ARmy Rumour SErvice

**Grumblings** · 24-01-2010, 14:30

[quote="bobos"]I still think it scandalous the way the QSJM was done, by a penny-pinching government.

With the current financial state of this country, no doubt any DJM will be rationed again. Perhaps they should tighten the criterea for it.

~~~~

I tend to agree the criteria will be tightened, QGJM was a joke ! 10 yrs service maybe ??

**sneeky_turd** · 24-01-2010, 17:20

[quote="Grumblings"]

Originally Posted by bobos

I still think it scandalous the way the QSJM was done, by a penny-pinching government.

With the current financial state of this country, no doubt any DJM will be rationed again. Perhaps they should tighten the criterea for it.

~~~~

I tend to agree the criteria will be tightened, QGJM was a joke ! 10 yrs service maybe ??

Or better yet, just bin the whole idea anyway. It's just another pointless medal that means nothing to the person wearing it.

**chocolate_frog** · 24-01-2010, 17:24

Take it you didn't get teh QGJM then ST

I am in favour of the 15 yrs service, that way just a bar has to be issued, as everyone eligible will already have a QGJM :D

**MBLU** · 24-01-2010, 21:55

5th January 2010 debate in Parliament

Dr. Andrew Murrison (Westbury) (Con): In 2002, a golden jubilee medal was struck for the armed forces and other uniformed services. The qualification period for it was five years before 2002. If similar criteria were used for the diamond jubilee medal, those serving between 2002 and 2007 would be disfranchised. Paradoxically, that is a period in which our armed forces have been engaged in two major theatres of war. In setting his criteria-a difficult task-will the Minister bear those people in mind to ensure that their contribution and service to Her Majesty the Queen are properly recognised?

Ian Lucas: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The criteria for the diamond jubilee medal have not yet been established. We are still in the process of taking into account issues such as those that he raises. We will of course consider them closely.

**Grumblings** · 24-01-2010, 22:25

I am in favour of the 15 yrs service, that way just a bar has to be issued, as everyone eligible will already have a QGJM.

~~~

Makes perfect sense, one thing for sure there will be no money in the public purse so the cheap option will be most favoured

**MBLU** · 24-01-2010, 22:29

I would expect it to be minimum 5 years service - to account for all none-forces recipients. Another criterion should be anybody who has served on a campaign/operation/war since the Coronation year of 1952 who does not meet the 5 year criterion.

**Legs** · 24-01-2010, 22:30

Just a thought...

Why do we, the members of HM Forces, need a medal for someone else's (ie, HM The Queen) achievement? It's not like we did anything special to earn it.

And yes, I have a QGJM before you ask. I didn't earn it, I just happened to be serving within the prescribed dates.

**AFA06** · 24-01-2010, 22:30

How about only those who currently hold a LS&GC. That way it would annoy the officers (except the LEs of course who obviously deserve it), the bad boys and the nigs.

**AFA06** · 24-01-2010, 22:31

Originally Posted by Legs

Just a thought...

Why do we, the members of HM Forces, need a medal for someone else's (ie, HM The Queen) achievement? It's not like we did anything special to earn it.

And yes, I have a QGJM before you ask. I didn't earn it, I just happened to be serving within the prescribed dates.

It is called tradition old boy, a thing our great armed forces has a lot of!