Something to thank the gays for!

[misterploppy]

RAF DCM at RAF Aldergrove; 14 Aug 2001.

The case concerned a charge of disobedience to standing orders which specified the offence as having a "member of the opposite sex" in single sex accommodation after 2359hrs.

After RAFPA notified that a Pre-Trial Hearing would be required on the discriminatory nature of the charge following Lustig-Prean -v- UK, the charge was dropped.

The standing order is of a standard format which has not been changed to reflect the fact that gays now serve; the order is worded to expressly approve homosexual and lesbian contact after 2359hrs, and expressly forbids heterosexual contact. It therefore appears to offend Articles 8 and 14 of the ECHR and is consequently contrary to the Human Rights Act 1998.

I believe this form of wording is still routinely used, and although this decision to discontinue carries no precedent it is a useful reminder to service personnel and practitioners.

Paraphrased from Aspals Legal Pages (http://www.aspals.com)

[kbf1]

I suppose the downside to getting rid of the disparity is we will no longer have the "no members of the opposite sex in rooms after 2359" excuse for throwing out the hideous
minger we have all pulled late on Friday nights. :(

[Dr Schlong]

kbf1 - just remember that beauty is but a lightswitch away!! :eek: ;) :eek:

[kbf1]

....which is why nightclubs should always have at least 3 rooms...a dance room..a chill out room....and a feckin' brightly lit room :eek:

[stillin1]

The only thing to be thankful for is the one generation, can't procreate & then they die out fact. :p

[Talking Radalt]

Forget the Euro-legal crap...one thing this case has highlighted is that the plods nicked a wee young sprog simply for trying to do what comes naturally with a lumpy-jumpered airman...get a life, this is 2001 not 1901 and while we're at it when the **** are you going to do some worth while crimefighting and track down the git who cut the lock off my bike and rode it away from the mess? :mad:

[ 09 September 2001: Message edited by: Talking Radalt ]

[misterploppy]

Correct TR

Personally I'd have fired the sad **** that brought the charge in the first place!

[Hengist Pod]

I thought that the rules had changed to state that it was an infringement of your human rights to have it dictated to you who you can and can't have in your room (and at what time.)