Rebuttal Of the Ministerial Statement
As has been clearly demonstrated on the "Unspinning the Spin" page, the Ministerial Statement that declared that only the British would be denied the right to wear the PJM was both misleading and confused. It was designed to camouflage the fact that the recommendation is shamefully untenable and a mean-minded poke in to the eye for the Veterans whose service the Malaysians wish to acknowledge.
We have produced a list of arguments and examples that successfully rebut both the recommendation and the Ministerial Statement. You can view it from the following link. In this rebuttal we lay to rest once and for all the twin myths of double-medalling and the so-called 5-year rule, and we demonstrate that the only thing that is "long-established" is the frequency with which these rules have been disregarded and misapplied to suit the civil servants' agenda.
We make no apologies for the length of the paper - we had a job keeping it this short.
Please note, we have submitted an Update to the Rebuttal which adds to our case that the PJM recommendation was built on myth and folklore. Read the Update here - and get mad!
If there is any justice in this world, then this rebuttal will encourage politicians to look again at what has happened and to have the courage to question what is being done in their name. The PJM is an honourable award that should have the integrity of a medal - it is simply not right that this discrimination should be allowed to continue on the basis of the spin and disinformation that has been put about by Government departments who wish to impose their agenda on the system - and they still persist in doing so knowing they are misleading everyone. They do so because they believe they are inviolate.
Your turn now!
If you would like to comment on this page, please click here and send us your thoughts.
And here are some comments we've received:
(Ed: This post is about as long as the Rebuttal itself! But we don't edit what you say, so put the kettle on and read how one correspondent sees it.)
Well I've read this rebuttal statement, it’s a job to believe it is not a comedy script! As its veterans day tomorrow, I'll be very busy (lawn to mow, hedges to trim). I thought I'd post this today.
Is this really the way democracy works? The statement 'its difficult to ascertain who is responsible' - well that is the bedrock of the civil service … no one! You are experiencing the run around, this is where decent people, asking legitimate questions, that are factual and embarrassing, find out that it’s …
… not to do with me, it is forwarded to another department, who have returned it, we have returned it to you with a polite answer, (cos we have a code of practice you know!). Even if the answer tells you nothing, don't get shirty, as we won't reply, well we have a code of practice to uphold, to protect the integrity of the system, yes we have a freedom of information act as well, mind you its expensive, to give you details, which is why we have D.V.L.C. selling driver details without your permission!
It seems it took 11 months from outright rejection of the PJM ,'to accept not wear' to come about. The reason for this is simple, the powers that be spent 11 months and your money, to come up with a decision they thought was watertight. They disappoint me. I really thought they would give us all afternoon after 11 months, to accept on their terms or it was lost forever!
The rebuttal statement is eloquent, factual, and totally demolishes, not only the decision, but also the process. It’s a farce. We are to believe, then, no one is responsible, too long ago, double-medalling. The list of excuses rolled out is, in itself, worthy of an award.
I saw a scarecrow in a field recently, even he had a medal on, apparently it was for outstanding service in his field! What is the way forward? We have worthy supporters, we have a watertight case, but the answers go round in circles, and the best that some of the scarecrows can do is throw a hissy fit if they don't like the lingo!
I take my hat off to our campaigners, we will prevail. After all, it’s our medal.
(Pete, UK - Contact details supplied)
Message=I am both furious and saddened by the irrational thinking of some of the people who help to run this country, whether they be Lords, Ladies, MP's or civil servants. I have had no dealings with Lords, Ladies or MP's but when I was a serviceman [Royal Signals] and worked at both HQ UKLF and the MOD, I did have contact with civil servants and many of them had " illusions of grandeur", as I am sure they have today. So I should not be surprised with their decisions, but I Ed: (expletive deleted!) am!!! Some of them are as much use as tits on a bull, a chocolate kettle, castrated ram, ash tray on a motorbike, I could go on but I now need a small whiskey!!!
(Terence Winsor, UK - Contact details supplied)
[Ed: Just for one second, a nanosecond, we thought Terry might have to edit his message but we realised that when he was so graphically expressing his disenchantment with the civil servants he was speaking for a lot of others who are heartily sick and tired of how the civil servants pull strings - and do so on mean-minded myths. Remember the Suez Medal? Remember the Arctic Medal/Emblem? Now we have the PJM. We are with Terry on this.
Subject=The Rebuttal Update
Message=Congratulations Barry and everyone else involved in the extensive research required to get this document compiled to submission readiness. That it raises some, at best, questionable tactics by faceless civil servants, is probably of no surprise to most of us (sad to say).
You refer to the "obduracy" of civil servants and I commend you on your restraint. I would have used "pigheadedness" in that particular context and "sheer act of bastardry" to describe the way that decisions have been influenced by omission of information and/or manipulation of so-called "rules".
Which prompts me to ask why we don't just collectively say "to heck with these ars*hol*s" and start a fighting fund to initiate a class action in the courts? Surely any silk aspiring to be a modern-day Rumpole would salivate at the opportunity of arguing our case in court - and the media would have an absolute field day as the various "parties" (here I am being nice to the civil servants again) ducked for cover and pointed fingers at each other in full view of the British public!!! If you're looking for donations, please count me in.....
(Martin Ratia, Vietnam - Contact details supplied)
[Ed: Martin raises an interesting and appetising prospect in his message! He was one of the very first to take up the PJM cause in early 2005 and he, the people leading this campaign and supporters from around the world, have all contributed in some way to what emerged as the Update to the Rebuttal.]