Wrongfully issued Long Service Medals.....

[bigjarofwasps]

Ladies/Gents,

It has emerged that due to an alleged mistake by the Royal Mint, officers with less than 20 years service (some considerably less than 20) have been issued with a Long Service Medal.It also seems that this may have in point of fact been going on for sometime. Further this mistake having been realised, the officers in question have been allowed to keep their awards.

Personally I feel this is outrageous and belittles the efforts of officers who had to serve 20 years, in order to qualify.

I would be interested to hear other peoples view on this?

 

[Chris Boonzaier]

Its not their fault, so maybe leave them with the medal and introduce a retroactive ribbon device "P" for probation, or "L" for learner ?

Why does the mint issue medals directly??

[bigjarofwasps]

I'm informed that there was a new member of staff employed at the mint, who didn't know the criteria? Although, I'm finding it difficult to grasp how the constabulary's in question didn't know the criteria either?

 

Edited August 10, 2015 by bigjarofwasps

[Chris Boonzaier]

Aye, but the REAL error is at the local constabulary?

But taking them away is a bit like a girl deciding she does not want to the morning AFTER the dirty dead... whats done is done, can't punish the bloke for it...

[Dave Wilkinson]

I'm informed that there was a new member of staff employed at the mint, who didn't know the criteria? Although, I'm finding it difficult to grasp how the constabulary's in question didn't know the criteria either?

 

You need to understand the process which takes place which eventually results in the Royal Mint "issuing" (if that is the correct word) a Police Long Service & Good Conduct Medal. That process starts with a Certificate being signed by the Commissioner/Chief Constable confirming that the Officer concerned has completed the required period of service and that during that period his/her conduct has been exemplary. The certificate is then then forwarded to the relevant Secretary of State who authorises the Royal Mint to provide the medal. The named medal is then sent to the authorising Secretary of State who completes a Certificate and then sends this, together with the named medal to the requesting police force who will then arrange its presentation. If there have been errors then those errors have been made by the respective police forces. I would suggest that the intimation that the fault lays with the Royal Mint and its staff is spurious, to say the least.

Dave     

 

 

 

Edited August 11, 2015 by bigjarofwasps

[Craig]

I agree with Dave. It has to be the fault of the force not the Royal mint. The way things are going you will get your long runner after 5 years as no one is going to stay much longer than that now.

[bigjarofwasps]

You need to understand the process which takes place which eventually results in the Royal Mint "issuing" (if that is the correct word) a Police Long Service & Good Conduct Medal. That process starts with a Certificate being signed by the Commissioner/Chief Constable confirming that the Officer concerned has completed the required period of service and that during that period his/her conduct has been exemplary. The certificate is then then forwarded to the relevant Secretary of State who authorises the Royal Mint to provide the medal. The named medal is then sent to the authorising Secretary of State who completes a Certificate and then sends this, together with the named medal to the requesting police force who will then arrange its presentation. If there have been errors then those errors have been made by the respective police forces. I would suggest that the intimation that the fault lays with the Royal Mint and its staff is spurious, to say the least.

Dave     

 

 

 

That was my roughly my understanding of how the process worked, HOWEVER, when I approached the Fed about the matter, who in turn approached HR. HR told the Fed that the error was on behalf of the Royal Mint who had a new employee in post, who was unaware of the correct criteria. When I questioned this discrepancy further, it was evident that no one other than myself really cared and that was the end of the matter. I was just curious to know whether I am in fact the only one who cares or not. As I've noted above to give one to an officer with a little over tens years seems to belittle the efforts of someone who has done the required 20. I would further like to add that this whole situation arose from the fact that previous military service was being included in police service to accrue the required 20 years. In one example I've come across 10 years army with 12 years police. If I am in fact the only one who cares, then I'll wind my neck in here and now!!

 

 

I agree with Dave. It has to be the fault of the force not the Royal mint. The way things are going you will get your long runner after 5 years as no one is going to stay much longer than that now.

I don't think it'll ever get quite that bad, HOWEVER, I strongly suspect that the job will become more along the lines of something you do for a few years to put onto a CV, rather than a job for life. But this is a topic for another thread...............

Edited August 11, 2015 by bigjarofwasps

[mariner]

First things first from a collecting point of view, Caveat Emptor? Or should one of these medals be confirmed would it be more valuable due to its rarety than an `genuine` one?

From a moral point of view, I think that once it was ascertained that the medal had been issued dare I say by mistake then it should be withdrawn until such time that the correct time period had been achieved?

I don't believe the Chief of the force(s) in question could be held to account as he/she just signs them off in bulk I would have thought, but certainly questions need to be asked on the administaration departs within the force(s) in question.

Lastly I don't believe for one minute that the Royal Mint had a new staff memeber who didn't know the criteria, there is certainly something fishy going on there!! I would suggest that the Royal Mint simply produce the medals they have been requested to produce and have no say or question any of these medals.

Further more I am very surprised that this error having come to light has simply been allowed to pass with no follow up or reclaim of the medals in question. I personally think that it devalues the whole medal process and beggars the question, if this is the case then why bother having a long service medal at all.

If this had related to campaign medals, would the awardee have been allowed to keep it, I strongly suggest not!

[peter monahan]

"I don't believe for one minute that the Royal Mint had a new staff memeber who didn't know the criteria, there is certainly something fishy going on there!! I would suggest that the Royal Mint simply produce the medals they have been requested to produce and have no say or question any of these medals."

I completely agree. This sounds to me like the RM's version of 'P*** off, sir.' and 'We don't much care whether you believe us.'  I also agree that it does, to some extent, detract from the awards to those who genuinely have the years in.  That said, taking them back is likely productive of more heat and fuss than its worth, unless it becomes clear that there are many many cases like this.

As to who cares, one could I suppose call the press.  It would almost certainly get on someone's radar and a published story would certainly produce much heat, if not much light, on the topic.  I suppose writing the Chief Constables wouldn't help but a letter might  have them taking a little more care in future.

Edited August 11, 2015 by peter monahan

[Craig]

BJOW,

          I know that when the Golden and Diamond Jubilee medals were issued Army service was counted towards 5 years service in a crown service. However no way does military service count towards the PLSGC medal nor any other Crown service be it military. ambulance, fire service whatever. It is for 20 years ( 22 for some of us ) exemplary service in the Police.

If you've got someone wearing one with 10 years service or below parading with someone with 19 years who hasn't thats just wrong. 

If the federation can't be bothered or your Civy Branch. I would speak to your local PCC. You never know they maybe an ex ranking Police officer and not some career politician and they may be annoyed that those that don't meet the criteria are getting medals they aren't entitled too.

[Jock Auld]

It needs sorting out or why bother to have the award in the first place?

They need to give them back until they have qualified, end of?

[Robin Lumsden]

Sign of the times.  :(

 

 

Edited August 11, 2015 by Robin Lumsden

[Deelibob]

This is the first I have heard of this matter but for what it is worth here is what I know of the issuing process. The HR (Personnel  as was) note the officer is entitled to the Exemplary Police Service Medal ( Known to all and sundry as the LS&GC) They make a list of those eligible, ie 20 years Service (22 years as was) they forward the list to the Professional Standards Department (Discipline Department as was) for a Check as to whether there  are any matters past, present or pending which would exclude an officer from being awarded the medal. If all clear the HR submit the names for approval to the Home Secretary in the case of most forces but in the case of Port, Tunnel Police etc to the Secretary of State for Transport, when approved the HR forward the list to the Royal mint who will strike, name and supply the medals to the Force in question. The Mint do not issue medals they supply them to the Police from a list supplied to them by the HR of the Force concerned. The fault for false information given to the Mint must lay with the HR. I speak from experience as I have been involved in the process.

[bigjarofwasps]

The process for the recommendation and award for the LSGC, from what I have learnt is extremely thorough  however it is only as good as to the information inputted, by HR. In the case I have uncovered it has certainly failed and I believe a whitewash has been enforced. HR have blamed the Royal Mint which as we know would appear to be blameless however. I wonder whether they are indeed aware of the mis awards of these medals and it is the HR department that have taken the decision to allow these medals to stand? I appear to have been fobbed off, which is disappointing, so I guess I'll never know. One thing I do know without any shadow of doubt is that at least one officer without the required 20 years service has been awarded the medal, the fact that nothing has been done to recover this medal,suggests that there are more and it would be just to hard to trace them all? How many forces this effects I do not know, but I do know that at least one is involved.

[Craig]

Have you spoken to the officer? If they are not aware of the criteria required they may wish to hand it back until they have the time in.

[Dave Wilkinson]

The process for the recommendation and award for the LSGC, from what I have learnt is extremely thorough  however it is only as good as to the information inputted, by HR. In the case I have uncovered it has certainly failed and I believe a whitewash has been enforced. HR have blamed the Royal Mint which as we know would appear to be blameless however. I wonder whether they are indeed aware of the mis awards of these medals and it is the HR department that have taken the decision to allow these medals to stand? I appear to have been fobbed off, which is disappointing, so I guess I'll never know. One thing I do know without any shadow of doubt is that at least one officer without the required 20 years service has been awarded the medal, the fact that nothing has been done to recover this medal,suggests that there are more and it would be just to hard to trace them all? How many forces this effects I do not know, but I do know that at least one is involved.

If this worries you to the great extent that it appears to, then I would suggest that you (or someone on your behalf) make a Freedom of Information request posing a number of questions, the answers of which, if provided, will enable you to satisfy yourself one way or the other. As an aside, the Commissioner carries the "can" for any departure from the norm as it is he who certifies that the criteria and terms of the Royal Warrant (as amended) is fulfilled.. This is notwithstanding the fact that he relies on information (in paper form) which is placed in front of him.

Dave.

 

Edited August 21, 2015 by Dave Wilkinson

[bigjarofwasps]

It's not so much that it worries me per say. It's the fact that it's happened, I've provided evidence of it and that no one seems overly concerned about it. To me it totally belittles the efforts of officers who have put the time in and saddens me to the point, of why bother having a Long Service medal at all.

[Tunneller]

It  used  to  be  a  Long  Service  Good  Conduct Medal  when  I  got mine.  It  always  confused me  because  i  was  always  in  the mire  for  something over my  30  years and  was  surprised  to  receive  mine. I  did  ask  for it  to  be delivered  through the internal  post  I  hasten  to  add 

Jim

[Paul R]

I am surprised that the award recipients did not realize the problem and correct it themselves.  It is not like it is a gold bar or increases pay, right?

[Yorkstone]

This can only be a HR mistake I have come across double medleing in my time due to this.

Now then following the Armed forces example they are awarded theirs now at 15 years instead of 22 surely it is now right to change emergency Services Awards  to match.

Police, HM Prisons,Fire Brigade. Ambulance 

it is also time to introduce Bars for extra Service I would suggest the same as the TA bars worn at present above. With Rosette on the Ribbon bar.

This would show length of service much clearer staff could have 35-40 years service in, stood next to a colleague with just 20  this would be a popular move and give a moral boost to senior staff in service!

Regards

Stephen

 

 

 

Edited December 11, 2016 by Yorkstone

[bigjarofwasps]

1 hour ago, Yorkstone said:

This can only be a HR mistake I have come across double medleing in my time due to this.

Now then following the Armed forces example they are awarded theirs now at 15 years instead of 22 surely it is now right to change emergency Services Awards  to match.

Police, HM Prisons,Fire Brigade. Ambulance 

it is also time to introduce Bars for extra Service I would suggest the same as the TA bars worn at present above. With Rosette on the Ribbon bar.

This would show length of service much clearer staff could have 35-40 years service in, stood next to a colleague with just 20  this would be a popular move and give a moral boost to senior staff in service!

Regards

Stephen

 

 

 

You'll get no argument from me with regards to reducing the time served or bars, both of which in my humble opinion are well justified.

 

Going back the wrongfully awarding, again I agree HR are entirely to blame. The Royal Mint only supplies what they are requested to. 

 

One should also consider the song and dance they made about the awarding criteria for two recent Jubilee medals.

Just to throw something else into the mix, I believe they should start awarding LSGC's with the new effigy to distinguish which part of the reign, the recipient served.

 

 

Going back to the bars, it will be interesting to see if more officers do 40+ years or whether less do 20, as I believe we'll see less of people doing the job for life and now it's just a few years to put onto your CV, like the armed forces has become? 

 

 

 

 

 

[Cerrig-Man]

To get one issued at all these days, is no mean feat..............

[bigjarofwasps]

A little foot note to this thread…..
 

The officer who inadvertently created this situation had 12 years military service and 8 years police service. Creating the “20 years” for their LSGC.

Some 5 years later (now with 13 years service), they got into a bit of bother, which resulted in them being dismissed from the force.
 

No idea whether they wear their LSGC, or indeed whether they’d want to. But the fact remains that somewhere out there, there is an LSGC that was issued 7 years too early.