Actually, the first Major wrong, was that the initial, gracious offer of the PJM by the then Agon of Malaysia, was rejected outright in the House of Lords, without debate, by Baroness Symons on the 11 Jan 2005 in response to a question by Lord Chadlington in December 2004, the PJM having been offered by the Agon (Malaysian King) in July 2004 and ignored by HMG until a further request by the Malaysians. Since then it has been a question of BC/AD, ie as far as the Civil Servants advising the Government are concerned the date from which the PJM matter officially starts (AD) is February 2005, and not, truthfully, from July 2004 (BC) when the initial offer was made, presumably to hide the ignorance of the FCO in ignoring the first offer in July 2004, and the questionable advice given to Baroness Symons by the Civil Servants, it is believed, quoting 1969 FCO Rules for the acceptance and wearing of foreign medals which I believe were not the rules by which any decision regarding the PJM should have been made.
Since then the Prime Minister, Ministers and Members of Parliament have continued to be mislead by Senior Civil Servants in the Cabinet Office, MoD DS Sec, and the Foreign Office who continue to quote superseded 1969 rules, and rules revised in 2005 with a new, PART C, in my view, specically written to preclude the PJM from being formally worn.
What I and others are waiting to see is for those who are democratically elected to question the motives and advice of Senior Civil Servants. It amuses me to see how often, particularly after a major hiccup, the Ministers get the sack, and smugly, the advisers await
the coming of the next mug, in the safety of the knowlegde of their unassailable positions, large pensions and a decoration or knighthood at their retirement; certainly, it is not made public if any civil servants are made to account for their mistakes or conduct. Perhaps it is about time that they were.
David Dilley
Posted on 16 Mar 2008 3:21 pm
Actually, the first Major wrong, was that the initial, gracious offer of the PJM by the then Agon of Malaysia, was rejected outright in the House of Lords, without debate, by Baroness Symons on the 11 Jan 2005 in response to a question by Lord Chadlington in December 2004, the PJM having been offered by the Agon (Malaysian King) in July 2004 and ignored by HMG until a further request by the Malaysians. Since then it has been a question of BC/AD, ie as far as the Civil Servants advising the Government are concerned the date from which the PJM matter officially starts (AD) is February 2005, and not, truthfully, from July 2004 (BC) when the initial offer was made, presumably to hide the ignorance of the FCO in ignoring the first offer in July 2004, and the questionable advice given to Baroness Symons by the Civil Servants, it is believed, quoting 1969 FCO Rules for the acceptance and wearing of foreign medals which I believe were not the rules by which any decision regarding the PJM should have been made.
Since then the Prime Minister, Ministers and Members of Parliament have continued to be mislead by Senior Civil Servants in the Cabinet Office, MoD DS Sec, and the Foreign Office who continue to quote superseded 1969 rules, and rules revised in 2005 with a new, PART C, in my view, specically written to preclude the PJM from being formally worn.
What I and others are waiting to see is for those who are democratically elected to question the motives and advice of Senior Civil Servants. It amuses me to see how often, particularly after a major hiccup, the Ministers get the sack, and smugly, the advisers await
the coming of the next mug, in the safety of the knowlegde of their unassailable positions, large pensions and a decoration or knighthood at their retirement; certainly, it is not made public if any civil servants are made to account for their mistakes or conduct. Perhaps it is about time that they were.