My Army career was dotted with misdemeanours and I have been casting around for ones that I can claim that the silken tongue of the Emperor Mong (see separate thread) was responsible for. Here's one I can't pin on him... I once got ten extras (and arguably found myself in another regiment) for refusing to support a major Wiltshire-based military 'happening' that was effectively an arms fair with a solitary and rather afterthoughtish 'public day' to keep the plebs and the audit office happy. My rather simplistic belief was that as an Army Officer I was happy to use the equipment but less than happy to help BAE, Royal Ordnance, etc sell the stuff. I still think that this is the case and that there's nothing in your pay or in the job specification that requires you to abandon this ethical position. The Royal Regiment in question was, I think, occupationally bad at seeing this distinction and that was a leadership and a judgement thing. In my later flying career there was far less toadying and courting Westlands for cash, for example. Was I right? Can a soldier draw the luxuriously ethical distinction that I did? Or are we all - by association - linked to the success (British jobs) and necessary prosperity of such arguably dodgy organisations as BAE?