RAF officers to join gay pride march

[Open Sauce]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/08/26/ugay.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/08/26/ixportaltop.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/3603146.stm

Fantastic! Recruiting? Thought we were trying to get rid of 11,000 personnel?

[Green Meat]

Darn, beat me to it. Just spotted it on Ceefax!

Very un-pc, I know, but with it being a gay pride march will they re-instate PRU Pink colour schemes for the obligatory plastic Jaguar or Harrier?

[soddim]

Wonderful news that these chaps are going out recruiting - not sure if it is that PC not to have a few AC/DC and women along as well but if they can get away with it.......

[Trumpet_trousers]

...As soon as the DCI 'comes out' making it compulsory, my PVR goes in.......:ugh:

[West Coast]

Beagle
Were you marching proudly at the front of the contingent?


"European Court of Human Rights"

Who the hell are they to determine?

[Scud-U-Like]

The very best of luck to those taking part.

Doubtless it'll have the Daily Mail brigade fulminating over their Cornflakes :E

[BEagle]

Westie, I'm not sure what you're on about? Nor the reference to the European Court of Human Rights........

Personally what homosexuals apparently do with each other I consider totally unnatural and utterly repellent.

But I suppose it's marginally less so than active persecution?

No doubt you've had more experience of such people over there on the coast not far from San Fagcisco?

[JessTheDog]

I don't care about sexuality, homo or otherwise, one's private life is exactly that. However:

1. I thought QRs were explicit about when uniform could and could not be worn.

2. Likewise, I thought QRs explicitly prohibited personnel taking an active part in political events, particularly in uniform!

3. Are the personnel taking part "volunteers?" Can one now be tasked with appearing in such marches, whether sexually orientated or otherwise? Waht next - the Labour Party conference?

I think I'll dust off my No 1s for the next Countryside Alliance or Stop the War Coalition march!;)

[jindabyne]

Like Beagle, I assume, I can't accept the supposed 'normality' of alleged homosexual sexual activity (pity the word gay was hijacked). However I'm quite able to shove this aside and enjoy otherwise normal relationships with 'gay' people. But why their need to assert their abnormality in public and use their profession as a platform for airing their sexuality? If these officers are to wear anything resembling the RAF uniform, then I strongly object to their exploitation of what is a symbol of National pride, and adorning themselves with what is ordinarily worn for greater purpose.

I'm 'straight': I don't feel the need to tell everybody. As the nice RAF PR lady says - " individuals sexual orientation is none of the RAF's business". So let's all get on with it, in private, please.

[Spot 4]

I think your No1 uniform worn over a white T shirt atop black leather slave pants and the compulsory Bare arse will look quite good. Only bettered if you can pull the sides of the SD cap down in finest Gestapho fashion. Gestapho> Boots.... mmm it just gets better all the time. Hope beer bellies are not volunteering:O

[Squadgy]

Heard on the local radio that there's a flypast too - can't see anything on the NOTAMs - any ideas which aircraft/ units and time?

[BEagle]

31 squadron or some Jaguar outfit, probably......:E

Aircrew leather jacket, plus old 70's-style internal anti-g suit worn as ar$eless fagpants plus flying boots. And a Village People style SD hat (the Gestapo were the leather trenchcoat and trilby lot - like Herr Flick. You're thinking of the SS).

[Milt]

The big downward slide.

Isn't it about time we started advising our future potential RAF aviators that it is not now an organisation they should aspire to join.

It's been bad enough to see members of an Oz state's police force march in uniform in a Gay Mardi Graz.

So pleased they can't breed.

[Scud-U-Like]

The Jag display pilot was quite cute, but I think he's been promoted away from that job now.

Pity The Queen's Flight is no more.

[airborne_artist]

Heard on the local radio that there's a flypast too - can't see anything on the NOTAMs - any ideas which aircraft/ units and time?

There's a joke in there involving rear gunners, I'm sure

[rej]

is this the start of unofficial quotas ?

[stillin1]

Strafe would seem to be a sensible conclusion to the "fly-past".:mad:

[pr00ne]

I see homophobia is alive and well in Aunty Betty's flying club, BEagle in particular, you really are an old dinosaur!

Far too much self repression here methinks, you guys really should seek help to come out you know.

[jindabyne]

prOOne

Did YOU have to seek help, or was it a natural thing?

[Training Risky]

The term 'homophobia' is a misnomer. 'phobia' would imply that we are scared of uphill gardeners, I for one am not scared by it, I'm far too broad-minded.

I just don't see why they have to shove all this PC rubbish down peoples throats (ooh er).

If you're a botter, fine. Get on with it behind closed doors. But why feel the need to cavort around Manchester saying how proud you are?

[EESDL]

Yep, it's even more official than the media suggests.......have just been issued with pink flying suits (with tailored waists) for our visit to the South coast this afternoon! Event organisers have informed me that I've a hotel room in Brighton.......
For 5ucks sake, great timing!
Bracing ourselves for some polite banter from the other 'members' of the Services who may be frequenting the aircrew tent this weekend.
Suits you sir!
Don't bend down when the Air Force is around, cos you'll get.........
I can hear it now.

[jindabyne]

EESDL

Gardening - with WHAT inbetween??

[airborne_artist]

I just listened to a Gp Capt being interviewed on 5Live.

I got the impression that the guys attending are from a recruiting team, there to spread the message about careers in the RAF, not gents who prefer gents advertising their sexuality.

As usual, one or two journos have taken this story and played on peoples fears/prejudices.

[JessTheDog]

This is surely contrary to the "social conduct" element of the "core values" espoused in that little blue AP. As I have said previously, I care little about sexual orientation and I find overtly hetrosexual displays as offensive as overtly homosexual displays. This undermines the whole premise that we should conduct ourselves in public, and in uniform, with dignity.

Will it be the Notting Hill Carnival next? Or a trip to Glastonbury, or an appearance on reality TV? Absolutely nothing wrong with these events (or indeed a gay pride march) in their context, but it would appear that they embrace the "self-centredness" that the elaborate Force Development setup appears to be trying to redress.

The only plus (if it is a plus) about this situation is that it undermines any repression of views contrary to the direction of the "new" RAF, regarding cuts and over-reliance on technology. If it is OK to appear in public, in uniform, at a gay pride march then clearly it is OK to appear in other forums and air one's views in public...PrOOne for one!

[BEagle]

Pink pr00ne, the idea of buggery utterly appalls me. What those who are that way inclined do with each other is up to them, but it will never be considered acceptable by me. Or, I suspect, by most folk in the Mil. Not that they should be persecuted though.

So why homosexuals should prance about pretending to be proud of it I cannot begin to understand. If they shut up and do whatever they do behind closed doors that's one thing, blatantly queening about expecting people to accept it as in some way normal is totally another.

(Mind you, it was quite fun just after Pink Wednesday to spoof the Boss by pointing to some Space Cadet wandering past and saying "Nice ar$e on that, eh Boss?" whilst trying to keep a straight face!:E. Fortunately he knew I was taking the pi$$! )

[EESDL]

Of course when one now offers 'gardening' as a hobby, do we have to state whether it is the 'downhill' or 'uphill' variety?

[Scud-U-Like]

It's interesting to read so many deeply insightful and well informed postings, by people who state they neither know nor wish to know anything about the subject. So, to sum up, being a homosexual is about nothing but buggery and buggery is practiced exclusively by homosexuals, all of them, except when they're too busy prancing around.

[Leprechaun]

I'm assuming you "lovely" Crabs will now have the decency to knock all the "Gay Navy" jokes on the head now!!

I think we should have more "homosexually orientated personnel" in the armed forces! At least they can dress well, and dance!
Also I think some of our stuffy old admirals should get help from the Fab Five on "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy!" Or BEagle!!

What do you reckon BEags? Up for it? It would be worth the license fee alone!

Cheers Sweeties

Lep

[Trumpet_trousers]

Like Beagle, I assume, I can't accept the supposed 'normality' of alleged homosexual sexual activity (pity the word gay was hijacked). However I'm quite able to shove this aside and enjoy otherwise normal relationships with 'gay' people. But why their need to assert their abnormality in public and use their profession as a platform for airing their sexuality? If these officers are to wear anything resembling the RAF uniform, then I strongly object to their exploitation of what is a symbol of National pride, and adorning themselves with what is ordinarily worn for greater purpose.

Couldn't agree more.......PC gone mad, absolutely mad.:mad:


Would their Airships be happy for me to be seen on a float, in uniform, with some scantily clad page 3 girlies? No, thought not, so why appease the sausage-jockey fraternity??

[Maple 01]

It's just another day out (No pun intended) for the AFCO - chill BEagle and co! The other attendees , after al, fit age groups they normally target.

We all thought the sky would collapse when it became OK to be Gay - it didn't, it just meant that the ladies in comfy shoes* and the chaps with a Judy Garland fixation* could stop worrying about a visit from P&SS

*stereotypes used for comic effect

[pr00ne]

Jindabyne,

Is that supposed to be some kind of insult? Am I supposed to be mortally offended if I am straight but am mistaken for being Gay?

BEagle,

I think you’ll find a far larger percentage of the population practice buggery than you imagine, sexual orientation has very little to do with it, the fact that it appalls you personally is neither here nor there.

Discrimination is just that, be it racial, sexual, ageism or whatever, make these sort of childish sniggering remarks about black folk and you would find yourself in hot water, why should it be any different for sexual orientation

Unless of course you are all a wee bit scared of it, just like the average “queer basher” invariably turns out to be.

[soddim]

Each to their own - with consent, of course - that's what freedom is. However, displaying it all in public seems a bit OTT to me. I guess the PC brigade are happy with a gay pride march but would they be at all happy with a British Pride March in our multicultural society?

[pr00ne]

soddim,

You make a fair and valid point, I expect not.

Still, if a minority is repressed and suppresssed, as many were for decades, then they are entitled to be treated differently.

[Pontius Navigator]

I understand the float will be manned by recruiters masquarading under false colours.

There is no presumption that they are entitled to pink.

[Scud-U-Like]

Gay pride festivals can appear OTT, but then, most people's perception of them is gleaned from the TV news, which normally shows a bit of footage of some outrageous 18 stone tranny, dressed as a nun, as opposed to the thousands of ordinary people who attend. Many gay people (shock horror) wouldn't be seen dead at a gay pride bash and many straight people wouldn't miss one.

On balance, I cannot see any harm in fielding an AFCO team (or, for that matter, a marching contingent) at Manc Pride . It isn't a political event, in the ordinary sense of the term. We send RAF resources to events that could be considered far more political (display ac to arms shows, for example).

soddim

We take part in "British Pride" events all the time (eg The Queen's Golden Jubilee celebrations) .

[pikeyeng]

Gay pride festivals can appear OTT, but then, most people's perception of them is gleaned from the TV news, which normally shows a bit of footage of some outrageous 18 stone tranny, dressed as a nun, as opposed to the thousands of ordinary people who attend.

So the Merlin squadron will be hosting events :ooh:

[KENNYR]

I wonder are the Officers manning the float volunteers? If they are not, can they refuse to take part on the grounds of being given an unreasonable or unlawful order???

Nice to see that the Air Farce are going to show their true colours on the float.:D :D Did someone mention pink?

[Sunfish]

Gee, all new aircraft will need side by side seating so that pilots can hold hands....

[soddim]

Scud-U-Like,

I take your point - there are a lot of events where we can show our pride in our country but none of them are billed as 'British Pride' events. This one is billed as a 'gay pride' event. I can perceive the difference.

[jindabyne]

prOOne

Do calm down old chap - of late you seem to bridle very quickly. No insult intended, merely playful banter, which is what we're mostly about on this forum. We can all hold firm views, but do try not to be so overbearing - swop a little of the courtroom for a bit of your old cockpit (oops, not a good PC choice of word in this debate).

As for buggery, of whatever partnership, each to his/her own. I personally give it a miss, if you get my point. Of interest, M'lud, when was it given legality? And telling BEagle his view is neither here nor there is terribly pompous.

If you digested my previous comments you would know my attitude to homosexuality. We will hold a different view,
and if you regard mine as bigotry, so be it - I'm comfortable with my opinion. With regard to insults, I would be extremely offended if you branded me with racism - and as for agesim, I'm beyond reproach! I do not hold homosexuals or lesbians in a discriminatory light - I simply think that they should be discreet with their sexual behaviour, as most of us do, whatever we choose to do in bed! Why the need to proclaim?

As for being 'scared' or 'queer bashing', that's a silly barrack-room response, the like of which you are normally quick to pour scorn upon.

Enjoy the weekend

[EJ Thribb]

Has anybody used the crusty old line "I know it goes on but I don't want to have it rammed down my throat," and all those other old cliches? Oops.

Anyway, I thought this parade would have been more of a Navy affair?

[bluntyopsguy]

Gents, first post

I have never been approached by a chap who swings the other way despite my 20 years RAF Service man and boy, barrack block and mess.
However, I personally am the sort of chap to attract strange people/nutters as and when I walk down the street, sit on a bus etc. Don't know what it is with me, must have a funny face!

Sods Law (ahem!) therefore means that the first gay couple to be allowed an RAF married quarter will live next door to me. Any sounds associated with pillow biting will result in a molotov cocktail duly despatched to get the gay homs out. Unless of course it is two delightful lesbians where the CCTV will be duly installed whilst they are out.

Before the PC Brigade start having a go, I myself am a Lesbian, because I like to have sex with women. And I have a wife with 2 kids.

This is, of course, a joke. If you don't find it funny, you're gay, sorry, a homo!

Blunty

[EJ Thribb]

Don't worry about the PC Brigade. Due to Defence Cuts they are now actually the PC Battlegroup (-) and are currently committed to operations in support of re-electing Tony Blair, sorry, making the Middle- East a better place to live, and pump oil.

A Government spokeman denied firmly that reducing the numbers in the PC Brigade represented a reduction in capability but would in fact enhance operational effect.

[Scud-U-Like]

bluntyopsguy

Welcome to the forum. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the Malicious Communications Act 1988 makes it a criminal offence to send an electronic communication that conveys a threat. It appears you may have done just that and rather clumsily identified yourself at the same time (although an ISP subscriber check by the police will do the latter anyway).

Free speech is one thing. Threatening to petrol bomb one's neighbour is quite another.

[Mad_Mark]

Geeez Scud, get a life :rolleyes: Read posts in the humour they were meant. Yes, BOG expressed his dislike of pillow-biters (good up ya mate) but I don't think he really is into the manufacture and employment of molotov cocktails :eek:

There seems to be a few posters on here that are more concerned about PC than actually reading what people are writing :sad: If shirt-lifters want to stick things up their backsides, then that is up to them, in the privacy of their own homos (sorry, homes ;) ) but they don't need to go out mincing around in makeup, frocks and hotpants on marches! And we certianly do not need to send recruiting teams to specialist rallies such as this, or any other, in this sad day and age of the mutilation of our Armed Forces! Is recruiting getting so bad that despite large manpower cuts we still need to go to events like this :confused:

Mad Mark!!! :mad:

[JessTheDog]

Alas, the thread seems to be degenerating into homophobia, whether tongue in cheek or otherwise. On reflection, can't actually see the harm in recruiting (as opposed to participating) at gay marches (it brought immediately to mind the fire sercive participation in the big march in London), however the OTT PC culture is such in today's Air Farce that it is easy to set the antennae twitching! I wouldn't put it past the MoD to decide it would be a great idea to include a flight in a gay pride march from a "corporate comms" perspective, which seems to be our sole reason for existence nowadays.

The point about supporting arms fairs is a well-made one and the brown-nosing we get up to, often with the most unsavoury characters does not sit well with our assumed "ethical" values.

[BEagle]

Not so much homophobia as a dislike of homopriapism, I would have thought?

Brown-nosing or brown-hatting? Neither are particularly pride worthy.

[bluntyopsguy]

Gents,

I would like to thank Scud for pointing out the error of my ways in posting a threat in this forum. I can only apologize and I will make sure that any future posts will contain absolutely no humour (or threats to fire bomb).

Should the police follow this up and I am found guilty of violating the Malicious Communications Act 1988, does that mean I don't have to go to Basrah next month?

Thanks to Mad Mark for turning me into BOG (which I rather like).

BOG

[pr00ne]

jindabyne,

Fair cop! Caught me in one of my intolerant moods after a rather stressful few days at the day job. Guess I needed something to lash out at and I found it here.

Have an equally pleasant few days.


bluntyopsguy,

You really do need help!

[SPIT]

Just a quick question, the so called Gays used to be called Queers or Pufters.when was the name Gays hijacked. As I am aware being gay means a happy person (ie the life of the party or similar) ???? In Ireland as in other places there are people named Gay.:confused: :confused:

[BEagle]

There was a story once where an airline employee named Gay was dead-heading on an internal company flight. But last minute bookings meant that the airline urgently needed the seat for a revenue passenger and were going to transfer Mr Gay to a later flight. So the FA came down the cabin asking likely looking dead-headers asking "Gay? Are you Gay?" After a few "No ma'ams", they found the right passenger. "Are you Gay?" "Yes, ma'am" "Well, I'm afraid you'll have to leave this flight".
Now some precious old queen had witnessed all this, got out of his seat, flounced up to the FA and hissed "Well, dearie, I 'm gay too and you're not going to throw me off just for that!"

[ghost-rider]

Bluntyospguy wrote :

Gents, first post

I have never been approached by a chap who swings the other way despite my 20 years RAF Service man and boy, barrack block and mess.
However, I personally am the sort of chap to attract strange people/nutters as and when I walk down the street, sit on a bus etc. Don't know what it is with me, must have a funny face!

Sods Law (ahem!) therefore means that the first gay couple to be allowed an RAF married quarter will live next door to me. Any sounds associated with pillow biting will result in a molotov cocktail duly despatched to get the gay homs out. Unless of course it is two delightful lesbians where the CCTV will be duly installed whilst they are out.

Before the PC Brigade start having a go, I myself am a Lesbian, because I like to have sex with women. And I have a wife with 2 kids.

This is, of course, a joke. If you don't find it funny, you're gay, sorry, a homo!



Blunty

That's the funniest (and obviously said in jest) post I've read on Pprune for years !

Congrats on your first posting ( er, I mean on here ) Blunty and keep up the great work !! :ok:


Soddim ... hmm, unfortunate name on this thread methinks ! ;)

[Scud-U-Like]

bluntyopsguy

I expect the police (TVP or RAF) will see your Molotov cocktail comment in the same light as they view "jokes" about bombs on aircraft. In any case, I shall be making a complaint. I have absolutely no sense of humour about hate crimes or so-called jokes about them. If you made a joke about ni99er-lynching your black neighbour, I wouldn't find that funny either.

I'm sure your Basrah det is safe: I hear they have a very good SIB Det out there.

[ProudButNotPublic]

OK, I will admit that this is a new nic for the purpose of posting to this thread. An interesting choice by me I guess, but perhaps some of the responses to this thread make it understandable.

Some of the posts here have been 'classical' responses, with a suitable degree of inaccuracy, stereotype, and downright insult.

Bluntyospguy Yes, very amusing... chortle chortle. But then again, a fairly sick post. Yes I know, I should recognise it as a joke. Oh - and how was I meant to do that again? Come on guys, I am sure that you have to sit through the same 'equity and diversity' lectures that we have to down-under. I think even a fair and reasonable non-homosexual person would see that post as inflamatory.

Now, I would have said that because we have had a lot longer dunnunda to deal with the childishness that invariably arises with this topic (1992 it became legal but not compulsary), and that in time the UK forces would also get over it.
Of course, then that would make it hard to explain Milt - although perhaps not even the dinosaurs all died out at once.
Oh and bad news for you Milt... we can (and do) 'breed' - happy to be both gay and a dad here.

Oh and BEagle - what exactly is "homopriapism"? Closest defintion I could find was pri·a·pism n Persistent, usually painful erection of the penis, especially as a consequence of disease and not related to sexual arousal.
Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=priapism)

I would like to say that it is good to see that quite a few people here had favourable responses to the thread. I'll be honest, and say it was more than I would have thought.

Maybe one day it'd be ok for me to post under my normal nic - without having to worry about people making a huge fuss about it. I just want to get on with my life, without having to worry about snide remarks and school-yard gossip.

Til that time, I guess I will do what I have always done, and not march in Mardi Gras, but at the same time, not deny it if anyone does get the guts to ask...

Hope the guys/gals had fun in Manchester last night

(edited for typos)

[BEagle]

It means homosexual promiscuity. Or, in common English, flaunting it in public.

Better blatant than latent? I don't believe so.

[ghost-rider]

I can't believe some of the comments by Spud, Proud and others.

BEagle and Blunty happen to say what a lot of us think ! That's our right ! I'm proud of it !

I left the RAF in 98 after 15yrs. Then, homophobia was SOP and the thought that any of the troops might be of that persuasion was virtually non-existant. The Danish and Turkish forces were the butt of all jokes ! (bad pun!)

When I left, I went to work for an airline ! Boy was I in for a shock ! Not the best place to shout about "hang them from the rafters" etc etc ! :ugh:

However, I learnt that these people were actually as capable as anyone else professionally, and you could also have a really good laugh with them. (in the majority anyway!). I'm happy to say some I now class as very good friends. Guess I'm a lot more tolerant now ! :D

My point is though that HM Forces is a different ballgame. (bad pun again!)

It's primarily a macho-heterosexual environment, with deep suspicions of anyone that doesn't conform. PC issues do not have a place here IMHO.

The thoughts of the military blatantly publicising and proud of the fact that x percent of personnel are gay abhors me.

What goes on in private is one thing, but I don't want to hear or read about it. If it's consenting adults then it's OK I guess.

But please keep it quiet and don't be 'loud and proud' then everyone will get along better ! The fact that people may be gay and in the forces doesn't mean the whole world has to or wants to hear about it !!

This PC crap we have to put up with today has gone way too far !!

Oh and the abuse I'm getting from my ex-fish'ead mates who I took the p!ss out of mercillessly in the past is coming back at me with extreme prejudice !! :{

However, Proud said the following, and I applaud him for it ... Maybe one day it'd be ok for me to post under my normal nic - without having to worry about people making a huge fuss about it. I just want to get on with my life, without having to worry about snide remarks and school-yard gossip.

Til that time, I guess I will do what I have always done, and not march in Mardi Gras, but at the same time, not deny it if anyone does get the guts to ask...

Great sentiments Proud, I wish you luck.

So to sum up though ... please don't be loud and proud ! You're officially allowed to do what you do, but the rest of us really don't want to know about it !

[ProudButNotPublic]

Milt - not only are we in the same community, but I could be in the office next to you. Who knows, maybe we might even share a beer at the bar. The point is, you probably wouldnt know who is gay, and who isnt. I am far from being the only gay aircrew type in the RAAF (or any other service for the matter). Do you really think it matters???

Oh, and odds are you have a much higher chance of getting HIV (at least get your terminology correct if you are going to rant) - particularly if you frequent the bar girls in Thailand
From the UN (WHO):
The most frequent mode of transmission in this region [Asia] is through heterosexual behavior. Men who travel away from home to work often get lonely and have sex with prostitutes, then frequently carry diseases home to their wives.
The HIV/AIDS pandemic continues to spread. Now its victims are most likely to be women, children and young people.
UN WHO site (http://www.munfw.org/archive/50th/who3.htm)

If you are going to carry on like a prat, at least make sure your facts are right.

BEagle - I am curious as to your source for that word?
It doesnt come up in Google at all, nor at Yahoo, Dictionary.com, Mirriam-Webster Online, yourDictionary.com, or Cambridge Dictionaries Online.

[MajorMadMax]

Would their Airships be happy for me to be seen on a float, in uniform, with some scantily clad page 3 girlies? No, thought not, so why appease the sausage-jockey fraternity??

Well put, and exactly the point. :ok:

Cheers! M2

[JessTheDog]

Gents, ladies, please!

I dislike the idea of a gay pride march being supported by RAF men and women in uniform. Equally, I would dislike a uniformed presence at similar non-gay events!

However, I can see that the presence of a recruiting team is not worth the "hissy fit" that this thread is inducing! Furthermore, some of the downright unpleasant comments (more suited to lavatory walls) will give ammunition to the PC-police that we suffer under already!

Moderator....help!

[JessTheDog]

I saw a photo of a Fg Off admittedly in the Mail on Sunday) walking along handing out sweets, hat off. Notwithstanding my comments above about the debate on this thread degenerating somewhat, some questions have to be asked:

1. Was this simply a recruiting presence or was it gay servicemen and women taking an active part in the march?

2. If this was an active participation in the march, in uniform, then what has happened to the QRs about "active participation" in political events, and on the occasions when uniform can be worn?

3. If this was an active participation in the march, in uniform, what will happen when I pitch up at a "Blair Out" or a "Stop the Defence Cuts" march, in light blue or otherwise?

I do not care about the private lives of those I serve alongside, and whatever manifestations do cross over into the public domain, for example, same-sex couples at Mess functions are no issue whatsoever. However, support of what is in effect a pressure group march, in uniform, run completely contrary to the ethos we have maintained over the decades of being neutral with regard to any public displays other than those along the lines of the Battle of Britain and Remembrance Sunday. Furthermore, if it is OK in one instance (ie a gay pride march) it should be OK in other instances of personal belief!

[JessTheDog]

There is a Save the Scottish Regiments demonstration/meeting sometime in October. It is a bit of a trek for most of us but, in keeping with the new freedom we enjoy to express our beliefs, anyone fancy coming along?

If we wear uniform, can we claim T&S and overnight accommodation?

[soddim]

Ghost-rider

Whilst my pprune name might cause you hilarity on this forum, with a name like yours you should remember the bit about what not to do if you live in a glasshouse!

[Scud-U-Like]

All but the most banal deployment of uniformed military personnel is going to be "political" to someone. A republican (or for that matter, any taxpayer) might object to guardsmen being used to convey The Queen's personal luggage to one of Her Majesty's private residences. An atheist might object to military personnel attending a church parade at public expense. Almost anyone could take exception to a Tornado flying a display sortie at an arms show. The list is endless. The line is drawn at military personnel officially attending events that have an overriding political purpose, which gay pride patently does not.

The final decision rests with our superiors. Like it, lump it or PVR.

[November4]

Least he could have done was be properly dressed - headress?

[JessTheDog]

The line is drawn at military personnel officially attending events that have an overriding political purpose, which gay pride patently does not.

Manchester Pride is Manchester’s annual festival celebrating lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) life. Manchester’s celebrations started in the early 1990s on August Bank Holiday weekend to raise money to support those affected by HIV.

The line has been crossed. What next - attending a Fathers 4 Justice event on the grounds of promoting equal rights for male parents? The Armed Forces should steer well clear of anything that is not firmly rooted in tradition, to avoid controversy. This sets an unwise precedent that can be used to redress any disciplinary action taken against anyone partaking in overtly political activity, whether within "the system" or without. Who decided what a "political purpose" is - the MoD? The courts certainly will! Or the employment tribunals, if official permission is denied for attendance at any other marches!

I don't believe that the status quo of "no political activity" could be justified under the HRA 98 but the guidlelines were at least clear and now they have been blurred. A massive can of worms has been opened unnecessarily that will unfortunately cause tension and controversy.

I'll say again that there is no place for bigotry within or without the Armed Forces but we should not promote any particular lifestyle or belief system, or be directly associated with its promotion otherwise trouble will ensue! The Forces should be firmly colour, gender and sexuality blind, but always tolerant.

[ghost-rider]

Soddim, fair point ... I asked for that one ! :} Hope you realised it was meant in jest though !

Jess Good point ! I can just imagine the Gen Apps that are getting filled out now ! :uhoh: Once the precedence has been set there is no turning back !

[soddim]

ghost-rider

Of course I did - I jest too - hard to be serious on this thread!

Regards,

soddim

[Scud-U-Like]

JessTheDog

You've simply reinforced my point.

Fathers 4 Justice is a political pressure group, whose overriding objective is to change Government policy.

Manchester Pride is a festival, whose overriding objective is to celebrate diversity.

If the armed forces had followed your principle, to "steer well clear of anything that is not firmly rooted in tradition", we'd still be flying Sopwith Camels and recruiting from flying circuses.

As for the point about headdress, I am a firm believer in the policy that members of the armed forces should always be properly dressed, when appearing in uniform. That said, there are occasions when the wearing of headdress in public is excused (such as at RAF station open days), where a more relaxed atmosphere makes this appropriate.

[allan907]

My guess is that over the years this particular 'gay pride' happening has attracted large members of the public. As such the local Careers Office office commander has seen an opening for recruiting and has persuaded his/her area commander that some effort should be put into same. Area commander then submits his area bid to Regional Commander and it is then sanctioned by HQ Inspectorate of Recruiting (or whatever the equivalent is nowadays). This is what happens when enthusiasm and ambition overrule common sense.

IMHO there is a world of difference between attending the local agricultural show or manning a static recruiting booth, and actually taking part in this parade. The Office Commander and all those up the chain who sanctioned this nonsense should be given a one way interview and told in no uncertain terms that they have brought the RAF into disrepute.

The taking part in this parade is a totally separate issue from the parade itself, homosexuality in the Armed Forces, or equal rights for homosexuals.

[JessTheDog]

Scud-u-like:

Fathers 4 Justice is a political pressure group, whose overriding objective is to change Government policy.

From the Manchester Pride website (www.manchesterpride.com): Manchester Pride is a festival, whose overriding objective is to celebrate diversity.

From the Manchester Pride website (www.manchesterpride.com): “The Wedding” aims to be the largest ever mass blessing for all lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender couples in support of equal partnership rights. Checkout www.civilpartnerships.org.uk for more information.

Both Fathers 4 Justice and Manchester Pride's "The Wedding" are seeking legislative change. I believe that both campaigns raise very important issues in their respective areas and are highly laudable. However, that is my personal view! The RAF should not take a corporate view of either campaign.

Furthermore, I know a handful of uniformed personnel who have deeply-seated religious beliefs - Christianity and Islam - whose scriptures - the Bible and the Qur'an - explicitly condemn homosexuality. I must stress that I do not share or endorse this view (and if you read Leviticus there are are a lot more seemingly "innnocuous" things than homosexuality banned) but, if the RAF embrace one value set, they are distancing themselves from, or even condemning another value set, regardless of the popularity or relevance of either! This is a can of worms and Allan907 is spot on about the difference between manning a recruiting booth and taking part in the march.

[Scud-U-Like]

Jess/allan907

Would the presence of an NFU stand or a pro-fox hunting petition at an agricultural show make that a no-go area for an AFCO recruiting team, a QCS display or a Red Arrows display? No, because the overriding objective of the show is non-political.

As for your example about those with deep-seated religious beliefs; as an atheist, I might find it highly objectionable that religious preachers are appointed as my superior officers and that RAF personnel in uniform are allowed to parade at St Clement Danes Church. It's a case of, "get over it".

Believe me, I do have reservations about uniformed personnel appearing at Pride, but, on balance, I cannot find anything that persuades me it is such a terrible thing and shouldn't happen.

[JessTheDog]

Scud-u-like

It appears that there are too many potential fault-lines to ensure that everybody is allowed equality of opportunity in expressing his or her values. Also, the Human Rights Act allows freedom of expression and freedom of association among other rights, either as absolute or with qualifications, although the qualifications have to be proven to be essential for national security. I don't think that personnel can be stopped from attending gay marches or church services!

Therefore the MoD should comply with the Council of Europe Recommendation 1572 (2002) 11 - quoted in part below - which includes "freedom of association":

QUOTE]7. Therefore, the Assembly recommends that the Committee of Ministers call on the governments of the member states:
i. to allow members of the armed forces and military personnel to organise themselves in representative associations with the right to negotiate on matters concerning salaries and conditions of employment;
ii. to lift the current unnecessary restrictions on the right to association for members of the armed forces;
iii. to allow members of the armed forces and military personnel to be members of legal political parties;
iv. to incorporate these rights in the military regulations and codes of member states;
v. to examine the possibility of setting up an office of an ombudsman to whom military personnel can apply in case of labour and other service-related disputes.[[/QUOTE]

It would be appropriate if service dress was not to be worn for anything other than an event directly related to the service! There are plenty of other items of clothing that can be worn, such as crested polo shirts and T-shirts and, more formally, ties in RAF colours, which denote the wearer as being a member of the RAF without appearing to be on duty.

Alas, I think that the MoD will take the view that the chain of command looks after our consciences and values for us, and that there will be a number of redresses and legal challenges that will cost money that could be spent on other things! Litigation drives any changes made by the service (such as the lifting of the ridiculous ban on homosexuals) rather than foresight, at a significant cost.

Now, if the ban on homosexuals was illegal, can it be the case that that was the only ill-founded rule at the time that needed revision???

[allan907]

Scud Yes, there is a world of difference. The aim of an agricultural show is precisely that. Any booth or display in furtherance of the aims of whatever pressure group, Ban the Hunt, Conservatives against Sabs, Labour Against Tony Bliar, or whatever, stands on its own volition in the same way as an Armed Forces Recruiting Booth and it therefore does not make the agricultural show a 'no go zone'.

Taking part in the 'parade' on this occasion says to the watchers that the RAF is actively supporting/condoning the aims of the 'parade', which it is patently not. The Armed Forces have accepted the European Court of Human Rights judgement and accept/tolerate 'gender blurring'; taking part in this 'parade' is a de facto political statement which many will make a lot of mileage out of.

A serious error of judgement has been made here and the reactions of the press, posters on Pprune et al bear witness to this fact. As I said, a series of one way interviews is called for quick smart!

As a previous CIO Office Commander I hope that I would not have made such a cock up (if such a phrase is acceptable given the day and age and subject of this thread!)

[Scud-U-Like]

Jess

I think your idea of restricting the wearing of service dress to service events is very sound, in principle. But uniformed personnel are a vital part of the recruiting effort and their complete withdrawal from participation in non-service community events would, I think, have a very detrimental effect on recruiting. Moreover, interpreting what is a service event, might throw up as many problems as it solves. I agree that deciding what events uniformed personnel should and should not attend is a difficult judgment call and, whatever the judgment, it is always going to upset someone. I'm all for adopting the Council of Europe Recommendation you quote.

allan907

The aim of Manchester Pride is to celebrate and promote diversity, which is completely consistent with the recruiting and employment policy of the Royal Air Force (and that of just about every other significant employer in the UK). Any booth or display in furtherance of the aims of whatever pressure group, The Terrence Higgins Trust, Gay Partnership Rights, or whatever, stands on its own volition and it therefore does not make Manchester Pride a 'no go zone' either.

(I also mentioned the Red Arrows and QCS, both of which appear at agricultural shows. Their presence and impact is a little more significant than the innocuous "Armed Forces Recruiting Booth" you refer to.)

I do, however, feel an AFCO stand would be more appropriate than a float and a uniformed presence in the march at Manchester Pride (I'm assuming from what I've read here, there was a float and a uniformed presence on the march: I've yet to see any pictures or read an authoritative account of what our participation actually consisted of!)

[Cerberus]

Chaps, good to see banter is alive and well. Reading this thread I almost felt like I was sat in the Pig and Tape having a couple of beers with me mates. What was that Tape doing to the Pig anyway? Some of the stuff on page two about 'botters' had me laughing out loud.

Keep up the good work!

[air-hag]

All but the most banal deployment of uniformed military personnel Let's try to keep the snide jokes out of it...please. :ok:

The thing is, the whole "Pride" argument kinda falls on it's arse (tee heee) when you see the guys on the shlong-shaped floats wearing leather 'chaps' with the butt-cheeks cut out waving massive strap-on weiners in each other's FAeCES. The focus seems more on "look what we like to do" than "we are human too".

:yuk:

Simulated sex by the Homos AND the Lesbos (sounds like a pair of Greek islands) makes fascinating viewing. Yes I've seen it once... I went along just to dilute the crowd with regular folk, you understand!!! :\ No really!! Nearly got bashed by a bull-dike for obviously not belonging. Isn't tolerance wonderful??

But my proposition to the mayor for a Natural Pride parade was turned down. Seems children and wowsers might be offended by the sight of men and women simulating sex with each other and displaying their netherlands for all and sundry.

I'm kinda cheesed off and can't see why someone else's version of "natural" :rolleyes: love IS allowed to be paraded. Especially when my wife won't let me do it to her!!!!!

A better word might be Epidemic (vs pandemic (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pandemic) ) using the generously provided dictionary.


oh yeah... the topic... gay parades might be a place to arrange a service but they are not the place for the services.

This homo-parade recruiting thing is another reason why HM flying club is taken even less seriously than the pussers. That and the 9-3 working day.

And the uniform.

[adr]

There's another potential pitfall in consequence of this decision. What about the parades at which RAF personnel in uniform don't appear?
The RAF says it is part of a recruitment drive to show how the military welcomes people from different backgrounds. So now the gay community have had an affirmation that gay people are welcome. What if there are no RAF people in uniform at Notting Hill Carnival? Or at Leicester's Diwali celebrations? Or on the Hajj? Or at the main Anglican or Catholic pilgrimages to Walsingham? Or at evangelical gatherings? Or at gatherings of any significant minority?

This is one of those jobs that if it's going to be done, had better be done thoroughly. If the RAF only takes part in the key events of some minorities, what message will the other ones infer?

adr

[rej]

I thought the cartoon in The Sun (today 31 Aug 04) was funny; obviously no other news-worthy events for such a topic to remain in the media for more than 30 seconds.

[flygunz]

I would like to thank the RAF for providing an almost unlimited mileage allowance of fun to be poked (whoops), shoved (whoops), rammed (whoops), at my colleagues (late RAF) who seem to be, just recently a bit overshadowed by events. In fact my nearest colleague (late RN) is so happy to have finally been relieved of the Gay mantle we're going out tonight for a pint to celebrate!:\ He knows some good bars in Brighton!

Just look on the bright side, there will always be someone to dance with at mess functions now, but bugger(whoops) who's gonna lead the conga?

[mbga9pgf]

Whether people agree or disagree with what went on, you have to give it to them; the resulting advertising resulting from all the publicity would otherwise not have happened without a multi-million pound advertising campaign and for that reason I personally think the idea was a good one. Whether the publicity was considered bad or good, it was still superb publicity none the less.

[air-hag]

Someone's drunk:Whether the publicity was considered bad or good, it was still superb publicity none the less. Well put....... :rolleyes:

Yeah great publicity. You can just imagine the flouncing horses hoofs will all be arriving in their tutus and signing up in droves, or whatever you call a group of, um, ........ gay gentlemen.

Meanwhile the regular guys who might've been interested in a career in the RAF have seen the pink advertising and decided to change teams, as it were, and head across the hallway to the green machine rather than sign up for the sweaty all-out muscle-dude-frenzy Enurpp Stolip is obviously working himself up over.

[JessTheDog]

Gents,

Please rein in the homophobia, it is irrelevant to the argument and creates a bad impression!

[buoy15]

If anyone is attending a Gay Pride carnival during the winter months, I still have an original full length Crombie greatcoat for sale - it comes complete with Sqn Ldr ranking plus an armband for funerals - tailored to fit a strappimg lad or lass with 40" chest, 35" waist depending what they are wearing underneath.
Snip at £180 or nearest offer

[Training Risky]

I find it shocking that there are still a number of posters on this thread who feel the need to tap us on the collective shoulder like a liberal conscience and make little 'tut-tut' sounds of warning about 'homophobia' or other such cr*p.

This is the banter, get used to it. If you support the doctrine of the whingeing politically-correct lobby, then look elsewhere, DON'T READ THIS THREAD!

Good points made so far about how this situation can only be damaging the RAF's reputation. How can we be taken seriously when we pull stunts like this and claim to be an equal opportunities employer, and then fail to register a presence at the next meeting for disabled black Communists in Birmingham?

I would love to hear the MoD's response to a request from all us red-blooded RAF males to get offical jobs as ushers at the next Miss world contest - in uniform! (After all, you see them working at Wimbledon.)

DOUBLE STANDARDS AND HYPOCRISY!

[Scud-U-Like]

I wonder how heterosexual men would take to being routinely referred to as "fishy fanny pokers" or something equally puerile? Yeah, mildly amusing, but a bit pathetic (and also, a bit of a generalisation, seeing as many heterosexual men practice anal sex and even more would, if they could get any).

If, in this case, "banter" means enough lame puns and $hite jokes to fill a series of Graham Norton, then let the banter roll on :rolleyes:

[An Teallach]

Sir

As a lifetime subscriber to the PPRuNE, I feel compelled to express my disappointment that you have chosen to print a complaint from one of those nancy boys intent on corrupting every bone and rippling sinew of our youngsters' bodies. It fills me with disgust to imagine the sweating craved cavortings of such lust filled throbbing sex monsters. I stand firm and proud against such licentious behaviour and only hope that in future you shall endeavour to banish any further communication from people whose only joy in life is to obtrusively and perniciously inveigle their despicable vices into the hearts and minds of lithe, pert, voluptuous and writhing orgasmic bodies melting uncontrollably in the uninhibited thrashings of steaming pulsating sex.

Excuse me while I mop this up.

Colonel Jock Stiffly

With apologies to the Daily Reckless www.dailyreckless.co.uk

[Self Loading Freight]

I presume the chaps who equate homosexuality with buggery and thus too, too awful to contemplate are or have been serving members of HM the Q's armed forces, and thus are or have been trained, equipped and expected to go out and blow (no, not like that) the living daylights out of people, when appropriate.

I find the idea of violently killing people rather more upsetting than the idea of consensual sodomy.

Now, I'm very glad that HM the Q's armed forces exist, and fully support the idea that when it comes to the crunch we can get out there and do it to them before they do it to us. I can cope with upsetting ideas, if that's the way the world is.

But I am surprised that those who consider homosexuality profoundly unnatural (which, given that it's widespread in the animal kingdom, it ain't) are so at ease with the idea of extreme violence. Doesn't that seem a strange set of priorities?

R

[Heliport]

Just trying to follow your argument -

If something is "widespread in the animal kingdom", that makes it natural for humans?
Paedophilia and incest are both widespread in the 'human kingdom.' Does that make either of them natural?
Bestiality used to be widespread in country areas, but seems to be a less popular pastime than it was. Does that mean it used to be natural?

[Bakelite]

SLF

Those who have seen Ricky Gervais' "Animals" know that homosexuality is rampant in the animal kingdom!

[Scud-U-Like]

Heliport

I'm just trying to follow your logic. I'm not sure there are eqivalents to paedophilia or incest in the animal kingdom. Certainly in the 'human kingdom' paedophilia is unacceptable and reprehensible, because one party is incapable of consenting. Interestingly, the Victorians introduced the laws banning consensual incest, not for high moral reasons, but to prevent genetic defects.

One thing is for sure: in the 'human kingdom' anal sex is widespread, full stop. In fact, I would venture to suggest that straight people, percentage-wise, have more anal sex than gays do (I'll look up the stats one day, if I can be bothered). After all, gay sex is less involved with the act of penetration. That's what being kinky is all about: thinking up creative and unusual ways to get off. With straight people, you basically have to put it in a hole down there somewhere, or things just don't count as sex.

[JessTheDog]

I suspect the views of the "reasonable" pro/anti participation parties are not too far apart. However, the more virtual gay bashing that others indulge in, the more likely we are to see "sexuality awareness" lessons (and maybe even role-play!) introduced to RAF equal opportunities training, with annual attendance made compulsory!

[Heliport]

Scud

Just asking questions to try to follow SLF's 'widespread in animal kingdom = natural for humans' argument which puzzled me, not advancing one myself.

BTW, although Parliament has decided (rightly IMHO) for policy reasons that children are considered in law to be incapable of consenting, but that doesn't mean they are in fact incapable.

[Scud-U-Like]

Heliport

I suppose the argument goes, if it happens in nature, it isn't a man-made phenomenon, ergo, it is natural. Although, as humans, we have the power of reasoning, in matters of sex, we are pretty much driven by our animal instincts. We have developed rules of conduct, so that our sexual urges are not forced upon those who cannot consent (children, the severely mentally defective and animals), do not consent (in the case of rape) or where there is a high probability sexual intercourse will cause genetic defects (ie incest). Of course, there are other layers of more complex rules, which protect public modesty and ensure sexual activity remains a private matter between consenting adults.

Regarding children, I think Parliament assumed the obvious. How is a child, who has not developed sexually and is therefore incapable of properly understanding sex, capable of consenting to sexual activity? As for those who have passed puberty, an arbitrary age line had to be drawn and 16 is it.

[In Tor Wot]

Nice to see the Army are still into 'natural' sex . . .

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004410590,00.html

:O

[pusight]

I left the RAF about a year ago and I find it quite sad that the recruiters have to involve themselves in this sort of occasion. The Mil I belive is a hetro' organisation (normal), and supporting or seen to support a gay pride march is against its working ethos. There will always be gays in the mil, but I do not belive that the time is right for it to be accepted as a 'normal practice/lifestyle, which has been enforced on the mil, against common wishes. So why have the recruiters been such A****s?

[jumpseater]

Allan907 wrote
'the local Careers Office office commander has seen an opening' :ooh:
ooh-er! I'll get me coat:E

[Eagle 270]

Normal is one thing but it appears active promotion of this 'big voice, minority' is the way its going to be. What a sad day for the Air Force.

When can we expect the PC bullies to tell us what to think next?

Freedom of views is one thing but the breeding of mankind to ensure our future is a tad more fundemental. How many chaps have given birth to our future out their bottoms? Oops, i suppose I'll be judged as homphobic because I dont enjoy shopping for clothes and have an opinion about everthing on the planet due to the fact that I push the chocolate up hill.

Do gay men box and drive Aston Martins?

[ihoharv]

Ex-RAF truckie (secret LYN airbase) here.

Sticking to point. It would be hypocritical of me to denounce the Manchester Pride Parade - & RAF recruiter - contingent, but I can''t honestly that I support it.

The service is , and will always be, pretty homophobic. Shame, because there is an over-representation of gays in the services.

I understand that. Had a great time at the secret Wilts airbase in the early 80's, played my cards , and lost. I had the CSRO (wth R-to-I) and Ashord courses under my belt so was able to deflect all the usual questions...

So interesting, though, that they wanted to know everything about the civi barstaff and my bachelor reporting officers. Dirty minds, working overtime.

Eventually worked my way to the colonies - US passport n'all...and zero regrets because I've made more money than an Air Vice Mashall every year since.

About to compete in IAC Sportsman category in an Extra 300 and Pitts S2C.

To ground this post - I'm not sure that anybody cares that I leave the airfield to go home to my [male] partner of 16 yrs...

[betty_boo_x]

D.P is that you? Hello mate nice to hear youre doing well. I would love to say attitudes have changed greatly since you left......but unfortunately I cant . Not all of us are "phobes" against anyone different, and not all of us are scared of the dark. In these enlightened times it saddens me to see the hysteria in some of the posts on this topic . And there was me thinking its a brave new world.
At the mandatory Equal ops Trg a couple of the "oldies" completely lost it when homosexuality was even mentioned, so really what do you expect, its going to take a looong time before attitudes change.

[Scud-U-Like]

Eagle 270

If you've only ever had sex for "the breeding of mankind to ensure our future", then you either have a very big family or a very dull sex life (I'm guessing the latter). Gay sex does not produce "breeding", but then, neither does the majority of heterosexual sex (remember, straight people practice an awful lot of contraception and anal sex). And, to its credit, gay sex has never produced a Hitler, a Stalin or a Bin Laden.

If gay men are so stereotypical, how come big butch straight men like you can't spot them in their own squadron, platoon or division?

[Mad_Mark]

I think people are getting a little confussed about what it is they really dislike here.

I have known a few gay people, some of which served in the RAF, and feel I could consider them friends as well as colleagues. However, I strongly feel that gay sex is abhorrent and have no wish for them to bring up the subject in public, just as many straight people do not wish the details of straight sex to be a public talking point. But if they keep their signs of affection in private then I see them as just another person.

What I can not stand though is the namby-pamby, flaunt it about, mincing poof type of gay :yuk:

If a non-mincing gay wishes to join the RAF then good luck to him, but he should be recruited in the same way as the rest of us, not because the recruiters singled out a 'specialist' rally/march/protest (call it what you will)!

Why was THIS march singled out for a recruiting drive? Is the 'brain' behind the idea gay himself :confused:

Mad Mark!!! :mad:

[Scud-U-Like]

Mad_Mark

You're absolutely right: this shouldn't be a debate about what consenting adults get up to in the sack, but, for those who want to debate that particular point, fine.

I suppose a lot of the old guard still have problems adjusting to the fact the RAF went overnight from officially endorsing homophobia, to officially condemning it. But it has been nearly four years now. Some people also find it difficult to get their head around the fact Gay Pride is about much more than how people like their nookie, but I think the debate about the nature and purpose of Manchester Pride has been well and truly exhausted in this thread.

I'm sure the person who took the final decision regarding the RAF's participation in Manc Pride isn't gay and if they'd consulted a cross-section of gay personnel, they might have done things differently. For a start, many gay people (especially many serving in the armed forces) do not believe strutting around with a feather up your @rse is either representative of gay people or does anything for the advancement gay rights. A static AFCO stand would have demonstrated the RAF's commitment to diversity, while distancing the Service from the more exotic aspects of Pride. That said, any RAF presence, however modest, was bound to be reported by the press and would have been seen as an excuse for much of the frivolous and ill-informed homophobic ranting demonstrated in this thread.

It may surprise you that many (I'd say the majority) of gay men dislike 'camp' behaviour. The media have a lot to answer for, in that they help to form many straight people's perception of gay people as camp, OTT stereotypes. Such people are a gift to the larger-than-life world of entertainment, but are unrepresentative of the majority of gay people. Still, live and let live.

[Padhist]

As a wrinkly retired RAF bod, who has always seen life as a cartoon. I have long had the picture of the N***s of T W article, relating the story of a shocked MoD, unravelling the problem, of the Station Commander and his 'Partner' the SWO, arguing as to whether they should have a Officers Married Quarter or an Airmans Married Quarter?
The imagination boggles when you think this through.

[OBNO]

This subject - 7 pages! Bit too much to swallow for my liking.

[16 blades]

Scud,

You say "Live and let live", yet you ferociously denounce anyone who's opinion does not conform to your own 'right-on' thinking. You sound like a liberal - if so, surely you must accept that everyone is entitled to hold and express their own opinions (a right that is now enshrined in law - ECHR Article 12) even if their opinion is 'unpopular or disturbing' (wording of the convention).

The real problem nowadays, IMHO, is 'liberal' nazis such as yourself who seem to think it is their god-given right to tell others how they should think. This is the REAL purpose of Gay Pride - enforcing their views and lifestyles upon the public, and as such we should have had nothing to do with it. This was an error of judgement in the extreme, and if it was made by a senior officer whose judgement I may have to follow as an order during a conflict, i shudder to think what the result may be. This farce has only served to diminish my already minimal trust in my chain of command, and I trust many, many others will feel the same way.

Surely we should be spending our time and money trying to recruit quality people of the right calibre to do the difficult and dangerous job we often do, rather than trying to promote 'diversity'? At the end of the day, who but the most closed-minded gives a sh1t if the bloke / bird next to you is queer / black / asian / etc - as long as they can do the job well and they conduct themselves in a way which befits the general service ethos? What they do on their own time as a private individual is their business.

Just for the record, I am not Homophobic. I have Christian beliefs (the Bible condemns homosexual ACTS, NOT homosexual orientation, which one has no control over) and therefore cannot accept that homosexuality is a normal human behaviour (after all, what is the point of sex? why are we even capable of having it? Sex that CANNOT (rather than DOES NOT) end in reproduction is, biologically speaking, pointless - that is the whole raison d'etre of sexual desire - locically, homosexual desire CANNOT be natural).

As for SLFs post about homosexuality being rife in the animal kingdom - the pathetic self-justification line often trotted out by Stonewall - where is the evidence of this?? I've researched this and have never been able to find any.

My views do not constitute a 'hate-crime' and i would not hold a person's sexuality against them. What i object to is homosexuality being portrayed as normal, when it is not.

Taking a scan back through the thread, it seems that most people here are not homophobic (ie objecting to people BEING gay), they just object to the way gay people seem to conduct themselves (or allow themselves to be portrayed).

And like me, Scud, most people object strongly to being told how to think, or what opinions they may express. I reiterate what I said earlier -

neither you nor any other trendy liberal nazis like you will EVER succeed in telling me what to think or say.

...and by the way, your response to the 'molotov cocktail' banter was pathetic. Do you really honestly think that that was meant as a serious threat??????????

[Red Line Entry]

16 Blades

Assuming you are referring to the European Convention on Human Rights; Article 12 establishes the right to marry. Article 10 refers to Freedom of Expression and while it states that "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression" it also states that the exercise of this right:

"...carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others"

In other words you cannot necessarily express views that are 'unpopular or disturbing' (where did that quote come from?) if they are likely to incite violence, hatred etc..

IMO, there's a bit too much bile being put into this thread. I agree with you that in the main, most people care more about the professionalism of the person they work alongside than anything else. Perhaps on all sides we should be a little more relaxed about how this subject is discussed.

(And in the running table of "Most Stupid Senior Officer Decision of the Year", I don't think this one comes close - Hey, there's an idea for a thread!)

[Scud-U-Like]

16 Blades

Thank you for your comments and for taking the time to read my posts.

I've said all I have to say on the subject under discussion.

If you post contentious personal views on a public forum, expect them to be challenged. I do.

[16 blades]

RLE,

Sorry, quoted wrong article. The 'Unpopular or disturbing' quote was from a very professionally produced summary leaflet I obtained from my solicitor around the time the Act came into force. It seems the caveats that apply to the article give the Govt licence to stifle free speech if it considers what's being said to be 'off message'.....dangerous in my opinion. All of those caveats IMHO make the article pretty worthless if applied in such fashion. Shame we don't have a '1st amendment' right like our US cousins.

Also concur with your thread idea! Anyone brave enough to give a starter for 10................?

Scud,

I'd be disappointed if my views weren't challenged - I enjoy the debate! I hope I managed to air my views in a logical rather than dogmatic fashion - that was my intention, anyway. I am just sick of people like me being shot down for daring to air views that don't conform to the liberal elite's agenda-du-jour..............


16B

[lightyearsx]

You can obviously tell from this thread that all have ever been in the RAF are those uneducated, no-where-else-to-go 16 year old kids who left school as soon as they could. It's low to throw basic insults I know, but that seems to be the only "language" you people understand.

It is not "PC" to accept people for what they are, it is normal. Sexuality simply shouldn't be something that you judge people on.

I am lucky enough to have been brought up and live around people who base their judgements on more justifiable things than that.

I would have grown up extremely scared and alone in the type of world you all seem to have created here.

[16 blades]

"I am lucky enough to have been brought up and live around people who base their judgements on more justifiable things than that."

Such as?

"It is not "PC" to accept people for what they are, it is normal."

What is normal to you is NOT normal to me. I think men having sex with men is not normal. My view, my opinion, and if you read my posts carefully you will find my attempt to justify this view. Whether you agree or disagree is entirely your choice, obviously.

You obviously were not taught any manners or the ability to make an objective and reasoned judgement, simply to throw rash sweeping insults. You have just proven the point of my last 2 posts - people like you attack any 'traditional' views that don't conform to your ideological view of society. We are all individuals, and are entitled to our individual opinions.

If you had started your post with 'I disagree with you for the following reasons........' or similar, people may have been willing to listen to your arguments. (If you had any).

16B

[lightyearsx]

What's wrong with being ideological?

My post wasn't directly aimed at you, in fact I hadn't read it - 7 pages of ignorant banter was enough for me so didn't bother with the 8th.

I also wasn't particularly saying it is normal to be gay, but that it should be normal to accept people for what they are without labelling it as being "PC".

You obviously came onto this thread to cause an argument, which is fine, but some opinions can really have a direct affect on others. There is no reason why someone should be made to feel ashamed of what they are, or how they feel just because you want to create some heated sharing of opinions.

That's all.

[NVG_CAT3_retd]

Best sort of marching for them.