The only motive i'm driven by is that of fair treatment which forces me now to play devils advocate.
a few points for thought / discussion
1. the complainant was subject to the same selection process as every other raf pilot and was therefore deemed to have sufficient characteristics / promise for selection as GD(P). She also had sufficient ability and officer qualities to pass EFT possibly BFT and then METS during which she would have had 3 independent assessments of ability as both a pilot and an officer. My best mate through training went to HMP Kinloss due to the fact that he was exceptionally capable, and i believe this to still be the case for a posting to the rod
2. the complainant felt strongly enough about the treatment to complain. The complaint was seemingly ignored by those in her chain of command. whilst every military employee is subject to banter, whether you agree with it or not, they are also afforded the protection against sexual and racial discrimination by the fact that said behaviour is unlawful. The throwaway remark by www that she lost the vast majority of her claims purposefuly ignores the fact that the independant tribunal found she had been the victim of unlawful sexual discrimination; a fact which vindicates her complaint and for which she will be compensated.
3.Those in the military do not have a contract per se, they are reliant on terms conferred in the air force act. It seems entirely proper and reasonable to allow female military personel the opportunity to have families without recourse to burning them at the stake for the mere suggestion. They should also be afforded the courtesy of having family situations considered upon posting, as their male counterparts do.
4. Employment tribunals have sufficient competency in deciding employment issues, as that is all they were designed to do. Sexual discrimination or other employment matters do not take on a magical appearance merely because they are alleged against the military. People are only allowed to seek recourse to these tribunals after exhausting all avenues of the internal grievance procedure. I assume that all of the complaints were dismissed out of hand during this, which indicates the lack of impartiality in the redress process.
5. Long term diary keeping smacks of someone whose complaint was perhaps ignored and the instances were of sufficient severity that she had no option but to make note of them; self preservation.
6. The fact that there was a finding of sexual discrimination means that someone within the RAF is responsible for that, and the chain of command is responsible for ignoring it. That she should have anonymity is essential, why should someone be punished twice for the unlawful actions of some that led to the complaint reaching the stage it did. I left the raf last year for airlines new, and i still get approached as to my opinion of some applicants. I cannot believe that this situation could not have been sorted a lot sooner and to the benefit of both parties.
I do not know the individual nor am i particularly interested in the nitty gritty of the case. The bottom line is "has she been treated fairly and in accordance with the law" on some counts this was yes but on others it was no which renders the RAF and a few employees responsible. This is a very sad story which could possibly have been sorted a lot sooner and for a lot less public money. Everyone has the right not to be crapped on from a great height, and i wonder if those flaming her would be so severe if they had been crapped on too.
there are one or two complete spanners at every station, perhaps she was unfortunate to get them on her crew? just to reiterate, i play devils advocate because there are 2 sides.