the decision on the acceptance and wear of this medal have been made and are under consideration by the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals which advises Her Majesty on these matters. It may be helpful if I summarise the current position. There exists a longstanding principle that UK citizens may not accept (nor, by extension, wear) a medal awarded by a foreign power without permission from The Queen. Permission is not normally granted where a UK medal exists which commemorates the same activity; or when the request is made more than five years after the activities involved. Exceptions to this rule are unusual. In the Case of the PJM, the Committee recommend that citizens be exceptionally to accept the award, but not that it could be officially worn.

You suggest that Her Majesty should bring UK into line with some other countries in the Commonwealth that do allow such medals to be worn, However, the principles of the Commonwealth dictate that member states each determine these matters for themselves: this means that different nation states must be able to apply their own protocols and submit advice accordingly to The Queen.

Thank you for writing to Her Majesty on this subject.

Yours sincerely

Sir Robin Janvrin
Private Secretary to The Queen

********************************** :: Comments please !!!
Tony

Kentsboro wrote:

Comments please !!!

Tony et al,

If the Queen's Private Secretary, and a member of the HD Committee, can write letters like this (that perpetuates the myths in the Foreign Decorations Rules and the Ministerial Statement) to a senior MP, then we can kiss goodbye to a) a just result and b) our democracy - for the foreseeable.

What he is saying is that 8 civil servants will decide what's good for this country, not the people, nor a majority of MPs. He is saying that those few civil servants are continuing to preserve a discredited Imperial Honours System which isolates this country from the ne'er-do-wells in the rest of the Commonwealth (and the world) who have preceeded us into the 21st Century.

And he is saying that those 8 civil servants do all of that in the name of the Queen.

Here are my letters:




and the reply:





_________________
BarryF, who fought for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia

I have had the same two letters from Sandra Gidley MP in this mornings post

It appears to me that Sir Robin Javrin has answered a question that we have all been asking for some considerable time. The HD Committee recommended to Her Majesty the Queen that the PJM 'exceptionally' be accepted but it should not be worn.
So there you have it straight from our Queen's top representative - Our Sovereign agreed to the HD Committees recommendations and thus refused us permission to wear the PJM whilst giving others the right to wear it.

I never believed that Her Majesty would agree to such a decision and still find it hard to believe.

Perhaps I am wrong and time will allow us to get the correct answer.

Those in Whitehall and those that have their own 'constitutional powers without authority' must not be able to dictate what we as civilians can or cannot wear, the pressure will grow, that I have no doubt!


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

If the HD committee persist with the original recommedation why has the FCO not got back to us on the review? Could it be that there is a stando off between the HD committee and the FCO or are they just trying to prolong our misery.

Hamish

Ian McCartney, in his letter to Caroline Lucas MEP dated 15th Feb 2007 (5 days ago), states ::

"These points will be considered by the HD Committee, and I hope that the results will be known shortly"

Is this a new ".........will be known shortly", or has anyone heard a more up-to-date one ?

Tony

BarryF wrote:

Kentsboro wrote:

Comments please !!!

Tony et al,

If the Queen's Private Secretary, and a member of the HD Committee, can write letters like this (that perpetuates the myths in the Foreign Decorations Rules and the Ministerial Statement) to a senior MP, then we can kiss goodbye to a) a just result and b) our democracy - for the foreseeable.

What he is saying is that 8 civil servants will decide what's good for this country, not the people, nor a majority of MPs. He is saying that those few civil servants are continuing to preserve a discredited Imperial Honours System which isolates this country from the ne'er-do-wells in the rest of the Commonwealth (and the world) who have preceeded us into the 21st Century.

And he is saying that those 8 civil servants do all of that in the name of the Queen.

Here are my letters:




and the reply:

Thank you Barry for displaying these two very important letters.

Sir Robin Janvrin in fact is intitled to the PJM medal. He served on HMS Dorsetshire in Malaysia Borneo 1965 as a midshipman. After 11 years in the RN he retired as a Lieutenant going into the FCO.

It wouldn't suprise me if Janvrin and Rear Admiral Wilkinson (Defence Services Secretary) proposed and seconded Chris Edge for his OBE for helping them write the 31 January Ministerial Statement.

In this one (Foreign Medal wearing issue) Sir Robin Janvrin is a more powerful man than The Queen herself. He is even more powerful than the Prime Minister or any front bench ministers. So now veterans now know what they are up against.


Sir Robin Janvrin, KCB, KCVO was born in 1946, and educated at Marlborough College, Britannia Royal Naval College, Dartmouth, and Brasenose College of the University of Oxford, from which he received a First class BA degree in 1969, and later an MA.' Read More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Janvrin



Last edited by lo_rre on Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:52 pm; edited 1 time in total

So were does this letter put all other letters and statements to journalists from spokepersons from the FCO and cabinet office that veterans can wear the PJM medal because it is not policed?

http://upload6.postimage.org/346760/photo_hosting.html

lo_rre wrote:

In this one (Foreign Medal wearing issue) Sir Robin Janvrin is a more powerful man than The Queen herself. He is even more powerful than the Prime Minister or any front bench ministers. So now veterans now know what they are up against.

Herewith my response to Sandra:

Barry
- - - - - - - - - - -
Barry Fleming
Fighting for the Right to Wear the PJM at
W: http://www.fight4thePJM.org
E: mailto:barry@fight4thePJM.org
"Pingat Kami - Hak Kami"

----- Forwarded by Barry Fleming/BAFleming on 20/02/2007 15:52 -----
To: "'GIDLEY, Sandra'" <GidleyS@parliament.uk>

Subject: Pingat Jasa Malaysia

Dear Sandra,

Thank you for the copy letter from Sir Robin Janvrin. It is, as I feared, a repetition of the same old text. I am stunned that Sir Robin, a member of the HD Committee, continues to lean on two rules which, together, he knows do not apply to most of those eligible for the PJM.

Regarding the first, double medal, rule ... he knows, because we have told him with supporting evidence, that for thousands of British veterans, the PJM will be their only medal. He also knows that this is not a long-standing rule for Foreign decorations. We have given evidence that this rule first saw the light of day in Foreign Decorations Rules in November 2005 - after the PJM was announced.

Turning to the second, 5 Year Rule, there are three classic examples of medals that are awarded for service or events more than 5 years earlier - the 1992 Malta 50th Anniversary Medal, the 1985 40th Anniversary Russian Medal (approved in 1995), and the 1969 Accumulated Campaign Service Medal (still being awarded and can reflect service 37 years ago!).

What we cannot understand is why people of his stature seem unwilling to give our case a fair hearing. All they are doing is creating frustration and bad feeling by repeating myths and half-truths.

And I am appalled to read his assertion about Commonwealth dictates on the day before Margaret Becket holds a 'seminar' via the Internet to gather views and ideas on forthcoming FCO policy reviews in the context of her preamble to that discussion which states:

" The UK faces global challenges - revitalising the global agenda on poverty, climate change, trade and the Middle East are vital in an interconnected world.
From international terrorism, the threats of climate change, pressure on natural resources and killer diseases, the risk of nuclear proliferation, to protectionism and poverty Britain needs to continue to play a leading role with its allies in a global response, working within reformed, effective, multilateral organisations. "

I noted the word "interconnected" in the FCO seminar preamble. The current PJM recommendation is "disconnected", not "interconnected".

Then there is "reformed, effective, multilateral organisations". Like the Commonwealth (split by the PJM decision) and the crucially important Five Power Defence Arrangement (amongst the five nations only the UK paddles its own PJM canoe by denying its citizens the right to wear the medal - at a time when we need to be shoulder to shoulder with our allies).

Sir Robin does confirm awards similar to the PJM have been awarded - but it was 'unusual'. So, I maintain, is the PJM service 'unusual' because it is the only successful war on terror and aggression ... ever.

How can these people be allowed to snub foreign countries, their own veterans, our elected MPs, the Scottish Parliament, and the people of this country? And in the name of the Queen!

How can they say in this day and age "Accept the medal on condition that you do not wear it".

I remain totally baffled and saddened by what is happening to those who served - and to those who are still serving (albeit in diminishing numbers).

But I do thank you for going to the trouble to write to The Queen and for sending me this reply that confirms She never got to read your letter.

With best wishes,

Barry
- - - - - - - - - - -
Barry Fleming
Fighting for the Right to Wear the PJM at
W: http://www.fight4thePJM.org
E: mailto:barry@fight4thePJM.org
"Pingat Kami - Hak Kami"

Stockbridge Cottage
Inkpen Common
Inkpen
Hungerford
Berks
RG17 9QP

T: 01488 668 100


_________________
BarryF, who fought for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia

For a long time, during the running of our campaign, like many others I elected not to wear my medal without The Queens blessing.
Today, however, has changed my mind. The despicable, condescending, sneering , and haughty, arrogant attitude of Sir Robin Janvrin, KCB, KCVO, has made me so angry and convinced that the only person who will be insulted will, in fact, be him, I shall be pinning it on my pyjamas tonight, and will wear it with pride and in defiance whenever I wish.
Tony

It might be of interest to have a look at JohnC's letter to Howell James -FACTS YOU SHOULD KNOW-
Cabinet Office Review - Posted Fri Feb 09, 2007 3:22. Eigth para (or sentence?) down; What does
"transmitted in the usual way mean..............etc. I make no comment.


David

Although this reply from Whitehall was received on Friday last, I was holding back on the reply on this as I am awaiting some further documentation from another Govt Dept, relating to David's post, but just to keep you updated on events this was the email I received in reply to Mr James reply

I will make an appropriate reply later, this is in answer for the fifth time from me, a straightforward answer from HMG YES or NO on the Queen's Signature that goes back to April 22nd 2006!

RE: Pingat Jasa Malaysia

Date:Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:52:28 -0000From:noah.curthoys@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk

To:johncooper

Dear Mr Cooper

I realise this has been a frustrating process for you, and I want to assure you that the Cabinet Office does understand the details of your request. Nonetheless, as Howell James confirmed in his letter to you, it is our view that the information you requested is exempt from disclosure. I appreciate that you're not happy with our response to the request, and given this the next step is for you to take the case to the Information Commissioner's Office. They will be able to provide an independent review of your case.

Contact details were included in the recent letter;

for ease of reference they are:

Office of the Information Commissioner

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

Now that your case has gone through our internal procedure, I'm afraid the Cabinet Office cannot provide you with further information beyond our original response. I'm sorry that you remain unsatisfied with that response - this decision has been made after a good deal of consideration, and your request has been treated very seriously.

Many thanks,

Noah
________________________________________________________________

Noah Curthoys
Private Secretary to Howell James
Permanent Secretary, Government Communication

Work: 020 7276 0542
Fax: 020 7276 0822


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

""



Last edited by StanW on Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:15 pm; edited 1 time in total

I am amused by the statement "transmitted in the usual way". Venereal Disease, Syphallis, non specific uterine, and that old favourite Gonoreahea, are all "transmitted in the usual way"...each in it's own way, is decidedly unpleasant and nasty.
Is this the term that they are using, with it's usual connotations?

Just a thought mind you.

Yours

Arthur