Jump to content


Photo

Rejected from military service for being diagnosed Aspergers...

Aspergers defamation slander libel corruption army MoD armed forces

  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1 «THÖMÅS®©™»

«THÖMÅS®©™»

    Norfolk Broads

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 13 March 2014 - 01:41 AM

In relation to this thread.

New user ALERT!

 

I am diagnosed Asperger's (since October 1998).

 

I had been thinking of a career for a long time and on March 4th 2003, I decided that the Army was my only route in to a well paid career, but had to withdraw due to a family matter.  When I re-applied in April of the same year, I was rejected, but at first they did not tell me why.

 

I eventually found out why in 2004 (diagnosed with Asperger's) and also discovered that the MoD and it's directorates had been using defamatory statements to describe my character without justification other than somebody's assumptions rather than fact.

 

I fought with the MoD for the better part of 8 years, sending letters, involving 2 different MP's and finally deciding to make a subject access request (Section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998) in which I found several documents in which I am described (amongst other things) as "mental", "retarded" and "unstable".  I do not believe that the MoD or it's directorates have any right to make such outrageous claims particularly when they have no idea what Asperger's is nor have a qualified doctor that can make these claims.  I am not saying I am as smart as Stephen Hawking here, dont misunderstand me, I am saying that I am smarter than they have led people to believe, and anyone here would know this.

 

WHat I believe is that if you have Asperger's and are thinking of a military career in the UK, think again, you will likely face the same treatment I have and they will ignore what you say and use what you say against you in order to defame your character.

 

In 2011, I took the MoD to the county courts for said smears against my name, I lost, but I got thier attention.  They had a Barrister, I did not, so of course they won the case.  I later took them to the High Courts in London, I lost that as well, but I have made them aware that not everyone will take such outrageous claims against them so readily.  I have created an e-petition for the removal of the MoD's exemption under the Equality Act 2010 to prevent them abusing it anymore.  They certainly abused it in my case and I am sure that they have in many others for no good reason other than wild, baseless, absurd assumptions as in the above.  They were also exempt from the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, but that has been replaced with the Equality Act 2010, which also carries this same exemption.  They know this and is why they use it to do these things and I feel it must be stopped.  The Police for example are not exempt from this act and can be taken to a tribuneral for it, where as the MoD and its directorates cannot due to this outrage in law that I feel must be removed to prevent them harming anyones wellbeing.

Please sign the petition if you agree with me.

 

Thomas.


Edited by «THÖMÅS®©™», 13 March 2014 - 01:59 AM.


#2 cathcart3303

cathcart3303

    Snowdon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 165 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:East Anglia

Posted 13 March 2014 - 09:00 AM

I found this amazing. I know someone who has Asperger's and they were in the TA's for years. Are there actually no service personnel who have enlisted? Would the next step be European courts? Will definitely sign the petition. Did you involve the NAS in this?



#3 «THÖMÅS®©™»

«THÖMÅS®©™»

    Norfolk Broads

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 13 March 2014 - 02:35 PM

No.  at the time I did not feel it would have gotten me anywhere, assuming you are referring to "Norfolk Aspergers Society"?



#4 cathcart3303

cathcart3303

    Snowdon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 165 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:East Anglia

Posted 13 March 2014 - 06:41 PM

I was referring to the National Autistic Society.



#5 «THÖMÅS®©™»

«THÖMÅS®©™»

    Norfolk Broads

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 14 March 2014 - 12:42 AM

Then the answer is no.



#6 «THÖMÅS®©™»

«THÖMÅS®©™»

    Norfolk Broads

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 20 March 2014 - 04:27 AM

This thread died really quick! :(



#7 Shnoing

Shnoing

    Mt Blanc

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 593 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Continental EU

Posted 30 March 2014 - 07:06 PM

When it was my time, we had (still) conscription here. I didn't get drafted, though, as I was "permanently not fit". I didn't question that decision at the time, and therefore I don't know whether it has anything to do with my autism (which I was made aware of only at age 37, i.e. 19 years later).



#8 «THÖMÅS®©™»

«THÖMÅS®©™»

    Norfolk Broads

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 31 March 2014 - 02:32 AM

When it was my time, we had (still) conscription here. I didn't get drafted, though, as I was "permanently not fit". I didn't question that decision at the time, and therefore I don't know whether it has anything to do with my autism (which I was made aware of only at age 37, i.e. 19 years later).

MoD = Masters of Discriminators!



#9 dotmarsdotcom

dotmarsdotcom

    Snowdon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 247 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:no expections

Posted 19 September 2014 - 11:17 PM

hi Norfolk,

 

I read your post with interest.

 

I am the sort of person who fights against prejudice and unfairness 100% all the way.

 

if someone has been selected out, and rejected for no valid reason, I would stand by their side, and I stand by your side.

 

but to be in the army you have to take orders?

 

you have to go into battle, and kill people you haven't got anything against because someone tells you too?

 

surely the nature of our autistic/ Asperger's condition we have, is defined by we can't do that.

 

we'd have to agree to it ourselves?

 

the army doesn't want people like us.

 

I'm just saying I'm surprised you'd want to enter into a mechanism which supresses who you are?



#10 Shnoing

Shnoing

    Mt Blanc

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 593 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Continental EU

Posted 20 September 2014 - 12:47 PM

...

the army doesn't want people like us.

...

 

If you go though the older posts you'll see that there are some people on the spectrum who were indeed in the army.



#11 dotmarsdotcom

dotmarsdotcom

    Snowdon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 247 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:no expections

Posted 21 September 2014 - 09:44 PM

@Mt Blanc,

 

a valid reply sir.

 

my opinion was purely personal & speculative on quite a few levels- and yet I presented it in a manner that made it seem like I was sweepingly

assuming how all autistic/ Asperger's people think and how the army recruitment process works.

 

my bad. thank you for pointing that out.

 

I guess I was locked into my "this is how I think, so it must be so!" mode.

 

I'm still not sure the army would want *me* personally though.

 

I could just imagine a situation where an officer would tell me to go into a battle where I'd have to kill people and possibly end up dying myself...

 

I wouldn't necessarily object to that, but I'd want to know the situation first, who I was being asked to attack, what they'd done and decide myself if I believed in the cause before I put my life on the line.

 

I speculate the officer would not be too impressed with me.. he'd just expect me to follow orders! and I'd quickly get discharged (or shot at dawn lol!)



#12 Laddo

Laddo

    Ben Nevis

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 280 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kent
  • Interests:Art, films, TV, music, games, science, the universe

Posted 06 November 2014 - 05:30 PM

To be fair, I really don't think the armed forces would be especially suitable for people with Asperger's. You get shouted out a lot, you're expected to obey orders without question, there is a lot of loud noise and other things to set off sensory issues. Probably the reason why they don't recruit people with Asperger's is because generally a very specific type of person is selected for active service. Someone in my year at school tried to join up. He didn't have Asperger's or anything like that, he was physically very fit, did commando krav maga so could take a beaten and could keep very cool in stressful situations, yet they turned him down. The reason: they felt he was too compassionate for the army and that it wasn't suitable for him. Some jobs just aren't suitable for certain people. I'm sorry that this must be a let down, but that is the grim reality of the working world, I'm afraid



#13 dotmarsdotcom

dotmarsdotcom

    Snowdon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 247 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:no expections

Posted 07 November 2014 - 01:46 AM

i agree with you.

 

(see my post about my son working for McD :-)

 

The army is only ever goanna work for three categories of people...

 

1) those that have no opportunities at home to get a job, but maybe have parents or younger brother's & sisters who need supporting, and they'll starve if they don't join up.

 

2) people who like being told what to do by others and blindly following orders without thinking. i.e. people who have decided they don't want to think?

 

I mean who rationally would go to war for a load of stuff made up by people who aren't a part of normal folks reality. i.e. their interests are not ours, and to them, a certain sort of people are just canon fodder! whilst they hide in their chateaux?

 

you'd have to really need three squares a day (or really need to provide for yours) to get sucked into that.

 

I mean for that you'd really need people who watch all that fear "1984 stuff" they pump out every day?

 

surely we are all too rational to fall for all that? yes?



#14 dotmarsdotcom

dotmarsdotcom

    Snowdon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 247 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:no expections

Posted 07 November 2014 - 01:53 AM

i'm probably going a bit too far on this,

 

but see it the way it is.

 

what happens is those eton and Cambridge school tie buddies,

 

are always making deals with each other, and then breaking their deals and arrangements.

 

it's all to do with profits and money, and the promise of power being exchanged back and forth.

 

on occasion one of those school tie wallys backs down on a "deal written on the back of a beer mat" in the Bollinger club.. or what ever.

 

...and all of a sudden £50 trillion is lost @ the drop of a hat.

 

it is then twin towers are blown up, or 747's disappear.

 

it isn't anything to do with normal people like us, but we are asked to go to war and die for it?

 

no thanks!

 

all the best.


Edited by dotmarsdotcom, 07 November 2014 - 01:57 AM.


#15 dotmarsdotcom

dotmarsdotcom

    Snowdon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 247 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:no expections

Posted 10 November 2014 - 01:19 AM

on a similar thread I'm glad war widows & widowers will now all get the same pension.

 

it took the government 20 years to decide this.

 

I decided it in two seconds.

 

their argument was, if a woman or man having a spouse deceased by war, got another fella or woman, then they could no longer claim their deceased partners pension.

 

doh what!

 

i'm glad they have decided to change that.

 

I think it should also be back dated.

 

I mean the widower or widow wouldn't of needed to find a new loved one, if their old loved one had not died in service.

 

<deleted by myself as inappropriate>

 

give their remaining spouses full pension. end of

 

thank god they've decided to be sensible.

 

yah!


Edited by dotmarsdotcom, 10 November 2014 - 01:32 AM.


#16 Mihaela

Mihaela

    Mt Blanc

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 693 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Cheshire
  • Interests:Too many!

Posted 10 November 2014 - 04:03 AM

Dotmars & Laddo.  I couldn't agree more.  Being in the army for me would be like hell on earth.

 

I'm too logical and too intelligent

I don't take to bullying, bravado, boozing or bawdiness

I'm too outspoken

Hierarchies aren't my thing

I'm not into uniforms

Parades, pretentiousness and pomp don't appeal

I'm a pacifist and detest guns, violence and jingoism.

I'm squeamish

I like being my own boss

My principles would conflict with my orders too often

I'd be very likely court martialled for 'incitement to disaffection' within my first week!

Having said all this, I'm all for protecting the people's freedoms (that's those few we now have) against tyranny and governments as opposed to the freedoms of big business and wealthy elites to exploit us and trample upon us- which unfortunately is what most armies are about.  The British military ultimately serve the monarch, not the people.  Facts are stubborn things.



#17 UnusualPatronus

UnusualPatronus

    Scafell Pike

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Classical piano improvisation , composing music (amateur level), art, reading, writing, nature, animals, 3D Modeling, computer animation, animated film and fantasy

Posted 10 November 2014 - 10:41 AM

Don't join! I did before I knew I had Aspergers. I was considered 'normal' for enlistment, if they don't know you have it they accept anyone. I was bullied severely by my peers and NCO's. There's a 'system' in place for bullying, you're told about it ... before you join.

Their system is, tell us and we will deal with it! Blah, blah blah

This is going to sound negative, but, good luck with voicing any and I do mean quite literally 'any' distress, you won't be listened to and be prepared that if you stick to your guns, that blanket punishment will in most cases be dished out on your behalf, that helps everyone appreciate you more ... They don't ever 'really deal with bullying'

There are channels of command. You need 'permission' and an appointed time to see those at the top. Then you have to parade in immaculately, pristine condition or you'll be marched straight back out of your commanding officer's office. Even if you are pristine, they'll find something to get you out.

Swearing and shouting are considered character building. It's also a blanket to give them the opportunity to own you, highlight your weaknesses publicly.

The army as a system do not like weakness ...

It is almost impossible to leave, once you've completed basic training.

I was naive, I trusted the measures that they have in place are fair. Stupid me!

I almost ended my own life :(

If anyone has ASD undiagnosed don't join, if anyone has ASD diagnosed ... Disclose it and if they challenge, accept it.

#18 UnusualPatronus

UnusualPatronus

    Scafell Pike

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Classical piano improvisation , composing music (amateur level), art, reading, writing, nature, animals, 3D Modeling, computer animation, animated film and fantasy

Posted 10 November 2014 - 10:52 AM

An extra note, I didn't join to kill people, I joined the Household Cavalry Mounted Regiment. I love horses and animals. Extremely stupid, I know, but there you have it.

And you still have to learn how to use a rifle in basic training whether you're admin or cook or anything.
Don't join

#19 dotmarsdotcom

dotmarsdotcom

    Snowdon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 247 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:no expections

Posted 10 November 2014 - 01:04 PM

sounds positively awful unusualpatronus.

 

exactly how i imagined it would be.

 

(re: all the bullying, programming, brain washing and mental torture that is inflicted on people during service.)

 

i can see the world leaders would need it to be so however.

 

for example, if i was one of the people in control of the world,

 

and i say for example I wanted a particular countries oil/ resources what ever, but i had no valid claim to it,

 

...i would want an army, that would go in, unquestionly, kill everyone, be them innocent or not & bring home that oil sugar to daddy !

 

also, for example, if i had a load of rich buddies, who i wanted to help to get even more richer and more powerful (so they would in turn do the same for me?)

 

....destroying a poor weak countries infrastructure, then giving all my mates the contracts to re- build it all afterwards would be just my cup of tea.

 

and again it would require me to control an unquestioning army, who would go in and launch the bombs for me, so my hands could stay clean.

 

hence i see why the army has to be the way it is. it could not fulfill it's function if it was any other way.

 

it is a system of converting people into deploy-able resources to be used often unethically, but without them even realizing it.

 

my issue with the army is not the people who serve in it (who i find extraordinarily brave.)

 

it is the people who deploy said armies.

 

(and i don't mean the generals and commanders. etc. they are as much puppets as the rest of us. i mean the real controllers.)

 

lol.. don't i sound like a conspiracy theory nutter there! :-)

 

in a different parrarell universe i would like to fantasis that things are run a bit better (me thinks this might be the start of an idea for a short story?)

 

for example, army's still exist, because from time to time they are needed for genuine reasons. even i can see that.

 

but everyone is only there on the battlefield, because they choose to be.

 

i.e. they are asked first if the up coming battle is for a cause they believe in. 

 

no bullying or conditioning is used. they are just given the facts, and permitted to decide for themselves.

 

i also think that any new recruit to the army should have it explained to them what real war actually means.

 

there should be at least a week where they are shown the battle field hospitals, the blood, the gore. the innocent childrens bodies.

 

mates who might one moment be standing next to you, and the next moment, let's just say there might not be much left of them.

 

..so that they will question a commander when they are asked to push a button, often remotely with no connection to what it is they are actually really doing.

 

clearly this would not work in practice, but the fact that i think this is why i'm unsuitable to serve eh?

 

lol... if i was left in charge of the army, for those wars that really actually matter, and are important, i think we'd all be doomed eh?

 

by the time i'd given everyone a fair chance to decide if they want to fight for me, the enemy would of overrun us all.

 

all the best.



#20 dotmarsdotcom

dotmarsdotcom

    Snowdon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 247 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:no expections

Posted 10 November 2014 - 01:22 PM

I've just had another thought, 

 

a bit more on the pro side for army's.

 

that thought is, that certain wars have taken place, with combatants (and their loved ones) making the ultimate sacrifice, so that people like me can sit here blathering on :-)

 

..they died so i could voice my opinions, be them valid or not.

 

i appreciate and am grateful for such people who served to protect my rights to do this.

 

there are certain countries, where if you say things like i just said, you are tracked down and "disappear"

 

thank you to those gave their life's to stop that sort of thing happening.


Edited by dotmarsdotcom, 10 November 2014 - 01:22 PM.


#21 Laddo

Laddo

    Ben Nevis

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 280 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kent
  • Interests:Art, films, TV, music, games, science, the universe

Posted 10 November 2014 - 02:12 PM

^I totally agree with this, but I would say this is more on the pro side for the soldiers on the frontline rather than the armies they fight for though. The people at the top who send wave after wave of men and women to their deaths, though? I have no praise for them. People forget that battles are directed by humans. Humans tend to make mistakes, then arrogantly blame the mistakes on everyone else but them. The whole system is grossly flawed



#22 UnusualPatronus

UnusualPatronus

    Scafell Pike

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Classical piano improvisation , composing music (amateur level), art, reading, writing, nature, animals, 3D Modeling, computer animation, animated film and fantasy

Posted 10 November 2014 - 02:46 PM

The army is needed without question and I met some of the most inspirational people there. There is no conspiracy of bullying within it. You've known what I wish I had known ... the army is a culture of control, a herd mentality, creating soldiers who will without question follow orders.

I am an extremely passive person, a complete push over when it comes to confrontation, and in the army I got pushed over.

Is it the militaries fault I suffered?

No, it is me not understanding things, not standing up for myself etc.

The Army is a machine and it runs smoothly, with military precision — no pun intended. I was surrounded with people who were embracing it. Some with natural aggressive nature's, and others that follow. The army does need people like that, it is a fighting force. I just wished I'd realised before hand.

But I think that the army would not be good for anyone on the spectrum. Whether they're passive or outspoken.

#23 Mihaela

Mihaela

    Mt Blanc

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 693 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Cheshire
  • Interests:Too many!

Posted 11 November 2014 - 06:05 AM

Armies are only needed to protect nation states and their wealthy elites against others who covet that wealth and power.  In theory violence (war & killing) is only used when diplomacy fails.  Too often, diplomacy is intentionally dishonest. 

Some national psyches are more belligerent than others.  The Scandinavians or Costa Ricans are not noted for making war, for example.  The more bellicose nations have invariably had a long history of colonialism, imperialism, religious fanaticism, oppression of weaker cultures, etc. and built up their power and wealth through mercilessly exploiting the weak (just look at slave trade and the mill children of England).  I'd prefer to go the way of San Marino, the world's oldest surviving republic, with its 'toy' army.  If the world was made up of thousands of microstates like San Marino, we wouldn't need wars or armies.  Yes, I'm a dreamer, an idealist and I abhor all injustice. :)



#24 UnusualPatronus

UnusualPatronus

    Scafell Pike

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Classical piano improvisation , composing music (amateur level), art, reading, writing, nature, animals, 3D Modeling, computer animation, animated film and fantasy

Posted 11 November 2014 - 09:47 AM

When one man in power wants more, it is likely he'll try to take it. War ensues. If only they realised that they don't need more.
Many people have won the lottery ... then realised they still aren't happy. You can never have enough of anything when you set your limits too high. The search for power and fortune are soul destroying when your only goal is more!
Though world peace is possible, when and how long it would last is a different question. Eventually someone will want more.

To fight against wrongs is right and I'm thankful that 'they' have!

We wouldn't be here otherwise. In my own way I'm grateful and today more than ever I'll remember them.

I've updated twice now as I think I'm going to deep. But not wanting to remove what I've already said I'll just add, I'm optimistic for future, peace is possible but I am respectful of our past.

Edited by UnusualPatronus, 11 November 2014 - 11:08 AM.


#25 Waterboatman

Waterboatman

    Snowdon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 230 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:West Berkshire, in a rural spot.

Posted 11 November 2014 - 11:03 AM

---- deleted ----

too much personal info.


Edited by Waterboatman, 11 November 2014 - 11:42 AM.


#26 Mihaela

Mihaela

    Mt Blanc

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 693 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Cheshire
  • Interests:Too many!

Posted 11 November 2014 - 11:33 AM

Agreed, to fight against wrongs is right, but to fight with arms is wrong, and always will be.  It sets a bad example. 

 

I remember them too, but as naive and well-meaning cannon fodder who'd been wooed by the jingoism and propaganda.  The conscripts suffered hell while their 'superiors'  sat back in luxury drinking port in their commandeered mansions well behind the lines.  Earl 'Butcher' Haig, who founded the British Legion responsible for poppy appeal (an idea of an American woman), was a psychopathic monster responsible for slaughter of up to 2 million men, and who callously had young officers shot at dawn to 'goad his troops'.  http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/feb/11/jasonburke.theobserver His son recently objected to the pardoning of the 306 soldiers shot for 'cowardice' (now called PTSD - many would have been aspies). Some of the bravest people in those times were the conscientious objectors who were sent to hard labour camps.  World War 1 was utterly pointless.  It paved the way for Nazism to take hold, and its direct result was World War 2 and the holocaust.  The conscripts suffered hell while their 'superiors'  sat back in luxury drinking port in their commandeered mansions well behind the lines.  Thankfully, we are more cynical today, when our 'leaders' wage war on the most dubious of grounds - such as non-existent weapons of mass destruction.  Up to a million innocent civilians in Iraq experienced first-hand what is meant by that most grotesque of euphemisms 'collateral damage'.

 

I'm sorry, but I can't have respect for a system that behaves with such hypocrisy and glorifies war and militarism.  It's nothing about fighting for 'democracy' or 'freedom', but more about exploiting ordinary people to fight and die in protecting the interests of a wealthy elite.

By the way, members of my family included both soldiers and CO's.   My father was in the British navy on the Murmansk convoys working under the hardest of conditions.  He survived, but it was Gorbachev who gave them all medals.  The British government refused to recognise their contribution until lobbying eventually made them give in a couple of years ago. 


Edited by Mihaela, 11 November 2014 - 11:44 AM.


#27 UnusualPatronus

UnusualPatronus

    Scafell Pike

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Classical piano improvisation , composing music (amateur level), art, reading, writing, nature, animals, 3D Modeling, computer animation, animated film and fantasy

Posted 11 November 2014 - 12:45 PM

I have thought a lot on this post. I agree with you Mihaela, but I do think in some cases it was necessary to take up arms in face of immediate threat of arms. I'm referring to the distant past where some were fought for survival.

Though the two world wars ... Unnecessary! All modern battles are fought unnecessarily.

I am too young to really comment much more. I know what you are saying and it is right.

#28 dotmarsdotcom

dotmarsdotcom

    Snowdon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 247 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:no expections

Posted 11 November 2014 - 11:37 PM

fantastic replies folks,

 

you guys are always so much better at explaining things with words.

 

I must admit was hoping for someone who was really the total opoisite of my view points, to come on.

 

the reason being I've been on other web sites, and explained my views, and got really flamed, trolled, asked to leave etc.

 

so I saw value in perhaps someone explaining to me why they think I am am wrong, but in the more pleasant controlled debate sort of forum this site appears to command (which I love.)

 

we all appear to pretty much agree with each other though lol

 

I still maintain we have to be very sensitive to those who have lost limbs etc. in battles, or those who have lost loved ones in battles. etc.

 

I bet to them our views on it all- might be pretty upsetting to them.

 

so I'm glad to see we've all maintained a sensitive balance, when we've stated our disillusion with those bits we don't agree with.

 

yah!

 

all the best.



#29 Aeolienne

Aeolienne

    Kilimanjaro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1123 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Leamington Spa, Warks
  • Interests:Baroque music, green issues (esp. renewable energy), hillwalking, Quakerism, reading (astronomy, fiction, popular science), practical conservation, art exhibitions, royal-watching

Posted 02 March 2017 - 11:47 PM

OTOH, the Israeli army has launched a recruitment drive for autistic people. Makes a change from software testing, I guess.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...e-east-39106200







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Aspergers, defamation, slander, libel, corruption, army, MoD, armed forces

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users