I am confused as to why you would point out that I am making assumptions........
We pretty much can only go on assumptions and most posts on here are assumptions. We have few facts. You too are making assumptions. It is an assumption to say that you may think that he has gone AWOL and an assumption to think that the family could be lying.
I am not even sure what you are calling assumptions are assumptions. It's a fact that we have been told by family members that he was happy, and there were no issues. I understand that the family could be hiding some issues within the family, but I think that is unlikely - they won't be doing themselves any favours by hiding any family issues as speaking about them could help us better understand where he could be. I will 'assume' that his family's comments about his dog, his life etc are true.
Why would he need to run away from family anyway - he's miles and miles away from his family, living in barracks in southern England. As far as I'm aware his family live 400miles away in Scotland.
There is nothing whatsoever to suggest he has gone AWOL. So it makes sense to more or less rule it out.
To clarify, I am not at all saying the family are lying.
As I've said before there's much more in this case than what's presented in msm and le statements. There's plenty out there in my opinion out there that suggests awol.
My issue really stems from the things presented as fact when they are opinion, for example the d notice. Opinion not fact. No one has ever clarified it except Tony, because it's his opinion presented as fact.
The dog is a bone of contention for me. Much is made of it being held in high regard by Corrie but again it's easy to Finsbury contradictions.
My point is, if Corrie had any issues that would sway him to running away from his life we wouldn't know about it, because that wouldn't give the police a reason to spend 26k it was reported on finding him.