SAS imposter rumbled
Interesting post LFFC - thanks. I've been involved with medals for over 30 years now and I'd never heard of that law before. Interesting that it's part of the Army Act yet would still appear to apply to civilians. Might make a few Walts pause and think if they go through with it and actually prosecute this guy. I see he lives in Warwickshire - a couple of hundred hours community service at Selly Oak Hospital might introduce him to some real heroes - if he didn't die of shame first of course.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Out there somewhere
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slight correction to the previous post Earl Shilton is in Leicestershire between Hinckley & Leicester. Bedworth where he was caught out is in Warwickshire.
CS
CS
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 59
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Knowing the way the police work, some PC has sat down with the Police National Legal Database or the Police Visual Handbook or whatever to try and find an offence that could be used here. Havign found one, they won't have realised that the offence is under the Army Act....does the Army Act apply to Civilians? If so then just think of all the military specific offences that could be applied to civilians.
I would wait to see if he is actually prosecuted and for what offence.
I would wait to see if he is actually prosecuted and for what offence.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: North of Down There!
Age: 52
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Prosecuted or not at least he's been 'officially' rumbled.
I hope someone who knows him has a 'quiet word' and perhaps a donation to one of the forces charities as a way of appology is in order.
Then just go away quietly.
I hope someone who knows him has a 'quiet word' and perhaps a donation to one of the forces charities as a way of appology is in order.
Then just go away quietly.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sweden
Age: 56
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ November 4 Google Army Act 1955 Part 197 and:-
197. Unauthorised use of and dealing in decorations, etc. — (1) Any person who, in the United Kingdom or in any colony,—
(a)
without authority uses or wears any military decoration, or any badge, wound stripe or emblem supplied or authorised by [F18the Defence Council], or
(b)
uses or wears any decoration, badge, wound stripe, or emblem so nearly resembling any militarydecoration, or any such badge, stripe or emblem as aforesaid, as to be calculated to deceive, or
(c)
falsely represents himself to be a person who is or has been entitled to use or wear any such decoration, badge, stripe or emblem as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection,
shall be guilty of an offence against this section:
Provided that nothing in this subsection shall prohibit the use or wearing of ordinary regimental badges or of brooches or ornaments representing them.
(2) Any person who purchases or takes in pawn any naval, military or air-force decoration awarded to anymember of Her Majesty’s military forces, or solicits or procures any person to sell or pledge any suchdecoration, or acts for any person in the sale or pledging thereof, shall be guilty of an offence againstthis section unless he proves that at the time of the alleged offence the person to whom the decoration wasawarded was dead or had ceased to be a member of those forces.
(3) Any person guilty of an offence against this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a finenot exceeding [F19level 3 on the standard scale] or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both such a fine and such imprisonment.
Annotations:
Amendments (Textual)
F18
Words substituted by S.I. 1964/488, Sch. 1 Pt. I
F19
Words substituted by virtue of (E.W.) Criminal Justice Act 1982 (c. 48, SIF 39:1), ss.38, 46 and (S.) Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 (c. 21, SIF 39:1), ss. 289F, 289G and (N.I.) S.I.1984/703 (N.I.3), arts. 5, 6
197. Unauthorised use of and dealing in decorations, etc. — (1) Any person who, in the United Kingdom or in any colony,—
(a)
without authority uses or wears any military decoration, or any badge, wound stripe or emblem supplied or authorised by [F18the Defence Council], or
(b)
uses or wears any decoration, badge, wound stripe, or emblem so nearly resembling any militarydecoration, or any such badge, stripe or emblem as aforesaid, as to be calculated to deceive, or
(c)
falsely represents himself to be a person who is or has been entitled to use or wear any such decoration, badge, stripe or emblem as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection,
shall be guilty of an offence against this section:
Provided that nothing in this subsection shall prohibit the use or wearing of ordinary regimental badges or of brooches or ornaments representing them.
(2) Any person who purchases or takes in pawn any naval, military or air-force decoration awarded to anymember of Her Majesty’s military forces, or solicits or procures any person to sell or pledge any suchdecoration, or acts for any person in the sale or pledging thereof, shall be guilty of an offence againstthis section unless he proves that at the time of the alleged offence the person to whom the decoration wasawarded was dead or had ceased to be a member of those forces.
(3) Any person guilty of an offence against this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a finenot exceeding [F19level 3 on the standard scale] or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both such a fine and such imprisonment.
Annotations:
Amendments (Textual)
F18
Words substituted by S.I. 1964/488, Sch. 1 Pt. I
F19
Words substituted by virtue of (E.W.) Criminal Justice Act 1982 (c. 48, SIF 39:1), ss.38, 46 and (S.) Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 (c. 21, SIF 39:1), ss. 289F, 289G and (N.I.) S.I.1984/703 (N.I.3), arts. 5, 6
Interesting. If the plod have charged Mr Day under the Army Act 1955, he may well find himself released in fairly short order.
I'm lead to believe the said Act became defunct as of 0001 hrs on 30 Oct 09, to be replaced by the Armed Forces Act 2006 (AFA06).
I'm lead to believe the said Act became defunct as of 0001 hrs on 30 Oct 09, to be replaced by the Armed Forces Act 2006 (AFA06).
Legals
There is no Army Act anymore. The three services are now subject to a single disciplinary code as from ... a little while ago...
I have not seen it nor do i know how it is presented. However, I shall miss Section 69 of the Air Force Act "Conduct to the Prejudice of good order and air force discipline...." That would catch you if nothing else did.
The same is true of service writing - now called "Defence Writing". No more: 'Sir, I have the honour' and that sort of stuff and they've done away with the wonderfully named: 'Air Force Board Letter of Grave Displeasure' which always began: 'Sir, I am commanded by the Air Force Board of the Defence Council to express their lordships grave displeasure' and then went on to tell you why you were a plonker!
How times have changed.
I have not seen it nor do i know how it is presented. However, I shall miss Section 69 of the Air Force Act "Conduct to the Prejudice of good order and air force discipline...." That would catch you if nothing else did.
The same is true of service writing - now called "Defence Writing". No more: 'Sir, I have the honour' and that sort of stuff and they've done away with the wonderfully named: 'Air Force Board Letter of Grave Displeasure' which always began: 'Sir, I am commanded by the Air Force Board of the Defence Council to express their lordships grave displeasure' and then went on to tell you why you were a plonker!
How times have changed.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Africa
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lucky for the museum that was after the medal belonging to Rfn Pun, VC that the Army Act no longer applies. I seem to recall some shaky dealings to get him to deliver his VC into their care.
Or am I mistaken? All that beer has side effects, you know. It makes you los... Oh look. A squirrel.....
Or am I mistaken? All that beer has side effects, you know. It makes you los... Oh look. A squirrel.....
Cardinal Puff
Somewhat confused by your post. I understand that Rifleman Pun's medals have been in the Gurkha Museum at Winchester since 2003. Whether they were donated by him or purchased by the museum is of no relevance to the above Act as the offence only occurs if an attempt is made to induce someone to sell their medals while they are still serving. On many occasions over the years I had to check very carefully that the guy offering to sell me his South Atlantic Medal, for example, was not still serving, as I certainly didn't want to shell out several hundred pounds for a medal only to see the SIB walk in and confiscate it the next day (as has happened to less careful or more unscrupulous dealers).
Somewhat confused by your post. I understand that Rifleman Pun's medals have been in the Gurkha Museum at Winchester since 2003. Whether they were donated by him or purchased by the museum is of no relevance to the above Act as the offence only occurs if an attempt is made to induce someone to sell their medals while they are still serving. On many occasions over the years I had to check very carefully that the guy offering to sell me his South Atlantic Medal, for example, was not still serving, as I certainly didn't want to shell out several hundred pounds for a medal only to see the SIB walk in and confiscate it the next day (as has happened to less careful or more unscrupulous dealers).
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 59
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Dual ground for that. I assumed the Army act applied to the Army only.
But if it has been superceeded then it wouldn't be the first time that the police have tried to prosecute somene using out of date legislation.
But if it has been superceeded then it wouldn't be the first time that the police have tried to prosecute somene using out of date legislation.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 59
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having now checked PNLD myself - I am still of the opinion that the Army Act does not apply in this case as:
The Army Act 1955 and the Air Force Act 1955 contain parallel provisions with respect to the relevant Force, substituting air force for army, airman for soldier and similar changes.
The Acts create offences in relation to army and air force personnel, define the jurisdiction of courts and set out procedures for the processing of deserters and absentees.
The Acts create offences in relation to army and air force personnel, define the jurisdiction of courts and set out procedures for the processing of deserters and absentees.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BATH
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sas Imposter
Old Duffer. Very interesting; the letter to which you refer was for many years included in the Standing Orders of every RAF unit. I seem to recall that it was known as the S10f letter, bacause that was the secretarial department of the then Air Ministry Department that had originally drafted it. It dealt mainly with social naughties such as adultery, and otherwise bringing the Service into disrepute.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A bit of thread drift here.
I am sure someone will be able to quote me the exact rule on a question, but also, I would like other posters opinions on a matter.
At next years remembrance parade, I was planning to wear my fathers medals, in honour of his service (medals on the right side, not left).
He now has alzheimers, and is a shadow of his former self, and would not remember why he was at the parade, or remember it afterwards.
What do fellow PPRuNer's think of this practice?
I am sure someone will be able to quote me the exact rule on a question, but also, I would like other posters opinions on a matter.
At next years remembrance parade, I was planning to wear my fathers medals, in honour of his service (medals on the right side, not left).
He now has alzheimers, and is a shadow of his former self, and would not remember why he was at the parade, or remember it afterwards.
What do fellow PPRuNer's think of this practice?
Barnstormer,
FWIW, and just my opinion, but as long as they were on the RHS, then it would be a particularly brave / anal / cold-hearted individual who would challenge you. You would probably find that if you wore them on the RHS, nobody would bat an eyelid and would probably just assume that they belonged to a deceased relative.
Sometimes I am almost tempted to wear mine on LHS and my late grandfather's on the RHS as his last surviving blood relative. Then again, having been a SNCO in the Paras during WW2, his little haul would put mine to shame, so perhaps not
Crack on, I'm sure it would be fine.
FWIW, and just my opinion, but as long as they were on the RHS, then it would be a particularly brave / anal / cold-hearted individual who would challenge you. You would probably find that if you wore them on the RHS, nobody would bat an eyelid and would probably just assume that they belonged to a deceased relative.
Sometimes I am almost tempted to wear mine on LHS and my late grandfather's on the RHS as his last surviving blood relative. Then again, having been a SNCO in the Paras during WW2, his little haul would put mine to shame, so perhaps not
Crack on, I'm sure it would be fine.
Pretty sure we are talking of a convention rather than a strict rule here, but I know you want to get it right. I assume the point is as your father is still alive it would normally be he who would be wearing the medals, but I am pretty sure that in the circumstances no-one could find any objection to what you propose.
I'd say go ahead and do it, and honour your father's service in your own way.
I'd say go ahead and do it, and honour your father's service in your own way.