Exit on grounds of pregnancy!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Lincoln
Age: 81
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exit on grounds of pregnancy!
I'm researching a book. Serious question: Does anyone out there know the Title and AP number of the Air Publication in issue in the 1960-80's that detailed what to do when a WRAF got pregnant?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given the numbers I'm sure someone on here will either have been married to one of the affected WRAFs, on know somebody who was. I believe a lot of the WRAFs kept copies of the relevant documents to produce in court.
Girl I knew (but don't know now) got a stroppy letter from the staish, threatening disciplinary action because she dared to challenge the system. That letter, alongside several AOC commendations, added a few noughts to the MODs bill.
Not our finest hour by a long chalk.
Girl I knew (but don't know now) got a stroppy letter from the staish, threatening disciplinary action because she dared to challenge the system. That letter, alongside several AOC commendations, added a few noughts to the MODs bill.
Not our finest hour by a long chalk.
I think the book to which you may be referring is QRs, specifically its sub-paragraphs that dealt with the various types of discharges from service.
Like a lot of things, actions varied from Station to Station. On a certain Scottish AD airfield, whenever one of the WRAFs fell pregnant, our sqn bookie took bets on who was the father.
Like a lot of things, actions varied from Station to Station. On a certain Scottish AD airfield, whenever one of the WRAFs fell pregnant, our sqn bookie took bets on who was the father.
Discharge on Pregnancy
Have just consulted the current Mrs Old-Duffer - aka - ex-Sqn Ldr WRAF Admin Branch (a child bride for me of course!!).
She tells me that whilst there was a QR which dealt with the requirement to discharge females on pregnancy, the matter was actually detailed in policy letters. She does not recall a specific AP but there might have been references to female pregnancy issues in some of the general books dealing with 'P' staff matters.
!!!!!NOW!!!!!: if you really want to wind her up, just get onto the compensation of those girls who joined under the 'old rules' and then sued the services for squillions under the 'new rules'.
Mrs O-D wants compensation for meeting fully the obligations for which she signed up but there's a fat chance of that!!!
O-D - (currently suffering a bent ear!)
She tells me that whilst there was a QR which dealt with the requirement to discharge females on pregnancy, the matter was actually detailed in policy letters. She does not recall a specific AP but there might have been references to female pregnancy issues in some of the general books dealing with 'P' staff matters.
!!!!!NOW!!!!!: if you really want to wind her up, just get onto the compensation of those girls who joined under the 'old rules' and then sued the services for squillions under the 'new rules'.
Mrs O-D wants compensation for meeting fully the obligations for which she signed up but there's a fat chance of that!!!
O-D - (currently suffering a bent ear!)
It is a magnificent piece of prose. AP3269 ( 3rd Edition) May 1966. <ADMINISTRATIVE INSTRUCTIONS FOR WRAF OFFICERS DEALING WITH PREGNANCY CASES>. The proforma letters alone are worthy of preservation as historical documents.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South Wales
Age: 63
Posts: 729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
!!!!!NOW!!!!!: if you really want to wind her up, just get onto the compensation of those girls who joined under the 'old rules' and then sued the services for squillions under the 'new rules'.
Mrs O-D wants compensation for meeting fully the obligations for which she signed up but there's a fat chance of that!!!
Mrs O-D wants compensation for meeting fully the obligations for which she signed up but there's a fat chance of that!!!
Do the honourable thing in accordance with the rules and get diddley or break the rules and and set yourself up to be able to buy a house and have plenty left over not to struggle bringing up your first little one.
Compensation
My take on the compensation is that the MOD should have said; "OK we got it wrong - here's the pay you were deprived, now get back in, we'll give you a quick refresher and you're back on your original engagement".
The numbers involved wouldn't have affected the manning plot and I suspect quite a few would have crept quietly away and for those who didn't the MOD could have said we are making restitution and if you don't like it - do t'other thing.
Best story on this topic which made the press was officer lady wanting said squillions 'cause she might have been a general one day! Case going well for her until 'witness for the defence' says; 'no she wouldn't 'cause she wouldn't have got a PC on her performance'. Fast forward 3 years and said lady holding down posh job gets sack for overstating qualifications and experience.
O-D
The numbers involved wouldn't have affected the manning plot and I suspect quite a few would have crept quietly away and for those who didn't the MOD could have said we are making restitution and if you don't like it - do t'other thing.
Best story on this topic which made the press was officer lady wanting said squillions 'cause she might have been a general one day! Case going well for her until 'witness for the defence' says; 'no she wouldn't 'cause she wouldn't have got a PC on her performance'. Fast forward 3 years and said lady holding down posh job gets sack for overstating qualifications and experience.
O-D
A Blunty mate, sadly no longer with us, spent a tour based at Innsworth representing the RAF at Employment Tribunals, defending the RAF against claims from women dischared/retired because of marriage or pregnancy. Must have been depressing getting up each mormning knowing you are going to Tribunal to lose, the only real question being "how much compensation?"
RIP CC
RIP CC
That kind of thing grips my $h!t.
How the hell can equal opportunity and anti-discrimination law be applied retroactively to a service which implemented the regulations as it saw fit AT THE TIME.
One day it's fine and legal to discharge on pregnancy, the next day it's politically incorrect, illegal and the public purse is liable for tons of compo cash.
These women knew what the deal was when they joined, how can it be right to get all litigious when the law changes years later - stinks of revisionist history to me!
I would very much like to see my kids grow up rather than spend 1 year in 3 in another country. Can I sue the MOD for 'denying the right to a family life' under the human rights act?
How the hell can equal opportunity and anti-discrimination law be applied retroactively to a service which implemented the regulations as it saw fit AT THE TIME.
One day it's fine and legal to discharge on pregnancy, the next day it's politically incorrect, illegal and the public purse is liable for tons of compo cash.
These women knew what the deal was when they joined, how can it be right to get all litigious when the law changes years later - stinks of revisionist history to me!
I would very much like to see my kids grow up rather than spend 1 year in 3 in another country. Can I sue the MOD for 'denying the right to a family life' under the human rights act?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Northwest
Age: 64
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem as I understood it when this was headline news in the 1990's was that the service chiefs were told they had to change many years ago and decided to ignore the law because they didn't think it should apply to them.
So anyone who signed up in the understanding that they would have to leave on marriage/pregnancy was discriminated against because their employer knew better. Why do court's/tribunals award compensation? because it is a clear cut decision that the law was ignored.
This issue used to wind up war pensioners' something rotten but it's the MOD all over; it thinks it knows best regardless.
Now where has this been apparent elsewhere? Hmmm... I wonder what Mr Haddon-Cave would have thought about this issue?
The civil service used to insist that women had to leave employment when they married, that was changed an awfully long time ago, but the military didn't.
So anyone who signed up in the understanding that they would have to leave on marriage/pregnancy was discriminated against because their employer knew better. Why do court's/tribunals award compensation? because it is a clear cut decision that the law was ignored.
This issue used to wind up war pensioners' something rotten but it's the MOD all over; it thinks it knows best regardless.
Now where has this been apparent elsewhere? Hmmm... I wonder what Mr Haddon-Cave would have thought about this issue?
The civil service used to insist that women had to leave employment when they married, that was changed an awfully long time ago, but the military didn't.
Last edited by EGGP; 29th Sep 2010 at 19:28. Reason: extra info
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: England
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to AP3269 (3rd Edition 1966), one of the immediate actions was to detain the offending airman in the Guardroom overnight to sober up, then escort him to the Medical Centre in the morning and arrange for an eye test 
Last edited by OHP 15M; 29th Sep 2010 at 21:16.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pregnancy was one thing but under the old rules a WRAF could seek to leave on marriage (indeed Mrs Imps left on those terms). When notice was served that this clause was to be revoked in the mid nineties, two chaps under my command applied to leave on the grounds of marriage and then tried to claim sexual discrimination when told to procreate elsewhere!
Just goes to show that if you write a set of rules some scrote will try and find a loop-hole. Oh hang on they're called Lawyers .....
Pass the gin old chap
Just goes to show that if you write a set of rules some scrote will try and find a loop-hole. Oh hang on they're called Lawyers .....
Pass the gin old chap
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: england
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The MOD has a record of ignoring laws it doesn't agree with. pregnancy, equal pay, sex discrimination, women in combat roles. I'm sure the age discrimination law will bite the MOD in the future. i.e you leave at 55 unless you hit a certain very senior rank or you are a doctor, dentist etc in which case you can stay in longer. However if your an ATC, Plod, loggie etc you can bugger off at 55.
BTW how many female or ethnic minority air officers do we have...
BTW how many female or ethnic minority air officers do we have...