22nd February 2009
This system is reported as having been in existence since 1886, with references to its rules dating back as far as 1855 meaning that the system is based on perceptions formed one hundred and fifty four years ago.. The HD Committee was formed around the time of the second World War, from what was previously known as the HW Committee, and the rules are purported to apply to all awards that are designed to be worn.
However, the rules themselves are not legislative and it is more a case of practice and protocol than legislation and Parliament has been informed that "at present, the situation regarding the honours and decorations awarded to British service personnel and veterans is completely unacceptable. The HD committee is free to make confusing and even whimsical rulings about which medals can be awarded, accepted or worn, without any obligation to give a clear rationale for its decisions. It does not publish its minutes or its correspondence, and it appears that no one outside the committee has anything but the vaguest idea about how its decision-making process works."
Members of Parliament in all parts of the House, veterans organisations, and even Ministers of the Crown, have all made representations to the committee to change its advice, but it has remained obstinate in its refusal to do so and members were concerned that the inability of the House of Commons to debate or scrutinise the HD committee’s decisions is anathema to parliamentary democracy and has no place in the modern world. Mr Don Touhig (Labour) with the support of other members said in the House: "There is no excuse for the total unaccountability of the HD committee, and there is no excuse for its behaviour towards our veterans." He also said: "No one in this House would disagree that honouring our servicemen and women is a matter of the greatest importance, yet the decisions on who is entitled to recognition are taken by a body that does not answer to any elected authority whatsoever, seldom meets, and never has to explain or account for its decisions. Surely, in an era of openness and transparent government, it is unacceptable to have a committee that rules on the important matter of decorations and medals which meets on an ad hoc basis and whose discussions are confidential."
Even after numerous representations were made to the HD Committee, MP's reported that they were 'met with a wall of stony silence'. ....and they call this a democracy?
In response to questions from Parliamentary representatives, a Parliamentary Under-Secretary reported that the following members of the HD Committee hold a variety of medals, honours and awards including:
Sir Gus O'Donnell KCB
Sir Bill Jeffrey KCB
Sir Peter Ricketts KCMG
Jeremy Heywood CB, CVO
Sir David Normington KCB
Right hon. Christopher Geidt CVO, OBE
The time has come for all veterans to stand tall and make their feelings known and not to succumb to out dated protocol or prejudice that clearly has no place in the 21st Century. One only has to look at the rules of the HD Committee and how they have been applied inconsistently to see that something is amiss. Veterans took up arms to defend this country and the time has now come for them to take up a cause celebre to defend themselves, least they be forgotten. We have seen Ghurkhas and Veterans of Atomic Tests taking their fight against government injustice to the highest Courts in the land and many of them standing proud with their 'unofficial' medals and honours, in the absence of any formal recognition.. Veterans may have laid down their weapons, but they have not laid down their fighting spirit and this government would do well to be reminded of that.
Tally Ho!
13th February 2009
Dear Sir Jock,
Thank you very much for taking the time and trouble to respond to my letter, very courteous of you considering the workload you must have to deal with on a daily basis. I really do appreciate it.
I will get right to the nitty gritty.
Your reply is somewhat indicative of an entrenched attitude which does not augur well for any sort of meaningful dialogue long term, which is a great pity because I believe that some goodwill could save an awful lot of aggravation for a large number of people. It also highlights the gap between those that are rather well placed and the rest of us, something that has bedevilled British Society and the British Armed Forces for a long, long time. Yet there was just a hint that some consideration might be shown under some circumstances and that is what we intend to pursue.
You mentioned the opting out of Commonwealth nations. May I put it to you that the walkout of Commonwealth governments from the Imperial awards system was in point of fact a massive vote of no confidence in a system that was patently not up to the demands that reasonable men put to it. I will also say that the simple fact that the last living survivor from the trenches of WW1, the very last man able to wear the soubriquet of being an 'Old Contemptible', has shown a fine old contempt for the Imperial awards by including amongst the panoply of medals that he wears, a Commemorative wound medal. That Sir Jock, is one hell of a poke in the eye for the HD Committee and all that it (mis)represents! The HD Committee and the higher echelons of the MoD have what is effectively a monopoly as regards the setting up of medals and awards, were it a business however, it would be bankrupt and discredited. As it is, it is rapidly becoming an irrelevance as increasing numbers of ex service people opt to purchase all sorts of commemorative 'gongs' in lieu of what they feel they ought to be entitled to.
The argument that
As to your penultimate paragraph, in which you mention the opportunities for medals to be won by current members of HM Forces, these opportunities are only there because of the high risk policies implemented by people who had little conception of what a terrible long term risk they ran in embarking on invasions of other sovereign territories. We are not quibbling about bravery awards or campaign medals in any case, we are simply seeking a level playing field for those that serve and have served Queen and Country. We see other Nations veterans getting what we all agree are their just reward for loyal and diligent service and we ask for exactly the same, nothing more, nothing less!
We are not fools Sir Jock and we are only too well aware that the question of finance for a NDM is the rock upon which our campaign could falter and fail in the short term, to that end, we have declared that we will consider that any retrospective National Defence Medal perhaps ought to be purchased by whomsoever was entitled to it, rather than be issued gratis, provided that any inherent VAT component was given over to approved Service charities rather than go to swell government coffers, with perhaps some consideration shown to those who could not afford the outlay because of extreme poverty. Now that is a quid pro quo that should be thought about, because it would unlock the deadlock and ongoing impasse that we currently have. I should point out that families would see the acquisition of a NDM for a loved one as an ideal present for any special occasion, so its popularity would be very widespread and its presence a far better advert for patriotic virtues than a toy soldier, as proposed by some.
You must by now be aware that we are attracting support from MP's on all sides of the British Parliament and we will also be taking our campaign into the streets and onto National TV and print media in the
Our UK Committee members remain willing to meet with any nominee that can negotiate on the issues that we will raise, they will attend in goodwill, with the welfare and proper respect of veterans their only agenda. I hope that someone on your side of the divide will have the nous to see that this is the best way of resolving this matter to the best interests of all parties.
On the other side of the coin, I can assure you Sir Jock, that we have very thoroughly researched all of the manifold anomalies and contradictions that exist within the antiquated and deeply entrenched Imperial awards system. We will, as and when required, show up the present system for just what is, the greatest of all the British 'Farces'.
Yours aye, Gerry Peck.
NDM Overseas Co-ordinator
12th February 2009: Most veterans, will be aware of the growing national debate over so-called 'unofficial' medals and the controversy that rages between veterans groups, such as the Malaya and Borneo Veterans, British Nuclear Test Veterans, Arctic Convoy Veterans, Post Armistice Korea Veterans, Cyprus Veterans, National Service Veterans, Cold War Veterans plus many others, and the government refusal to recognise the service and sacrifice of those who have, and have been prepared to defend this country. Though some might condemn the wearing of such medals, who could be unimpressed by remarkable WW1 Veteran; Harry Patch, the 'Last Fighting Tommy' from that era who proudly wears his 'unofficial' National Service Medal and the 'Hors de Combat'. Similarly, many British Nuclear Test Veterans stood defiantly outside the High Court in Whilst the new In contrast to the comments of the MoD Defence Services Secretary; Mr R T Cooney, who has advised that irrespective of the military activity arising from the imperatives of the Cold War, the British Government has never reached a position where it would have been appropriate to institute a medal, former World Leaders such as Margaret Thatcher (British Prime Minister), Ronald Reagan (US President), Mikhail Gorbachev (Soviet President), Nicolae Ceaucescu (Romanian President), Vacklav Havel (Czec President) and Lord Robertson (UK-NATO), have all received and bestowed a variety of 'official' medals and honours on each other for service during the Cold War. All the British Government will say is that it looks to the rules applied by the Honours and Decorations (HD) Committee, an unelected group of Civil Servants and advisors, to determine what medals should be instituted, and what can be worn.. It is no wonder that many veterans believe that the rules governing the HD Committee have been inconsistently applied in recent years and is the reason why so many unofficial medals have gained prominence. Despite government rules, regulations and advice, I have witnessed many veterans and fellow RBL members wearing a variety of unofficial medals, most notably on remembrance day parades. Their prominence would indicate that the consensus is firmly in favour of them. A large number of politicians have now said that there is a good case for looking again at the rules governing the awarding of medals, the merits of particular claims and the structure of the HD Committee itself and said that the government should review the structure, membership and terms of reference of the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals (HD Committee). They believe that a reconstituted HD Committee should then review veterans claims for medals as well as it being an outstanding gesture if the members of the Defence Committee, were to urge the government and Civil Servants, to take a pragmatic view, as opposed to a blinkered political one, and the government and all parties to ‘finally’ honour its debt to veterans of all eras. To date the MoD (not government) has issued a HM Armed Forces Veterans Badge, that is actually 'unofficial' to the same extent as many of the commemorative medals that they object to and, as a result, a growing number of recipients are actually discarding this badge and supporting a nationwide Veterans campaign for a 'National Defence Medal'. It is worth mentioning that the design of the 'unofficial' Queens Golden Jubilee Medal was actually 'approved' by Buckingham Palace through the office of the Lord Chamberlain, and bears the image of Her Majesty the Queen and the Royal Armorial Shield and so is no less, and perhaps to a a greater extent, is more appropriate then the HMAFVB? Before anyone suggests that this is just moving towards a mirroring of the American system which some might argue tends to proliferate medals, one should look closer to home at European examples where in France all Service Personnel receive a Defence Medal after 6 months, in Germany after 7 months on recommendation, and in Norway after 12 months regular or 6 months T.A. Even countries like Until the whole issue of medals is looked at transparently, veterans of all eras, including Harry Patch, will undoubtedly continue to wear their 'unofficial' (Bling) with pride and without fear of ridicule. http://www.britishcoldwarveterans.co.uk British Cold War Veterans
http://nationaldefencemedal.webs.com/
http://www.icessexhomes.co.uk/tn/news.cfm?id=27471
E-mail:enquiries@britishcoldwarveterans.co.uk Web: www.britishcoldwarveteransco..uk
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. They may contain legally privileged information, and may not be disclosed to anyone else. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender and delete all copies from your system.
January 2009
To members of the Defence Select Committee,
As respected members of Parliament, you are all no doubt aware of the period of world insecurity posed by the Cold War years, in which both East and West squared up to one another on the brink of global annihilation.
During this period men and women in Her Majesty’s Armed Forces were under no illusion as to the very real threat posed to the security of this country and her allies. Recently released official documents confirm that the
Whilst the threat has subsided and the Cold War has thawed, the service of all those who stood ready to defend the freedoms which most take for granted, goes completely unrecognised. Whilst political leaders during the Cold War have been lauded with honours and medals, the Service men and women who would have been called upon to fight and most likely lay down their lives, received no such reward.
Across the world, Veterans are calling for a symbol of recognition and it is encouraging to learn that the new
The HD Committee, the unelected body that decides on honours and medals and advises Her Majesty the Queen, is now seen as completely out of touch with veterans and serving Military personnel which has seen many Commonwealth Countries opt out of the
As a voice for the many thousands of British veterans who served during the Cold War, we respectfully ask the members of the Defence Committee to petition the British Government and NATO to give formal recognition to those who served during the Cold War (1945 – 1991);- The Cold War (1945–1991) has been described as the most dangerous time in modern history when NATO's (including the UK) forces were directly oriented against the particular enemy identified as the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact Countries for a specific scenario of global war. Their role was clearly defined by policies and strategies of the period. Likewise the Warsaw Pact alliance had identified and targeted the
There were definitely heightened risks associated with this period particularly that of a major threat on the European landmass, stemming from well armed nations with nuclear weapons and it is against these heightened risks that policies and strategies were developed and employed.
There has been much speculation about the deterrent of nuclear weapons between leaders who seem irrational by normal standards; the effectiveness of NATO's and the UK’s conventional and nuclear forces was and remains wholly dependent on the qualification and training of the people responsible for operating and comprising them, and their willingness and preparedness to expedite war a moments given notice.
As well as needing to be effective, flexible, and survivable, our forces had to be supported by a planning system that was able to respond to all ‘real’, ‘perceived’ and ‘unpredictable’ threats by adequate preparation and regular exercises. These were designed to gauge military effectiveness against very ‘real’ threats of a war with the Warsaw Pact but also the mechanisms enabling political control.
Taking the MoD’s own argument that, the 'Cold War' is a term that was used to describe the political relationship between the former Soviet Union and its allies and the Western Nations, in the period after the Second World War, it can easily be shown that political ideology, posturing and strategies were enacted through both the capability and threat of the use of Military force and thus the MoD argument that there was ‘no’ link between political ideology and that military activity was ‘not’ the primary expression of the relationship between the two ideologies during this 'Cold War' period, can be seen to be an argument in tatters.
Service during the Cold War brought with it substantial risk other than that associated with the ‘usual’ expectations of Service Life. Using the year 1982 as just a single example, figures show that during that one year alone, there was a total of 57,859 Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM), Sea Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBM) and bombers primed and targeted between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. 33,952 of these belonged to the
It is documented that the Soviet Strategy was that conflict was a ‘realistic’ scenario and so planned for a massive nuclear strike that would pave the way for ground forces and in doing so would downgrade any Western deterrent and make the prospect of war a more perilous reality. According to Soviet Documents, plans were in place to advance into
The Soviet plan clearly demonstrates the very ‘real’ threat posed by the
British Documents now declassified and just released confirms the sobering reality of the real possibility of war after a Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) report of the scale of the Soviet threat forced the then Prime Minister to call for an immediate defence analysis. Far from being a perceived threat, the threat was considered so great that the Prime minister was furious and called for people to be sacked and declared the situation as a “scandal” having learned that the
This confirms beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever, that
Mr R.. T Cooney the MoD Defence Services Secretary, having acknowledged in a letter dated 28th July 2008 that: "During the 'Cold War' years, some military units or formations doubtless experienced incidents or periods of service as a result of activity by Warsaw Pact forces, where their exposure to risk and rigour may have been heightened.", is either blissfully unaware of the scale and reality of the exposure to heightened risk or rigour, or has simply chosen to ignore it. In fact the risks were far greater than anyone has been keen to publically admit.
The men and women of HM Armed Forces who stepped forward ready to engage in that war and defend this country during this period, were educated to the reality of the threat through the rigorous Military training which they all endured. No-one was under any illusions and the regular deployments and Military exercises underpinned the very real threat and heightened risks that they all faced. The constant reminder of prosecution under the ‘Official Secrets Act’ for careless talk etc, reinforced the reality to those who served. They knew how real it was:
The weapons were real, the plans were real, the targets were real, the training was real, and the expectation of war with the
One reason might be because it has come to light that NATO governments are so opposed to the issue of a Cold War medal is because of fears of upsetting former enemies, such as
Mr Barak Obama said "The Cold War was a period that required both skilled diplomacy and military readiness. For veterans who had to be prepared to fight a war that most people agreed would be catastrophic, there certainly should be some recognition of service and willingness to defend and go to battle for the United States"
Speaking about how the
During the Cold War the
This only reinforces the case for a Cold War Medal which whilst acknowledging the service given by veterans of the Cold War, would not offend former enemies and we ask for your support in asking both the British Government and NATO to institute a Cold War Medal.
Looking forward to your earliest response
