Then quote from the relevant parts of the law, which you've already posted with appropriate links.
I've learned from experience that you misrepresent the law to suit your narrative, and I want to verify your claims with the actual law.
An Act to abolish the common law offences of riot, rout, unlawful assembly and affray and certain statutory offences relating to public order; to create new offences relating to public order; to control public processions and assemblies; to control the stirring up of racial hatred; to provide...
www.legislation.gov.uk
Of course nothing gives a person any right to do anything which causes a disruption or nuisance to others
I've learned from experience that you misunderstand the law to suit your narrative and refer to google, the dictionary and blogs with no authority to verify your claims and seem to be allergic to reading the actual law.
You and @wobs might want to do a bit of googling on the parachute regiment and signals before concluding he's a fraud.. I'm no expert of military uniform, and will wait for those on here with more knowledge, but I think he may have the right to wear the beret, given the time he served.
your source has no authority - as usual.
Read the law if you want to know - I've posted it.
there is no obligation beyond giving notice in writing. (sec 12 para 3)
and of course anyone intent on "It wouldn't be much of a protest if it didn't cause some disruption" commits a public order offence.
You and @wobs might want to do a bit of googling on the parachute regiment and signals before concluding he's a fraud.. I'm no expert of military uniform, and will wait for those on here with more knowledge, but I think he may have the right to wear the beret, given the time he served.
I would have thought it pretty simple. Wearing of a military uniform or part of is a privilege granted for special occasions and to those entitled to wear it.
But I don't suppose the MOD is much bothered about ex-servicies wearing uniform when or where it's not been granted.
And I don't suppose the civies police are much bothered either.
I believe the impersonating of an ex-service person is a criminal offence.
Military uniforms not to be worn without authority.
Hello everyone, it is very interesting to read your thoughts. I still think that military uniforms are a symbol of service and sacrifice, and should not be worn without permission.
Nevertheless, the police still have to publicise restrictions, often by making loudspeaker announcements, having Police Liaison Officers hand out leaflets and sharing information about the conditions on social media.
There have not been any conditions publicised (so far) other than sticking to the agreed route, which is standard practice.[/QUOTE
I would have thought it pretty simple. Wearing of a military uniform or part of is a privilege granted for special occasions and to those entitled to wear it.
But I don't suppose the MOD is much bothered about ex-servicies wearing uniform when or where it's not been granted.
And I don't suppose the civies police are much bothered either.
I believe the impersonating of an ex-service person is a criminal offence.
Ex servicemen with an honourable discharge are granted such permission. Additionally, you may be missing that according to the press, he served in the signals at a time when the signals and paras were part of the same. Assuming this is all correct, that may now give him the right to wear both the parachute regiment beret and the signals (blue) one.
Again.. always jumping to the conclusion that people are dishonest.
You may also want to give the act you quoted another read, you appear to have misunderstood it.
Hello everyone, it is very interesting to read your thoughts. I still think that military uniforms are a symbol of service and sacrifice, and should not be worn without permission.
Nevertheless, the police still have to publicise restrictions, often by making loudspeaker announcements, having Police Liaison Officers hand out leaflets and sharing information about the conditions on social media.
You need to be more precise. Which bit of what I've said do you thing is wrong?
A general, "it's all baloney" will simply not do. You need to be precise about what it is you're disputing.
It appears very straightforward and relatively simple.
If you're not an active service person, you need specific authority:
It shall not be lawful for any person not serving in Her Majesty’s Military Forces to wear without Her Majesty’s permission the uniform of any of those forces, or any dress having the appearance or bearing any of the regimental or other distinctive marks of any such uniform:
a) assuming all this is correct? Any idea if it is correct?
I suspect you're becoming confused between the Parachute Regiment, created in 1940, and the (Parachute) Signal Squadron formed in 1959. They were not connected to the Paras at that time. It wasn't until 1999 that the 16 Air Assault Brigade became connected to the Paras. And I'm pretty sure the fellow wasn't serving in 1999..
It looks like he may have fantasised the assault. Perhaps he fantasised his military service as well?
And you need to prove your claim :-
No jumping to conclusions on my part. i did a fair bit of research about him claiming to have been assaulted about 15.30 while he was being escorted from the station, but he was video'd happily elling poppies at 15.50.
I rasied the question about the veracity of his claim. I didn't claim he was ,lying, that was your misconception, and your subsequent false and dishonest accusation. But it's beginnig to look like my suspicions were correct.
with appropriate links.
