The Military ID Card Argument — Two Contradictions.

There is something rather amusing about watching two people attempt to construct an argument designed to prove that I was not a Royal Military Police officer, only to end up arguing about the circumstances surrounding a military identification card that, according to their own version of events, I supposedly retained when I left the Army.

Danny says:

“Prior to a policy change in 2018, all personnel leaving the armed forces, regardless of whether they had an honorable exit or a punitive discharge via court martial, were legally required to surrender their military ID cards to be destroyed on the day of discharge. Oh dear.”

And Harry adds:

“Matt went on the run when on bail from the army. Could have lied saying he lost his card to keep it at some out of spite or whatever. Regardless, he obviously wasn't a fully trained military police officer anyway. He has just used the fact he was training to be many years as fake credentials in life of fullness. even used to claim he has post PTSD or CPSD from serving in the army.”

So, let's actually examine what they are saying.

The first problem

Danny appears to be making a great deal of the fact that I apparently did not surrender my military identification card when I left the Army.

But there is a rather obvious question:

Why was I in possession of an RMP identification card in the first place?

The argument seems to be:

• Matt had a Military Police identification card.

• Matt should have surrendered it when he was discharged.

• Therefore, somehow, this proves Matt wasn't an RMP.

But that doesn't logically follow.

If the card was issued to me as a direct result of passing the course and training to be a Royal Military Policeman, the fact that I subsequently failed to surrender it on discharge would say something about what happened that allowed me to serve in the Army.

It does not, by itself, rewrite what happened during my service.

In other words, the alleged failure to return a card is being presented as though it somehow proves the card could never legitimately have been issued to me.

That's a rather spectacular logical leap.

Then Harry makes it even more interesting

Harry speculates that I might have deliberately kept the card.

Perhaps, he suggests, I lied about losing it. Perhaps I kept it “out of spite or whatever.”

Well, which is it?

If I possessed the card because I had legitimately been issued it during my Army service, then retaining it after discharge would potentially be a matter concerning the circumstances of my departure from the Army.

But Harry then immediately tries to dismiss the significance of the card altogether by declaring:

“he obviously wasn't a fully trained military police officer anyway.”

And this is where the argument collapses into contradiction.

On one hand, they want to make an issue of the fact that I apparently retained a military identification card.

On the other hand, they want to tell everyone that I wasn't actually a trained Royal Military Police officer.

So what exactly are they arguing?

Was I issued the card or wasn't I?

If their argument is that I somehow fraudulently possessed an RMP identification card, then they need to explain how and why that happened.

If their argument is that I was issued the card legitimately, then they need to explain why its existence is supposedly evidence that I wasn't an RMP.

The important distinction

There is also an important distinction between saying:

“Matt was a Royal Military Police officer.”

and saying:

“Matt left the Army in perfect standing.”

Those are completely different propositions.

A person can serve in the military, complete their training, qualify in a particular military trade or branch, and subsequently leave the service under disciplinary circumstances, without a dishonourable discharge.

An immediate dismissable from the Army, does not magically erase someone's previous military training.

Nor does an allegation that someone failed to return an item of military property magically turn them into somebody who never received that item.

Two people, one increasingly complicated argument.

What Danny and Harry appear to have done is take one peripheral issue—the failure to surrender an ID card—and attempt to use it to discredit an entirely separate question: whether I actually served as a Royal Military Policeman.

Danny concentrates on the card. Harry speculates that I may have deliberately retained it.

Then Harry simultaneously declares that I wasn't really a fully trained military police officer anyway.

That leaves them in the rather unfortunate position of arguing over the significance of an identification card while trying to deny the significance of the qualification and service that they apparently believe the card represents.

You can't have it both ways.

If the card is irrelevant because I was never an RMP, then explain why I supposedly possessed an RMP card.

If the card was genuinely issued to me, then its existence requires an explanation that doesn't simply consist of shouting, “He wasn't really an RMP anyway.”

And if the only evidence being offered against my account is speculation about what I might have done with the card after leaving the Army, then that isn't evidence that I never served as an RMP.

It's speculation.

The simplest question

Ultimately, the question isn't:

“Did Matt hand his military ID card back on the day he left the Army?”

The question is:

“Did Matt serve as a Royal Military Policeman?”

Those are two entirely different questions.

And if Danny and Harry want to challenge my account of my military service, they should produce evidence that actually addresses that question. Because arguing about whether I surrendered a card after I had left the Army doesn't change the fact that the card, the training, the qualification and the service all relate to what happened before my dismissable.

And that is the rather entertaining contradiction in their argument.

They are trying to use the circumstances of my departure from the Army to rewrite the circumstances of my service in the Army.

It doesn't work that way.