Wearing of uniforms and rank insignia

[Great War truck]

I understand that the wearing of any uniform with rank and insignia that the owner is not entitled to is illegal. What is the basis of this law. Does this count for all military uniforms since when? For example, if i were to wear the uniform of a corporal from the Napoleonic wars am i in breech of the law. If i was to dress as a Roman Centurion would i be in breech of the same law? How about a WW2 Italian Officers uniform, or a 6 day war Israeli Officers uniform?

 

I understand the issue with wearing of medals and that is perfectly reasonable, but i do find it strange that I would be breaking a law if i were to wear a uniform of a WW2 US Army Seargant.

 

Any thoughts please?

 

Tim (too)

[Tony B]

There is one of the Official Secret Acts, the 1914 I think that describes 'Persenation' Making it an act of treason to wear the Kings uniform while attempting to pass one self of as an officer. Shall ~I bnook you the room next to mine in the Tower? I know it an offence to burn a US flaf, but not a Union flag.

[6 X 6]

Great War Truck, I'm sorry to have to confirm that in all of the examples you have given you would indeed be acting illegally under the new Fancy Dress in a Public Place laws. It is not so much that wearing fancy dress is in it's self anti-social but more the need to provide the Police with more "soft" crime to occupy themselves with instead of the sort of crime they used to deal with

like robbery, stabbings etc. Step out in your Centurions outfit and you'll be tazered.

[Tony B]

Now THAT I'd pay a guinea a minute to see!:shocked::-D

[Snapper]

I don't think the issue is illegality it's the general malady of the medals that has always caused most unhappiness in the annual discussions we have. I don't think we need necessarily to cover too much old ground. Medals will always be a big humungus NO. Rank isn't an issue, it all goes with what you portray. If you dress as a WW1 soldier you can hardly be accused of wearing things you are not entitled to anymore than you would be togged out as a roman centurion. The nearer the date the more the distaste. I don't wear uniforms, I can do generic lightweights and a green t-shirt. But no badges or anything. I sometimes wear my Dad's ID tags in memory of him and if I had a lapelled shirt to my name I might use his cloth unit slides. I'll leave them in the tin.

 

Barnes

[Guest catweazle (Banned Member)]

Great War Truck, I'm sorry to have to confirm that in all of the examples you have given you would indeed be acting illegally under the new Fancy Dress in a Public Place laws. It is not so much that wearing fancy dress is in it's self anti-social but more the need to provide the Police with more "soft" crime to occupy themselves with instead of the sort of crime they used to deal with

like robbery, stabbings etc. Step out in your Centurions outfit and you'll be tazered.

Quite right to:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Enigma]

I wear WW2 uniforms.

I know a lot of veterans, last Oct. when 53rd Welsh veterans were in the Netherlands I didn't wear it at request of the remembrance committee.

 

The veterans asked why I didn't wear it and so I explained.

They thought it was a shame I agreed NOT to wear it.

 

They know me and realise I do this to honor them.

 

Still I can understand people might get upset.

KEY is to ASK the person about his/her intentions before passing judgment.

 

Medals, citations and such? I don't wear them.

I do have a experienced drivers badge on a Battledress, but I do drive WW2 MV's so I think its ok.

If I had a US Class A I would wear it but not with CIB, medals and presidential citations.

 

Rank? At least have the capacitys of a leader and know how to give orders and such.

 

I try to remember to take of my hat indoors.

 

Never heard about drinking/smoking with a headdress on as being wrong.

I presume drinking alcohol and not soft drinks?

 

(BTW, I don't drink alcohol or smoke).

O yes, I got drafted but was in the service for about 2 months on paper and 3 weeks actually present. When I'm asked "were you a soldier" I say I was a ESDS (Extremely Short Duration Soldier).

 

Maybe a good idea to have a sticky somewhere about military etiquette?

[Markheliops]

As far as I am aware - there is a crimminal offence of trying to impersonate a member of her Majesty's Armed Forces.

 

As I understand it - the offence would be judged as in the intent to commit a crime whilst posing as a soldier, airman, etc.

 

Markheliops -

[Runflat]

The Uniform Act 1894 (as amended) is a good place to start if you're worried about the legal position.

 

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Primary&PageNumber=90&NavFrom=2&parentActiveTextDocId=1064485&ActiveTextDocId=1064485&filesize=10528

 

There isn't much to it, so here it is in full:

 

1 This Act may be cited for all purposes as the Uniforms Act 1894.

 

2(1) 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: Provided that this enactment shall not prevent any persons from wearing any uniform or dress in the course of a stage play performed in a place duly licensed or authorised for the public performance of stage plays, or in the course of a music hall or circus performance, or in the course of any bona fide military representation.

 

2(2) If any person contravenes this section he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

 

3 If any person not serving in Her Majesty’s Naval or Military Forces wears 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, in such a manner or under such circumstances as to be likely to bring contempt upon that uniform, or employs any other person so to wear that uniform or dress, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month.

 

4. In this Act—

“Her Majesty’s Military Forces”has the same meaning as in the Army Act 1955;

“Her Majesty’s Naval Forces”has the same meaning as in the Naval Discipline Act 1957.

 

 

So, looks ok if you are a lion tamer or doing a "bona fide military representation" and are not bringing contempt on the uniform. So, behave yourself whilst dressed up.

 

Normal caveats apply (I'm not a lawyer, am not providing legal advice, etc.). I imagine the same goes for anyone else that provides an opinion on this string.

Edited June 4, 2008 by Runflat

[No Signals]

As Mark more or less gets the gist of, the issue refers to wearing the 'current' uniform of the UK armed forces. It does not have to be within the context of trying to commit some other crime though, the doing it is an offence in itself if you are not a serving member and you wear 'current' gear. I believe this also stretches to being an offence if you are a serving member and wear a 'current' uniform of another branch of the services. Anything which the law might interpret as 'current' within the context of passing oneself as a serving member will be enough to get a conviction if they are of that mind. Anything which is obviously 'antique' or obsolete is not an offence as there is an obvious case of not passing oneself off as ..etc. Within the context of Living History or re-enactment then it should not be a problem, but if you were to wear reasonably recent gear and walk past the gates at Colchester etc dont be surprised if you end up in the glasshouse .

[Great War truck]

Thanks for that. That is a great help. I have reproduced the most relevant part below:

 

1. Short title.This Act may be cited for all purposes as the Uniforms Act 1894.

2. Military uniforms not to be worn without authority.— (1) 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: Provided that this enactment shall not prevent . . . . . . F1 any persons from wearing any uniform or dress in the course of a stage play performed in a place duly licensed or authorised for the public performance of stage plays, or in the course of a music hall or circus performance, or in the course of any bona fide military representation.

 

It seems to me that as long as we are acting in the course of a "bona fide military representation" (Bona fide - def Oxford dictionary - honest intention) that we can wear uniforms of Her Majestys Miliatary Forces without fear of braking the law. Nothing in there to mention badges of rank. I wont mention medals as i think it totally wrong to wear something like that which you are not entitled to.

 

I would quite agree with the comment about obscelence. I can see no problem would be raised with the wearing of obsolete uniform, although current uniform might raise problems although apparently allowed within the Law if worn for a bona fide military representation. You would also of course be likely to be knocked about by any serving soldiers if they saw you doing it.

 

Tim (too)

[Redcap]

Hmph. I've been beaten to the post (sic).

 

Yep, the governing legislation is, indeed, the Uniforms Act 1894. These days, I would imagine it would only be invoked if someone was bringing the uniform and thus the services into disrepute, or the use of the uniform did not meet with the approval of, or at least understanding of, certain powers that be. Use your own imagination as to what that reson might be, lol

 

As to rank; in UK law there is no specific legislation that I am aware of making it an offence to wear badges of rank, but it is commonly thought to be rather poor judgement and taste to stick on a badge of rank you have not earned; as with all things, of course, there are exceptions to the rule of thumb, and this said, if a living history group democratically votes for someone to hold the honourary post of a particular rank, then I suppose it might, while being questionable, be tolerable, unless said person tries to lord it over everyone else; then it'd be just plain obnoxious!

 

It's a pretty grey area, I'm afraid.

[chevpol]

I agree to not showing any rank that you are not entitled to, I am ex Adult Warrant Officer ATC, so I suppose I could wear it, but I wont, also, I would not wear any medals etc that I am not entitled to, if I had a long service medal from ATC or Royal Observer Corps days, that would be different.

 

Mark

[AlienFTM]

WRT badges of rank. The Queen's Commission and the Queen's Warrant (as held by commissioned and warrant officers respectively) are granted by the Queen (read as King as appropriate).

 

I once knew a man who bought a very good condition officer pattern raincoat from an Army Surplus Store which retained the Captain's pips on the shoulders. He was approached by the younger of two policemen who spotted him dressed this way (it seems the senior constable had given his junior the task) and asked if he were a Captain in the Army. When he replied in the negative, the policeman wanted to charge him under the uniforms act, only for my friend to ask if he LOOKED like he was impersonating a policeman (hair so far past the shoulder it was beyond the pale even for a cavalry officer). The policeman had to concede so my friend put him (and his colleague who had by now joined) in his place and walked off.

 

It is my understanding that officer / warrant officer rank badges bearing the Queen's crown, Tate&Lyle, etc are somewhat more severely looked upon that mere NCO chevrons.

[LeeEnfield]

When with Bedford, at events, I do wear uniform, correct for period i'm portraying, badged up as such; To ME, the wearing of either more modern kit, or an approximation of a uniform, would go against what i, along with members of our group, are trying to do, namly keep history alive, as much as possible.

I do not wear decorations, or rank, as I'm not entitled to either, and I'll admit to this point does make me look at CERTAIN reenactors, in a poor way;.....to see a young guy, wandering around with officers rank up, swagger stick, etc,...to me, gives the wrong impression, even if the group he belongs to has sanctioned it...........As already said, Rank is granted by the serving monarch.........and is usually earned.

 

Comes down to doing a little, (lot) research into who you want to portray, a) its fun, and a great way of finding out snippets otherwise missed, and b) when asked, (and you will be,) you can explain why you are wearing what ever, etc.

 

(both above stood me in good stead a while ago, as when dressed as a canadian infantryman, in italian campaign, was 'bawled out', by old soldier re my webbing not being blanco'd;.........was able to inform him, in a friendly way, that the canadians didn't blanco their webbing in that theatre,..........they left that to the brits. :-D. Turns out he served out there, and hadn't seen that, but said 'bloody good idea, wish we'd not had to do it.'......)

 

Andy

[79x100]

It would seem that if you badged up the uniform in tribute to 90% of the County Regiments who fought in the two world wars, you'd be O.K. under the act as they've all been disbanded and you couldn't be accused of impersonating anything. (More's the pity !)

[Redcap]

Actually, no, because of s.2(1) UA 1894, it is still a uniform that was issued on behalf of the crown to the Armed Forces. I'm afraid that, as with all things, it's a matter of interpretation.

 

s2.(1)UA1894 is a strange creature. It makes no comment about past or present, which means that all British military uniforms, past and present, are covered.

 

Lets look at the Act again.

1. This Act may be cited for all purposes as the Uniforms Act 1894.

Easy enough.

2.(1) 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: Provided that this enactment shall not prevent any persons from wearing any uniform or dress in the course of a stage play performed in a place duly licensed or authorised for the public performance of stage plays, or in the course of a music hall or circus performance, or in the course of any bona fide military representation.

This last part is OUR specific defence in law as Living History Re-enactors:"or in the course of any bona fide military representation."

2.(2) If any person contravenes this section he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

Nope, we have a get out of trouble clause in s.2(1) above

3. If any person not serving in Her Majesty’s Naval or Military Forces wears 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, in such a manner or under such circumstances as to be likely to bring contempt upon that uniform, or employs any other person so to wear that uniform or dress, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month.

However, here's the bite: You act in a way that makes someone, doesn't matter who, believe that you are bringing contempt (or disrepute etc) onto the uniform, then bingo: You just committed an offence, and can be arrested by Police (remember, even though it's only a month of jail time that you could be given by a magistrate, it still makes it an indictable offence, and thus allows the Police to nick you, not, to be sure, that they'd really want to. The paperwork on any arrest is a complete and utter bitch these days).

 

Hope that clears things up

Edited June 8, 2008 by Redcap
missed off some important puctuation (oops!)

[79x100]

Strange to think that when the 1894 act was framed, the British Army was wearing (mostly) red coats and that since the late 1930s they have generally worn something that looks more like overalls. I reckon that Battledress would be exempt under the act because it doesn't look like a uniform, it looks like a sack of sherbet tied round the middle.

[Runflat]

For background on what was objectionable back in 1894, have a look here. Although some serious issues, which could happen today, others have fallen away with time.

 

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1894/may/09/second-reading#S4V0024P0-01674

 

Further commentary can be found in Roger T Stearn’s work '"To rid the country of a scandal": The Uniforms Act of 1894' published in the Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research, 71 (1993), 227-31 (ISSN 00379700).

 

For those who sport modern combats, this is a useful Ministerial statement on the wearing of surplus gear. Although, remember, this is quite old and policies can and do change!:-

 

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1967/feb/08/surplus-service-uniforms-and-equipment#S5CV0740P0-07542

 

Ignore the context here. It's simply a useful reminder that where the wearing of uniforms for political purposes is concerned, just because the individual may not be wearing Brit kit doesn’t stop public order offences arising. The relevant legislation may have changed:-

 

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1969/jul/17/hyde-park-concert-wearing-of-uniforms

Edited June 9, 2008 by Runflat

[Redcap]

Excellent bit of research, Runflat

[Runflat]

Thanks Recap. I'm intrigued to know if there have been prosecutions under the UA. Do you have any details?

 

Reading the 1894 House of Commons debate it is quite clear, as with much legislation, that the UA was a knee jerk reaction to a ‘scandal’ of the time. Whilst I’ve no doubt the UA served its purpose back then, time’s moved on; and what caused such outrage then is unlikely to be repeated in the current age. So, to me, the next question is whether the Act should be repealed or overhauled.

 

Whilst any change is unlikely to be near the top of the Government’s agenda, I was interested (as will others who made comments on this issue) to see there has been a recent Downing Street petition to ban the wearing of unauthorised medals and decorations (http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page14366.asp). Whilst acceptance of the petition would have gone too far for re-enactors (the petitioners also wanted to ban the wearing of unauthorised regimental insignia, for example), what is of most interest to me is the Government’s response:

“...There are instances where it has become acceptable for people to wear medals which they personally have not been presented with. For example, it has become custom and practice for widows to wear their late husband's military medals at commemorative events.

 

It would not be desirable or practical to make the wearing of such items illegal. Far better that the appropriate authorities deal with those found guilty of attempting to defraud by the inappropriate use of medals or military regalia, rather than through the introduction of blanket legislation which could not, in any practical way, be policed.”

 

The concept of fraud and deception is probably what’s needed in the UA were it to be modernised, to use current jargon, and meets one of the concerns that existed back in 1894. It also gets round drafting exemptions for marching bands wearing military style uniforms and the like, thereby ticking the ‘simplification’ box – something Governments like.

 

Reading the original debate I was also taken by the discourse on the use of uniforms in theatricals:

“The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Bill would apparently strike at a very harmless institution of private theatricals or at fancy balls where the uniform might be worn. In those cases, however, the object of wearing the uniform was not to discredit it, and, generally speaking, a person who wore a uniform at a theatrical entertainment was the first or second hero of the piece.”

 

I can’t help but wonder whether some modern stage, TV or film productions get near the knuckle, if not cross over the edge, as far as s.3 (contempt) is concerned, thereby, perhaps unwittingly, exposing the production team to potential prosecution. No doubt they would welcome change as well.

[AlienFTM]

The recent prosecutions have been brought against people who have worn distinctive (my italics) military uniforms or imitations of them as part of their ordinary dress.

 

IMO the whole raison d'etre of combats is not to be distinctive.

 

(No opinions as to right or wrong in this post.)