Backpacker1uk said:You would have thought with all the medals beret and tie pin he would have gone for a regimental tie
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.
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?
Have a nice day
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