![Reply to topic](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/lang_english/post_reply.gif) |
Page 1 of 4
|
Author |
Message |
BarryF
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2721
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
|
![Post Post](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/icon_post.gif) The Incongrous and Divisive Decision
Issues that are ever-present in my mind when I think about the PJM and British citizens:
1. The Queen has given all other Commonwealth countries the right to wear the PJM - except the British.
2. In order to deny British citizens that right, the Foreign Decoration Rules were re-written one year after the PJM was offered by Malaysia.
3. Having applied new Rules retrospectively, they then set aside two of those new 'rules' in order that British veterans could receive the PJM and then invoked the same two 'rules' to stop them wearing it!
4. That decision is incongruous. It is mean-spirited and it is incomprehensible to most right-minded people.
5. That decision cuts across the whole concept of this year’s inaugural National Veterans Day - poking veterans in the eye rather than acknowledging their service.
6. Why do the civil servants have to create myths to stop the honourable PJM being worn. They say that it is long-standing practice that Foreign medals are not worn by British citizens. Err … don’t think so. Ask those who wear medals from Russia, Malta, Brunei and many, many more countries (listed in our Rebuttal).
7. They say they don’t allow medals more than 5 years after the event - but medals are being worn for service 50 years after the event (again, from Russia and Malta). And we mustn’t forget the many others including Britain’s very own Accumulated Campaign Service Medal.
There is absolutely no tenable reason why the PJM should not be worn. None. You know it. They know it. But does this country have anybody left in power with the integrity and courage to acknowledge that, and amend the discredited Ministerial Statement.
After all, when we all have to consider budgets, it will cost this country nothing.
This is the 40th Anniversary of the end of Confrontation and 40 years after the of PJM service.
Next year is the 50th Anniversary of Merdeka in Malaysia.
It’s time to sort this out …
_________________ BarryF, who fought for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia
|
Wed Oct 25, 2006 8:11 am |
|
![](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/spacer.gif) |
John Cooper
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2158
Location: Suffolk
|
Can you imagine the 'fall out' (mushroom cloud!) if the HD Committee refuses our request to overturn this decision of theirs, not ours, it is they who have created the postal work load for the FCO/MoD and others. If anyone gets a letter to this effect remind them who made that decision.
They have already been made to look fools in the eyes of the world, there is only one honourable thing to do, eat humble pie and let some of us get back to retirement AGAIN! I must spend 4 hours a day on this PJM topic, don't tell me I'm going to have to double that by the end of November!
_________________ --------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------
|
Wed Oct 25, 2006 8:28 am |
|
![](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/spacer.gif) |
scouserkev
Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Posts: 41
Location: guess!
|
![Post Post](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/icon_post.gif) Defuddling Double Muddling
How many Foreign medals does George list there? But it’s OK for some to wear them. Phil the Greek earned his Malta medal. We earned ours. Why can’t we wear ours? Because we’re not family?
What about the cr*p that they have put out about double medals. I read the Rebuttal and Update and there are more doubles than singles listed in those excellent documents. Double medalling accusation is a lie and has been put out by the suits in order to strengthen what is otherwise their cr*p case against the Malaysian medal.
Have you seen the rows of medals being worn today? In my day you usually only saw one or two and if you had two it was often just one medal and two bars. Now it is not uncommon to see the right-hand end of the medal bar sagging under the strain. I don't begrudge today's squaddies because they earn their medals. What I do begrudge is the cr*p that the suits put out to try and convince people we are medal-chasers with lots of gongs and we should be satisfied with having something to polish at home and stick in our pockets on Remembrance Sunday.
The Forgotten War? I’m sure many spent more days the wrong side of the border than the right side but they are not allowed to talk about it. They are not allowed to have a medal for it either because it wasn’t Borneo and it wasn’t Malay Peninsula. So they miss out all round if they can’t wear the PJM.
|
Wed Oct 25, 2006 9:30 am |
|
![](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/spacer.gif) |
jim bridges
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 2
|
![Post Post](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/icon_post.gif) Re: The Incongrous and Divisive Decision
BarryF wrote:4. That decision is incongruous. It is mean-spirited and it is incomprehensible to most right-minded people.
That is the bit that registered with me. They used two 'myths' to first accept the PJM and then used the same two 'myths' to withhold permission for it to be worn. That was a cold, premeditated and callous anti-British veteran act. The injustice has got to be rectified.
|
Wed Oct 25, 2006 9:47 am |
|
![](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/spacer.gif) |
calico
Joined: 05 Aug 2006
Posts: 2
|
![Post Post](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/icon_post.gif) No Valid Reason
The Government (i.e. civil servants like Phoney Coney and Edgey Chis and the very nice man Mr Denis Brennan) has said that when a medal is offered it is assessed by the rules that apply at the time of the offer which was sometime between July 2004 and March 2005 depending on who you believe.
The Government says that the rules that applied to the Malaysian medal were the rules that Jack Straw put in the Library in November 2005.
So I think the Government used the wrong rules and so the decision is wrong and it should be reversed without further ado.
|
Wed Oct 25, 2006 9:59 am |
|
![](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/spacer.gif) |
Paul Alders
Joined: 04 Mar 2006
Posts: 931
|
Could someone please remind me of what I use to do before I got involved in this fight.
I thought I had retired, walk down to the pub of a lunch time with the dog, pint and a cheese & onion sandwich. Well thats all on hold until we win this fight and should these suits out live me I've got two sons who will carry on fighting for me because my ashes will not be laid to rest until the PJM can be placed on top with full honours.
|
Wed Oct 25, 2006 10:00 am |
|
![](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/spacer.gif) |
Peter Ball
Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Posts: 1
|
![Post Post](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/icon_post.gif) Re: The Incongrous and Divisive Decision
BarryF wrote:There is absolutely no tenable reason why the PJM should not be worn. None. You know it. They know it.
I agree.
I say that you have destroyed their only arguments as set out in the Ministerial Statement which they always say is the only authoritative piece of paper. The two 'rules' were not long-established Foriegn Decorations rules so are in reality two 'myths'. Actually, they were applied retrospectively.
In any case, I have read and re-read the Foreign Decoration Regulations and Rules both from 1969 and 2005 and I can't see any scope in any of them to enable the HD Committee to waive objections to receive a medal and then raise the same objections to stop the medal being worn. Where did that interpretation come from??!!
These people must have flexibility, of course. But there is no hint whatsoever in those papers to suggest they have the flexibility, if confronted with a situation they don't like, to make rules up as they go along and then apply them in any fashion they want in order to achieve their aims. That is tantamount to an oligarchy of the worst and most undemocratic kind
Rules are for guidance - if the rules wanted the applier of those rules to be able to rewrite whatever they wanted wwhenever they wanted, then the rules would give that guidance. They don't. And so the rules have been abused and the decision should be reversed.
|
Wed Oct 25, 2006 10:16 am |
|
![](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/spacer.gif) |
BarryF
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2721
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
|
![Post Post](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/icon_post.gif) Parliament vs Government vs The Monarchy
I think the Honours and Decorations system creates so many problems because it uses and abuses (when it suits - pardon the pun - them) Parliament and Government and the Monarchy.
Read their confused ramblings about who did what and to whom and when. I bet you can't find one single person responsible (and answerable) for the PJM decision ... except when they point to The Queen and hide behind her robes.
Those civil servants have lost touch with reality and can no longer distinguish (or not longer wish to distinguish) between Parliament which makes our laws and the Government that has similar aspirations but actually can't!
But with the PJM decision, Government has made a law in so far as it has brought a decision binding upon the electorate into Parliament as a fait accompli. Worse, that 'law' was approved, allegedly, by the Queen who had an integral role in its construction.
Cromwell will be shaking with anger as he sits on his horse outside the Palace of Westminster.
And, totally confused by it all, Charles I would be scratching his head ... if he still had one.
_________________ BarryF, who fought for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia
|
Wed Oct 25, 2006 10:36 am |
|
![](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/spacer.gif) |
jireland
Joined: 20 Apr 2006
Posts: 566
Location: Wiltshire
|
It is a only fool who alienates himself from his men and an even more stupid one that dismisses their complaints without allowing redress. (The principles of leadership)
Once the genie is allowed out of the bottle it is the devils own jop to put it back in again. That is exactly what has happened here with the PJM. The genie is out of the bottle and an otherwise peaceful retiring bunch of old soldiers (with apologies to RN & RAF veterans) have now smelt blood perhaps for the last time in their lives and none will rest until they see justice done. This injustice MUST be redressed.
John
|
Wed Oct 25, 2006 11:52 am |
|
![](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/spacer.gif) |
mcdangle
Joined: 12 Feb 2006
Posts: 1027
Location: Scotland
|
This letter was received from Edgey Chris in connection with a request under the FOI Act to view the Minutes of Meeting held by the HD Committee (which has now had its name changed to (Honours, Decorations and Medals Committee). He also sent a copy of Ian Pearson's Ministerial statement issued on 31st. January, 2006.
We are back to the same old arguments and the same old tripe being sent out by people who put themselves forward is Civil Servants. They may get paid by the people of this country but that's where it stops. Chris seems to me to be suffering from 'delusions of adequacy'. Wake up and smell the coffee, the time when democracy is ignored and abused by unelected servants is fast drawing to a close and don't forget you read it here first.
|
Wed Oct 25, 2006 12:49 pm |
|
![](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/spacer.gif) |
BarryF
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2721
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
|
![Post Post](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/icon_post.gif) The Police Police and tehreby Please Themselves ...
George F wrote:Chris is covering his own butt. The more letters I read coming from Edge the more I am convinced he compiled the PJM Ministerial Statment with the help of Denis Brennan secretary of the HD committee.
The last thing he wants is loads of veterans beady eyes looking all over his own handiwork
George,
I can chuckle at that perspicacity of yours. But the FCO can't!
Which raises another very relevant point:
How can we rely on the integrity of this review if it is carried out by the very people whose work is being ‘reviewed’.
I can see them … pen in one hand and huddling over their papers with other arm crooked around the pages so nobody can see, and beady eyes suspiciously perusing those around them to ensure nobody is peaking at their work ... a bit like those in exams at school. The big difference is that the suits get to mark their own papers.
If wasn’t right at school, it isn’t right at work.
The police are policing themselves! I’ll call “Foul” if the result goes against us.
But it might just be that the suits will dig deep and come up with the strength of character and integrity to see the justice in our case. You never know …
_________________ BarryF, who fought for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia
|
Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:30 pm |
|
![](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/spacer.gif) |
John Cooper
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2158
Location: Suffolk
|
mcdangle wrote:
This letter was received from Edgey Chris in connection with a request under the FOI Act to view the Minutes of Meeting held by the HD Committee (which has now had its name changed to (Honours, Decorations and Medals Committee). He also sent a copy of Ian Pearson's Ministerial statement issued on 31st. January, 2006.
We are back to the same old arguments and the same old tripe being sent out by people who put themselves forward is Civil Servants. They may get paid by the people of this country but that's where it stops. Chris seems to me to be suffering from 'delusions of adequacy'. Wake up and smell the coffee, the time when democracy is ignored and abused by unelected servants is fast drawing to a close and don't forget you read it here first.
Hey Mr Edge hang on a mo! I got the same letter 5.5 months ago is it 'ring-a-ring-a- rosies- time again, same old cr@p different day.
_________________ --------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------
|
Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:21 pm |
|
![](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/spacer.gif) |
BarryF
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2721
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
|
mcdangle wrote:This letter was received from Edgey Chris in connection with a request under the FOI Act to view the Minutes of Meeting held by the HD Committee (which has now had its name changed to (Honours, Decorations and Medals Committee).
That letter talks about the withholding of info regarding their discussions as being in the puiblic interest.
Who says?
They do.
Not we do.
They do.
The fact of the matter is that discussions are going on that affect your life and the FOIA was designed to ensure that you had a fair chance of understanding why. They may well be able to hide behind Honous in Confidence, but we are talking about issues that are far more general than those pertaining to the next honour to a celeb.
And so you have every right to question their reply to your FOI enquiry. It's part and parcel of the FOI Act. Let's hope you don't need to. We'll know soon.
mcdangle wrote: He also sent a copy of Ian Pearson's Ministerial statement issued on 31st. January, 2006.
If he is trying to poke you in the eye, then he's forgotten his duty of care and that oversight will rebound on him.
If he's simply trying to be helpful, then that's fine.
You will know which it was when we are informed of the decision - because Chris Edge will have known on the day he sent that letter which way the tide was flowing.
_________________ BarryF, who fought for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia
|
Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:57 pm |
|
![](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/spacer.gif) |
GerryL
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 423
Location: West Sussex
|
![Post Post](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/icon_post.gif) My 10 points
1. Divisive within Commonwealth
2. Insulting to Veterans and Malaysia
3. Wrong impression to send at a time when we are "at war" on several fronts
4. Illogical bending of "rules" to allow acceptance and then unbending them to invoke a ban on wearing
5. Contradictory philosophy in the 1st year of so-called Veteran's Day
6. Unfortunate coincidence of "cash for honours" and their assertion that the PJM compromises the integrity of the system
7. Relevance of HD Committee in a 21st century democracy
8. Need to differentiate between uniformed personnel who can be made subject to rules, and civilians who cannot
9 Covert nature of the way they work
10. If decisions are made "in the public interest" then the public should be aware of how their decisions affect that interest.
Gerry
_________________ Gerald Law (ex RAF Borneo Veteran)
|
Wed Oct 25, 2006 3:51 pm |
|
![](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/spacer.gif) |
BarryF
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2721
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
|
![Post Post](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/icon_post.gif) Re: My 10 points
GerryL wrote:1. - 10.
A brilliant summary, Gerry.
Now ... come on supporters, let's have your list. Don't worry about duplicating what others have said, and don't worry about prioritising the issues. Just list issues as you see them.
Say it as you see it.
Exactly as Gerry has done.
_________________ BarryF, who fought for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia
|
Wed Oct 25, 2006 4:05 pm |
|
![](templates/ca_aphrodite_green/images/spacer.gif) |
|
The time now is Fri Apr 26, 2024 2:47 pm | All times are GMT
|
Page 1 of 4
|
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
|
|
|