£190K

[Lionel Lion]

I'm all for equality.......but £190K????? I'm a lesbian too

BBC NEWS | England | West Yorkshire | MoD must pay gay soldier £190,000 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/7751036.stm)

[Jackonicko]

"This is as severe a case of victimisation following an allegation of sexual harassment as one could see in an employment tribunal.

"The claimant was subjected to a sustained campaign of victimisation over a lengthy period.

"The victimisation extended to imposition of disciplinary sanctions, impinging the claimants mental stability and obstructing her transfer to a more suitable posting."

The MoD has been ordered to pay £30,000 in respect of "injury to feelings", £20,000 for "aggravated damages" and £50,000 for "exemplary damages".
A further £65,558 was ordered to be paid in respect of lost earning and pension entitlement.

I have no understanding of what kind of 'injury to feelings' would warrant a £30,000 payout. On a personal basis I have little sympathy for deviants and perverts who think that their 'abomination' is compatible with military service, but since HMG has decided that gays are welcome in the Forces, then I'd recognise that (however much I might disapprove) they must be accorded protection against bullying, harrassment and victimisation.

The villain of this piece is the pratt who could not keep his distaste for this woman to himself, and instead bullied her to a degree that attracted this kind of extreme penalty, and those in the chain of command who failed to address or prevent it.

[stackedup]

Just as long as my tax is going to a good cause!http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/censored.gif

[RileyDove]

Jackonico- I don't think your reading it correctly - her boss didn't have a 'distaste' for her -quite the opposite. I think in this day and age where the armed forces are supposedly fighting for human rights in the likes of Afghanistan to have attitudes from 100 years ago in the minds of a few is tragic.

[jayteeto]

Live with it........... This is chicken feed to the money that the Social Security is paying out every day. Most people know this figure is high, but if you look into it, you would be appalled. At least she has a reason for claiming. PS, I do not agree with 'liberal' views, but I hate workshy incapacity faking scum even more.......

[adminblunty]

The MOD didn't allow women to join the RAF, Army or RN until 1994. The MOD didn't let women who were pregnant stay in the Armed Forces until the mid 90's when they lost some expensive legal battles. The MOD discharged gays/lesbians in the military until approx 2000 when they lost another legal battle. Now at the drop of a hat the MOD expects military personnel to treat women, gays and lesbians with respect, after years of the MOD treating them like second class citzens. The MOD shaped the culture of the military and it isn't going to change overnight. In the interim the MOD is paying for its policies, in this particular case £190K.

I'm waiting for a claim from a female air officer because the AFB won't make her an AOC, DCINC, AMP etc. How many female air officers does the RAF have? 3 I believe, out of 130ish.... Sounds like sex discrimination to me. That bill will be larger than £190K

[CirrusF]

I have little sympathy for deviants and perverts who think that their 'abomination' is compatible with military service


Since you obviously have no experience of either, then I don't think your distasteful opinion is very useful.

[Jackonicko]

CirrusF,

The point is that even an admitted homophobe (exaggerating for effect) can see a need for the rights of shirtlifters/rug munchers to be protected from bullying, if not from harsh banter.

Whether or not you view my attitude to gays as being 'distasteful' is irrelevant.

[MOVAGAIN]

Sorry adminblunty but its bound to take time for women to progress through the ranks to the Air Rank but the RAF is trying. In our Branch the female % is around 16% but the quota of females promoted off the last 3 promotion boards have all been above 40%. So while it does take time the RAF is actively promoting females infront of males to address the correct balance. I love equal opportunities.:)

[pr00ne]

adminblunty.


"The MOD didn't allow women to join the RAF, Army or RN until 1994."

That statement is total BS.

You do not know what you are talking about.

[spheroid]

Pr00ne is correct. As far as women joining the RN it was 1st April 1993....you are a year out fella.

[1.3VStall]

Adminblunty,

What are you talking about? Have you never seen the film "Battle of Britain"? What uniform do you think Susannah York was wearing before she got down to her scanties?

[dakkg651]

She was in the uniform of the Womens Auxillary Air Force not the Royal Air Force.

This was before it became the Womens Royal Air Force and finally the RAF.

Agree she looked far better out of uniform tho.

[Clockwork Mouse]

"The villain of this piece is the pratt who could not keep his distaste for this woman to himself, and instead bullied her to a degree that attracted this kind of extreme penalty, and those in the chain of command who failed to address or prevent it".

Jackonico is right. This was a nasty case of bullying by a SNCO of a subordinate and the unit chain of command seems to have done little to prevent or stop it. The SNCO should be CMd.

What I don't like was that the complaint is fast-tracked and given more weight because it was "sexual harassment". I am not comfortable with the sexual and racial discrimination and harassment thing. Harassment, bullying and unfair treatment are all reprehensible and should be stamped on hard. The motivation for the treatment is irrelevant. If she had been picked on because she had a posh accent or pointy ears, her treatment would have been just as indefensible.

[PPRuNeUser0211]

I say take the settlement out of the SNCO's wages... he's clearly a prat of the highest order.

As for the settlement, the figure doesn't strike me as amazingly high, I'm no expert but sure I've seen similar figures banded about after civilian cases similar to this

[Clockwork Mouse]

When viewed beside the figures awarded to soldiers who are maimed physically and mentally while doing their duty in action against the country's enemies, this hand-out is obscene.

[Jackonicko]

Clockwork,

There is, of course, no comparison. I would, however, suggest that what is obscene about all this is not the large size of this payout, but the insultingly small size of the payouts to which you refer.

[Clockwork Mouse]

Jacko

Yes, I agree. I suppose it says something about our society's interests and priorities.

[Ken Scott]

I have to say that I'm not entirely sure why she needs such a payout. Now that the degree of harrassment that she suffered is in the open the way should be open for her to resume her career. She is, I believe, in the final year of her engagement, but if she stayed I am sure she could enjoy meteoric promotion, who would mark her down now? Does she really need to be compensated for loss of earnings & pension when she could have those things?

Unless of course the mental scars of being pestered for sex are so deep that she's traumatised beyond ever working again, in which case she fully deserves all £190K of the defence budget/ taxpayers cash.

Sadly our nation seems to be slipping ever deeper into a 'victim society' where everything is someone else's fault and every situation can be milked for compensation. I know that the awards are not strictly comparable but the value placed on an RSI typing injury or mental scars from sexual harrassment seems to be much higher than that for being maimed on active duty.

Oh no, I think I've just injured my thumb on the spacebar.....anyone know the number of a good lawyer?

[Widger]

Jockonory,

So you're an Evangelist as well....everything is becoming very clear now!

[Vox Populi]

Jackonicko,

On a personal basis I have little sympathy for deviants and perverts who think that their 'abomination' is compatible with military service,

shirtlifters/rug munchers

Do you approach your journalistic subjects with the same degree of prejudice and malice? If so your writing is not worth a jot.

I realise this is an (almost) anything goes anonymous forum, but I for one would prefer you to keep your caveman-like, offensive opinions on this subject to yourself.

VP

[Jackonicko]

Funnily enough, on a robust internet forum, where insult and banter flies thick and fast, and where exaggerating for 'comic' effect is commonplace, I do write rather differently ......

There is a serious underlying point, however. I would, in all seriousness, admit to a complete lack of understanding of homosexuality, whose practises I find even the thought of as being utterly repellent. I guess that means that I have a degree of homophobia, and that by the standards of the day, I'm a little illiberal and bigoted. My point is that even someone with old-fashioned, traditional and even bigoted views about homosexuals would recognise the right of any minority group to protection from bullying and harassment.

However, simply stating one's belief in such people's right to protection/compensation would lead some to write one off as a 'right on' liberal hippy gay rights-supporting type, who would be bound to support any oppressed minority. Whereas, by stating one's fundamental lack of sympathy ...... ("Even someone who calls them an abomination would want them to be protected...")

And while I would have to agree that using terms like 'shirt-lifter' is childish and undeniably insensitive, there are many who genuinely believe that homosexuality is an 'abomination' (I believe that's from the bible) and that homosexuals are deviant and/or perverts. Their opinion (when stated using such straightforward factual terms) is no less valid than the opinion of the more politically correct who would loudly push homosexuality as being merely an equally valid alternative lifestyle choice. Words like abomination and deviant are not (or should not be viewed as) pejorative, though I would accept that they are judgemental, and that they may cause offence. I'm offended by people telling me that I have to view homosexuality as being 'normal', 'acceptable' and 'healthy'.

It's certainly valid to have a personal belief that homosexuality is still incompatible with military service (though an individual holding such a belief would have to accept that the democratically elected government, and the hierarchy of the forces, have decided otherwise), whether you happen to agree with that point of view or not.

[m+m]

Whilst I think that the use of the word abomination is completely out of order, Jacko is factually correct in his use of the English language, if we're talking biologically and sociologically for the vast majority of the population!!!

deviant - a person or thing that deviates or departs markedly from the accepted norm. In the case of the armed forces you could argue that this is true!
pervert - a person whose behavior deviates from what is acceptable, especially in sexual behavior. Ditto

The really annoying thing is that this has gone all the way to the award of the same amount of money you might expect should you lose a limb whilst on ops!!! I don't know whether it is fair but it warrants discussion.

[adminblunty]

Pr00ne
When I joined in 86 women joined the WRAF, not the RAF. In the Army it was he WRAC, in the RN it was the WRENS. Not BS then. So I was a year out, big deal.

[CirrusF]

There is, of course, no comparison. I would, however, suggest that what is obscene about all this is not the large size of this payout, but the insultingly small size of the payouts to which you refer.


I suspect the reason that Kerry Fletcher won relatively high damages is that there was an element of punitary exemplary award in her case (ie an award sufficiently high to reduce the likelihood of repetition of the neglect that lead to the abuse). I would agree with you that there seems to have been some weakness in unit leadership here which lead to the abuse.

It will be interesting to see the implications of the first punitary exemplary damages award against the MOD for neglecting to provide appropriate equipment to troops. Difficult to prove, but when it happens it will change considerably the politics of embarking on pointless and unwinnable wars.

Having said that, I wish I had sued the MOD after my TQ training. I bet the fat Int Corps captain who repeatedly screamed at me that my frozen willy was far too shrivelled to satisfy her was really a lezza :-)

[pma 32dd]

190K - how much do you get for losing a limb on ops then?

[GrumpyOldFart]

From the Torygraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/global/2008/11/28/noindex/do2709.xml&source=EMC-exp_28112008):


Is lewd abuse more traumatic than losing an arm and a leg?


By Andrew Pierce


The taxpayer is to pay £187,000 in compensation to a lesbian soldier who was subjected to lewd abuse by a stupid male colleague. I'm sure the harassment was hard on Lance Bombardier Kerry Fletcher. But what skewed system of morals awards her such a sum when Marine Ben McBean, who had his arm and leg blown off in Afghanistan, received only £161,000 in compensation?

At just 21, Marine McBean – lauded as a hero by Prince Harry when the two met this month – faces the long task of recovering from the trauma caused by the landmine that exploded underneath him.

Of course the sexual harassment of Miss Fletcher, 32, was repugnant and unacceptable (part of the award reflected the tribunal's unhappiness at the behaviour of the MoD). She was sent a text message by a sex pest sergeant that said: "I might be able to convert you." I'm sorry if her life was made hell by the idiotic behaviour of a soldier who, frankly, should be paying the compensation bill, rather than the rest of us.


Sexual bullying is as unacceptable in the Armed Forces as elsewhere. But let's get this in perspective. A woman, whose feelings were hurt but who will doubtless make a full emotional recovery, receives a payout that dwarfs the money paid to a young man, fighting for Queen and country, whose life can never be the same again.

Yet again, the scourge of political correctness has replaced common sense. I'm sure Kerry Fletcher is an admirable woman. She could demonstrate it in a compassionate way. I hope Miss Fletcher very publicly gives some of her award to one of the charities set up to help the soldiers who have been hideously injured in Afghanistan and Iraq, and who have been so disgracefully abandoned by this Government.



Hear, hear!

[boredcounter]

Just curious, what reference will this lady get from the MOD?

[KeepItTidy]

Well I got no issues with Gays or Lesbians but when they blatantly go out and join the victimisation band wagon in order to extract much money from the public purse then I do have a problem.

We all get called names and if you are a stroker you get Verbally abused , its called moulding you into an acceptable worker. If you cant take it leave , if you are gay and you have issues then leave..... Most will look for the free cash and a story

[Laarbruch72]

AdminBlunty: I remember serving with RAF ladies back in 1990 and they weren't a new thing. Where are you getting your dates from?

[An Teallach]

On a personal basis I have little sympathy for deviants and perverts who think that their 'abomination' is compatible with military service, but since HMG has decided that gays are welcome in the Forces, then I'd recognise that (however much I might disapprove)

I would, in all seriousness, admit to a complete lack of understanding of homosexuality, whose practises I find even the thought of as being utterly repellent. I guess that means that I have a degree of homophobia ...

1. Pray remind us, Jacko, of your extensive military experience and qualification to pontificate on any person's compatibility with military service?

2. Your much-vaunted disapproval of deviants, perverts, shirt-lifters, rug-munchers and homosexuals whose practises you find even the thought of as being utterly repellent is noted. I will only comment that I have invariably found that most well-adjusted heterosexual peoples' thoughts as to matters sexual revolve around the objects of their attraction. They generally do not feel the need to broadcast to all and sundry about that which (ostensibly) repels them. Doth the lady protest too much?

3. Proone or another legal beagle can correct this if I'm wrong, but my analysis of the compensation award is:

£30,000 for solatium (injury to feelings).
£65,558 for loss of earnings and pension.

So the total compensation payout is £95,558.

The further £70K for exemplary and aggravated damages were largely incurred because of the way the MoD handled the case and victimized her after she had legitimately complained. The prats who say that she should have got nothing for earnings or pension should really sit down and think about whether they would wish to continue to work for an employer who had treated them in that manner.

4. Making comparisons with compensation for battle injuries is facile in the extreme. The case for higher compensation for injuries in commercial wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan is, to my mind, irrefutable. Whether the nation could afford same in wars of national survival such as WW2 is a different matter.

[dallas]

This case is reminiscent of one I heard of in the mid-90s, where women were still forced to leave the forces when pregnant. While forcing them to give up their career was undoubtedly wrong, as usual there were some who took advantage of the system to pay off their mortgage.

Said WRAF Cpl became pregnant, but didn't want the RAF to know at the time - can't remember exactly why - instead she told her sgt, who agreed to take her off 24hr and weekend duties, and instead put her in a 8-5 Mon-Fri office job that minimised her stress and suited her quite nicely. Over a few months it became an open secret that she was pregnant, with other staff pulling extra duties because she was still on strength, up until it was unavoidable that she told the RAF, and subsequently left.

About 2 years later the same ex-WRAF is in the Daily Mail in a mournful pose, having successfully sued the MoD for her mistreatment while pregnant. In summary she claimed that her sgt - the one that had helped her by covering for her and changing her job as requested - had undermined her and made her feel undervalued as a member of the team, while victimising her for being pregnant.

Kerching about £160k.

This lesbian story has the same opportunist ring to it.

[Jackonicko]

An T

1) You don't need to be in to see what is, and what isn't compatible with military service. I have family and close friends who are in, or who have served, and I've seen service life at fairly close quarters. Behaviour that is unexceptionable in civilian life (dabbling with drugs, going on strike, being a shabby, scruffy herbert, being thoroughly unpatriotic, etc.) is problematic in the serviceman.

2) You got me. The lady doth protest too much. I must be a lesbian trapped in a man's body. :rolleyes:

3) Good point! In my view, the only contentious part of this award is the £30k for hurt feelings. Loss of earnings/pension is a direct compensation, as you say, and the rest is punitive - intended to punish the MoD for its cack-handedness. One can only hope that the lady in question will see fit to donate this portion (at least) to charity.

4) 'Commercial wars', eh? Was that what they called them in the Guardian, ya fluffy bunny! :}

[Wrathmonk]

Laar72

Little bit off thread but from the RAF Historical pages (http://www.raf.mod.uk/history_old/wraf5.html)...

On the 1st August 1968, the WRAF adopted RAF ranking, but the salary scales did not become equivalent for some time.

and

In 1994 the WRAF completely merged with the RAF to become the RAF - which it has been in fact, if not in name, for some time!

So in 1990-ish technically the RAF ladies were still WRAF. But still had their legs on upside down!:E

[RileyDove]

I think the comparisons with combat injuries are irrelevant. The woman in question was quite clearly victimised and the Mod should be ashamed for it's treatment of her. She did have a form of redress and that was through the courts - she won her case and received compensation. It doesn't appear to have been her fault - she joined to serve her country not to be bullied.
Clearly members of the armed forces have died as the result of bullying in the past - should it be allowed to continue? The enemy is supposed to be on the battlefield not at work.

The forces personnel who have and are suffering from combat injuries deserve our support - it shouldn't however be from comparison to what other amounts people get for unrelated events. It should be from compassionate and sensitive evaluation of each person's needs and not pegged at a set level.

[anotherthing]

Jackonicko,

You are talking out of your a:mad:se.

Compatibility with life in the Armed Forces is not an issue for Carpet Munchers nor Jobby Jabbers... (to use language you understand)

The fact that You don't need to be in to see what is, and what isn't compatible with military service. I have family and close friends who are in, or who have served, and I've seen service proves nothing... after all, in life we tend to chose firends who more often or not, share similar views on subjects.

If you were to ask every single active serviceman or woman if they cared, the vast majority wold say they couldn't give a monkeys, as long they (the gays) could do their job.

That's not to say that I agree with compensation culture, whether it be a lesbian, poof, or hetero that is allegedley bullied.

It's small minded people like you that make things such a big issue, which in turn fuels opportunity for compensation claims. The fact of the matter is, with your attitude, you'd soon have been drummed out of the services if you'd been good enough to get in the first place.