At the recruitment office

As mentioned before, I took last Monday off work sick so that I may have my first formal interview about joining the RAF as an officer.
I had various doubts and concerns, but I felt it was something I *needed* to do. Maybe I felt I had to prove something, maybe I wanted to give two fingers to all the people who said they didn't think I would be able to do it. Maybe I was just looking for a radical change in my life.

For better or worse, on Monday I put on my best black suit, a crisp white shirt and went along to the recruitment office to see what I could do. I was asked to take a sear when I arrived by someone from the army, and so I dutifully complied. Taking orders already, I though, by the end of the day I'll be marching, shouting and using terms like "collateral damage".

The recruitment office is a great place for people watching, when you're tucked away in a corner with nothing better to do -- nothing better to do aside from occasionally looking at your notes and trying to remember the names of different aircraft and where they are based. There was a promotional video showing -- as there is in these places, practically on a loop -- and I could see the backs of the heads of three people. It annoyed me I couldn't see any more of them as I was dying to know how they were reacting to the video which was all jump cuts and flashing images and made life in the army look very exciting. When the video finished the three people stood up. Two of them I was surprised to see, since they were middle-aged and didn't seem the "type" to be considering such a career. The man made some comment to the woman he was with about wishing he was 20 years younger. Then it dawned on me. These middle aged people were a couple, accompanying their young teenaged son. The boy didn't say anything I could hear, but from what I could gather it seemed to be along the lines of "that looks good, I have no further questions". I hoped his parents would take him home and make sure he fully understood everything and that the promotional video was about as objective as a party political broadcast in China. The kid looked dumber than a bag of hammers. Not that there's anything wrong with that, a vocational career could well be the best thing to happen to him -- and to learn a trade in the armed forces better still.

I was kept waiting for almost an hour altogether, although I was greeted properly before this and told the wait was because they hadn't been told of another interviewee coming earlier. I thought this was pretty shoddy organisational skills for the armed forces, they should have synchronised watches or whatever it is they do to prevent these sorts of things.

When eventually I was lead to an interview room I was presented with my previously completed application form and informed that they needed more information or corrections in some places. There were several questions where it would say "if applicable" and ask you in such a circumstance to answer a question, like about how long you had been married or if you were currently sectioned on a mental health order. Since it wasn't applicable, I had skipped these questions -- but the answer they didn't tell you about beforehand was that in these circumstances everything had to be answered "n/a", so they didn't think you'd just missed the question. It's good to know that HR departments are the same for whatever job you want to do. I was also called upon to provide more details of extra-curricular activity for when I was at school 10 years ago, and provide dates for how long I have enjoyed reading as a pasttime. Since I was able to read, I would imagine, and before that I liked to be read to. I still do, actually, and sometimes if I'm alone and really enjoying the way something is written, I read it out loud, to increase my enjoyment.

Finally, after waiting to be seen then providing extensive details, we got to move on to the interview itself. A lot of it was like the application form, with an unhealthy interest in what I did at school and what I liked to do in my spare time when I was 16. I had to explain that while now I list things like surfing, snowboarding and rock climbing among my interests, at school the list wouldn't have stretched much beyond reading. Certain things I felt counted against me -- a lack of involvement in youth organisations, a desire during my time in education to avoid positions of responsibility, and that damn Duke of Edinburgh's award that I never finished. That last one was a pretty stupid move on my part -- I got the bronze award, I got the silver award. I started the gold award, almost froze to death on Dartmoor, spent a week hiking and camping in the Black Mountains in Wales, and even spent a week renovating a canal in the midlands -- which involved an unfortunate accident between a brick and my hand. But I never completed the other parts of the award because I went to university and was more interested in drinking and girls. I should have completed the bloody thing, but I didn't.

I was asked some questions I wasn't expecting. Like how her majesty's armed forces have a fairly relaxed position about drug and substance abuse, so long as it isn't a current problem for you. And did I have any such problems? I assured them no, and was asked if I had ever had any contact with drugs. Sure, some contact with them, I said, but I'd personally never indulged myself. They then asked me what I thought about such things generally. Totally not a question I was expecting, and I expect my libertarian soul shone through at this point when I effectively said it was none of my damn business what someone else chooses to do in the privacy of their own home.

I was also asked some probing questions about Iraq and Afghanistan. I was asked to explain the reasons for the invasion of Iraq -- try talking about weapons of mass destruction without being sarcastic, it's not easy. I think I did a reasonable job of it, explaining how we had every reason to believe there were WMD, and Iraq was being uncooperative, so there was little choice left. Why did I think we were still there, they asked me, since no WMD had been found? I explained that Iraq was a very volatile situation and to leave it now would risk it descending further into violence and civil war and most likely falling into the control of war lords. I said I believed in such a situation it could end up becoming an Islamic theocracy, and could potentially destabilise the whole gulf region. I was asked similarly about Afghanistan -- we invaded, the Taliban was removed from power, why are we still there? I don't personally think we should be there, but I also don't think it is the solider's job to question this, just as it isn't the policeman's job to question the legitimacy of the law. He might personally think that cannabis should be legalised, but he can't let that affect his application of the law. Of course, I didn't say any of that.

I was quizzed about my understanding of the job, and of the officer selection process, and about various aircraft -- and that was it. I'd been there about 3 hours by this point, and they invited me to stay around a while longer while they gave me feedback and told me what their personal recommendation would be regarding my progression. I thought it over, and told them thanks but no, ta -- I was racking up a tidy sum in parking charges (since I foolishly had parked in the "short stay", not expecting to be more than 2 hours), and they were going to put it in the post to me anyway.

I didn't have to wait long. By the middle of the week I had a formal letter following my formal interview, telling me quite formally than I wasn't going to be progressing any further with my application this time -- but that in a year's time I would be welcome to reapply, if I so desired.

This rejection can join the ranks of the rejections I received for all the bar manager jobs I applied for (including the graduate training schemes), every journalist job I ever applied or was interviewed for, and of course every last permanent PR job I went for -- not to mention any freelance job I actually interviewed for.

I can justify it all quite well. My heart wasn't really in it, as we saw before, and so when I should have been cramming about attack aircraft I was blogging instead, and I had so many questions. I don't think anyone other than my Dad and my therapist ever really thought joining the armed forces was a great idea for me -- many lovely people were supportive of it, if it was something I wanted, and many agreed that the discipline and security would do me good. I expect the competition for places for a nice, tidy admin job in the air force would have been stiff -- competition for officers places even more so.

I'm not broken hearted about it, but I do feel a bit like the people who said I couldn't do it were right.

The Evil Compass

I hadn't even realised there was any outrage over The Golden Compass until the other day I was on Snopes, checking out what was new in the world of internet hoaxes and urban legends. On the site, there was examples of two separate emails currently doing the rounds -- warning parents of the dangers of the forthcoming film, based on Philip Pullman's first novel in the His Dark Materials trilogy.

In Britain, at least, the first book was called Northern Lights, but I understand overseas it was called The Golden Compass, after the altheiometer which features in all three novels. If you've not read them, you won't know what an altheiometer is, but that doesn't really matter -- it looks a bit like a golden compass, and fits in with the subsequent books being named after important objects in the plot: The Subtle Knife and The Amber Spyglass.

I mentioned the subject of these emails was to warn parents, and in a similar way to with the Harry Potter books, it's because they are apparently anti-Christian. The books may be aimed at teens, but I'd not really thought too deeply into the messages they contained.

I was actually a little surprised that there was no claims that "His Dark Materials" was a reference to the devil, or that the books contained evil magic or heretical ideas (like parallel universes). Instead, they focus on that Philip Pullman is either an atheist or agnostic. Clearly, he must also hate freedom, want to corrupt our children and tortures small animals -- because that what atheists do.

The emails also claim that Pullman intends his books to be the antithesis of C.S. Lewis' clumsy and overtly Christian Narnia series.

I'm slightly disappointed they don't go so far as to accuse him of being satanic, nor attributing wild and hilarious quotes like the ludicrous invented J. K. Rowling quote about Jesus sucking Satan's cock.

The kind of moral outrage and religious panic that these emails embody is rare to England -- and usually reserved for immigrants, refugees, Muslims and video games, all those sorts of evils that will destroy our society and corrupt our children and possibly even steal our jobs and eat our pets. I think, for the most part, even the likes of the Daily Mail will probably be unconcerned about it -- and I'm half tempted to at least try and stir up some. Not that Pullman needs the publicity, last time I checked Northern Lights was currently the best selling paperback in the country.

But really, what this all comes down to for me is that I wholeheartedly approve of the themes behind Pullman's novels. While they are not the rabid anti-Christian rants some would have us believe, they do make a case against organised religion. Although there is no evidence to suggest Pullman has ever said as much, if they are intended as the opposite of Narnia, I couldn't be happier. If it is okay to expose children to one viewpoint, it is not only okay but important to expose them to counter-views.

I personally have described myself as both atheist and agnostic, although I lean more towards agnosticism since I don't believe one can ever know for certain and like the Nietzschean perspective that we can't ever know if God exists because by very definition the nature of God would be impossible for us to comprehend. I would not want my children growing up into young adults and adults believing in something without having questioned it, or held it up to scrutiny. I would be more upset about films with overtly religious messages wanting to brainwash our children than I would about questioning authority.

The first email describes Pullman as "a proud atheist who belongs to secular humanist societies" -- and I'm wondering why this is somehow a bad thing? I actively welcome someone who is openly agnostic or atheist -- too often people look down their noses at agnosticism as being a kind of wishy-washy inability to commit, or atheism as a lack of values. I would encourage more fiction -- or popular entertainment, or whatever you want to call it -- with counter-arguments to these ideas.

I think the last reviewer puts it best when they reason "[Pullman's] fundamental objection is to ideological tyranny" -- perhaps the kind of ideological tyranny perhaps that is outraged at a differing viewpoint?


And for anyone who has read and enjoyed the books, go here and follow the daemon link to find out what yours what be. Mine is apparently a snow leopard, which isn't bad -- I was worried at first it might be a woodlouse.