Rebutal on possible accusation of Walting!

Discussion in 'Finance, Property, Law' started by Coldstreamer82, Feb 20, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Firstly my apologies to any moderators of the forum if the post is considered innapropriate, or incorrect in any way. To this end I will allow removal should it be deemed necessary to do so. It is not intended to attack any member of the ARRSE community, although reference may be made to posts by other members.

    In brief, my activity on ARRSE is limited, mainly due work committments, etc. Also do have a minor eye condition, and VDU use is unconfortable on occasions for me. I made two recent posts, which did have a genuine nature. The first post arising from a query on an application from an ex-officer to a position with a company to which I am associated. The second arose from that enquiry as curious about my own replacement documents, this matter is now answered by Kentigern House, which in retrospect should have been first point of contact. The last post was just a reply to a question on use of uniform outside of military service.

    The three posts can be found as follows:

    ARRSE - Intelligence Cell; ARRSE; ARRSE

    My gripe - if I may just call it that, is the replies of a certain member as to my use of these enquires for Walting purposes.

    How can this be implied from such enquiries? Firstly I need to keep confidentiality of the applicant, and indeed my own, as the use of anonimity on this website is implied. Would you post your full servive number or service details for joe public to see. The website does not screen members so privacy is an issue

    Lastly, as stated in my rebutal on the post - re: use of 'R' insignia by retired officers, this was just interest regarding new regulations. But my statement on Privacy Laws is genuine, there is a need to oust walt's and the act of doing so is honourable, but is very clearly an area that can break certian privacy laws and, in extreme cases could be a prosecutable offence.

    Ok I'm not out for a rant, just remember a user may post a question out of a genuine interest in a reply. In my case I had not seen the new style A4 Disharge Documents - printed on crappy, non-watermarked - £3 a ream paper before; until I needed to replace my own documents.

    But in conclusion, the only persons with 'Warrant' to investigate allegations of inproper use of military uniform or medals, whereby impersonationg a pesron 'with a certificate of service or discharge' is the Police and Judicial system; certainly not an Internet Forum.

    I do again hope this post does not cause offence to any member of the ARRSE community, it is merely to draw attention to the fact that, replies can be taken personally if cause offence. Although banter and jokes are fine in certain contexts, they can also be innapropriate.
     
  2. Blind Pew walt.
     
  3. Dry your eyes, Princess, and develop a thicker skin.
     
  4. I was going for the 'King Harold' tack myself... :twisted:
     
  5. If you aint got thick skin, dont come on ARRSE, God I should know
     
  6. You'll have no choice in the matter! :p (You blind git.) :cyclopsani:
     
  7. Hey..!!.. is that your shed..??
     
  8. Err, you are a JP and you are not aware that there is no law of privacy in the UK - either in England and Wales or in Scotland? Yes, there is HRA Article 8 but then there is also Article 10. Yes, there is data protection, but I refer you to s29(1) and that both the wearing of non-entitled uniform and (for a short while) medals remain criminal offences.

    This is complete rot - any citizen may allege that a crime has been committed and even, subject to some limitations, take out private prosecutions - it's just that our powers of investigation and arrest are limited (as are those of the police, without a Warrant). Look at, for example, RSPCA inspectors, council traffic wardens, parks wardens etc - not a Warrant to the name of them.

    The reason that there are calls for stronger "Stolen Valour" laws is that people care strongly about these, even though law enforcement do not (possibly quite reasonably) see it as a priority. - c.f. politicians' expenses claims.

    I know magistrates / JPs are expected to not be legally qualified but this is worrying.

    And I tried to answer your question sensibly :?
     
  9. oldbaldy

    oldbaldy LE Moderator Good Egg (charities)
    1. Battlefield Tours

    In the past these individuals have acted with impunity because of the difficulty in reseaching their 'story'. The advent of the internet & dicussion forums has made checking & 'outing' inviduals much easier. The police may the ones to take action in the court but if someone is 'outed' on an internet forum it quickly gets in the newspaper and without that the judicial system would not act.
    The two go hand in hand & the 'Walts' knowing how easy it is for stories to be checked my help to deter them. A job well done in either event in my book.
     
  10. All ARRSERs: I think I may be able to answer the specific reasons for Coldstreamer's infrequent activity on ARRSE and the cause of his 'minor eye' problems.

    £20 says he's got hairy palms as well!

    Linky
     
  11. Ok I am sending my sincere apologies to all members concerned, I have made fast and sometimes irrational statements without prior thought, and indeed one has to be thick skinned on this site. Maybe and I am making this against myself, being a bit of an old fart, just not used to it any more.

    Yes a very rash statement and indeed ill-conceived statement on my behalf, although in my own defence reference is not made to one Privacy Act but smaller laws which protect privacy in certain instances.

    ECHR Artical 8 - Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

    Eroded by (yes this is not a Law forum!): electronic monitoring of individuals. Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants) Act 2004; Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000; and Coroners and Justice Bill 2009.

    Freedom to communicate in private has been effectively extinguished by RIPA laws. Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Communications Data) (Additional Functions and Amendment) Order 2006/1878

    Freedom of Expression, ECHR, Article 10 “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

    Again a good argument on behalf of the poster, and I agree with later postings the use of an Internet Forum is a useful place to discuss the possible walting of an individual (when already in public domain).

    My reply is as follows, when one is considering posting information or seeking information about an individual, and yes its a bit way out - just think about it rationally though.

    It is a criminal offence to elicit or attempt to elicit information about a member of the armed forces, the intelligence services or a constable which is likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism. Counter-Terrorism Act 2008

    Ok no defence on that statement except again rash ans ill-conceived on my behalf, the reference was to the accusations bit in outing a walt; if that person was indeed genuine. this opens a myriad of claims against the person making the accusation(s).

    Finally - to end - and perhaps open up yet another discussion. For reference, the act of wearing unauthorised uniform has been covered elsewhere. The exact laws on medals are as follows:

    While it is not an offence to own medals which have not been awarded to you, it is illegal under section 197 of the Army Act 1955 to use these to pretend to be a member of the armed forces. (This act will be superseded by the Armed Forces Act 2006 in November.)

    The act makes wearing any military decoration, badge, wound stripe or emblem without authority a criminal offence. It is also illegal to wear a replica "as to be calculated to deceive", and to falsely represent yourself as someone entitled to wear any such award.

    Intention is all. Those, such as pop stars Cheryl Cole, Chris Martin and Sgt Pepper-era Beatles, who don military regalia for fashion would not be culpable.

    Wher JP's, Magistrates etc. would be more favourable to custodial sentencing and not community orders (as in Roger Day); is in the case of people impersonating members of the armed forces to defraud others - to give them money for charity or to get a bed for the night."

    There is clearly laws there under Theft Act(s), Fraud, Deception, obtaining pecuniary advantage etc. ' Stolen Valour' yes should be an offence as in USA, and other countries.
     
  12. Command_doh

    Command_doh LE Book Reviewer

    Why are you referencing the Asylum and Immigration Act 2004? This has nothing to do with privacy laws, rather it refers to our borders and who qualifies for freedom of movement, or who does not qualify for entry.

    This is all rather spurious, and my 'meter' is twitching profusely at this point...
     
  13. Interesting - and thanks for link - this is thruth (trust me at your will) that was not posted by me - perhaps my cnut 2nd godson, and it will be being removed forthwith, if they have such a policy!

    But if wanting to do a profile check - my crap music tastes are on Last FM and semi-professional on Genealogy Freelancers

    As with with whats worn under ma kilt - nothing sir - I keep both my wrists and everything else in perfect working order!

    Come on please guys - I am thick skinned and up for a laugh - but is taking the P** this far not in bad taste - in short I could take the name (I woudn't) of any user here and create an online account in seconds.

    Be assured will be thoroughly investigating that link provided, as will Strathclyde Police - as there is an ongoing investigation on hacking of my Internet, Online Gaming Accounts, and Credit Card fraud, another reason, for limited use of Interent of late.