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...
Stevienics said:
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.
Click to expand...
But he wasnt conditionally discharged was he.

I'm a citizen not a subject
 
Soo's Sooty said:
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.
Click to expand...

So, according to Wiki (I'm sure I could find it elsewhere), making false records could have got him 2 years in the clink, as could disgraceful conduct of a cruel or indecent kind, both of which automatically result in dishonourable discharge (or discharge in disgrace as they've called it).

He may think he's been hard done by, but it sounds like he may have gotten off lightly!
 
Doesnt the compensation given to Wrafs who were discharged on pregnancy set a precedent. You could say they knew the score before getting pregnant, that they'd have no future in the RAF.

I'm a citizen not a subject
 
justintime129 said:
Doesnt the compensation given to Wrafs who were discharged on pregnancy set a precedent. You could say they knew the score before getting pregnant, that they'd have no future in the RAF.

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

Not really, no. Firstly, getting pregnant - intentionally or accidentally - is the result of an intentional act, but one that's deemed 'normal' by society, even back then. Secondly, getting pregnant isn't illegal, then or now.

I know your Human Rights alarm must be going absolutely batsh!t at the moment, but I really don't think he has a leg to stand on. He knowingly broke numerous laws, and has to deal with the consequences of getting caught. The fact that the laws have now changed to reflect a more open society are is, quite frankly, besides the point.

If the legal age of consent was lowered to 10 tomorrow, would you be campaigning for half the people on the sex offender's register to have their convictions overturned? How about Gary Glitter?
 
Interesting - just read this - in 1999, the European Court of Human Rights unanimously finds that the investigation into, and subsequent discharge of, two personnel from the Royal Navy on the basis of their sexual orientation is a breach of their right to a private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. So, the precident for that may have already been set.

Doesnt mean, however that he'll get away with failing to disclose it at attestation mnig

 
Witty_Banter said:
Interesting - just read this - in 1999, the European Court of Human Rights unanimously finds that the investigation into, and subsequent discharge of, two personnel from the Royal Navy on the basis of their sexual orientation is a breach of their right to a private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. So, the precident for that may have already been set.

Doesnt mean, however that he'll get away with failing to disclose it at attestation mnig
Click to expand...

It wasn’t illegal at this point, unless it was with a chap below the age of consent, which was probably 21 at the time, it was against QRs, so it was against the rules not the laws, now were those rules reasonable and fair, as they were dropped without a massive impact on operational impact I would suggest that they had been enforced longer than necessary.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Disciplinary offences were and are dealt with as offences against the legal backdrop of Acts of Parliament which is why charges specify the section of the Air Force Act as set out in the Manual of Air Force Law. The RN position is similar. So they were not offences against rules but laws. That is why it required an Act of Parliament to allow LGBT personnel to serve.
 
Falklands gay vet sues HMG

Cheers, I mean it wasn’t illegal outside of he military, so in societies view QRs and MAFL on this matter were unfair and unreasonable which is why a higher court ruled against them.

Just to add, the illegal actions of this guy are only illegal due an illegal law.

The military has a history of retaining pretty crap rules, and losing count cases.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Im in 2 minds to this.

1) when he signed up he admitted he knew his sexuality was deemed, by QR's at the time, as 'illegal'. So in that part he got found out and he got kicked out.

but on the flip side

2) he had done 18 years. Surely (and i am probably wrong!) when LSGC medal is awarded its for the first 15 years 'undetected crime' and subsequent awards are for time after that. He had served and been awarded it. That seems harsh to take it away 3 years after it was awarded. IMHO.
 
When I was in I knew of at least two people who were paid up members of the BNP, they didn't hide it. The seniors turned a blind eye. Racism was accepted but homosexuality wasn't. They should have been turfed out, but it was a different world back then.

What I'm trying to say is things we knew were wrong were let go and other things which weren't wrong werent let go.

I'm a citizen not a subject
 
Last edited:
I get all the arguments about "he knew what was right or wrong at the time" and that other people, such as Alan Turing, couldn't use their previous usefulness to the safety of the nation excuse. However, in retrospect, why can't he have his long gong back...?
 
Gonterseed said:
I get all the arguments about "he knew what was right or wrong at the time" and that other people, such as Alan Turing, couldn't use their previous usefulness to the safety of the nation excuse. However, in retrospect, why can't he have his long gong back...?
Click to expand...

My best guess is that it was taken away because he had knowingly been in contravention of Queen's Regs since he joined, which would probably have been seen as 15 years of deviousness rather than 'good conduct', hence taking the medal off him. To give it back wouldn't be right.

To my understanding though, 'good conduct' has now been dropped from the LSGC title so that the Ruperts can have one too - should he be allowed to claim the new long service medal instead, in recognition of 18 years in service? Possibly, but I don't think he'd want that one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top