Charges dropped against 'Veteren', now he seeks damages

flymo

War Hero
Perhaps the CPS should have come on here and asked for advice.

<aside>
Anyone else here notice the age diference? Father figure ...?
</aside>
 

Troglodyte

Lantern Swinger
IMHO, the guy is as guilty as sin and if I EVER have the pleasure of running across him I will embrace him with a beautiful Kirkby kiss, At least then he can REALLY shed his blood and claim a battle injury, the TWAT. :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:
 
I am a staunch defender of justice and was horrified to see the cock up made here. The man clearly is a sad pathetic individual with low self esteem and would be better being vindicated with a tour of Hedley Court.

What damages do you think he would be entitled to? What has he lost? His reputation? I think not. His legal fees. Yes. Well that is the CPS's fault for getting it wrong.

So stop getting your knickers in a twist over this.
 

security_geek

Lantern Swinger
Backpacker1uk said:
You would have thought with all the medals beret and tie pin he would have gone for a regimental tie

Dear Lord! not only a Walt but improperly dressed as well. Does this blaggard know no shame.

The Horror, the horror..............

Just as a thought has anyone offered him a loan of the mess Webley? Just so he can restore his honour? :D
 

paybobsquarepants

Lantern Swinger
Who cares? Who really gives a damn? He bought medals (anyone can do this) He wore them in a way that anyone who had been awarded the medals would. He marched with people who had fought (perhaps) in a war or conflicts (perhaps). He wore a beret (anyone can do this) He claimed to have served and seen action - so he told a lie to journalists - whoopeee do.


How much taxpayers money, how much police and court time has been wasted on this case?

So he was not in the regiments he claimed - so he was not awared the medals he wore. He did not storm the enemy machine gun posts stark naked.

Why are we grtting so het up about this when there area lot more things in the real world worth getting excited about - distract the peasants.
 

Blackrat

War Hero
Moderator
Book Reviewer
"Mr Day’s wife Maxine, 38, said: “We are absolutely delighted with the result. My husband said all along that he did nothing illegal."

Not according to the law love. It's because the CPS had a bad hair day that he got off.


“Morally he might have lied but in the eyes of the law he is innocent.â€

See above


"Mr Day added: “I am vindicated. I am now considering taking legal action against all those who muddied my name.â€

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah! You muddied it yourself mate attending a parade wearing tin you were not entitled to, you walting twat. Is this bloke for real?
 
paybobsquarepants said:
Who cares?......Why are we grtting so het up about this when there area lot more things in the real world worth getting excited about - distract the peasants.

Because those who are genuinely awarded the medals that he has worn do not deserve the insult that he has made. Because the UK gives medals for service in its name. Because if no fuss is made when people like him insult those who have served, then there is no point in awarding medals in the first place. If he only chose to wear the LS&GC and Queen's Golden Jubilee Medals (the only ones I am entitled to) maybe it wouldn't be so bad, but I'd still feel bad because I earned them.
 

Rumrat

War Hero
IDOITDEEPER said:
sgtpepperband said:
IDOITDEEPER said:
asst_dep_to_dep_asst said:
That anyone else was responsible for muddying his name shows just what a twat he is, but not reframing the charges under the relevant Act shows the basest disrespect by the CPS, or whoever was responsible for the cock-up.

Due to the the repeal of the Army Act 1955 the CPS and the police are now totally buggered! Unfortunately there is no provision under AFA 2006 or any other current Act to prosecute this type of behaviour. Barking innit!

Part 5 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (Transitional Provisions, etc.) Order 2009 and the Armed Forces Regulations 2009 refer. Details contained in JSP 830 (Manual of Service Law) Chapter 6 Part 8 (Transitional Guidance) regarding jurisdiction of offences committed before 31 Oct 2009.

However as the AFA 06 covers service personnel still subject to service discpline and some civilians, I still maintain that the Uniform Act 1894 should have used to charge the offender...

How very predictable.

Edited to avoid crayoning over a subject in current affairs.

Can't see any mention of medals specifically in here Sgtpepperband can you?

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/conten...064485&ActiveTextDocId=1064485&filesize=10528

Have a nice day

IDOITDEEPER

Well in the sixties and early seventies every dick and his uncle would have been prosecuted under this act. Military gear was a must have for any aspiring hippy with flower power bending. And they wore the medals.
So have to go with IDID on this one. 8O
 

Rumrat

War Hero
slim said:
OK then he can be prosecuted under the armed forces act which replaced the act under which he was charged.

No, double jeopardy, cannot be charged with the same crime twice, even reworded.
 
Rumrat said:
Well in the sixties and early seventies every dick and his uncle would have been prosecuted under this act. Military gear was a must have for any aspiring hippy with flower power bending. And they wore the medals.
So have to go with IDID on this one. 8O

Hippies wore military gear and medals, granted, but they didn't wear them to remembrance parades and the like, which this twonk did!
 

Latest Threads

New Posts

Top