I thought I would risk something a little controversial again.
This is a photo of Roger Day, a carpenter from Leicestershire. He hit the papers recently when he was photographed taking part in a Remembrance Day Parade wearing some spectacular medals. This numbskull didn't think that if someone really had a set of medals like that they would be renowned.
I do understand that some military will be horrified that this man should do this, but feelings aside, has he harmed anyone? All he has really done is made a complete pratt of himself. His whole neighbourhood and everyone who knows him are aware of his stupidity. Isn't this enough? I wish we would move back towards a society where public shame is used to affect behaviour rather than the one we have where you can do almost what you like and no one is supposed to judge you.
So why have the police got involved in this and arrested him? We should file this under C for Cock and get on with investigating some of those robberies and burglaries that are sat on a desk gathering dust.
You'd think the public humiliation would be punishment aplenty. Of course, he's probably to stupid to recognize his own humiliation.
ReplyDeleteBut being stupid isn't illegal either, right?
Common sense policing?
ReplyDeleteThat would never work. I mean how could Labour set a target to measure 'common sense' performance against the fiscal input from the taxpayer?
I would have thought the ridicule he has brought upon himself would be enough. Plus if I was his employer, I would wonder about his reliability. But unless he has actually comitted a crime? What exactly? The only thing I can think of is some form of mis-representation...
ReplyDeleteIf you'd bothered to RTFA, you'd find that the crime is Unauthorised use of and dealing in decorations.
ReplyDeletePresumably by the same argument there would be no problem with me walking about dressed up as a Chief Constable? After all, who am I harming? It's not like the police do anything worthwhile or honourable, is it?
Rogerborg; do CCs do anything worthwhile or honourable?
ReplyDeleteAnyway, thiss bloke would be misfiled under C. He should be under D, for Dickhead or S for Slightly Mad.
Scratch a little further:
ReplyDelete"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)."
Source: pprune
Have scanned the Armed Forces Act 2006, but can't see an equivalent in there. It's over 300 pages and it is late. The whole Army Act 1955 was repealed and is listed there, but I haven't double-checked the date the 2006 act is in force.
Mr Day wore the medals on 11 Nov 2009 so if there is no offence under the 2006 act, and the 1955 Act was repealed by the new Act just 11 days before, then the police had no business arresting him at all and he may have a case against them for compensation.
It might be objected this would be an ordinary criminal matter. If so, the police should have perhaps used one of the fraud or deception categories, but as far as I can see, there is no criminal deception here because he has not derived a material benefit. This is like telling people you are ten years younger than you really are, but not so as to gain any benefit which would count for criminal purposes.
So basically, yes, looks like a monumental waste of time and money which might have been avoided by checking with a lawyer before plunging in to use antique law just because the bloke down the Legion was furious and nobody likes what Mr Day did.
Not all the bad things people do are matters for the police.
You shouldn't believe everything you read in the Grauniad. I can't see anything in the Armed Forces Act 2006 that suggests that it "replaces" the Army Act 1955, nor that the Army Act 1955 has been "repealed".
ReplyDeleteWhat I can see are amendments to the Army Act 1955, in Schedule 16, and several places where references to the Army Act 1955 in other legislation are changed to refer to the Armed Forces Act 2006. None of those changes effect section 197 of the Army Act 1955.
Do me a favour, will you? Go and meet the next plane load of service personnel coming back from Afghanistan and tell them that respect for military service is "antique" and far too trivial a matter for the police, CPS and courts to waste their valuable time on. Be sure to look each and every one of them eye as you do so.
I'm not reading the Guardian. I'm reading the Act. It's not secret and it's even in Wiki.
ReplyDeleteSee Section 17 Repeals and Revocations
Army Act 1955 (3 & 4 Eliz. 2 c. 18)
The whole Act.
It no longer applies. Two weeks earlier and it would have. If the police want to get him they'll have to use an act or other offence which exists and not make it up as they go along. Is there anything in the 2006 Act which you can see? I'm still looking.
Nobody is condoning it. The question is whether returning forces are best served by police protecting their property, families and rights or the police wasting their own time and the taxes paid by soldiers, chasing fantasists who are merely are rude and annoying but who may not come within the criminal law.
Respect for military service is undimmed. At no point did I say that "respect for military service is antique". Nor did I say it was trivial. Clearly it is morally of great importance. However, that still does not necessarily make it a police matter.
Not all the immoral things people do are a matter for the police e.g. adultery.
The reason I'm having trouble nailing down the in-force date is that the Armed Forces Act 2006 received Royal Assent on 8 November 2006 but came in to force in sections, under various Commencement Orders.
ReplyDeleteThe one which matters here is the one which brings schedule 17, the repeals, in to force. This schedule repeals the Army Act 1955 which the police were apparently advised to use, allegedly by the Joint Service Medal Office of the section. (Have yet to check if they are a reliable source of interpretation for these purposes).
This is the Commencement Order:
The Armed Forces Act 2006 (Commencement No. 5) Order 2009 Made 5th May 2009
Commencement
4. The whole Act, in so far as it is not already in force, except the following provisions—
(a) section 212(2),
(b) section 351 and Schedule 12, and
(c) paragraphs 121 and 225 of Schedule 16,
shall come into force on 31st October 2009.
EXPLANATORY NOTE
(This note is not part of the Order)
This Order brings provisions of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (“the Act”) into force.
Article 4 brings all the provisions of the Act that have not already been brought fully into force, except the provisions specified in that article, into force on 31st October 2009.
...
So, Section 17 is not excepted, therefore the repeals came in to effect when the Act was in force from 31 October 2009.
Mr Mitty's idiocy was on 11 November 2009. It may have been an offence under something else, but not the Act the police have tried to use which is of interest only to historians now.
Well argued. Should that be a police matter--I guess it would depend on the community and desires of its citizens.
ReplyDelete"I wish we would move back towards a society where public shame is used to affect behaviour rather than the one we have where you can do almost what you like and no one is supposed to judge you."
ReplyDeleteI don't think we'll ever get that back.
What we seem to have now is a society where every little tiny infraction is required to be resolved by the State. It's no wonder there's no time for anything else...
"Do me a favour, will you? Go and meet the next plane load of service personnel coming back from Afghanistan and tell them that respect for military service is "antique" and far too trivial a matter for the police, CPS and courts to waste their valuable time on. Be sure to look each and every one of them eye as you do so."
Thay've fought like lions in Afghanistan, but will crumple into helpless tears like six-year-old girls if some Walter Mitty character wears medals he isn't entitled to?
Odd...
It may be worth pointing out that once a complaint was made to the police and recorded on the great and mighty `system`, then a lumbering, bureacratic, juggernaut of a system kicks in. No longer is there a red button called `common sense and judgement`, that can be pushed to bring it to a halt. It lumbers and clanks its weary way, onwards and downwards, until it finishes its task when a little box is ticked, deep inside the Home Office.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking as someone who comes from a long line of imaginary war hero's I can understand this poor chaps wish to be seen as a real war hero. The descrimination that is rife within the the armed forces and society in general towards cowards and men with no balls is cruel to say the least. My great grandfather was shot at dawn during the first world war just because he ran the opposite way to the rest of the men in his platoon as they went over the top. He was suffering from a genetic defect that runs through our family bloodline which results in involuntary bowel and bladder movements when faced with danger.
ReplyDeleteI agree he was rather sad. As an ex serviceman and proud wearer of some 'real' medals myself I would like to see him charged with an offence, the same as the two individuals who urinated over war memorials. I understand the arguments that we have better things to do, most of my shifts day to day jobs are of little interest or importance beyond the aggrieved but it dosent mean we dont try and do our best or its not important to someone. Interestingly my shift were trying to work out wether he had commited an offence or not the other day and were having issues to...... New or amended legislation is always fun to try and enforce!
ReplyDeleteIt's tommy this and tommy that and 'chuck him out the brute'
ReplyDeletebut the saviour of his nation when the guns begin to shoot.
That is medals won in battle should not be casually dealt with.
Your calendar claims that the month is DecemEber. Widegets, whoe'd havee'em?
ReplyDeleteOh...one of my favorite topics- FAKE WAR VETS.
ReplyDeleteAs a vet myself, I have seen and heard of so many fakes in the US, that there are actually more people claiming to have earned the Medal of Honar than have been issued in all of our wars...it's the highest award anybody in our military can get.
In the US fake vets use up resources at Vet hospitals, show up at speaking events (often getting paid) and claim all kinds of things.
The worst ones claim PTSD, then do bad things, then make the real vets look bad. With all of our returning vets from Iraq (where I've been) and Afgan, the colleges are freaking out thinking they all suffer PTSD...when most are fine. It's the fakes showing up to get free college aid that are messing things up.
In the US it is a Federal crime to wear any military medal that was not issued to a person.
Faux Ron (Alamo or Man in a bag on the Torygraph) http://my.telegraph.co.uk/hthirsty did you not claim that your are an Old Harrovian? That your father commanded Gurkhas in '43? That one should find you trolling here is no small surprise, the scum of the thick blue line stay together (he was a failed special constable). Bramshill delenda est.
ReplyDeleteThis tit-head copper isn't worth all the good peoples comments on this toilet blog!
ReplyDeleteAm I being tracked as I write this eh - plod?
'Thinking policeman' You could'nt find your arese with both your hands!
Isn't anyone wondering how/why he's got a wife TEENTY FOUR years younger than him? Must tell a good story...
ReplyDeleteAnd let's face it, if, when he got togged up and looked in the mirror, he HONESTLY thought no-one would notice that he's got a string of medals wider than the mouth of the Mersey, then, well, he deserves all he gets. The TWAT.
There is only Statute law, Common Law and Bye Laws, wearing military medals is not an offence under any of them as far as I can see. Military Law does not apply to civilians. End of Story
ReplyDelete