Tony Farrell

A fine and most creditable accumulation of tinware indeed. Very much unlike mine! :whistle:

The QPM and Police LSM are pretty much de rigeur for very senior officers - and it's not uncommon to find a CBE thrown in to the bargain. That said, these days, there are quite a few Assistant Chief Constables and Deputy Chief Constables without any medal ribbons.

I suppose it's whatever floats yer boat. I myself think that the CD is one of the most godawful designs ever to feature the sovereign's swede. The designer must have been hammered the morning he decided upon a glorified thrup'ny bit. In fairness, the GVI issue was slightly more appealing... but not much. Instead of re-designing the medal proper, they simply lopped off the suspender bar (similar to the Military LS&GC - see below illustration) and slaved on a bridge - which is why it's such a faff threading a mile-wide ribbon through an aperture little bigger than a keyhole. Gash drills in my book. I am not a fan of Canadian awards generally, though some of those enameled orders look nice and well thought out - as you'd expect when rewarding someone for long or meritorious service. The Exemplary Service Medals are little better than the CD quality-wise, and I think I'd be somewhat miffed if I was presented with something that would look better suited hanging off a christmas tree. The Australian long service awards fare little better, though the DLSM is a marked improvement over its predesessors on the quality control front. The Kiwis have no such bother - preferring (for now) to retain the more traditional design approach - and also retain several awards that are defunct in the country that instituted them... for the time being. Anyhow Dan. Welcome to the world of long service awards - a much overlooked subject, and one that's incredibly complex... verging on science. Take the plunge. You know you want to. There now follows a totally gratuitous shot of one of the CD's predecessors - a far nicer gong.

Interesting. I've never seen arms drill done with an AUG.

They resemble the 'shytehawk' arm badge, though in a gold-coloured thread and with the backing cut close around the eagle. They are worn by UAS cadets who've passed the prelim phase.

There's not really that much to get the teeth into other than that both are five-year awards. The ATAI was formed in 1888 and lasted until 1924 in India. Both the ATAI and the ATAH (Army Temperance Association - Home) received Royal prefixes in 1902 to become RATA India and Home respectively. The latter item is a UK award and this could have been awarded anytime between 1905 and 1939 when the RATA ceased to operate. Both were worn from plain scarlet ribbons. A Guide to Military Temperance Medals by David A Harris is worth having on the bookshelf.

The likelihood of an additional clasp is very slim. As for making sense of the logic behind ribbons clasps and rosettes on the various OSMs? Don't bother. It was designed by a committee who made it up as they went along in between rounds of golf.

The ambulance medal is awarded named in the style illustrated on this thread. As for the choice of obverse effigy? I suspect it was chosen to match that of the other emergency services.

Metropolitan Police Coronation 1911.

Metropolitan Police Coronation 1902.

Delhi Durbar 1903.

Prince of Wales Visit to Bombay 1921.

Natal Coronation 1902.

Visit to Ireland 1911.

Mayors & Provosts 1897 Jubilee issue in silver.

1902 Mayors & Provosts issue by Elkingtons.

Northern Ireland issues are slightly different and have AFRS (Auxiliary Fire & Rescue Service) and HSR (Hospital Service Reserve) in the two lower shields. There's also the colonial variant which is totally different.

I understand the ladies bows were dispensed with regarding 2002 medal issues. I've seen one and it was privately done to match the '77 medal that the recipient had. The issue of bows was deemed too costly to what had become something of a cake & arse party.

Interesting post Geoff - and a good example of the resentment that many have regarding National Service. To some the time of their lives, to others a period to forget. It was good of the ol' boy to apply for it for you.

I'm not sure I'm reading this right. 1934? You might have misread the entitlement. As a pre-war auxiliary in the RCAF he would have been eligible for the Efficiency Medal regardless of subsequent transfer to the regular RCAF and would have received the medal at close of play by default of double time war service. His CD probably covers his extra service upon re-enlistment. The devil is in the detail here. Need more info: dates, age, etc. I'm pretty sure (don't have regs handy) that cadet service was inadmissible. 1934 sounds more like an enlistment in the RCAF Aux.

Graham, embodied service only counts for single qualifying time for the VRSM: (A maximum of) Five years aggregated service in a permanent service capacity, i.e. regular engagement following call out, or voluntary full-time service with the regular forces counts as single qualifying service. Why it simply cannot be doubled up is beyond me. Whilst service during Granby certainly counted towards the respective reserve forces medals, it also only counted for single time. Regulations and award criteria for medals are invariably baffling - even to the initiated - and none more so than long service awards - in particular to the non-regular forces. The regulations have, however, been somewhat simplified by the introduction of the VRSM. The old system - with maybe the exception of the 'one-size-fits-all' Air Efficiency Award - was rather anachronistic and reflected the nation's status at the time of the awards' inception. The regulations had to be complicated to cover a wide array of application eventualities: transferred service, aggregated service, broken service, overseas auxiliary service, commissioned service etc. Subsequent amendments to the regulations and warrants as the Empire shrank made them slightly easier to understand, but pouring through the small print is still an eye-watering ordeal. I have some sympathy with the clerks. Half the people serving on awards committees don't have a bloody clue as to precedence and form, never mind the shiny arses! I once met an old & bold stacker at my brother's old squadron. Despite over thirty years' service, he only had his Efficiency Medal and one clasp and seemed quite baffled as to my inquiry regarding 'the rest'.

Efficiency Medal (Territorial) RW 23 Sep 1930 clause 13 It is ordained that an officer of the aforesaid forces who has in virtue of service in the ranks thereof been awarded the Medal or Clasps shall, if The Efficiency Decoration be subsequently conferred upon him, not be called upon to surrender the Medal or Clasps, but shall not be permitted to wear them until such a time as he has completed the full periods of qualifying service in respect of both the Decoration and the Medal or Clasps. AO 16 Feb 1955 Part II - The Efficiency Medal (Territorial) para. 9 The Efficiency Medal, with or without clasp(s), may be worn together with The Efficiency Decoration, with or without clasp(s), only if the full qualifying service in respect of each award has been completed separately. Efficiency Decoration RW 23 Sep 1930 clause 14 It is ordained that the recipient of any Long Service & Good Conduct or Efficiency Medal or Clasps for service in the ranks shall not be permitted to wear such medals or clasps with The Efficiency Decoration until he has completed the full periods of qualifying service in respect of each Medal or Clasp and Decoration. RW 17 Nov 1952 clause 12 It is ordained that service shall not be reckoned as qualifying service for The Efficiency Decoration if such service has already been reckoned towards any Long Service & Good Conduct or Efficiency Medal or Clasps except as provided in the regulations hereinafter mentioned. AO71 Jun 1953 - Regulations for the Efficiency Decoration para. 6 The following will not count as qualifying service:- (g) Any service which has been recognised by a Decoration or Clasp thereto for long and efficient service or an award for long and efficient service. (h) Any service which has been recognised by a Long Service & Good Conduct Medal or clasp thereto or The Efficiency Medal or clasps(s) thereto [13, 14] or the Cadet Forces Medal or Clasp(s) thereto. Notes to Regulations 13. Officers awarded The Efficiency Medal (Territorial) and/or clasps(s) under the terms of Army Order 73 of 1946 may, however, be awarded the Decoration and/or clasp(s) in lieu provided the service to be rewarded does not consist entirely of service in the ranks. 14. Service in the ranks which has been or can be rewarded by any Efficiency Medal and/or clasp(s) will not count towards the Decoration and/or clasp(s). CONCLUSION That's all the information contained within the warrants and regulations apropos the content of my and previous posts. There is absolutely no reference to exchanging clasps for medals or medals for decorations. Note 13 is interesting and provides the only clue to some unit practices that have obviously occurred over time. Ergo: i) Personnel with the majority of time served in the ranks who subsequently gain commissions are awarded the EM(T) and subsequent clasps. ii) Officers with sufficient time elapsed since their service in the ranks may gain the TD extra to their EM(T). iii) Such double recipients can only wear both awards once full periods of qualifying service have elapsed, e.g. 12+12. Quite how clasps fit in this equation is not clear, but one can only (logically) assume that clasps subsequent to the award of an EM(T) be forfeited in lieu of a subsequent TD. That's how I see it and it's not that far off my initial post on this subject. AS for T&AVR/Territorial combinations of both medal and decoration? There's nothing in the regulations to cater for such anomalies, though broken service would be a logical answer.

Anyone fulfilling the eligibility criteria for the Efficiency Medal (Territorial) [EM(T)] prior to 1st April 1999 received that medal. After that date the Volunteer Reserves Service Medal became current. The only personnel who had a choice of medals were commissioned ranks who had five years' reckonable time served prior to 1 Apl 99. This only concerned the TD/VRSM changeover, not the EM(T). Full Time Reserve Service (formerly S Type Engagement) did/does not count 'double war service' time for either the EM(T) or VRSM. The double time rule only concerned auxiliary service in British West Africa and fully mobilised service during both the Great War and WWII. Whilst service in the ranks counted towards the Efficiency Decoration, there was no TD 'exchange programme' for EM(T) holders upon commission per se. Twelve years commissioned service subsequent to the award of the EM(T) would result in the award of the Efficiency Decoration (TD). Both awards could be worn, though I seem to remember the eighteen year bar for the medal having to be surrendered (though retained) as full periods of qualifying service had to be met for both awards to be worn, i.e. no overlapping of qualifying time: twenty-four years. I also understand that the option was there for the commissioned EM(T) holder to exchange his medal for the decoration and bar at the eighteen year point in lieu of a bar for the medal. [i don't have my regs and notes to hand, so I'm working from memory.] I have also seen several instances of medal groups containing two EM(T)s - both Territorial and T&AVR (and vice versa). These combinations reflected the changeover period when suitably qualified recipients of either medal exchanged two bars for the (then) 'new' medal. I am also aware of one officer wearing two TDs on parade! One T&AVR and the other Territorial. Whether this was an erroneous award in lieu of the more logical bar to the award or a genuine example of 'grandfather's rights' (choice) for officers is yet to be ascertained, though I suspect the latter. As has already been stated, the medals are for reckonable service, i.e. certified efficient with courses and bounties earned. Simply turning up for ten/twelve years was not enough - as more than a few have found out the hard way.

It is very much an official medal. All you need to know here: Queen's Medal

Considering what the man has done to time-honoured institutions, i.e. trashed them, it would be an absolute travesty for him to be either offered it or to accept it. I understand Bliar and his cohorts are not very popular with Auntie Betty & Co. Dodgy MBEs are one thing, but an offer of a KG is quite another. We'll see. [i don't believe I've actually managed a post about Bliar without having an embolism.]