Can Prince Harry wear the uniforms of his former units? It's been in the news recently that Prince Harry has been banned from wearing a military uniform at the events surrounding the late Queen's funeral, since he was stripped of his honorary military titles when he stopped being a working royal. However, he is a veteran who served ten years in the British military and was deployed to Afghanistan. Why can't he wear the uniform of his former rank and unit in his capacity as a retired officer, rather than wearing the uniform of his (now removed) honorary titles in his capacity as a member of the Royal Family?
By Army regulations, no, he's not allowed to wear that uniform. Prince Harry technically isn't a &quot;retired officer&quot;. Rather, he resigned his commission in the Army, effective 19 June 2015. See the London Gazette for 11 August 2015, Supplement 61319, page 14838, under &quot;Captain H. C. A. D. WALES 564673&quot;. According to the Army Dress Regulations 02.45a (page 101 of the PDF), &quot;It is to be noted that those who resigned their commissions are not authorised to wear uniform under any circumstances.&quot; Moreover, under the Uniforms Act 1894: (1)It shall not be lawful for any person not serving in Her [sic, now His] 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. (2)If any person contravenes this section he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding [F2level 3 on the standard scale]. Clearly Prince Harry is not currently serving in His Majesty's Military Forces, and &quot;His Majesty's permission&quot; would by default be granted only through the Army Dress Regulations promulgated in his name. If Prince Harry were to wear the uniform anyway, then in principle he would be in breach of the regulations and thus the law, and liable for the prescribed fine. Of course, if he had worn the uniform, it would presumably have been because his father the King had in fact granted him permission to do so (on which point His Majesty would presumably have solicited the advice of his ministers). But as a matter of politics and optics, that was probably not likely to be given. Throughout the prince's active military service, there was a concerted effort to make it appear (accurately or not) that he was serving under the same conditions as any other officer of the same rank, without receiving preferential treatment. So it would fit with that practice for him to comply strictly with the Army regulations, even though they could certainly be waived for his benefit.
Expunction may be possible for instance if you are acquitted, later proven innocent, pardoned, and various other things that fall short of being convicted and doing the time. The entire law is here (Texas code of criminal procedure 55.01). There is also the option of an order of non-disclosure, overviewed here. A requirement for such an order is that you were placed on and completed deferred adjudication community supervision, which from what I can tell is not what happened. "Background check removal" may range between simply taking your money and doing nothing, to doing what you could do yourself to get free of traces via radaris, intelius, spokeo, and so on to "request removal" from that web site. This will not make your record unavailable, because these websites don't have any special powers to reach into and manipulate state records.
Short answer Maybe Long answer s.61(1) empowers a &quot;proper officer&quot; to enter premises without a warrant for the health protection functions and purposes described in subsections a-to-d in order to search, take samples and measurements, inspect records and any other actions authorised by s.62(1A). A Proper officer is not a constable, but defined at s.74(b) as being a person appointed for a particular purpose (ie function or role) by the relevant authority. s.62(1) allows the proper officer to take with him anyone necessary, which can include a constable who may be required to facilitate a forced entry, prevent a breach of the peace, make a pre-planned arrest or perform any number of police-specific functions. However... s.61(2A) states that this power of entry does not extend to a private dwelling; which may or may not be the house referred to by the OP. Entry in to a private dwelling requires a warrant under s.61(3).
That means that a person cannot put a new cover or binding on a book, and then resell it or lend it, unless permission is obtained from the publisher. This has the effect of prohibiting libraries, which need to rebind most books, from carrying the book without the publisher's permission. This condition did not apply in the US, because under the US Law's First Sale Doctrine, the seller cannot impose such conditions on the buyer. The very standardize wording was, I think, once part of the Net book Agreement (NBA) used by Penguin and other UK-based publishers on sales in the UK and the Commonwealth. You will find it on many used books from such publishers. I believe the main aim was to prohibit discount resellers of used books, and to prohibit sale of "stripped books" (reported to the publisher as "unsold and destroyed"). I believe that this is no longer in effect, but I am not sure. The NBA was dissolved in 1995.
As per this question &amp; answer, in the US there is no expectation of privacy in public places (not to be confused with private places where public is allowed e.g. supermarkets). Photos taken in public belong to the photo taker and he/she is free to use them in whatever way. No privacy is violated here. The fact that the person whose photo was taken was a celebrity does not change anything. It would have been completely their fault to expect privacy in a public place and behave rashly.
What do you mean by "a public building"? Just because a place is owned by the public, doesn't mean anyone can go there any time they wish. Military bases, firehouses, and jails are owned by the public, but many of these have limited access to the public. It may be open to the general public, but that does not mean restrictions cannot be put into place, either on times, or activities, or individuals. For example, public parks often have time and activity restrictions; schools have the power to restrict individuals from their premises, either specifically or by general category. As a general point of law, the owner of any property, or their agent, can order anyone without the right to stay (e.g. not a co-owner or tenant), and that person must depart, otherwise that person is tresspassing. Assuming that the Senior Center is owned by the town, it is probable that the Administrator is empowered to act as the town's agent in this matter. Now, since this "No Trespass order" is specifically directed at you, there is a reason behind it. It may be something you've done. It may be that complaints have been received about your behavior. It may be an actual abuse by someone who doesn't like you. We have no way of knowing. It the order itself doesn't give you a hint as to why, you can ask the town administrator for the reason. As for being against your rights, there is nothing inherently illegal about this situation(that is, an agent of a property owner exercising the latter's right to prohibit an individual from said property), but some of the details, especially why it was specifically applied to you as an individual might be a civil rights violation.
It is illegal to take or publish a picture of someone without his consent in France. There are five exceptions : people related to news events of public interest, public information purposes (when right to inform the public is bigger than right to privacy), people present in a public location when focus is not on them, public figures during their public functions and activities, people shown in a large group without distinction of one or several individuals. If you respect one of the 5 conditions, you do not require consent. Policemen do not have extended or extra protection regarding these rights: they are treated as any individual. This is described in a report from the CNDS (Commission National de Déontologie de la Sécurité): "[Les forces de l'ordre] doivent considérer comme normale l’attention que des citoyens ou des groupes de citoyens peuvent porter à leur mode d’action. Le fait d’être photographiés ou filmés durant leurs interventions ne peut constituer aucune gêne pour des policiers soucieux du respect des règles déontologiques." which translates approx. to: "Policemen must consider as normal the attention that citizens or citizen groups can pay to their mode of action. Being photographed or filmed during their interventions cannot be seen as as an embarrassment to the officers concerned to comply with ethical rules." See also this Wikimedia Commons internal policy that summarise the French law and (fr) the exceptions on droit-image.fr
What can I do to prevent someone from leaving me something in their will? Nothing. Allowing other people to legally change someone's will defeats the purpose of a will: To express the writer's last wishes. (That is why the full title is a "Last Will &amp; Testament"). Do I have to take responsibility for things left to me in a will or are there other options? No! You do not have to accept an inheritance. The legal process for rejecting an inheritance is called "disclaiming." It happens often enough that there are plenty of nice summaries of the process on-line. Your next step should probably be to read one of them.