Welcome to E-Goat :: The Totally Unofficial Royal Air Force Rumour Network
Join our free community to unlock a range of benefits like:
  • Post and participate in discussions.
  • Send and receive private messages with other members.
  • Respond to polls and surveys.
  • Upload and share content.
  • Gain access to exclusive features and tools.
Join 7.5K others today

Falklands gay vet sues HMG

  • Following weeks of work, the E-GOAT team are delighted to present to you a new look to the forums with plenty of new features. Take a look around and see what you think!
Trending This Week
View More Trending
For younger readers being gay or getting pregnant were once valid reasons for being kicked out of the services

After serving for 18 years he was "forced out" because he was gay he appears to have served in more than a few hot spots. He served in the Falklands War, did six tours of duty in Northern Ireland and was also posted to conflict zones in the Middle East.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48184978

"A Falklands veteran forced out of the Royal Navy over his sexuality plans to sue for the return of military honours. Joe Ousalice, 68, served for nearly 18 years but was discharged in 1993 when there was a ban on LGBT people serving in the armed forces."

If he wins and gets his gongs back and perhaps some compensation are we in for a similar re-run of the money handed out to members of the WRAF who got pregnant and left back in the day?
 
Click to expand...
Tin basher said:
For younger readers being gay or getting pregnant were once valid reasons for being kicked out of the services

After serving for 18 years he was "forced out" because he was gay he appears to have served in more than a few hot spots. He served in the Falklands War, did six tours of duty in Northern Ireland and was also posted to conflict zones in the Middle East.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48184978

"A Falklands veteran forced out of the Royal Navy over his sexuality plans to sue for the return of military honours. Joe Ousalice, 68, served for nearly 18 years but was discharged in 1993 when there was a ban on LGBT people serving in the armed forces."

If he wins and gets his gongs back and perhaps some compensation are we in for a similar re-run of the money handed out to members of the WRAF who got pregnant and left back in the day?
Click to expand...


I don't think he'll get very far. Despite the armed forces now being open to all walks of life, at the time it was against Queens Regulations for gays to serve in the military. To backpedal would basically be tantamount to saying that at that time, HM The Queen was homophobic. That won't get very far. The rules at the time were not deemed homophobic, but were deemed necessary for the proper function of a military war machine. Same goes for single-sex trades like the infantry.

I bet the lawyer who took this on isn't one of those 'no win, no fee' bods!
 
Not quite true...Whilst two blokes having a fondle would have got you out of the forces faster than you could say 'Fomz is my gay lover and that's the truth and nothing can change that fact' when I was in the FI if two girls decided to suck each other's t1ts in a quiet corner of the Lot or Albert they'd have got a standing ovation, several new friends who just like to watch and my unending thanks for re-stocking the w@nk bank with new images...and not a legal challenge from anyone.
 
It appears he lost his LS&GC medal. He kept all the others. I know if you was a bad boy before you were eligible for Lsgcm you would not be awarded it but I don't know if you could lose for being a mighty after you'd got it. I suppose the title of the medal gives it away.

I'm a citizen not a subject
 
justintime129 said:
Explain

I'm a citizen not a subject
Click to expand...

Stevienics is right, even if you've been a naughty boy, there's stipulation for the LSGCM to be awarded if you've got the support of your CO. There's a form to fill in, and evidence that needs bringing to light, etc. But it can be done.

That said, it's still at the discretion of the Medals Office I believe. I've got a mate who lost his for punching out some nobber who had actually just assaulted someone's wife. 'Good deed' though it may have been, he still got charged and denied his LSGCM.
 
Last edited:
If I remember correctly, there were 5 categories that would forever bar you from a LSGCM. Can't remember many but drink driving was one and fraud was another.
 
Still no mentioned yet, must be slacking:PDT_Xtremez_34: IT SMELLS FISHYban please Beside the other long standing reason for not having Homosexuals was to do with coercion within the ranks. Such as a Officer going down the local tavern to fondly with Ivan the butch biker. Or if kept quiet within the ranks but some snide Corporal or Sargent wanting extra favours from his Ranker. Either way un becoming of a Officer or lower rank who wears the Crown on his cap badge and against QR's.
Like many in the past we in the lower ranks knew the odd one or two. And if many of us Falkland Island FOGs at MPA remember the WRAF code for lesbians was collar up. Blimey I could tell you tales of a 3 PARA going away party that would make you jump in the Salamanca Camp Belize NAFFI. Lets just say I was grateful for being a Corporal on Guard Commander Duty that night.you've got tokidding
 
I understand his pain but how far do we go back in 'righting wrongs' that are wrong now but were not (legally anyway) then? He knew at the time that he was at risk of contravening QRs and rendering himself liable to discharge because that was the rule (law actually) then.
Some things that were legal then are not now legal (and vice versa), how many of us that were around then referred to queers, poofs and lezzies in derogatory terms because that was the way life was then? Should we be punished for those actions of 30 or 40 years ago even though they were not seen as wrong at the time? If not, then why should his actions then now be judged by todays standards?
What is normal/acceptable now, that in 30 or 40 years time our children, grandchildren or great grandchildren will be calling foul on and demanding be corrected?
 
The answer is was the ban fair, on reflection society has decided it was.

So if the ban is considered unreasonable then any offences should be annulled and any wrongs made right.

I don't think its acceptable to say that its the rules, we all knew them, so should have followed them.

People who did normal things should not be persecuted. How far do you go back, this chap is still alive and his life has been negatively impacted because of it, so why shouldn't he be compensated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
busby1971 said:
The answer is was the ban fair, on reflection society has decided it was.

So if the ban is considered unreasonable then any offences should be annulled and any wrongs made right.

I don't think its acceptable to say that its the rules, we all knew them, so should have followed them.

People who did normal things should not be persecuted. How far do you go back, this chap is still alive and his life has been negatively impacted because of it, so why shouldn't he be compensated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Fair point, but has his life really been impacted? I mean REALLY IMPACTED?? As much as I'm sure he'd like an extra medal to prove his length of service, it's just a shiny coin on a ribbon. To my understanding he's not been financially impacted, it's just his personal disappointment that he never got one. And on that note, he's no different to countless others who missed out on the LSGCM for minor naughtiness.
 
Witty_Banter said:
Fair point, but has his life really been impacted? I mean REALLY IMPACTED?? As much as I'm sure he'd like an extra medal to prove his length of service, it's just a shiny coin on a ribbon. To my understanding he's not been financially impacted, it's just his personal disappointment that he never got one. And on that note, he's no different to countless others who missed out on the LSGCM for minor naughtiness.
Click to expand...
He has been financially impacted by having a reduced pension. Civilian wise he was on the streets. Who'd employ someone with a dishonourable discharge on their cv.

I'm a citizen not a subject
 
He has been financially impacted by having a reduced pension. Civilian wise he was on the streets. Who'd employ someone with a dishonourable discharge on their cv.
Click to expand...

1. The pension is unaffected by the discharge
2. He was conditionally discharged, which is entirely different from a dishonourable discharge.
3. Wanna buy some magic beans? They're red.
 
But he might have stayed in and done many more years service, loss of earnings and associated benefits.

I think JIT garden is already full of red bean plants


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Stevienics said:
1. The pension is unaffected by the discharge
2. He was conditionally discharged, which is entirely different from a dishonourable discharge.
3. Wanna buy some magic beans? They're red.
Click to expand...
So a reduced pension isn't a financial penalty.

Where does it say he was conditionally discharged from the Navy. The only mention if a conditional discharge is from a civvy court.


I'm a citizen not a subject
 
justintime129 said:
So a reduced pension isn't a financial penalty.

Where does it say he was conditionally discharged from the Navy. The only mention if a conditional discharge is from a civvy court.


I'm a citizen not a subject
Click to expand...

By his own admission, he knew his bisexuality was illegal / not allowed in Service before signing up, which means he lied at his attestation and all the way through his career. As the sexuality thing was a written law, he could just as easily have been charged with dishonesty, reduced in rank, and dishonourably discharged, but he wasn't. But I'm sure all of that will be completely overlooked because he's gay and 'has rights'. He may well end up getting more than he bargained for, but I'm sure some PC slaphead in MOD will cave in and give him whatever he asks for.
 
So a reduced pension isn't a financial penalty.
Click to expand...

Not when its contingent upon time served, and he had absolute control from the outset on that.

...and he wasn't "dishonourably discharged". It doesn't say that anywhere.
 
From one of the articles I've read on this - he already had his LSGCM and after he was found guilty of being bi someone literally came in with a pair of scissors and cut it off his uniform.

However if one of the things that prevents you from getting the long gong is fraud then case closed IMO, lying about your sexuality on enlistment and throughout your career looks pretty fraudulent to me.
 
I must admit, I did think it strange that the RN kicked him out for being gay - I always thought that taking it in the poop hoop was something that our land-averse brethren were taught during phase one training ....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top