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

Only taken 25 years

  • 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
So 25 years ago the Military became more open and accepting of others, yet it has taken that long to right some wrongs.

Sacked LGBT veterans can reclaim removed medals https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56079009

I know some folk might say that people knew the rules, however if those rules where abhorrent to wider society that just doesn’t stand.

Married women, pregnant colleagues and inter rank relationships have all dragged behind the curve over time and the Military has always waited too long to catch up, some good people will have missed out on great careers.
 
Click to expand...
I don’t really understand how these cases became cases. I served with a few chaps who clearly preferred to bowl over the wicket, to all and were left to their own devices - to the extent that they were posted to positions where they were unlikely to receive ridicule. It’s been going on since the time of the war poets.

How do these cases come into the domain of the publically visible?
 
I can see where both Busby & Stevienics are coming from and have my own views. Yes the military were slow to change the rules to be in line with broader society but i am not convinced that being behind was necessarily all wrong.

Busby claims the rules were abhorrent to broader society - i am not convinced that was true at the time, society at large had (rightly) certainly become much more accepting of the gay community but there were (and still are) pockets of resistance who saw it as wrong and condemned the changes to the military rules. We must also remember that the services sometimes need to serve in other parts of the world - sometimes in countries where even to be accused of being gay is enough to see a capital sentence imposed. There were also concerns in the 90's when i was still in about the practicalities of the situation - were there dangers about, for example, gay NCOs abusing junior personnel; even today stories occasionally surface about male NCOs abusing female personnel so the prospect of even more cases of abuse of a new type would not have been welcome 25 years ago.

Similarly, like Stevie, during my time in the 70's through to 99, there were many individuals of both sexes who were widely believed or acknowledged to be batting for the other side, yet the only cases i knew of where such individuals had faced sanctions were cases where they had brought themselves to 'official' attention through being caught 'cottaging' or using it as a lever to avoid going to GW1 or announcing it loudly to a large group in a pub.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the rules, the individuals knew the rules at the time and chose to continue serving and took that risk. If their conduct at the time, insofar as it affected the service was acceptable then Good Conduct badges & medals should not have been forfeited and if any were 'fitted up' to be charged, as one individual has alleged, then there is an issue there. But the services have always lost good people who would have had good (or better) careers if they had been able to conform to the rules - medical fitness, deployability, matrimonial presssures have all over time taken good tradesmen out of the services but it isn't possible to amend all the rules to keep all the people all the time. When such rules are changed then there are costs and practical issues that arise from those changes - not easy in days of shrinking budgets and reduced resources.

I am content that those who were blameless at the time in terms of their public behaviour and contribution to the service should have their dignity & medals etc restored, but for a blanket forgiveness for all i am less supportive.
 
I think my point is that it's taken far too long for some people, for whom the removal of their medals were part of their humiliation at the time, to reclaim their part of their dignity.

Makes you wonder what all these diversity champions are doing?
 
Mustang said:
Making loud noises, but actually doing nothing as that involves work?
Click to expand...
Not to worry. MOD has now made everyone put a MANDATORY annual appraisal objective at the top of your objectives on E&D / D&I / Alphabet today whatever it is called today so ALL is good......................... Got to justify someone's (meaningless, pointless existence of a) job after all!!!
 
Rugby-Jock-Lad said:
Not to worry. MOD has now made everyone put a MANDATORY annual appraisal objective at the top of your objectives on E&D / D&I / Alphabet today whatever it is called today so ALL is good......................... Got to justify someone's (meaningless, pointless existence of a) job after all!!!
Click to expand...
Have fun with it. Treat it as a SMART objective and find evidence of you being inclusive, and put it in there.
 
"Inform a member of the BAME community, by the end of March 21, that the RAF is an inclusive employer and would love to recruit them"

Order an Indian takeaway

"Your Curry sir"

"Cheers mate, did you know the RAF is an inclusive employer and would love to see you down the AFCO?"

"What?"

"Alright, thanks for the curry goodnight"

"Completed, Feb 21, informed a member of the BAME community that the RAF is an inclusive employer and would love to recruit them"

Compulsory objective, completed it mate.
 
StickyFingers said:
"Inform a member of the BAME community, by the end of March 21, that the RAF is an inclusive employer and would love to recruit them"

Order an Indian takeaway

"Your Curry sir"

"Cheers mate, did you know the RAF is an inclusive employer and would love to see you down the AFCO?"

"What?"

"Alright, thanks for the curry goodnight"

"Completed, Feb 21, informed a member of the BAME community that the RAF is an inclusive employer and would love to recruit them"

Compulsory objective, completed it mate.
Click to expand...
Now that is SMART :-D!!!! I take it back..............
 
When I joined in the 70's I remember being told that being homosexual was illegal in the UK military and I had to state, in writing, that I was not a homosexual. That is no longer acceptable by society - because we have a greater understanding of sexual orientation things?

What should we do about those lads in the trenches circa 1914/18 who were debunked or even executed for cowardice because they were suffering from shell shock. This is no longer acceptable by society- because we have a greater understanding of mind related things?

My point is, things were done that suited the time. If we are going to be retrospective about LGBT+ stuff surely here has to be retrospective action against anything that adversely affected anyone based on something we now accept as "the norm"
 
And that is one of my concerns; what was done was done in the context of what was legal and acceptable at the time. Saying sorry now and giving someone their medals back doesn't actually change much - even giving them a shed load of dosh now can't change the life they led/could have led.

On the subject of the 'shot at dawn' cases, the reality is that in a vast majority of UK cases where the death sentence was handed down (at a time when death was the sentence for murder in civvy street) the sentence was later commuted by the confirming officer (I've looked at some of the records in The National Archives). In the cases where the sentence was carried out, a large proportion had aggravating factors - multiple desertions or refusals, assault or murder etc as part of the offence. The French actually carried out a much larger number of executions.

The truth is that with all these cases, whether it be homosexuality in the 70's onwards or shot at dawn in WW1, they are not all identical and there are as many variations as there are cases. Blanket pardons are just the easy way of avoiding the hard task of reviewing every case and potentially saying "this man was guilty as f**k & deserved what he got" or "this man deserves sympathy and should be pardoned".

Remember, rewriting history can happen again. At the moment we, rightly in most people's view, vilify kiddy fiddlers. We used to vilify gay people in a similar way - in 50 years time would we be happy to see today's kiddy fiddlers pardoned and apologised to because their sexuality is better understood ???
 
Even, very unlikely, if I'm still alive in 50 years time, unless I get on Vims list of course, I can't see the age of consent falling that low, but then that's me looking through my today's eyes not eyes of those yet to be born.
 
busby1971 said:
I think my point is that it's taken far too long for some people, for whom the removal of their medals were part of their humiliation at the time, to reclaim their part of their dignity.

Makes you wonder what all these diversity champions are doing?
Click to expand...
Is the answer "Ensuring white, middle-aged, hetrosexual christian males with all limbs intact are blocked at every opportunity"?
 
Whilst whiling away the time feigning interest in yet another Skype, I happened across the 2019 Wigston Report on Inappropriate Behaviours.

To use an analogy, this showed every sign of a driver with no financial boundaries bringing his Ford Galaxy (used exclusively for the school run) into a garage with an odd rumble from the boot, and emerging with a new 5 series BMW M3 coupe.

Chasing ghosts
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top