Another Conscientious Objector!

[Training Risky]

Incomplete and abridged (but still accurate) from todays Sunday Times, page 2:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"A Muslim reservist airman is bringing a test case against the MOD after he was disciplined for refusing to take part in the Iraq war on religious grounds.

He was arrested and charged after going AWOL from his RAF base in Suffolk (Wattasham??). He serves as an 'aircraftsman' and medic.

He is appealing on the grounds that his faith forbids him from fighting other muslims. His lawyers will argue that the 'European convention on human rights' gives everyone the right to freedom of religious belief - including military personnel.

Moshin Khan's case is the first of its kind and is likely to become a cause celebre in Britain's muslim community and among those opposed to the conflict.

2 other soldiers from 16 Air Assault Brigade have been sent home from the Gulf after refusing to fight. Unlike Khan, however, they based their objections on moral rather than religious grounds and have not yet been punished for their actions.

In previous conflicts, CO's in HM Armed Forces have been jailed for refusing to fight.

The case is listed to be heard at a summary appeal court hearing before a judge and 2 senior RAF officers at Leeming on 23 June"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RIGHT THEN!

Who does this specimen think he is?:mad: :yuk:

You CANNOT take the Queen's shilling for god knows how many years, 'having a laugh and making new friends', as so many seem to join for...... and then pick and choose your battles.:yuk:

In his arrogance, he could be depriving the front line of a badly needed set of hands. The fighting may have stopped, but the place is far from safe.

Send him to the glasshouse, then claim back all his RAuxAF pay!

Is nothing safe from the bloody European Liberal Court of Social Workers!

[BEagle]

What do you mean by ".....taking the Queen's shilling for God know how many years..."?

There is a significant difference between the volunteers who man the RAuxAF squadrons and personnel called-out under the provisions of the Reserve Forces Act. One is a clear volunteer, the other is being required to respond to a reserve liability which he/she probably never expected to be realised..

I'd be willing to bet that there are quite a few folk around who left under PVR but who have probably have absolutely no idea of their liability for call-out (and/or recall - there is a significant difference) when the appropriate Order is enacted by SoS Def.

[Jackonicko]

I believe that the MoD has sometimes exercised discretion in deciding who to send to (for example) Northern Ireland depending on their religious background and links to that community. I'm surprised that similar discretion wasn't exercised here. Since it wasn't however, there was clearly no option but to charge him. I'm also inclined to wonder what genuine objection a medic would have to going - many COs have given invaluable service in previous conflicts in exactly that role. He may even have had opportunity to help his fellow Moslems.

[Big Cat Handler]

Only someone who had served in the past would have any reserve service obligations. The serviceman concerned must therefore have, once, signed up to fight anyone HMG asked him to. Unless his beliefs are a recent change of heart, he shouldn't have joined in the first place.

I'm sure that, even after PVR, no-one has to spend more than 10 years in the Reserves, so the subject must have either fought in GWI, or joined since - either way, being sent to fight a predominantly Muslim nation shouldn't have come as a surprise.

Are we really that short of manpower that retired reservists are being called up alongside the volunteers?

[Scud-U-Like]

There's nothing like taking a bit of media hype and hyping it a bit more.

Firstly, The Sunday Times is wrong to describe this as a 'test case'. An appeal, like this one, from an orderly room to the Summary Appeal Court is like an appeal from a magistrates' court to the Crown Court. In other words, decisions of these courts cannot set a legal precedent that is binding upon other courts. Therefore, it ain't a test case.

Secondly, the UK has been a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights since 1951. We even drafted the wording. The Convention has recently been absorbed into English statute law, so that our courts, as well as the European court, can deal with matters under the Convention.

This is The Sunday Times (fast becoming a tabloid in disguise) making mischief out of something pretty trivial. I doubt this Airman's appeal will succeed, as he could have claimed conscientious objection (on religious grounds) through the normal procedure, rather than by going AWOL. Still, we don't know the full circumstances of the case and the man has every right to appeal against his charge, as many service personnel have done before him.

[SASless]

Excuse me please.....you put on the uniform, take the pay, take the oath, you take your orders. If it is so wrong to fight other muslims....might he not look to Iran and Iraq....the war in Afghanistan....the wars being fought in Somalia, Ethiopia, Sudan, and a dozen other places. The only thing he is concientious about is saving his own skin. Whoever suggested Reserves are called out against their will needs his ass kicked till his brain starts working again. They signed the contract....they should read the fine print....the bugles blow...and it is off to war as is your duty. If this is acceptable behaviour in the British Military now....God help us! Desertion during the time of war used to earn the death penalty.....and missing movement as ordered can never be tolerated.

[Bubbette]

We had a case like this in the US too--I think the guy was put in the brig and then discharged.

[BEagle]

SASless, you misunderstand the UK's concept of 'reserves'. If someone joins the regular armed forces, subsequently decides that it's not for them and decides to leave before their period of regular service has been completed (referred to as 'Premature Voluntary Release'), then they are 'transferred to the reserve' for the balance of their remaining time.

This means becoming a member of the 'RAF Reserve of Airmen' (or Officers, as appropriate). For this they receive no identity card, are paid nothing, receive no training and cannot even use the facilities on their local base.

In the RAF we also have the 'Auxiliaries'. These are part-time volunteers who man certain RAuxAF squadrons. They have a training commitment and are paid whilst on duty. They have identity cards and can use the base facilities. There are no Reserve Air Force flying units, we have no Air National Guard and no Royal Auxiliary Air Force flying units......

Under 'Total Force Concept', we have a certain number of regulars. These can be augmented by the auxiliaries fairly easily. But when the Secretary of State for Defence enacts an Order under the relevant Section of the Reserve Forces Act, many of those who have been 'out' for years will receive a call-out notice giving them a time and date at which to report to a training centre before being sent to the appropriate unit.

With the 'contractorisation' of certain trades, it is increasingly likely that 'call-out' of reservists would be required in time of conflict. A money-saving defence-cutting idea to reduce the number of regulars - but these civilian contractors can't be ordered to do anything which isn't in their contract.

[Vortex Thing]

Beags,

I'm sure that the contract quite clearly states that you can be ordered to deploy on operations as necessary according to the extingencies of the service.

Therefore even if this individual had joined up and decided that it wasn't for him, tough. He should have researched his career choice a touch more thouroughly.

Refusing to fight should be a capital crime because like the good man said there is no greater love than that a man may lay down his life for his country or freinds and family. Equally there is no greater crime than pretending to, training to and then when your back is against the wall walking away.

Hope they throw the book at him.

VT:ok:

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Umm no actually. Civilian contracts rarely contain anything about deployment. Even were they to the civilian is quite able to breach the contract and say stuff that for a game of soldiers with minimal legal penalty.

WWW

[BEagle]

VT - the liabilities for an individual under the RFA are well laid out......If individuals know about their liability, of course, it should come as no surprise to them to if they are required to deploy once they've completed refresher training.

Not to respond to a call-out notice is an offence under the RFA, whereas conscientious objection by someone serving whether reservist, auxiliary or regular may not be per se. The difficulty is having cast-iron proof that the person called-out deliberately refused to respond to their call-out notice.

[fobotcso]

So there are some who would allow a Muslim to be a CO in a conflict against other Muslims. And to do so whilst serving in the UK Armed Forces and subject to UK Military Law. And UK Military Law is based on UK Civil Law and gives no one Religious Faction special status over another.

Would those who find favour with this think it is therefore alright for Christians and Jews to seek CO status in conflicts against other Christians and Jews?

Try it and see how far you get.

[Scud-U-Like]

I notice the result of this case didn't get much press coverage, probably because the outcome was unsensational, the Judge Advocate acknowledged the sincerity of the appellant's beliefs and the appellant lost :

Case Report (http://web.onetel.com/~aspals/cases.htm)

[I_stood_in_the_door]

should send him to a bloody muslim country then, turban and all.

how can he call himself british yet choose not to fight? military or civilian one should wish to help defend ones country's beliefs.

if his religion states he is not to fight, please explain what all his 'brothers' are doing in iraq, somalia, afghanistan etc etc.

bring back the days of steam ships, short shorts, long socks and the Empire!

what on earth is the military coming too? and please, dont bring on the racist card (no secret cameras here) i am proud to be english. is that a crime?

read the small print, matey!

do not lead, do not follow just get him out of the f**cking way!!
#
isitd

:mad:

[ORAC]

If Moslem can't fight Moslem, what was the Iran-Iraq war all about...........

[Bubbette]

Or the Algeria vs Algeria war, or Iraq vs Kuwait, or Assad (pere) gassing of 25,000 Muslims in Homs etc etc

[RoboAlbert]

Frankly all this 'read the small print' grips my S:mad:t.
If people, and yes that includes the military, think what they are being asked to do is fundamentally wrong then they should say no – and they should have the right to do that.

At what point would you say no I-S-I-T-D? Will you always follow orders regardless?

[A Civilian]

*whisper*

Shhuusshhh, Orac. The Iran-Iraq war never happened :ok:

*/whisper*

[Zlin526]

Robo,

Surely a fundamental part of voluntarily being part of a disciplined force is, at times, you have to follow orders without question? Even if that means taking a pot shot at your religious comrades.

Anyone who joins up and then wimps out when they have to go to war are lucky that we are using different rules to those of the 1st World War, where he would almost certainly have been shot at dawn!

I chose not to join up, purely because I dont particularly like jumped up Hitler types shouting at me.

[SirToppamHat]

As long as the order is lawful and the person giving it has the power and authority to do so then yes, there is a requirement for it to be followed.

If a colonel orders a sgt to shoot a group of POWs, for example, he may have the power, he may have the authority (though I doubt it) but the order is unlikely to be lawful under the Geneva Convention (or International Law).

Not an expert in this, just something I remember from IOT.

No sympathy for the original case, though, thin end .....

STH

[Scud-U-Like]

I'm reluctant to be too judgmental about the guy who went AWOL. He may have been young, naive and unduly influenced by family and cultural pressures. He has been found guilty and justice has been done.

To digress somewhat, while I have no doubt the vast majority of Muslims do not support the Muslim lunatic fringe, it would be reassuring to see a bit more condemnation of the latter by the former. Muslim clerics, who have a good deal of influence on the followers of Islam, should be more vociferous in their repudiation of Islamic terrorism. Perhaps someone with a good knowledge of Muslim thinking could explain (without going off on a bigoted rant) why Muslim leaders tend to sit on their hands in this respect.

[BoeingMEL]

Never been in the military (slightly screwed up with the rope and plamk at OASC!) but remain in awe of those who risk all for Queen and Country. Come the hour..come the man? BM

[I_stood_in_the_door]

roboalbert,

an order from higher authority should always be executed.

when should you not obey an order then?

if you believe that you have the reason to disobey one then why oh why are you in the military?

enjoy your weekend, me old mucker. when the whistle peeps, over the top we shall go!

'green on!'

isitd

:ok:

[BEagle]

Well, I-hang-around-in-doorways, if a nice chap with SS runes on his uniform had said to you "Open ziss tin marked Zyklon B und tip it down into zat room marked 'Showers' ", would you have replied "Jawohl, Herr Obersturmbahnfuehrer, zu befehl!" and obeyed such an order without question?

Hopefully not.

[Pindi]

Conscience? I wonder. Or did he just want to avoid sand in his shoes.

[FEBA]

Ummm! Only a few of the smarter ones have detected that this gentlemans arguement is fallacious
He is appealing on the grounds that his faith forbids him from fighting other muslims. His lawyers will argue that the 'European convention on human rights' gives everyone the right to freedom of religious belief - including military personnel.

This muslim objection to killing another muslim does not seem to cause too many sleepless nights for the men women and children that fill the ranks of Al Queda, Mujahadin or hezbolallah. It most certainly didn't perturb Saddam Hussain unduly did it. Should christians object to killing fellow christians ???
If one is called to active service in the event of war, you have an obligation and an onerous one at that, irrespective of whether you disagree with the fight.
Throw the book at him. Who's paying his legal bills by the way??
FEBA

[RoboAlbert]

Because ISITD, I think a military that thinks about and questions why it is doing something is far more likely to be a motivated and successful fighting force. Why are our armed forces so successful – generally because they aren’t a bunch of mindless drones.

Fortunately I think the scenario that Beagle gave is unlikely to happen in the British Armed Forces – although judging by your first statement you’d be quite happy if it did.

I was quite happy about doing my bit in Afghanistan and Gulf II because it was my personal belief that the Taliban and Saddam & co were a bunch of f:mad:s that needed sorting out. However, I respect someone else’s right to disagree with me. As do current regulations so I believe.

[X-QUORK]

No, not all orders have to be obeyed. According to the Queen's Regs (British Army law book) - if ordered to carry out an action that breaks the Geneva Convention you must refuse to carry it out. And further to that, the defence "I was only following orders" doesn't wash in any war crimes courts....

This doesn't apply to the Muslim RAF guy, there are no excuses for his "religous grounds" decision on as far as I'm concerned.:rolleyes:

[I_stood_in_the_door]

BEagle,

hindsight is a wonderful thing, no? to disobey a direct order is ok in your book then?

Robo,

afghan' and GW2 were fun, no doubt. a chance to do what we train for and more but are you saying that if you disagreed with uk defence policy (going there in the first place) you wouldn't have gone? hardly old boy.

X Quork (?)

Only losers get done for war crimes.

top tip: go to war with the 'good guys'

dont have time to hang around in them - green on, go!

isitd





:}

[ORAC]

Every member of the armed services has not only the right but the duty to refuse to obey an illegal order. Those giving such orders should be reported.

Every member also has the duty to obey a legal order. In opting to disobey an order an individual must be certain of the legality, or not, of the order and be prepared to accept the consequences of their action, including imprisonment.

It should be noted that conscientous objection is not a remit allowing someone not to serve, only not to kill. In WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam etc objectors accepted that they should serve. They filled many posts, particularly as medics and stretcher bearers, suffering heavy casualties and received numerous decorations.

[European Crash]

I think we should all be extremely careful of not commenting or pre-judging the coutcome of the DCM (referred to herein this thread). We could be accused (in thought, if not deed) of being in contempt of court.

EC

[BEagle]

I-hang-about-in-doorways, just read the comments made by X-quork and ORAC.

Most certainly it is incorrect to obey an unlawful order - even in an aeroplane. I was once told of a Nimrod first pilot who, having overshot at Decision Height was exhorted to 'take it a bit lower next time' by the navigator captain.....THAT is an illegal order. (Fortunately he just got out of his seat and said to the stupid ar$e - "OK, all yours, you do it!". Then they diverted!).

NOT commenting on the forthcoming DCM but to say that the whole GW2 saga was greatly unpopular with much of the nation and I know many in the Armed Forces harboured doubts about the legaity of the whole thing - although of course they did as ordered. To take this to DCM seems a huge risk; if the Crown loses, what precedent will this set?

[FEBA]

Beagle
Since war is wholly immoral and a repugnant event, how can anyone object to it on moral grounds?
FEBA

[BlueEagle]

It is my belief that one of the reasons that leaders of the Muslims don't become outspoken about the lunatic fringe is because should they do so then they may well become the next target. This intimidatory tactic was used in Israel/Palestine from 1948 and has been used extensively in other Middle Eastern theatres.

Additionally of course they may just secretly support any terrorist action against the non-muslim!;)

[Civil Servant]

Everyone bends religious dogma to their own ends. It being a sin to kill did not stop the IRA, nor were they excommunicated neither did it stop any of the conflicts mentioned previously.

Should throw the book at the little (deleted) and then throw the proverbial key away.

Re reserve commitment, glad I did the whole lot and therefore not liable. Would hate to be called up again and sent to play in the sand.

On the war crimes question, how come some former Yugoslavian is being done for killing some civilians whilst attacking a town, yet when the Americans kill people doing the same it counts as colateral damage. (Willing to accept further instruction on the last as I only hearde a brief report on the radio)

[stillin1]

Conscription did not take place! Therefore a volunteer.
Changes mind when time to earn taxpayers dosh.
One C.Objector.+one bullet=problem solved.
Harsh but fair:p

[Vortex Thing]

FEBA

You wrote:
Since war is wholly immoral and a repugnant event, how can anyone object to it on moral grounds?

Please tell me that from someoone whose handle is FEBA that my tiredness at the end of a long day has just caused me to bite and that this is what you were trying to achieve.

On the off chance however that you are actually serious I weep for education system.

VT:ok:

Oh by the way just before ISITD does indeed go go go could I point out that not only is God not stillborn oops sorry Airborne God in fact is a QHI and the he only let man create fixed wing aircraft to satisfy those who couldn't quite master the helicopter

[FEBA]

Vortex Thing
On the off chance however that you are actually serious I weep for education system.
Perhaps completing it would improve your grammar.

As a courteous response to your rude posting allow me to clarify what I was trying to say. By signing up for military service you are condoning the defence of the national interest by force, are you not? Having agreed to your obligation in this regard, is it not hypocritical to then say that you cannot meet this obligation on moral grounds?
If you are a top notch football striker should you be able to refuse to play a critical match because some of your ex team mates are now on the other side?

As far as helicopters are concerned ...................

FEBA

[Vortex Thing]

Re the correction of my grammar. I think you'll find that if you put the keyboard down and step back from the keyboard you will in fact see the pun. Rather like when some wag says, 'you need edumacation like wot i 'ave.'

I would rather hope that a professional pilot such as yourself would be more than able to spot humour and maybe even add some witty repartie to your reply instead of bumbling into the elephant trap that is like wot you ave done innit.

Admittedly however my misspelling of someone was not an intention and that was merely a slip of the finger.

If it was your intention to imply that you agree with the statement that you posted to BEagle i.e. war is wholly immoral and a repugnant event, how can anyone object to it on moral grounds? etc' then you have achieved that. If however you intended to imply the opposite then you have singularly failed to do so.

It is more than obvious that most of us who signed up for military service did so knowing both the pros and cons. If this is your point I agree and I am sure that many on their next period off agree also.

This, however wasn't what you wrote and it is to that to which I posted my reply. So before this turns into an English grammar forum and we break down the syntatics, pragmatics and semantics of what was actually written. How's about you try stating what it is you are trying to say and then we can get back to posting our views on how much we think this guy should or should not be strung up.

My on the fence view is that if you take the queens shilling and then refuse to fight (other than in a situation where you are given an illegal order) you should be given the suitable 2pence worth of 5.56 mm treatment but hey that's just IMHO.

The Company will retire, aaaa bout turn. Ahh I think I hear sunset being played.....

[FEBA]

Vortex Exarticulatus
Re the correction of my grammar. I think you'll find that if you put the keyboard down and step back from the keyboard you will in fact see the pun. Rather like when some wag says, 'you need edumacation like wot i 'ave.'
Bollox
If it was your intention to imply that you agree with the statement that you posted to BEagle i.e. war is wholly immoral and a repugnant event, how can anyone object to it on moral grounds? etc' then you have achieved that
See me after class
It is more than obvious that most of us who signed up for military service did so knowing both the pros and cons. If this is your point I agree and I am sure that many on their next period off agree also.
Much better
syntatics
0/10

You know exactly what I meant, so don't try to lecture me on semantics. Neither you nor I are equipped to enter into that debate, especially you. We both agree with the cut and thrust of this thread, so rather than enter into a petty squabble, which will only serve to divert attention from the core arguement of this thread, let's go to the bar and have a pint.
;)
FEBA

[BEagle]

This was entirely predictable.

His correct course of action would have been to respond to call-out as required, then make clear his conscientious objection. His case would then certainly have been dealt as per QRs.

But by acting in the way in which he allegedly did, he left himself open to the charge of being AWOL.

I wonder whether anyone made that clear to him?

[flyboy007]

OOOOOOHHHHHHH. Seven days loss of privileges. That will without doubt, deter anyone else from trying the same thing!!

What a joke. I imagine he has saved himself at least seven days of "privileges" by not having spent a good deal of his time over the past couple of years, in the f£$%^&g desert!?!? Unlike those who have spent several months away from family and friends since it all kicked off. Neuter him I say!

[Training Risky]

Do we have a Glasshouse at Colchester any more? I thought that's where all the naughty AWOL boys and girls were sent to for a short sharp shock before being discharged from the service.

But no, as he's a mussie such action would have a detrimental effect on race relations, blah blah...........!:mad:

[MrBernoulli]

Training Risky,

As much as don't like what this chap is doing, I think you need to be careful with the tone of your post immediately above.

[The Gorilla]

When this particular war is declared illegal and Blair and his people face charges, I reckon this young man will win his future appeal and be handsomely compensated!!

Training Risky..

Let us not forget that this gentleman, like all the unfortunates called up, is a civilian albeit on temporary military service. Also Blair has stated that any one refusing military call out will NOT be jailed.

I for one will refuse any such call out in the future unless the homeland faces a direct threat from Armed Forces. I did my 28 years of blood sweat and tears and if I am forced to turn up I could create serious mayhem on the frontline!!

Beagle

No it was not made clear to him and this came out at appeal. From now on the MOD must make clear the grounds upon which you can object to military call up and the procedures involved.

:ok:

[Eagle 270]

I dont think TR has to watch what he says. Quite justified IMHO. Is this chap using his field of prayer as an excuse to not get his hands dirty? If thats the case, one would think he was naive in making even a commitment to the cadet forces, let alone Queens colour service.

Like it or lump it, if you freely choose to sign the dotted for Queen (Govn of the day), in what ever capacity, you surely must expect to play a large game of chess on behalf of which ever neanderthals who are calling the shots at the time. God forbid, if the green party ever get into office, would it be excusable to refuse to 'soldier' if they demanded we took out all Beagle Smoking establishments? (No pun intended, Beags!!)

Conscientious objection. Poor excuse for lack of moral fibre?

Conscientious objection. Prove it? Or prove otherwise....very sticky wicket.

[BEagle]

There is an error of understanding here:

1. Failure to respond to call-out = offence
2. Being AWOL = offence
3. Declaring conscientious objection = NOT an offence

The case appears to have been brought as a result of 2. What should have happened is that it should have been made clear to him that had he returned from leave and subsequently stated his conscientious objection, his case would have been delat with under existing procedures. That doesn't seem to have happened..

And before people go get all high and mighty again, you may be interested to know that at least one officer (a pilot) resigned his commission over Bliar's adventurism in Iraq.

[Spotting Bad Guys]

Having taken the Queen's shilling as a Reservist, this individual should have been prepared to be called up and sent wherever ordered; perhaps he should therefore pay back every penny of his military salary/Reservist bounty?

Just a thought.


SBG

[BEagle]

A world of difference between someone on RAFResA and someone serving in the RAuxAF....

It was widely reported that the call-out of those serving on RAFResA was the first large-scale call-out since Suez. So to say that all PVR'd personnel with a call-out liability should 'Be prepared to be called up and sent wherever ordered' is stretching credulity somewhat.

Cut backs in regular manning and over-reliance on RAFResA and RAFResO are all part of the plethora of defence cut backs inflicted on the UK over the years. Bliar's adventurism is not achievable without it, it would seem....

Liability for call-out and liability for recall are 2 very different matters; there is no such thing as 'call up' unless you mean general mobilisation?

[Spotting Bad Guys]

Fair enough - I take your point on the difference between RAuxAF service and someone who has PVR'd with a continuing reserve liability. However, when you consider the dates of his regular service (1999-2001) and the situation we have been in since 1990, there is no way he could have ever been under the misapprehension that the RAF would not see action in Muslim countries during his service or PVR liability. Did he register his conscientious objection when he was a serving member of the RAF? Or was this merely a flag of convenience to prevent his call-up for duties in Iraq?

I suggest the latter is the more likely of the two.

SBG

[BEagle]

He could not 'prevent' his call-out under the RFA due to conscientious objection as you infer. But what he could have done quite legitimately was to have registered his objection after having duly reported.

My gut feeling is that Bliar will use the RFA more and more to solve the manning needs inherent in his adventurism given half a chance...

[Spotting Bad Guys]

Ah, but he did. He went AWOL, claimed CO when apprehended and did he go to Iraq? No.

SBG

[BEagle]

The offence he committed was going AWOL. Conscientious objection is not an offence.

He should have been advised to "Get your ar$e back here sharpish young man, before you can be done for going AWOL. Then we can consider your conscientious objection. But if you don't come back first, you will have committed an offence and could get done for it!"

Leadership, it was once called.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

If the Services were fully manned, then why would they be keen to get lots of FTRS people? Also isn't the increased use of Reservists parly due to the changing nature of our operations....

I am a Reservist myself. After my failed attempts to get into the full time RN, I tried using the RNR to build a case for re-entry. However, I myself realised that this would not be a good idea. So back to the idea of being a Reservist.

I may, at some time in the future, get mobillised. I may not. Currently I'm in the process of trying to change branch to a more hands on, closer to the proper RN, and a sea going one. My chance of being mobillsed will be significantly higher. But at least I won't get sent to a tent or portacabin in the desert!!

If I did happen, it would be absurd for me to refuse, giving my background. And my family and friends when treat me with the disdain I would deserve.

Most of the people I know who have been called up have said that it was a postive, life enhancing experience, particularly in terms of self confidence etc. Perhaps it would be just the thing I need?

Edited because I forgot what I was going to say........doh

Unlike the full time Services, you can resign from the Reserves with very little notice - a month I think. Since the events in the Gulf had been brewing for years, and the conflict was foreseen by most people in 2002, he had ample opportunity to resign.

[JessTheDog]

He will win his appeal eventually, either in the Lords or in Strasbourg.

This will have a massive impact on all of us. As BEagle says, we will be used in future as cheap labour under RAF 98 as a result of the cutbacks.