Wearing Uniforms Post-Release/Retirement (merged)

[bigcletus]

[quote author=
On the same subject, the old WWII vet wearing his uniform on Remembrance Day, you'd have to convince a civillian judge that the individual had violated section 419 of the criminal code, and that he had criminal intent in doing so... Good luck with that.
[/quote]

The resulting public and media storm would send any commander to duck and cover should any old vet be arrested/detained for attending a function in his former uniform...

 

[Remius]

Agreed.  And would likely lead to a costly exercise at revising the rules in an effort to save face.  Better to just leave things alone in cases like that.

 

[bigcletus]

I just checked with a buddy, retired 8 CH and RCMP...on his retirement card there is box that is checked that says " "Authorized to Wear Uniform"  ....

He said as an RCMP member he'd NEVER charge a vet with a uniform offence only for wearing it to functions..(unless he was trying to defraud someone etc)..

 

[mariomike]

I just checked with a buddy, retired 8 CH and RCMP...on his retirement card there is box that is checked that says " "Authorized to Wear Uniform"  ....

"A questions ( sic ) has been raised about retired RCMP Veterans being permitted to wear their Red Serge for specific events."

http://www.rcmpveteransvancouver.com/veterans-wearing-red-serge/

 

[Remius]

So the Commissioner may authorise just like the head of the RCN may authorise.  In this case the RCN has revoked that permission.

But, the RCMP seems to have a more defined ruleset that gives the exact parameters.  In the U.S. most services have similar parameters that let's retired members know what they can and can't do.

This is what is bothersome about the RCNs decision.  It doesn't trust its former members to know when and where they can let alone delegate those powers to sub unit commanders for fear of the Navy being brought into disrepute (by members who have been released with honour and presumably with significant careers).

I've found that if anyone brings the service into disrepute, it's normally serving members and at times they are in uniform.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Even the Globe and Mail says this is a silly decision in an editorial entitled: Navy should let veterans wear their uniforms without prior permission.

But I think Cantor is right: good, sensible, clear rules should/can put this to bed.

 

[mariomike]

I do not recall ever seeing retired members of the Emergency Services ( in Toronto, at least ) wearing uniforms. Not to say it never happened, but I never heard of it.

Forgot to mention, and too late to add, that my former Department does allow retired members to join the Honour Guard. ( Now called Chief's Ceremonial Unit. )

They attend about 70 different functions each year.

Even though retired, for liability reasons, they get paid by the City when on duty ( Paid Duty ). Because, when in uniform, they are expected by the public to respond if when there is a medical emergency at the location.

 

[Remius]

Forgot to mention, and too late to add, that my former Department does allow retired members to join the Honour Guard. ( Now called Chief's Ceremonial Unit. )

They attend about 70 different functions each year.

Even though retired, for liability reasons, they get paid by the City when on duty ( Paid Duty ). Because, when in uniform, they are expected by the public to respond if when there is a medical emergency at the location.

They get paid?!  Is this standard practice or something local?

 

[chrisf]

They get paid?!  Is this standard practice or something local?

It's not at all an odd sort of thing, if they're paid, they're insured by workmans comp.

 

[Remius]

I guess.  I don't see it as an issue if they were doing actual EMS work but this seems more like a nice to have.

In the CF, are associate band members in uniform paid or is it more of a volunteer thing?  I thought they were unpaid.

And they are retired, so workers comp?

I'm pleading ignorance because I just don't know how it works.

 

[chrisf]

Associate band members are volunteers, and no, would not be covered by workmans comp, as they were volunteers, although if they were paid, they still wouldn't be covered by workmans comp, as the military is self insured/disabilities are covered by veterans affairs.

Actually, the whole band volunteer thing is weirder, I don't understand how they have volunteers parade with/travel with units, somone must have come up with somthing to cover any potential liability resulting from injuries... but that's outside the scope of retired members wearing uniforms.

 

[Remius]

Associate band members are volunteers, and no, would not be covered by workmans comp, as they were volunteers, although if they were paid, they still wouldn't be covered by workmans comp, as the military is self insured/disabilities are covered by veterans affairs.

Actually, the whole band volunteer thing is weirder, I don't understand how they have volunteers parade with/travel with units, somone must have come up with somthing to cover any potential liability resulting from injuries... but that's outside the scope of retired members wearing uniforms.

I looked at the EMS honour guard site for more info.  I have no issues with the concept put I have difficulty seeing why any city's EMS would need a paid drill team (with rifles no less) and why they would pay retired members to be part of it and need to travel around the continent putting on shows and competing.

I'll leave it at that since it's derailing this thread.

 

[mariomike]

It's not at all an odd sort of thing, if they're paid, they're insured by workmans comp.

I hadn't considered WSIB ( although that may well be a part of it ).

But, Paid Duty does allow the City to cover itself, and retired members, under the Insurance and Risk Management ( IRM ) policies from damages due to a "wrongful act".

"Wrongful act means any act, error, omission or beach of duty."

They also need the insurance to drive their transport bus.

 

[cupper]

On the same subject, the old WWII vet wearing his uniform on Remembrance Day, you'd have to convince a civillian judge that the individual had violated section 419 of the criminal code, and that he had criminal intent in doing so... Good luck with that.

Never mind that, try and find a prosecutor who would move forward on this. It would be a case of either:

a) a complete waste of taxpayer's money and the systems's time, or

b) he knows full well that he would get his butt handed to him by the judge for (a).

 

[McG]

I can think of several other threads where guys were ready to form a lynch mob after civvies wearing uniforms.  At those times, nobody questions the notion that a judge might have no difficulty enforcing the relevant section of the criminal code.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Locally, they've been told it's largely for mess and social functions. If a retired person appears at the mess for a dinner, in uniform, he's to be escorted out after being informed of the rule.

I can think of several other threads where guys were ready to form a lynch mob after civvies wearing uniforms.  At those times, nobody questions the notion that a judge might have no difficulty enforcing the relevant section of the criminal code.

There's also a huge difference between someone that served their country with honour and respectably retired, wearing their uniform and a fucking walt looking for attention.

Another red herring, like comparing a closed formal dinner to a boy scout jamboree.

Apples and rocks.

 

[Privateer]

I find it strange that Vice Admiral Maddison chose to send out this message six days before he retired as CRCN.  This was so critical that he had to deal with it before turning over command?  His parting gift to the veterans he joins today?  Its strikes me as a weird way to go out.

 

[The Bread Guy]

I find it strange that Vice Admiral Maddison chose to send out this message six days before he retired as CRCN.  This was so critical that he had to deal with it before turning over command?  His parting gift to the veterans he joins today?  Its strikes me as a weird way to go out.

Then again, if people complained, and he thought it was the right thing to do, he didn't leave it as "next guy's problem".  Especially considering he appears to be cutting himself off, too - but I'm sure his request for permission to wear a uniform would be considered in the same long, slow, bureaucratic way retired PO Bloggins' request would be, right?

Locally, they've been told it's largely for mess and social functions. If a retired person appears at the mess for a dinner, in uniform, he's to be escorted out after being informed of the rule.

Even if you have to enforce the letter of the law, kicking a vet out of a function is pretty f***ing shabby.  :not-again:

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Even if you have to enforce the letter of the law, kicking a vet out of a function is pretty f***ing shabby.  :not-again:

Just passing on what I was told. I'm army this is a navy thing.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Just passing on what I was told. I'm army this is a navy thing.

Understood - just railing at the idea.

Meanwhile, if reported correctly here, a bit more behind the alleged "why" of the new way of doing things:

.... The order was issued after senior naval officers complained that retired officers wore their formal uniforms, or mess kits, at a gala dinner held to commemorate the Battle of the Atlantic at the Canadian War Museum in early May.

“The mess kit is a formal uniform of active service members and is not to be worn after retirement,” wrote a senior naval officer in an email to a Gala organizer.

“This is clearly against Queen’s Regulations and Orders and cannot be condoned,” he wrote in the email obtained by Torstar News Service ....