Medals Review final report - More Medals!

OldSnowy

LE
Book Reviewer
This slipped into Hansard yesterday:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201415/ldhansrd/text/140729-wms0001.htm#14072935000018

Military Medals
Statement
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con): The Prime Minister appointed Sir John Holmes in April 2012 to conduct an independent review of the policy governing the award of military medals. He issued his report in July 2012, which concluded that the existing guiding principles were reasonably based but that there should be greater readiness to review past decisions. Sir John was therefore commissioned to review independently a number of cases which had been brought to his attention as possible candidates for changed medallic recognition. The aim was to draw a definitive line under issues which in some cases had been controversial for many years, ensuring that consistency and fairness were respected as far as possible, in a context where the judgments are often difficult, but need to be clear and defensible.
This substantial and complex piece of work is now complete. Each of the reviews has been subject to detailed discussion by the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals and its conclusions submitted for Royal approval. All will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
The outcomes where detailed reviews were carried out are listed in the Annexe to this statement. Where medallic recognition has been agreed, the Ministry of Defence will issue guidance on how individual claims may be submitted. Sir John also reviewed the case for a National Defence Medal. An options paper produced by the Cabinet Office will also be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals is not persuaded that a strong enough case can be made at this time, but has advised that this issue might usefully be reconsidered in the future. In such circumstances, the criteria for the award of a medal would need careful consideration, including length of service, good conduct and the possibility of retrospection. In the meantime, Ministers have agreed that the eligibility requirements for the Long Service and Good Conduct Medal, which is currently awarded only to other ranks and not to officers, should be harmonised for the future.

In short Sir John Holmes recommended 4 new awards or changes to criteria for existing awards:

South Atlantic
The qualifying period for the award of the South Atlantic Medal without the Rosette will be extended from 12 July to 21 October 1982 (My comment: this shold please the QOH and a few others!)

Cyprus 1955-59
Those who participated in the suppression of acts of terrorism in Cyprus between 1 April 1955 and 24 December 1959 should qualify for the General Service Medal 1918 – 62 with clasp “CYPRUS” if they served for 90 days or more (My comment: I tihnk this is a reduction in qual time from 4 to 3 months)

Cyprus 1963-64
Those servicemen who served in Cyprus during the period 21 December 1963 to 26 March 1964 will be awarded the General Service Medal with clasp “CYPRUS 1963-64”.

Berlin Airlift
The General Service Medal 1918 - 62 with clasp “BERLIN AIRLIFT” should be awarded for at least one day’s service to all aircrew, RAF and civilian, who took part in the Berlin Airlift operation from 25 June 1948 to 6 October 1949 inclusive. (My comment: excellent news, and I'm sure there's a lot of people who may be elegible for this one!)

Don't all apply yet though! Exact criteria for who-can-get-what have yet to be agreed. I would imagine the Berlin Airlift ones will get priority, as they must be getting on a bit.
 

Daxx

MIA
Book Reviewer
Would have been nice if he had also considered those deployed operationally in Gulf War One but who were operating outside the Scud bubble and thus did not qualify for the campaign medal.
 
Still nothing for me, then.

However ...
In the meantime, Ministers have agreed that the eligibility requirements for the Long Service and Good Conduct Medal, which is currently awarded only to other ranks and not to officers, should be harmonised for the future.
I recall staffing that subject in the AFD back in the 90s. It was rejected on the grounds that: (a) There was nothing clever about officers doing Long Service, a the majority would be doing 'time for pension' anyway, and (b) Good conduct was implicit in the officer corps. Indeed, the absence of an officer's LS&GC would be a public revelation of some ill deed in the past, which would hardly be conducive to 'good order and discipline' and tend to undermine his authority.

So what's new this time? And may I have a retrospective one, please?

Surely a retrospective award would cost a bloody fortune? Virtually every officer who has completed 38/16 since <insert date here>? Or do we get the opportunity to purchase if desired? Another fine set of anomalies opened up, surely?
 
Last edited:
Still nothing for me, then.

However ...
I recall staffing that subject in the AFD back in the 90s. It was rejected on the grounds that: (a) There was nothing clever about officers doing Long Service, a the majority would be doing 'time for pension' anyway, and (b) Good conduct was implicit in the officer corps. Indeed, the absence of an officer's LS&GC would be a public revelation of some ill deed in the past, which would hardly be conducive to 'good order and discipline' and tend to undermine his authority.

So what's new this time? And may I have a retrospective one, please?

Surely a retrospective award would cost a bloody fortune? Virtually every officer who has completed 38/16 since <insert date here>? Or do we get the opportunity to purchase if desired? Another fine set of anomalies opened up, surely?

I think the clue is in the phrase 'should be harmonised for the future'. Suggests new rules, terms etc for those now in.
 

OldSnowy

LE
Book Reviewer
The actual documents produced by Sir John Holmes's team have now all been placed in the Library of the House, which means that they are in effect Public Domain. Once available, I will place links here. There are reports on all 'Medal campaigns', that is campaigns for medals, rather than 'Campaign medals', if you see what I mean... This includes unsuccessful ones, as well as those that made the sift. No NDM, thank goodness!
 
You can't be all that operational if you're so far from the battle that a Scud won't reach you

Didnt the ******* in Cyprus get an op medal for GW1 on the grounds a rocket could fall on their heads?
 
The actual documents produced by Sir John Holmes's team have now all been placed in the Library of the House, which means that they are in effect Public Domain. Once available, I will place links here. There are reports on all 'Medal campaigns', that is campaigns for medals, rather than 'Campaign medals', if you see what I mean... This includes unsuccessful ones, as well as those that made the sift. No NDM, thank goodness!

Got a link for that, just 'cos I'm an idle twat.
 
Re Gulf 1. Plenty of bods got the medal who were not in Theatre but were employed on or by Op Granby. for example PDT teams in UK were awarded the medal without clasp.
 
Didnt the ******* in Cyprus get an op medal for GW1 on the grounds a rocket could fall on their heads?

The idle twats did indeed.
 
Didnt the ******* in Cyprus get an op medal for GW1 on the grounds a rocket could fall on their heads?

I've got a few Cav mates who sat around in Cyprus as BCR who got the Gulf Medal
 

the_boy_syrup

LE
Book Reviewer
South Atlantic
The qualifying period for the award of the South Atlantic Medal without the Rosette will be extended from 12 July to 21 October 1982 (My comment: this shold please the QOH and a few others!)

Why should the QOH be pleased, they were in Catterick at the RAC training Centre all throughout '82?
 

the_boy_syrup

LE
Book Reviewer
The idle twats did indeed.


I'sure the lads at RAF Akrotiri would assure you not everyone was idle.

Didn't the HCR refuse theirs as they were on a UN tour and quallified.
 
I think the clue is in the phrase 'should be harmonised for the future'. Suggests new rules, terms etc for those now in.
Yup, thats the way I read it too. There is no doubt that the OH and I were determined at birth not to pick up a single medal. So 55 years of unremarkable service likely remains unremarked - apart from that token lapel badge ;-)
 
I'sure the lads at RAF Akrotiri would assure you not everyone was idle.
Some of us in UK Ops rooms weren't idle either, doing 12-hour/7-day shifts. And fighting our way through foreign tourists on the Underground and in Whitehall wasn't easy, I can tell you. "Luckily" I was on permanent nights, so my commute went against the stream ... and on a couple of occasions I saw my wife on the other platform as she went off to her Ops Room on the day shift. Our post-War reunion was very pleasant ;-)
 
I think QOH is referring to The Queens Own Highlanders they were on route when the fighting stopped and were involved in the clean up operation

I know that, it was the point I was making.

The QOH were in existance from '58 to 92, and the QO HLDRS from '61 - '94, and yet many still can't get their official military abbreviations correct.
 

OldSnowy

LE
Book Reviewer
I know that, it was the point I was making.

The QOH were in existance from '58 to 92, and the QO HLDRS from '61 - '94, and yet many still can't get their official military abbreviations correct.

My fault, sorry - so long since I'd used QO Hldrs that I'd got confused.
Given that they should have gone there for the fighting bit, they should be well chuffed to finally be recognised.

But don't lets open the enormous box of worms that is "Why was XXX sent to the Falklands rather than YYY, who were far better trained, equipped, etc etc).
 

Latest Threads

Top