Barry Fleming
Posted on 14 Sep 2011 5:32 pm (Report this annotation)

There were no costs because, as I understand it, the meeting merited only email and telephone exchanges! And they were making a decision that affected the lives and rights of ordinary men and women, ex-servicemen and women. So much for their understanding of the Military Covenant. The PJM decision broke it, pulverised it, and consigned it to the bin of iniquity.

John Ireland
Posted on 14 Sep 2011 7:10 pm (Report this annotation)

As I understand it, this decision was made by civil servants and never went in front of any committee made up of our elected representatives in Parliament. Surely that makes this a totally undemocratic and inequitable decision especially as we now know that it was made 'over the phone'

john Feltham`
Posted on 15 Sep 2011 12:55 am (Report this annotation)

What a slap in the face for a friendly Muslim country like Malaysia.

The UK Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals accepted, on behalf of HM The Queen, the offer of a Commemorative Medal made to the Commonwealth countries who were involved in the formation of the State of Malaysia. But the country which claims to be the Head of The Commonwealth refuses to allow it's veterans to wear the medal, even though the same UK Committee accepted the medal .

Meanwhile, HM The Queen of Australia and HM The Queen of New Zealand accepted the medal and gave Her permission to wear the medal on all occasions. This earns great respect to those two countries from Malaysia. And by doing so, they honour the graciousness of Malaysia in awarding the award.

Who is it that is responsible for bringing shame upon HM The Queen, the Head of The Commonwealth?

Answer: The UK Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals.

To date, no reason has been given for this shameful decision. Could it be that they are ashamed to give a reason?

Shame on them.

John Cooper
Posted on 15 Sep 2011 7:34 am (Report this annotation)

I believe I have a letter/email somewhere that states that the HD Committee very rarely meets as all communication is via, telephone, letter or email, I seem to recall a HMG spokesperson suggest that they have only met on something like 5 occasions since WWII

I wonder why with all the economic cutbacks occuring in every Government Department that this one hasn't been kicked into touch?

Paul Alders
Posted on 15 Sep 2011 9:52 am (Report this annotation)

The HD Committee rarely if ever meet, it is all done by telephone, faxes and emails.
This is the same HD Committee that gave an honour a few years back to a gentleman who filled out all the paperwork himself; it was only when someone reported it that they removed his honour, how many more are there out there?
It was an HD Committee that allowed Anthony Blunt to keep his Knighthood even though they knew he was a traitor; it was only when it became public knowledge that his Knighthood was removed.
All Civil Servant departments including the HD Committee must be accountable to Parliament, only then do we have democracy and accountability.

Gerald Law
Posted on 15 Sep 2011 1:26 pm (Report this annotation)

A committee that never meets face to face, does not produce minutes and does not have to justify its decisions to those who pay their wages is bound to cost nothing to operate. If their decisions were accountable, then those decisions might just be made in a more logical manner. Incidentally, the costs of vetting applications for the PJM have also been cost-free to the taxpayer - they have been borne by the Veterans themselves via their Associations. Gerald Law