Search results

First, I'd be careful of offering any sort of "opinion," analysis, guidance, whatever you want to call it that could in any way make it seem like you're criticizing the CAF, the government, or the chain of command. QR&Os and all that. Second, I'm not sure what good a fringe party is going to do...

*Shudder* The only MP to be fined for illegal robocalls. No thanks!

Just email the directorate ([email protected]) and ask who it is.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/5149940-mohawk-college-keynote-speaker-s-war-medals-under-scrutiny/

Why not call the person and ask?

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/four-weeks-later-what-we-know-and-dont-about-michael-zehaf-bibeau

Did you apply for one trade, then change your application to another trade? I'm thinking *maybe* they were asking because they had application A (say, for RMS Clk) and application B (say, for Sup Tech) and they weren't sure which one was accurate. Or have you always applied for this one trade...

+1 It will be interesting to see which charge sticks (or if both do). Is it more serious to impersonate a public officer, or to use military items/uniforms without authority? Also, is a CAF member considered a "public officer" by virtue of his rank (i.e. a Snr NCO or officer), or is it any CAF...

Yep: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/the-soldier-who-wasnt-how-uniform-mistakes-gave-him-away/article21572238/

:rofl: I look forward to the show that one-man "advocacy" "group" thinks he'll put on.

At this time all "outside of garrison" appearances are to be in civilians:

It was my fault for not being clearer. I will rephrase: in said situations (criticizing a superior, giving away official secrets, etc), there are specific rules (QR&Os, DAODs, CFAOs, etc) in place prohibiting such behaviour. However, under what authority would an order be given to remove...

To be fair, that order has since been clarified to allow for direct travel in uniform to and from work. It's only public appearances and detours (coffee shops, getting groceries, going to the bank) that remain prohibited.

Yes, I am. I understand and agree that it would be a lawful command to order someone to remove photos that specifically compromise OPSEC/PERSEC, give away critical mission details, etc. But not long ago the military attempted to get everyone to sign an "appropriate comments on social media"...

I would question the legality of giving legal orders to do so. It might be highly recommended but I have not seen anything that specifically states "you will remove x photos."

Photo from CBC News To me, it seems contradictory to be guarding the guards, who don't have ammunition or the ability to defend themselves, with other guards, who do have ammunition.  We definitely need to consider the sentry policy; at the very least, why not arm the Sentry Commander, who is...

The Legion defines veterans as: and that is the standard required to get special privileges such as a veterans' licence plate (in Ontario as least). I would suggest that's a more than reasonable starting point for the definition of veterans.