Hello Sailor?!

[foormort]

http://telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/03/17/navy17.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/03/17/ixhome.html

[Oggin Aviator]

and your point is, exactly? That it is interesting that the RN is proving it is not homophobic or interesting that the Second Sea Lord is a pilot?

[Mr C Hinecap]

Methinks the Oggin Aviator doth protest too much.

Lighten up. I mean:

'allows same-sex sailors to "tie the knot" on board ship and is considering allowing personnel to march in uniform at London's Gay Pride festival.'

will certainly attract some comment.
Modern attitudes? In the Navy? Hundreds of years of tradition, unhampered by progress? :ok:

[Wyler]

What is interesting is that this plank of a Second Sea Lord wants to address the issue through Drama based activities. Another shining example of trendy, Whitehall based thinking. Has this man got nothing better to do than think up ideas like this? Does he really think that putting on a play for a bunch of overworked, under resourced serviceman is suddenly going to change the world?
How is it that these so called leaders can take what is basically a sound policy and over egg it to the point of stupidity.

One thing he did say that I agree with. The Navy is classless. Well said.

[station workshops]

I'd like to know what the Vice Admiral's doing with his right hand in the press photo. Maybe a future subject of caption competition?

[Fg Off Max Stout]

http://telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/03/17/navy17a.jpg
"Close your eyes and open your mouth, shippers"

[6Z3]

AJ, the titular head of the FAA and for more than 30 years one of the most highly regarded officers the Royal Navy has had the privilege to have recruited. A Plank? I really don't think so. A Ruler more like, and one that would measure up to any B words character the Crabs might like to offer.

[Bob Viking]

I think you hit a nerve with that one!
Are you gonna cry. Are you gonna squirt some?
BV:E

[Wyler]

Assuming the Navy go ahead with this roadshow. What would be a fitting title for a play designed to increase awareness and understanding of gay matters?

'In whom we serve'?

'Bums Away'

'Run silent, Run Pink'

etc etc

Before I get accused of homophobia, as I said, a good policy but as usual kicked out of shape. With all that's kicking off in the world I object to headlines about huggy fluff campaigns on the wine bar circuit in Whitehall, especially when thy are championed by Officers of this rank. If he's as clever as certain people say, he should find something better to do (Head of the Met perhaps?).

[tablet_eraser]

I read the story with interest. Although I am pleased that the RN is taking steps to eliminate discrimination, I would question whether drama role plays is the way to do it. Rather than explaining to homophobes that they are under an obligation to respect their colleagues, they are to be patronised with a puerile and ineffective dramatisation that will serve only to provide a further opportunity for them to resent gay personnel.

I hope it works, I really do... but I certainly have my doubts.

Top prize for banter goes to The Sun for the header, "Seamen to face role play" and the priceless description of 2SL as a "chopper pilot".

[Monty77]

Perhaps after morning met brief the execs could hold drama workshops to help us, using role play and any useful props that may come to hand, work through and resolve 'issues' facing our people in these confusing times. FFS.:yuk:

[sailor]

You called?

[FJJP]

I've met thousands of jack tars in my travels round the bazaars in tri-service exercises and ops. I can just picture their reaction to this whole farce. It does nothing to improve the credibility of those at the top in the minds of the average sailor.

Every time they see the 2SL, what will be going through their minds? One word...

Pratt.

[engineer(retard)]

Do the same sex partnership laws extend to captains being allowed to marry couples at sea? Honeymoon cruise gets thrown in for free.

[nutcracker43]

I blame Napoleon. When boarding the ship for St Helena he said, in French, to some inquisitive Jack tars: 'to the water, it is the hour' (a l'eau, c'est l'heur).

If in doubt, blame the French!

NC43

[SASless]

Drama role play.....hell that is just another day in the Mob!

[Dogfish]

It would be oh so tempting to start the Seaman Staines jokes at this point......but moving on. Did the happy couple exchange gold rings or golden rivets? Our enemies must be shaking in their flip flops at the thought of facing our armed forces these days. What a sad world we live in. I have no problem with gays in the military but why do they have to make such a song and dance about it? What happens behind closed doors should stay there.

[tablet_eraser]

Dogfish,

We don't make "a song and dance" about it. The Lt Cdr and his partner had their civil partnership ceremony in a public place, and it attracted media attention because it was the first such ceremony in uniform. As to gay pride parades, not all of us serving gays think it is a terribly good idea, but why should we stop those who want to?

I have been privy to the discussions about the forthcoming EuroPride parade, both among other gay personnel and at much, much higher levels. It is subject to exactly the same guidelines as every other such event, and could easily have been called off due to the political nature of the rally that follows the march. However, it is believed that participation - IF it happens - will show the public that the Armed Forces are committed to EO, and will show closet gay personnel that they are not alone.

I agree, a lot of the EO trg is sub-standard, patronising, puerile and, at times, just barmy. Forcing grown men - matelots, at that! - to perform in bizarre, secondary-school dramas is NOT going to help.

[cobaltfrog]

Umm Gay marriage and MBE!!

I have to echo a lot of sentiments and say that Admiral Johns is/was (in Ocean) an outstanding boss. Captain RN in 2003 and Vice Admiral in 2006, a damn sight better than my prospects will EVER be! I'd follow him and not out of curiosity before anyone says it!!

[JessTheDog]

I recall a similar argument about Gay Pride last year. Just to save the effort of generating a long thread on the issue, I recall that the consensus last year was that a recruiting stand was perfectly appropriate but any participation in the march itself in uniform was not.

I personally wouldn't care if personnel did participate in the Gay Pride march, as long as this privilege was extended to other public marches and events.

[ORAC]

Personally, I'd give them stick.

[T4Turtle]

How disappointed I am to read the 'Hello Sailor' thread. Firstly pprune is an inapproaiate chamber to debate this topic and that so many have and with such adolescent reasoning I now understand why CRM is drummed into commercial operations. I cannot speak for current military ops.

However, I can speak of my own experience as a former RAF Firefighter travelling the world and completing my service engagement without a hitch despite my homosexuality. In my day it was a criminal offence with disgrace written on discharge papers. When I left service I joined the lobby to force parliament to change the law.

I still attend parliament. Currently the Armed Forces Bill is being considered and of the three sessions I have witnessed I consider the MOD and the Armed Forces are in for a rude awakening in 2008 when the bill becomes law. For unlike Vice-Admiral Adrian Johns, who is tasked on a mission for inclusion, his predecessors proved themselves negligent in their responce to adapting to comtemporary values (one of the major reasons why recruiting and retaining service personnel is at a dangerous low).

What I must ask is; why this matters to you? Is it any of your business? If it is, why?

[tablet_eraser]

T4urtle,
It matters to me because I am gay and happy to serve in an organisation that recognises my contribution without considering my sexuality.
This thread has been remarkably reserved compared with previous discussions on the topic; maybe that's a good sign. If gay personnel are permitted to march in a gay pride parade, rest assured it will only happen after extensive consultation on the subject. That is exactly what is happening at the moment. It's not something done lightly, and there have been some timely, well-thought and logical arguments for and against participation.

[FJJP]

It matters to me because I am sick to the back teeth of having homosexuality thrust into my face with monotonous regularity. Having served for nearly 40 years, I couldn't care less a person's sexual preferences, colour, politics, religion, et al provided they didn't try to convert me to their way of thinking or acting.

Like it or not, the Forces have had to change their ways and beliefs in accordance with the latest laws of the land and social trends. That they have done. I would really like to have the minority groups give it a rest and let the Forces get on with job without any further trendy ideas being thrust upon them.

And yes, I did do EO training and frankly I found it insulting that the assumption was made that I was racist and had to have it trained out of me. See my second sentence.

Now can we get on with serving the country without giving the gutter press whoopeedoo banner headlines to sell their rags.

[tablet_eraser]

FJJP :ok:

Seems the Forces have yet to learn about the concept of "compassion fatigue". You're no different to most of the rest of us who are utterly sick to death of EO briefings, equality seminars, ethnic monitoring surveys, attitudinal analysis, etc etc. :mad:

People should get a single EO lecture when they join up, NOT every time they get posted. Constant lectures, especially of the patronising variety, have the opposite effect, leading people to believe that minorities have more rights than the majority.

[JessTheDog]

It is clear that the removal of the bar on serving gays in 2000 did not lead to the sky falling in, a mass outbreak of sodomy in the trenches or any other of the ludicrous scenarios that the doom-mongers predicted. It allowed personnel to serve their nation and offer up their skills without having to live a life of deceit under fear of exposure and punishment, or unfairly suppress their private lives.

So why should participation in Gay Pride parades not be allowed? I would not oppose such a move, but it needs to be undertaken with caution and with fairness to the diverse membership of the Armed Forces who are drawn from many backgrounds, cultures and traditions.

One overriding principle of the Armed Forces is that of impartiality. The Armed Forces may not take part in overtly political activity. The reasons for this are self-evident. The definition of "political" is wide-ranging - its narrowest definition would be restricted to political parties or movements, and it can encompass organisations campaigning for social or cultural change or values.

The Gay Pride parades could fall in with the wider concept of political activity. The likelihood of this is lesser since the lowering of the age of consent and the inception of civil partnerships. I will admit that I am not greatly familiar with the aims of Gay Pride movements and I suspect that they are wide-ranging and not particularly controversial. Nevertheless, it is may be the case that the Gay Pride marches may coincide with political campaigning - such as the "outing" of political figures accused of double standards in public and private - and this issue needs careful consideration.

Another overriding principle of the Armed Forces is that of uniformity - everyone in uniform is treated in the same manner as they are part of a greater organisation and purpose. This principle may not be perfect, but it underpins the rank structure and discipline. If it is perceived that relaxations of the rules on public or political activities are made in certain cases (because of a prevailing public and political concern) and not in others, then resentment will be generated, with the principle of uniform treatment undermined. This is not an argument against the Armed Forces supporting Gay Pride marches, but relaxations cannot be made on a case-by case basis. Would it be appropriate for personnel to participate openly in parades and public activities associated with religious movements? What about St Patrick's Day Parades (which, incidentally, often exclude gay organisations)?

I think that allowing participation in Gay Pride parades would be a good thing. The great danger is that the MoD go about this in a ham-fisted manner with a thought-police list of "approved" activities in a knee-jerk response to prevailing concerns rather than considering the participation of Armed Forces personnel in the wider cultural activities of societly.

The relaxation of rules in this respect will also make the establishment of a Federation more straightforward - whether it is formed with MoD blessing, or from the grass-roots upwards.

[JessTheDog]

Constant lectures, especially of the patronising variety, have the opposite effect, leading people to believe that minorities have more rights than the majority.

Personnel are all minorites - members of a single majority that is their unit. Who is this other mysterious "majority"?

[BEagle]

"Yes - we are all individuals......"


.

[An Teallach]

FJJP
Couldn't agree more. I'd like to see the whole equality industry disbanded. What changes peoples' attitude is personal exposure to different groups of people. I recall one mate in the mess opining that he hated poofs who came to me later to say "of course, i didn't mean you!" (this was in the days before one could be open). Lovely chap, but not the sharpest pencil in the box.
I'm currently bombarded with offers from organisations to come and check out my business to see if it complies with the forthcoming disability discrimination regs (at £600 a day). Such offers are usually liberally peppered with scare stories about how much I could be sued for. They are all consigned to file 13.
Those of us who fought to change the old imbecilic policy (which was most tightly guarded by the senior closet queens in the MoD) did so so that folk could just get on with the job without 'special attention' from SIB & P&SS. Frankly, I find the current 'special attention' from the PC brigade almost as offensive.

[Dogfish]

The point seems to have been missed here. I don't have a problem with gay people, one off my familiy is that way inclined. The point is that I just don't need or want to know. We rightly should not be bothered by anybody's race, creed or sexual orientation but please just keep it to yourself. If you want to be treated like everybody else then behave that way. Why do you have to hide behind the politically motivated gay pride movement? What would happen if we tried to have a hetrosexual pride march and rally? As a white male hetrosexual I am the one being repressed, what about my feelings? The EO brief I attended was so heavily slanted with the assumption that everybody is naturally racist and homophobic that I felt deeply insulted by it. You are part of the service, you have been accepted, now stop banging on about it and take a chill pill.

[SASless]

Ya'll care to secede from the EU....maybe we would take yer on as the 51st State. At least we go with the "Don't Ask...Don't Tell" method. Granted the rate of discharges for homosexual behaviour is at all time highs but at least we take the view that it is "conduct" and not "proclivity" that is un-acceptable.

Just as many have said....do your duty...serve honorably...and keep your personal life private (as all should do)...and all is well. Please to recall we also bin those heterosexuals who violate the "fraternization" rules amongst ranks as well as homosexuals.

Military life sets different and in most cases, higher standards for personal conduct.

[Dogfish]

SASless,

cheers for the invite but becoming the 51st state does not really appeal. Its bad enough serving under our Tone but serving under Dubya would be far worse. I do like the US policy on gays in the military though, don't ask don't tell, what a refreshing idea. Sounds like common sense which means we Brits will never adopt it. :=

[An Teallach]

DADT - Sounds to me like what it is in the USA, a blackmailer's charter. It is common sense largely for self-loathing closet queens and no-one else.

[Dogfish]

That's just being rude, play nicely :ok:

[SASless]

Do I sense some "drama" here?

[An Teallach]

No drama SASless, merely a calculated analysis of a policy such as DADT on the 'who benefits?' model.

It has been my invariable experience that the great majority of heterosexual men are bored witless by this whole subject and the most common reaction to the 'X is gay' news is 'So what, fancy another pint?'

Those who wish to maintain the closet are the only ones who tend to advocate DADT or exclusion policies, as they feel safer if all gay people are forced to occupy the same closet. God forbid you should have a class of gay people who are comfortable with their sexuality and don't really care who knows about it, they really scare the crap out of the closet queens because the old playground taunt 'it takes one to know one' is quite true.

The first snr officer I heard holding forth on 'keeping the fithy queers out' (now a Gp Capt) was universally known as Nancy among the JOs and even had to go on the wagon because when he was legless he tried it on with most of us. He was so far back in the closet he should have given his postal address as BFPO Narnia. The most loathesome, however, were some of the creatures in P&SS.

A careful read of last summer's Gay Pride thread reveals a couple of the species among our fellow ppruners.

[Dogfish]

It is not a question of maintaining the closet, if you read my previous posts it should be clear that I am in the 'don't give a toss so get the beers in' school of thought. I merely believe that if you don't need to know then don't bother to ask. I certainly don't advocate a return to the bad old days of P & SS hounding people because of their sexuality. Sorry mate you have got the wrong end of the stick, no closets at this call sign.:uhoh:

[An Teallach]

No Worries, Dogfish. So your I do like the US policy on gays in the military though, don't ask don't tell, what a refreshing idea. was posted in error, since DADT does involve investigation and hounding of suspected gay people and remains a blackmailers' charter.

Glad to hear you're in the well-adjusted hetereosexual 'don't give a toss camp'! :ok:

[Dogfish]

Given that being a homosexual is accepted these days I fail to understand how DADT can be construed as a blackmailers charter. Nobody cares because the dark ages are long gone, consigned to the history books and rightly so.

[An Teallach]

You can't imagine that the potential loss of a livelihood and a career would not expose people to blackmail?

Remember DADT doesn't just mean that the gay individual shouldn't tell. It means anyone with a grudge can report an individual to the Mil Police. The scope for blackmail (and the concomitant security risk) is quite wide.

[SASless]

AT,

Years ago when it was a sin to be other than heterosexual in the US military, the Navy's investigative arm classified those investigations under catagory 8G. They were proper criminal investigations per the SOP of the investigative service. The mere allegation was enough for an investigation and withdrawing all security clearances until the individual was cleared of any wrong doing. I have seen 12 agents assigned to a surviellance of a LTCDR A-6 pilot who was a decorated Vietnam combat pilot who unfortuately enjoyed wearing ladies garments.

In the bad old days, those agents would make covert entries into the suspect's home and search for incriminating evidence. A patent violation of their Fourth Amendment rights.

The reason for the case catagory.....fell under the Counter-Intelligence/Counter-Espionage catagory (Cat 8), with subfix (G) for Gay (I assume).

When I queried why we did these cases at all, particularly when there was no security clearance involved and pointed out the violation of the suspect's rights during the covert search....I was chastized for having a bad attitude.

Now days....it takes some sort of evidence to support the allegation and the issue is "did the member make an issue of his/her sexual orientation that brought attention to that orientation" and not merely being identified as being homosexual. That is a great difference which you have missed.

In the old days...all the cops had to do was demonstrate you "were" a homosexual and the hammer fell upon your head. That is not the case now.

I would suggest the old days is when the Black Mail issue was its strongest. That is exactly one of the arguments I made and was rebuffed. If no stigma is attached to that conduct then there is no risk of blackmail and by doing investigations we set up an environment whereby folks can be blackmailed.

You will also recall the current security concerns stem from Philby, Blount, and the damage that resulted from that penetration of the West's intelligence services by the Russians. Thus the concern is not without basis although linking the two issues directly is tenous at best.

[An Teallach]

Sasless, I can't see that anything has actually changed for our American cousins. DoD policy is:

“Policy on Homosexual Conduct in the Armed Forces”

The Department of Defense has long held that, as a general rule, homosexuality is incompatible with military service because it interferes with the factors critical to combat effectiveness, including unit morale, unit cohesion and individual privacy. Nevertheless, the Department of Defense also recognizes that individuals with a homosexual orientation have served with distinction in the armed services of the United States.

Therefore, it is the policy of the Department of Defense to judge the suitability of persons to serve in the armed forces on the basis of their conduct. Homosexual conduct will be grounds for separation from the military services. Sexual orientation is considered a personal and private matter, and homosexual orientation is not a bar to service entry or continued service unless manifested by homosexual conduct.

Therefore, unless a gay chap is absolutely celibate and never even socialises with other gay people, he is fair game for investigation, witch-hunting and dismissal. There have therefore been cases of people being seen entering a gay bar and that is considered to be behaviour, as you say "did the member make an issue of his/her sexual orientation that brought attention to that orientation"

It is purely the threat of dismissal that creates the potential for blackmail or threat to security. Perhaps the USA would be doing rather better in Iraq if it hadn't thrown out 20+ Arabic linguists, among others.

[Dogfish]

AN
I take your point and it is well made but as a serving member of the forces I do not believe that there are witch hunts in this day and age. I know several people who have, to use that unfortunate cliche, come out and I can not see how it has harmed their careers. There is one male SNCO that I know of who now comes to work wearing size 10 court shoes and a skirt, who cares? Certainly anyone who works for me has nothing to fear as long as they do their job as well as the next person. I have a feeling from the tenor of your posts that you have experienced problems or prejudice in the past and you have my sympathy, but I am just naive enough to believe that the service has moved on. Please excuse my cheap jokes in an earlier post but the two Naval guys in question could have got married in Burton's finest and not brought attention to themselves. I don't really care, I think I have made that point, but several of my civilian friends find all this highly amusing and I get annoyed at the thought of our services being held up for ridicule. AN, SASless I thank you for some thought provoking coments and bid you goodnight. Time to open a bottle and chill out:ok:

[wessex19]

so we have a gay PWO!!!! "Not thats there's anything wrong with that!!!";)

[Tracey Island]

Without wishing to preach to the converted or ill-informed, please permit me to post 2SL's full speech below and you'll all be able to see what minute segments the Press grabbed hold of, expanded and proffered their own conclusions.

STONEWALL CONFERENCE – THU 16 MAR 06 - "SETTING THE STANDARD:
REAPING THE REWARDS OF A GAY-FRIENDLY WORKPLACE"

I thought I would give you a quick snapshot this afternoon of the very real progress and change that has been made in the Royal Navy across a wide field of diversity issues. And this isn’t just change for change’s sake or to appear politically correct. Today the Royal Navy has men and women serving around the Globe – in the Gulf, the South Atlantic, the Caribbean, the Baltic, the Mediterranean, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, and Iraq – serving at sea, under the sea, in the air and on the land. Some are working in small teams, some with other nations, many in ships and submarines. As I speak we have some 4000 people deployed away from these shores on important tasks, often in adverse and sometimes hazardous circumstances.

The British Armed Forces have a proud tradition and a reputation for excellence. Our people are required to make a personal commitment not asked of those in most walks of life and they must have the full trust and respect of their colleagues to operate effectively in often difficult and dangerous circumstances. Whilst we are necessarily a hierarchical organisation, based on robust codes of discipline, our basic ethos is nevertheless all about teamwork and the need to get the very best out of that team. To do so, we have to make sure that the team is performing at peak efficiency – delivering what we call Operational Capability – and that in turn depends upon the quality of our individual men and women.

As in any organisation, those individuals need nurturing, so that they give of their best and are, in turn, rewarded for their effort. Nurture includes the freedom to be themselves and thus the Defence Diversity Mission is to create a culture that encourages and enables people throughout society to join us, and remain with us. To make their distinctive contributions and achieve their full potential; a culture that does not tolerate any form of intimidation, humiliation, harassment, bullying or abuse and that will ensure that each individual is treated fairly, with dignity and respect.

Our mission is to break down barriers of discrimination, prejudice, fear and misunderstanding. Not only is this morally right it is also for us in a fighting force the best way to deliver maximum operational effectiveness.

I intend to share with you over the next 5 or 10 minutes our experiences and thoughts on Sexual Orientation issues – and I’ll also mention the range of initiatives in which we are engaged concerning all aspects of Diversity & Equality in the workplace.

First of all, I should point out that the principles and benefits of Diversity are not entirely new for us. As long ago as 1419, King Henry V stated that: "No manner of man shall insult another because of the country he comes from, whether he is French, English, Welsh or Irish or from any other country…” clearly he had no idea about the strong passions engendered by the Rugby 6 Nations competition!

But also at the Battle of Trafalgar, the 200th anniversary of which the country celebrated only last year, HMS VICTORY's crew of 850 included people of 32 different nationalities (Admiral Nelson even managed to recruit 2 Swiss sailors, a nation not normally noted for maritime endeavour!).
There was said to be at least one woman onboard and Nelson, of course, was famed for inviting his Flag Captain Hardy to kiss him on his death bed. Perhaps he was ahead of his time in more ways than one! But he was certainly an inspirational leader who was able to gel a fighting force, from all walks of life, into a professional and efficient team that ultimately achieved such an important victory.

In the field of Sexual Orientation, the modern Royal Navy has come a long way since our less enlightened days pre-2000 when lesbians and gay men were not permitted to serve in the Armed Forces. This meant that a good number of highly capable and professional people were prevented from pursuing a challenging, stimulating and rewarding career. At the same time, of course, we in the Royal Navy were unable to capitalise on a rich source of talent and skill.

With the turning of the tide in 2000, and then the introduction of the Employment Equality Regulations 2003, a Sexual Orientation Working Group was established to conduct various strands of work – including reviewing Diversity & Equality policy, interaction with Gay media, and ways of increasing education and awareness of gay issues.

Shortly thereafter, Gay and Lesbian Social Groups were formed in Portsmouth and Faslane, to provide mutual support and companionship for Gay service personnel. However, RN policy tended to be along 'don't ask, don't tell' lines, with emphasis on the view that sexual orientation was very much a private matter. We hadn't quite worked out what to do if, having said we didn't want to know, we then found out!

We very soon came to realise that sexual orientation was not something that could just be put to one side because there is potentially a direct impact on operational efficiency. When people can’t give 100% to their job because they are being intimidated, or they are scared, or they are preoccupied with hiding their true identities rather than playing a full part in the team, operational efficiency is degraded.

In late 2004, the RN commenced an ever-strengthening relationship with Stonewall, eventually joining its Diversity Champions programme in February 2005. We also managed to achieve a first-time 75th position in their Workplace Equality Index last year, and I have every intention of moving up the scale this coming year. When I think of the big corporate names that did not make the list, I am even more proud of our initial achievement and this public recognition of our work.

Since then, policy has shifted towards creating an environment where Gays and Lesbians can now feel free to 'come out' if they wish, without fear of being harassed or bullied – and, I am pleased to say, in successive staff attitude surveys conducted since, responses from male and female personnel across the Navy indicate that a substantial majority have simply taken this in their stride.

Firstly, the advent of the Civil Partnership Act at the end of last year means that Service personnel in a registered partnership may now enjoy exactly the same benefits as married personnel, including Service Families Accommodation. Indeed, only 12 days ago, one of our sailors 'tied the knot' onboard the old ironclad warship HMS WARRIOR in Portsmouth.

Secondly, the tireless efforts of one of my officers in promoting and raising awareness of gay issues in the Royal Navy were recently recognised in the New Year Honours List. Yes, this was about his work for the Gay community, but it was also recognition of something we hold central to our ethos – Leadership.

And most recently, we held a conference for RN Gay & Lesbian at the end of January, attended by over 50 personnel – including a small number from the RAF and Army. A range of issues were debated over the 2-day event, with support from my Diversity and Equality policy team, and feedback has indicated that attendees benefited and enjoyed themselves immensely.

Meanwhile, work is now underway to explore the establishment of more comprehensive support and contact networks for the Service Gay community perhaps drawing on our experience of support networks already in place, including a highly successful one for disabled Civilian employees and another for Service and civilian women.

As for other initiatives on the drawing board my Policy Team is currently investigating the feasibility of utilising drama-based training resources, to reach some of those whose culture and behaviour need to be brought into line with 21st Century thinking. We believe that such training can be a powerful and innovative medium that can easily be adapted into Service scenarios.

I am also pleased to be able to confirm that my Diversity Team is working with Gay officers and Stonewall to investigate an overt Service presence at the forthcoming EuroPride festival in London.

I am heartened by the fact that a significant number of RN Lesbian & Gay personnel are very keen to march in uniform in the main parade and share in the celebration – firstly, because they wish to demonstrate their pride in wearing their uniform as members of their Armed Service, but also because they are keen to give a strong personal signal that the Royal Navy is an inclusive employer of choice that welcomes and actively champions diversity in its workforce.

I said that I would mention examples of other areas of diversity and equality work where we are making progress.

- We have a strengthening relationship with Black and Ethnic Minority Community Leaders in the Portsmouth area which has resulted in a jointly-owned Action Plan, providing a range of initiatives aimed at raising the profile of the RN and MOD Civil Service across the BME community.

- Benchmarking programmes continue apace – for example, for the past 2 years, all 3 Armed Services have been in the top 5 of public sector organisations under the purview of the Race for Opportunity organisation.

- To ensure reflection of the multi-faith society in which we all live, the Muslim Civilian Chaplain to the Armed Forces, Imam Asim Hafiz was the first Armed Forces Chaplain of another faith to lead prayers during a Royal Navy parade recently. Imam Asim was recruited along with a Buddhist, Hindu and Sikh Chaplain to fulfil a tri-Service role following a national recruiting campaign last year.


In sum, my RN Diversity Policy team is constantly reviewing and refining policy to ensure that no stone is left unturned in the goal of ensuring that all Service personnel can work in an environment which is free from harassment, intimidation and bullying and where they are treated at all times with dignity and respect. There is no doubt that young people entering the Armed Forces will adapt more readily to the military ethos and ways of working if their fellow sailors, soldiers and airmen reflect and welcome the diversity of the society from which they have been recruited.

Of course, changing workplace culture is a challenge in any big organisation – the RN numbers over 40,000 men and women from all walks of life – and there will always be those who harbour some ill-founded prejudice or other. I therefore regard continuous education as crucial in ensuring that all our people understand and put into practice our Diversity & Equality policies. Professional training is constantly under review to ensure that every opportunity is taken to reinforce the message.

The Navy works because it works as a team, and that team now includes gay and lesbian personnel. It was only 7 years ago that the MOD was taken to the European Court of Human Rights to overturn the ban on gays serving in the military and only 5 years later that the Royal Navy joined Stonewall’s Diversity Champions programme and appeared in their Lesbian and Gay Recruitment guide. Times are changing, and very much for the better in my view.

There is still much work to be done, but I am determined that the Royal Navy will continue to forge ahead. We now have good, robust policies in place for a whole range of issues, and extensive work continues in conjunction with organisations like Stonewall and the Equal Opportunities Commission to resolve others.

Our headmark remains constant: the Royal Navy strives to be a top-class employer, looking for top-class people, and embraces diversity and equality in the work place. I am proud of our commitment to inclusiveness and I personally will continue to champion it.

[BEagle]

Oh FFS, just drop it. Live and let live.

And to hell with all the heavy-handed diversity-policy quangos and their PC bolleaux.

I may have worked with gay personnel in the past - I neither know nor do I now care.

I admire your way of dealing with such claptrap, An T. I have an equal disdain of tsuch - and also the lunacy of the many enviro-fundamentalist policies of the nanny state Bliarite Republic.

Yellow road diggers' jackets on the flight line - of course. Most assuredly! But body armour in hostile operational theatres - err no. There is a 'managed risk' policy for that, it seems.

[JessTheDog]

Anyone would think that the Armed Forces had just realised woken up to this gay thing....which has been around at least since Leonidas and the Spartans earned their epitaph at Thermopylae. I bet no one would have dared call into question their "operational effectiveness".

The eminently sensible UK policy implemented in 2000 was long overdue, but it is of concern that it may be inflated by the single-issue rights industry (not just limited to the very diverse group of people collectively known as "gay" - is labelling by one's sexual preference really appropriate?) to the detriment of this policy of openess (if preferred to privacy - an individual's choice) and non-discrimination.

It is interesting that role-playing sessions are being considered, when the scenario-based guidance on ROE previously given as a part of CCS has been removed in case it can be used by a defendant as a justification for opening fire. Beagle's point made with regard to the skewed approach to safety and rights at home vs in theatre is most appropriate.

[teeteringhead]

penetration of the West's intelligence services by the Russians. :confused: ooh err missus

.....slightly more seriously, ISTR regulations (QRs?) on wearing uniform in public which specifically prohibit:

a. Occasions where fancy dress is worn

AND/Or

b. Occasions where alcohol is consumed in public

...isn't the Gay Pride March likely to be both????

[tablet_eraser]

Teeteringhead,

Good banter, I'll come to your point in a moment :p

SASless:
"... but at least we take the view that it is "conduct" and not "proclivity" that is un-acceptable."

In the case of sexuality, conduct and proclivity are NOT normally mutually exclusive. I identify as homosexual, and would find it very difficult to totally suppress my sexuality. As An T said, you're suggesting that homosexuals should be celibate and make no reference to their private life. I wonder if you'd care to try that? Such suppression would, in my opinion, be considerably more harmful to unit cohesion than personnel who are honest and open about their sexuality. Who wants to work with someone who is depressed and anxious because they have to keep their relationship with their partner a total secret? I'd rather work with someone who acknowledges his home life, is not overt about it, and who will not whinge at banter. Sad to say, DADT - in addition to banishing some very, very talented personnel from the US forces - is probably creating a significant mental health problem for the gay personnel who want nothing more than to serve their country and be happy.

Now, Teeteringhead, the Snr Personnel Exec group is currently studying a widely-supported proposal for gay personnel to participate in the 2006 EuroPride parade in London. I am privy to the outcomes of some of the discussions, and 2SL's comments are now a matter of record.

SPEG is studying QRs and relevant Service law very closely indeed. There is no QR stating that uniform is not to be worn in the presence of other people wearing fancy dress - I think you're recalling a QR that states that uniform cannot itself be worn as fancy dress unless it is of a clearly obsolete and unofficial pattern.

The QRs causing the most consternation are those concerning political activities by Service personnel. Under the Crown Servants Act it is an offence for military personnel or other servants of the Crown to declare, display or otherwise support any specific political objective where such activity is likely to cause a conflict of interests or to bring the Crown into disrepute. Furthermore, under QRs it is an offence for personnel to attend overtly political events in uniform. EuroPride concludes with a rally which is deemed by the SPEG to be political in nature - personnel will therefore NOT be allowed to attend the rally in uniform.

The question the SPEG is considering is whether the march prior to the rally is in direct support of political action, or whether it is simply a Mardi Gras-style pride parade with no specific objectives. That question will be settled in due course.

Another difficulty raised by a member of the SPEG is the risk of personnel becoming targets for abuse, at the parade, at work and in civvy street, for wearing uniform in support of the current settlement for gays in the forces. Some people - I suspect mostly Sun readers - actually believe that gay personnel are now being positively favoured wrt housing policy and promotions. I think it's a rather ephemeral risk, though, and I certainly don't think it will prove to be a show-stopper.

[teeteringhead]

I agree with the sentiments in your post entirely t_e, but will it not in practice be difficult to separate march from rally??

And are not marches themselves political in a sense? Would I have been allowed to join the Countryside March in uniform? I think not.

All that said, I know that 2SL is a top bloke (having served with him briefly in the past) and if they (whoever the "they" might be) want to approve it, then it will happen. (I'm sure AMP and AG are good guys too!)

Make it so!

[JessTheDog]

A very interesting post by Tablet Eraser that has ramifications beyond the EuroPride activities, as it shows the current way of thinking at a high level.

Essentially, public participation of Service personnel in the EuroPride march is a legitimate activity associated with Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which brings with it the requirement upon the state to respect aspects of private life including sexual identity and sexuality and corresponding rights to develop relationships with whom one chooses.

Article 11 of the same Act grants the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions. This right is also being exercised with participation in the EuroPride march.

Both Article 8 and Article 11 allow for the imposition of lawful restrictions, most commonly with regard to the Armed Forces. Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the Armed Forces and the ban on gays serving (arising through court actions brought by those dismissed on the basis of their sexuality) have directly led to the removal of the discriminatory ban, which is recognised as having breached human rights.

There is growing pressure at all ranks to establish a Federation - along the lines of the Police Federation, with a bar on strike action - that will represent Armed Forces personnel on matters of conditions of service. This has been debated extensively on the ARRSE website http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=30482.html with questions asked in Parliament and in the media.

If the powers-that-be are considering allowing participation in legitimate non-partisan activities like EuroPride - which are associated firmly with human rights - then perhaps this is indicative of how the relationship between the Armed Forces and society should develop. Fundamental rights asserted by the rest of society should not be denied to Service personnel unless there is a clear conflict with operational effectiveness. The arguments against gays serving openly in the military have been ridiculed (the DADT policy is completely discredited) and most of these arguments were based upon stereotypical and prejudiced interpretations of operational effectiveness and morale.

The gay personnel who have taken a public stand on an issue that can still (sadly) cause controversy deserve the recognition they have received. Their experiences and knowledge would be invaluable in advancing further human rights, in particular the right to association and the right to join a Federation. This would also serve two further purposes - it would help dispel any misconceived notion that gay personnel were simply interested in "their own rights" and it would ensure that a Federation was truly representative.

The views of those involved in the EuroPride deliberations with regard to the establishment and role of a Federation would be of great interest in the Federation debate.

http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=30482.html

[foormort]

Hmmm, I would love to join the march, there's nothing I love more then a good march but, I think my A-line uniform skirt may limit my pace a bit, don't want to be stuck at the rear and miss all the action. Hmmmm.

[buoy15]

So what's next?
Striking of a new LSGCM - Long Suffering Gay Complicity Medal
Will it be a pink ribbon or an ear stud to be worn on AOC's parades - or have AOC's AFI's been replaced by Gay Parades ?
Loving many, Trusting a few, Just checking who's in my canoe!

[tablet_eraser]

Well, it had been a serious discussion until those last two interjections.

If anyone would care to return it to the realm of intelligent debate, feel free!

[cvg2iln]

Fg Off Max Stout posted a picture on the 17th. I'm not too certain of RN rank designation - is the picture that of a Rear Admiral?