This is Blairs answer to a question in the House of Commons by David Mundell MP. As you, and the world can see, matters which affect members of the public and are in the public domain, cannot be confirmed in case they harm the frankness and candour of internal discussions. Now this is a new one on me.
Chris Edge recently wrote that the Minutes of the Meeting of the HD Committee on 7th. December, 2005, are exempt from the FOI Act because they referred to matters connected with a). the formulation or development of government policy, and b). conferring any honour or dignity.

If it affects our freedom of right to justice and law and legal right to wear the PJM without ever being processed through our government then how in the name o' the wee man can they quote the above excuses.

Hilary Clinton said in Amerca, after winning the recent election, 'we are going to take our country back'. Perhaps she could come over here and assist us to also take our country back from these half wits who seem to believe everything they say.

They have got something to hide - I am now convinced of this.

Quote:

They have got something to hide - I am now convinced of this

.


Dead right Mcdangle....it is the implementation of a well used political procedure which mandates the swift punishment of the innocent in order to provide for maximum protection of the guilty


_________________
...................'Jock'
Paroi...Rasah...Batu Signals Troop.

Andy

Whitehall baffles me, they bring out absolutely useless rules then try to defend them, then throw the lolly away leaving you with just the stick, ah well ! We still have the stick


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

Very well spotted, I am meeting with my friend and colleague, Michael Ancram, this afternoon. I have copied both responses and I will question him upon them.

Regards

John

jireland wrote:

Very well spotted, I am meeting with my friend and colleague, Michael Ancram, this afternoon. I have copied both responses and I will question him upon them.

Regards

John

John,

Its seems George F got it slightly wrong re 'well spotted'. David Mundell is my local MP and as I have been fobbed off by the suits who do not wish to tell me anything or show me anything, or even correspond with me, I asked my MP if he would try and get sight of the document Eleri Pengelly said they had in the cabinet office signed by the Queen which showed the recommendations on the PJM agreed by her. Well you can see David Mundell MP asked a question in the house and Blair answered it and David Mundell sent me a copy. Good service from my local MP but the usual sh@t from Blair, or should I say bambi, no how about lame duck, no how about his latest tag 'ostrich'.

George F wrote:

A copy of the letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

George,

Has anyone seen that letter which was deposited in the Library?

Barry


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

mcdangle wrote:

. . . the document Eleri Pengelly said they had in the cabinet office signed by the Queen which showed the recommendations on the PJM agreed by her.

Andy,

That document is of great interest. Can you publish Eleri Pengelly's communication stating that the Queen has signed it?

Many thanks,

Barry


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

The letter DOES actually need to be seen George, hence the reason Blair will not release its details. The whole issue of the right to wear campaign on my understanding is...what did HM actually agree to when presented the document of advise/recommendation from HDC.
Now there is a specific and recorded refusal from Blair to David Mundell's question.
Now there is a clear cover up by Blair.
Now it is clear that Blair knows what is going on with the PJM issue and is condoning the actions of those involved in the cover up.

petenic wrote:

The letter DOES actually need to be seen

I think that is right, petenic. Anything and everything that relates to the HD Committee's idiosyncratic way of working ... OK, let's call it murky obfuscation ... is relevant.

petenic wrote:

Now there is a clear cover up by Blair. Now it is clear that Blair knows what is going on with the PJM issue and is condoning the actions of those involved in the cover up.

Does he know about the PJM and does he know what he is doing, or is he simply regurgitating the lines fed to him by cfivil servants. I have spoken with one very experienced MP who, on retiring to the bank benches, was totally amazed at the crap he had been fed (and swallowed).

I am no supporter of Blur, but I think the civil servants have a central role to play in all this. I can still remember remarks by past Prime Ministers from all parties who were amazed at how little of the facts they had been told while in office. That's not excusing anyone for not knowing, of course.


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

George F wrote:

This statement below, compared to the Prime Minister's recent reply to Mr Mundell MP is proof enought that Honours in Confidence is only used when the HD committee has discussed something they dont want other members of the House to see.

The Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals is a committee established at the request of The Sovereign that reports directly to The Queen. I have therefore asked the Chairman of the Committee, Sir Richard Wilson, to write to my hon. Friend. A copy of the letter will be placed in the Library of the House.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmhansrd/vo000522/text/00522w01.htm

I know I'm a bit thick on these issues, but I saw 'the letter' as not containing HD Committee minutes but as being something along the lines of:

"Ref that inconvenient question by Denis the Menace, these matters are not for your or the public's knowledge cos we wanna keep what we're discussing to ourselves cos that is the only way that we can slag people off in private and also keep total control over our power. If people actually saw the rubbish the suits send us to consider, and the rubbish manner in which we 'consider' it (an occasional phone call, email, or natter over a G&T at the club - at the taxpayers expense as we head to our £75,000 index-linked pension), then ... hey ho! ... somebody might suggest that we give up our secretive powers and we deal with these issues out in the open for all to see! We'd have to be frank and candid, even truthful, and stuff like that. Can't have that, Squire. PS Remember our maxim when evaluating honours requests... Rubbish In, Rubbish Out. If In Doubt Rub It Out!"


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

BarryF wrote:

... but I saw 'the letter' ...

PS I should have added that my conjecture is based upon not having seen the letter. That is why I think it needs to be seen and I, for one, would like to see it. To see if it simply re-states whay Blur said (my guess) or actually divulges HD Committee stuff.


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

The House of Commons library, like all the rest, will not give up information freely and from what I have seen from them they are no different from the other civil servants. However, I will try and obtain this information through David Mundell MP, who has been very co-operative since day one.

Barry, the letter from Eleri Pengelly which said the cabinet office did have a letter signed by the Queen in the files was, I think, sent to Paul Anders and was published on our site.

Agree with you fully Barry. In any process, evidence corroborated or supported by genuine documentary evidence can prove any case under our legal systems, be they Scottish or English jurisdiction. As such, the more documents that are available, such as Blairs refusal to answer Mr. Mundell's question, is significant in the chain of documentary evidence of conspiracy or at least complete ineptitude. Hence the HDC's recommendations to HM, if in writing, proves who issued the directive. That removes all further doubt in my 'court' as to the guilty party, and would, I am sure, be of significant interest to all 35,000 fighting for the right to wear the PJM. Sorry, 34,999 as George doesn't need to see the evidence.



Last edited by petenic on Sat Nov 11, 2006 7:26 pm; edited 1 time in total

Fear not dear ones, the real Conservative Party as represented my moi and Michael are on the case. Micky is following this up and thinks as I do that if we can't get it by fair means ie FOI; we will get it by not so fair ie by asking embarrasing questions of she who should not be obeyed, teflon tit Tony.

John

George F wrote:

Correct, I am just waiting for the result of the HD committee by the end of this month.

I'm not. The work continues because we may not get a result by the end of the month.

And I know that you're not because you are still lobbying and posting to the Forum - thank you for your ongoing support which brings us back to where we belong ... 35,000!

George F wrote:

In the meantime petentic can go on the hunt for that letter,

Yes, count me in as one who sees that letter as important - so I'd be grateful if you would hunt for it, petenic. But that may be a tad difficult from your location. I see JohnI has picked up on that and will have a go - as will mcdangle through his ongoing lobbying with his MP ... which gave us this opening in the first place. I'll have a go to.

Barry


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