Pregnant RAF officer awarded £16,000 for discrimination

[plans123]

A female officer in the Royal Air Force (RAF) has been awarded more than £16,000 after she was removed from her post because she was pregnant.

An employment tribunal found the officer - who chose not to be named because she still serves in the RAF - suffered discrimination, and the force had unintentionally created "an intimidating, degrading, hostile or offensive environment for her".

Link (http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2010/06/03/55811/pregnant-raf-officer-awarded-16000-for-discrimination.html)

[Bladdered]

Pregnant RAF officer awarded £16,000 for discrimination (http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2010/06/03/55811/pregnant-raf-officer-awarded-16000-for-discrimination.html)

This article explains why in a bit more detail.

[Jumping_Jack]

Jeez, you really would have thought that the Armed Forces should have learned by now! :rolleyes:

[Vitesse]

It would be interesting to know the thinking behind the decision to return her to the UK.

Wonder if her work had suffered due to the pregnancy? Might have been some good intentions there.

As written , the article makes the MOD/RAF look very wrong.

[Flyt3est]

Jeez, you really would have thought that the Armed Forces should have learned by now

They have.. 16 grand to get rid of the fat waddling bint and replace her with some normal shaped totty seems like money well spent :ok:















OK, OK.... It was a JOKE!!

[Mr C Hinecap]

It would be interesting to know the thinking behind the decision to return her to the UK.

Falklands is classed as operational - pregnant is not compatible with ops and the default answer is to be sent home - the default answer since I can remember.

From another angle - how could the MoD possibly ensure the proper antenatal care for the individual when deployed? It is a part of life when non-military medical care takes the lead and therefore outside the normal deployed med centre.

[Miles Gustaph]

I don't think this makes the MOD look bad at all, as the judgment says they "unintentionally created a situation..." I think we have a situation where the MOD has done what it thought was best, removing the officer from a remote base back to the UK but "unintentionally" got it wrong as it affected her promotion opportunities...

If this was a case of the MOD being outright in the wrong the damages would have been a dam sight bigger that 16K!

I think the judgement is correct when it says that each case should be assessed on it's merits, I couldn't see this judgement being made if said officer had been in Afghanistan as removing her from the war-zone would be proportional... no employer will get it right, and with the MOD's glacial rate of change it's nice to see that they are at least heading in the right direction and trying!

As a side note: if the MOD hadn't stationed her with her husband I wonder of this situation could have been avoided.

[Runaway Gun]

Probably not, as you don't need your husband to get pregnant.

[RileyDove]

I can't help but think that there must be antenatal care in the Falklands for the local population.

[Jabba_TG12]

"I can't help but think that there must be antenatal care in the Falklands for the local population."

There is.

Its called a Vet. :E

[BEagle]

Nice one, Jabba! Made oi larrff....:)

When the officer revealed to her superiors that she was 12 weeks pregnant, her request to stay in her desk-based job in the Falkland Islands was rejected, despite her RAF officer husband being based on the same island.

She was ordered to return to the UK immediately, and forced to take leave to return to the Falkland Islands to visit her husband. Her leave meant she missed out on a performance review which then delayed her promotion prospects.

In light of the case the employment tribunal recommended the Ministry of Defence (MoD) should carry out individual risk assessments for pregnant women and consider adjusting their roles to enable them to remain in their posts, and should establish a monitoring process in respect of any removal of a pregnant woman from her post. A performance appraisal for each pregnant woman commencing maternity leave should also be undertaken, it advised.

Hardly rocket science to consider individual cases individually, one would think. Far more 21st century than some dumb 'befehl ist befehl' so-called default reaction.

Mind you, any preggy lady travelling in a LandRover to Stanley from Base Area Gringo for ante-natal care would probably find the birth induced before she got half-way.....:ooh:

[c130jbloke]

NICE ONE JABBA :D

Her leave meant she missed out on a performance review which then delayed her promotion prospects.

This means that just about every aircrew mate in the RAF must be owed a promotion and if so, how exactly did it delay the process ?

I think its a bit strong to have to take leave to go back to the FI, but I would love to know the real story behind this...

At the end of it, FI is an operational det, so I pity the MoD on this one as you can just imagine the headlines if they had retained her and she had lost / delivered the baby.....

[Justanopinion]

Falklands is classed as operational - pregnant is not compatible with ops and the default answer is to be sent home - the default answer since I can remember.

From another angle - how could the MoD possibly ensure the proper antenatal care for the individual when deployed? It is a part of life when non-military medical care takes the lead and therefore outside the normal deployed med centre.


Mr Hinecap - The Falklands may be classified as an operational det but the FACT that they have married quarters there, and have had for years, suggests that the 'operational' threat is deemed low. Service wives have given birth in the Falklands at the local hospital described below. The only difference (that i can see) in her being at home base and pregnant, or the Falklands and pregnant - is the classification of 'operational' to the det.

Primary and secondary health care facilities are based at the King Edward VII Memorial Hospital (KEMH) in Stanley, the only hospital in the Islands. It is a 27-bed hospital with a small accident and emergency department, an acute ward with a two-bedded intensive care unit, an isolation unit, and a maternity bed. KEMH has a full range of medical, dental, nursing (including midwives and community nurses), allied health professional staff and engineering, qualified to UK standards or recognised equivalents. Wherever possible, the hospital adheres to UK standards/guidelines for medical practice - So all good there then.

[orgASMic]

As a serving officer, she would be on short notice to move, along with everyone else on strength Down South, in the event that our South American cousins want their share of the oil and fishing rights. This is not compatible with being pregnant. So the rules say she has to go back to the UK.

One size rarely fits all, however. She is on an accompanied tour and, presumably, in OFQs with her hubby. So a considered solution might be:

Put her on a career break unitl she starts maternity leave and leave her in theatre with hubby, like any non-serving spouse Down South.
Provide ante-natal care locally.
Mobilise her nominated replacement, who would be going there early if she were non-effective for some other reason (run-over, burst appendix, unidentified drinking injury, etc) and is already warned off for that purpose.
Write her det report based on what she has achieved so far. MOD 2020C replaces OJAR for the period and, when she gets back to work from maternity leave, her next OJAR picks up the slack.She gets to stay with hubby, gets looked after, hubby doesn't end up finding solace in the nearest WRAF ops clerk whilst drinking himself inside out, and she still gets presented to the next promotion selection board. The only costs are the replacement's early deployment and her slightly thin report. Job jobbed.

[alfred_the_great]

That sounds like the sensible solution....

tell me, are you still serving?! :ok:

[maliyahsdad2]

What we don't know is when she was due to return to the UK? She might have been too far gone to fly and then would have sued the MOD for making her have a benny!:E

[sisemen]

The bloody Service went to hell in a handcart once they decided that WRAFs couldn't be chucked out when they got themselves up the duff.

She'd probably spent the time since getting rooted whinging and moaning about morning sickness etc etc etc and not doing the job that she was paid for (despite all the PC leaning backwards) and her bosses got royally p*ssed off with her.

If they want to play in a man's world then they should play by the rules. :}

[Vitesse]

Thanks to C Hinecap for his earlier reply.

As someone else said, the real story would be interesting.

Are there any female civilian desk workers at the base? Wonder how might they be treated in a similar situation?

[Talk Reaction]

This is ridiculous and frankly she should be ashamed of herself for suing the MOD. I can't believe that taking leave affected her promotion prospects and if it did then she wasn't forced to take leave.

My wife also serves in the RAF and was due to go to the FI when she found out she was pregnant, she was very keen to get an 'operational' tick done but the call was that she couldn't go. Whilst there is a level of care in FI it isn't to the level available in the UK, particularly for complications or emergencies, and what is more important than the health of your growing baby!!!!

She now hasn't been OOA and will only have a year left on her return to work, so her chances of a PC or any other form of extension in the leaning RAF she will return to is very low - perhaps we should try and get some quick cash that could be buying body armour or a desperaty needed extra flying hour for someone trainging for ops..... Of course not. The lady in question was not disadvantaged, the RAF ensured that as soon as it knew she was pregnant it protected her and her unborn baby - even if she chose then to fly for god knows how many hours to somewhere with limited facilities to care for emergencies with very young feutous's (sp?)

I'm sorry if it sounds strong but I think the RAF put my wifes needs first and has been very supportive with excellent provisions compared to many other companies. This is a very similar situation to my wife's, almost identical so I feel pretty entitled to my view- it makes me angry when I think peole are just out to get money!
:mad:

[London Eye]

This is a very similar situation to my wife's, almost identical so I feel pretty entitled to my view- it makes me angry when I think peole are just out to get money!http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gif

So, you also lived in a married quarter in the Falkland Islands and the RAF ordered your wife to move 8 000 miles away from you against your wishes, Geez, small world....

[anotherthing]

Sounds to me like the MoD was buggered either way.

They moved her for what they thought were the correct reasons (operational service when preggers, reduced standard of ante-natal care etc).

If they hadn't removed her and something went wrong with her pregnancy, she may well have sued for even more.

She was lucky enough that she got a posting with her husband in the first place, many more service people don't (not saying it shouldn't happen, but just that she should be grateful for it).

As for missing out on promotion because she was on leave and didn't receive a performance review 2 things spring to mind.

1. Why is it so difficult in this day and age to sort out the review irrespective of where you happen to be?

2. Even if she had the review, was she 100% guaranteed promotion or was it just that she missed out on possible promotion?

[Harley Quinn]

Makes me wonder if the chap representing MOD at the tribunal was really up to the job. I thought the appraisal system was built around an annual cycle, so how does being on leave affect that, surely it could have been done a few weeks late when she came back off her holiday?


does this ruling mean that everyone else whose appraisal is too late will also be 'compensated'?

[gijoe]

Someone must know her - put her name up on here.

That way I am sure there will be a long line of people in your Royal Air Force willing to work alongside her in the future given her loyalty, leadership and lack of spine.

G:ok:

[c130jbloke]

As no doubt there would be a bunch of people just lining up to give her the benifit of their bitterness, the fact that she has not been outed makes sense just for that reason alone. Maybe she should out herself ?

That said, it's a small service and how many pregnanat officers are there in it.....

Maybe if she gave the 16k to H4H or the RAFBF then max respect to the lady:ok:

But as I said before, I would love to know the real story.

[Dengue_Dude]

Falklands is classed as operational - pregnant is not compatible with ops and the default answer is to be sent home - the default answer since I can remember.

I wonder if the Russians used that criteria on the Eastern Front in WWII . . . a lot of their soldiers were women.

Surely it's time for us to grow up - pregnancy is not an illness and certainly in the earlier months it will not incapacitate the lady (it may alter her demeanour temporarily).

Surely it's not beyond the wit of man (sic) to discuss her 'disposal' with HER?

[sisemen]

One can almost picture her husband (who probably looks at this site) covering his head with his wooly pully and muttering "Fer Chrissake, make it all go away - please"

[SirToppamHat]

I am aware they have some odd medical limitations in FI. ISTR you have to be G2 or G1 even to go there. I don't know whether the same applies to those finding themselves with child.

I also remember when I was down there a few years ago that one of the locals had an ectopic pregnancy that was dealt with in the local hospital. She was was then sent to Chile to a 'proper' hospital, but not surprisingly their facilities were worse than those on the Islands!

anotherthing is spot on. The MOD was damned either way.

I have to say that in every instance I have come across, pregnant members of my Service have been given every consideration, irrespective of rank.

STH

[Just This Once...]

Thankfully we have moved on a little bit since then airpolice.

I still feel it was a little harsh to boot her out of her quarter at MPA and her posting for being a little bit pregnant. As far as I was aware the only sure-fire way of not becoming pregnant is by not having sex - or are we suggesting forced abortions too?

[baffman]

I'm only suggesting she should either be willing to take the Queen's shilling and do as instructed, or hand in the Uniform, live in Quarters with her husband and raise children.

She can't have it both ways. How can she continue to give orders to subordinates who will just try to sue the MoD because they don't want to do what they signed up for?

If they had both been at Brize, this would not have been an issue, but MPA is not like Brize. There's a price to pay for getting the operational tick in the Ojar box.

As a means of establishing a fairer and more appropriate method of dealing with such situations, her action in suing the MoD is a good thing. However, I don't believe there was anything underhand here, she didn't object to the rules until she had to obey them. How on earth can a military service operate like that?

Hang on, whether you agree with her or not this officer OBEYED the rules in every detail. All she has done to offend you so greatly is to seek redress within the Service system and then to seek to exercise her rights provided by Parliament and recognised by the Ministry of Defence to take her case to an Employment Tribunal.

In the RAF that I served in, splits were shown the door as soon as they got pupped.

Further comment superfluous.

[R 21]

Hmmm interesting one if pregnant would I want to risk my unborn babies life on a posting to the Falklands with a less than adequate hospital to deal with any pregnancy comlpications. Would I want to be a heck of a long flight back to the UK or would I want to rely on the AT system to get me back to the UK/South America to a specialist baby unit?

No option really........ un-fair discrimination my AR:mad:E!!

[WildRover]

Selfish, money grabber springs to mind.

I think most of the recent comments mentioning a pregnant women in an Operational zone is not very sensible have got it absolutely correct.

No wonder she hasn't been named - her career would be over (I hope it is anyway).

[Just This Once...]

...a pregnant women in an Operational zone is not very sensible...

A fair call I think. However, in this case we are talking about someone living on the married patch in the Falklands. It's a few years since my last 4-month session in the FI but I would hardly equate it to an operational tour. For the Chinook dudes (who moved out halfway through my last tour), AT/AAR dudes, Signals, RIC, ABMs, Medics etc it felt very much like a respite tour from the operational theatres of Iraq & AFG. Only a very small % of F3 chaps tried to pretend otherwise.

[anotherthing]

Irrespective of whether someone who has served in the sandpit and other taxing theatres believes that the FI is not a 'real' operational tour, it remains the case that it is deemed to be operational by the powers that be.

This brings with it the rules/regulations that other operational tours bring with them; rules and regulations that any member of the RAF should be aware of, let alone an Officer.

It is maybe wrong to use the same 'duty of care' policy for FI tours as it is for other frontline tours, but that is what happens.

Becoming pregnant is a lifestyle choice - for both parents.

Accepting that it has an impact on what you can and cannot do in a figthing force is part of the duty one signs up for. Officers should be even more aware of this.

[SRENNAPS]

Maybe she will do something honourable like donate the £16000+ to a worthy charity like Help for Heroes!

After all, she has not exactly suffered too much grief or hardship and I doubt that they need the money with two wages coming in.

[alfred_the_great]

Wildrover - if your comments were expressed by anyone in her chain of command, and in anyway acted upon, you've just lined her up for an even bigger payout. Forget the rights and wrongs of the original claim, to be victimised for making a successful, legal claim will expose the MoD to a whole world of hurt....

[RileyDove]

Did she join to serve her country or for the country to serve her?

[GreenKnight121]

Unless I'm mistaken, the award was based on an adversely affected promotion, with the situation concerning her transfer back to the UK coming into play only as it set up the conditions that resulted in the adversely affected promotion.

My reading was that if her promotion hadn't been adversely affected, there would have been no award... and it is likely she wouldn't have even filed the grievance!


I strongly suspect there is more to how the evaluation vs leave situation developed than any of us knows... the transcripts of the court proceedings would be needed to determine exactly what happened there.

[SirPeterHardingsLovechild]

Just a thought.

Out there in civvyland, my Sister is a freelance fashion designer, damn well paid too.

She worked hard in her career, and made her choice.

Her choice was contraception.

Now she is established in her work, she is making babies, and working from home. Even got herself a house-husband.

[baffman]

Just a thought.

Out there in civvyland, my Sister is a freelance fashion designer, damn well paid too.

She worked hard in her career, and made her choice.

Her choice was contraception.

Now she is established in her work, she is making babies, and working from home. Even got herself a house-husband.

No doubt your sister has worked hard in her 'well-paid' civilian career. So at what point can a serving officer make that choice available to your sister: I am established in my career now, so I can stop the contraception?

How do you square your comments with the RAF's advertising that "And being married, or having kids, doesn’t have to stop you having the career you want."

Just a thought.

[SirPeterHardingsLovechild]

Well, just my thoughts,

The pendulum has swung in a good direction, but maybe just a little too far. And led by EU and fairly liberal politicians...during a booming economy.

My sister is as liberated as they get. But she is in an industry where they will think twice about employing women of child bearing age, rather proving my point. In fact, delete (fashion) industry, and insert civvyland.

Only big corporations can afford to pay people for not going to work.

We're getting smaller.

Sick, lame, lazy, pregnant (and now paternity leave!)

All in the same bracket:- Not doing what they're paid to do.

SPHLC

(Off sick for nearly 2 years now)

[sisemen]

RAF's advertising that "And being married, or having kids, doesn’t have to stop you having the career you want."


...and therein lies the problem.

100,000 strong - not so much a problem (but thankfully not when I was in). 40,000 strong and hot wars to fight - mucho problem. PC and equality is great until you start having problems with funding.

[baffman]

Quote:
RAF's advertising that "And being married, or having kids, doesn’t have to stop you having the career you want."
...and therein lies the problem.

100,000 strong - not so much a problem (but thankfully not when I was in). 40,000 strong and hot wars to fight - mucho problem. PC and equality is great until you start having problems with funding.

Change the rules, then. And change the advertising. Just don't direct all this vitriol at a serving individual for obtaining redress within the rules as they are.

[SirPeterHardingsLovechild]

Well, there you have it! Swing that pendulum back one degree, and change the rules, how about this.

The RAF is an equal opportunities employer and investor in people etc etc.

It is delighted to offer the opportunity of maternity leave, but considers it unreasonable for the individual to gain experience and receive a fair appraisal during this period. Therefore the RAF offers individuals additional return of service beyond the normal exit date in order to redress the situation for both parties.

[Just This Once...]

It is delighted to offer the opportunity of maternity leave, but considers it unreasonable for the individual to gain experience and receive a fair appraisal during this period.

Fella, we are talking about a married woman who is having a baby. It's not exactly a sin and most people consider it a natural event! We should & can make allowances so that daft compensation claims like this are avoided.

Oh and she only looked pregnant for a set period...

[SirPeterHardingsLovechild]

Fair cop, none taken.

I gave the example about my sister because this is a situation she has been in:-

A group of three women, interviewing women applicants for a position, positively, but discreetly discriminating against a woman of childbearing age.

I believe that is premier league irony.

The exact opposite of what was intended.

[adminblunty]

All they had to do to avoid this situation is ask the individual what she wanted to do. The FCO have female staff in the FI, they get asked if they want to stay in the FI, or return to the UK, it works for them.

Falklands operational det my arse, you've more chance of being killed by some jihadist or the Real IRA in the UK. Drinking det is a more apt description.

These types of cases will continue to arise until the RAF finally addresses the sexist views of a high proportion of its staff. You only need to read some of the sexist drivel on this thread to see that.

Finally how many of the 130 air officers are female? 2-3... At £16K they got away lightly.

[TheWizard]

Perhaps some of this sage advice can be spared for this young lady
Pregnant, in debt and in the army! (http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=2463149)

[Union Jack]

Not strictly relevant I know but somehow I can't help recalling the story of the widowed Admiral's innocent young daughter being told the night before her wedding to the Admiral's flag lieutenant, "I can't give you much premarital advice, Jane m'dear, but whatever you do, don't let young Rodney do it the other way round."

Totally mystified, she obediently accepts the advice, the marriage goes ahead, and shortly afterwards young Rodney is sent off on an extended group deployment. Eventually, he returns and Jane is so pleased to see him that she says on his first night home, "Rodders darling, as a special treat let's do it the other way round", to which he replies in shocked horror, "What? And fill the house with a whole lot of blooming kids?":eek:

Jack

[Training Risky]

These types of cases will continue to arise until the RAF finally addresses the sexist views of a high proportion of its staff. You only need to read some of the sexist drivel on this thread to see that.

Finally how many of the 130 air officers are female? 2-3... At £16K they got away lightly

'Sexist'...or realist?

Maybe all the other women who may have been capable of achieving Air Rank left to have kids and didn't want to continue their careers?

Consider factors like that before filling the thread with ZANU-Labour wailings about 'sexism'. (You're not Harriet Harperson are you?):E

The facts remain: she got pregnant, was ordered out of an Op theatre, didn't like being told what was best for her, and used the system to steal nearly 6 months net salary (SO3).:=

[SirPeterHardingsLovechild]

...and she has positioned herself beautifully for promotion, whether deserved or not.

Or along comes the second lawsuit.

Constructive dismissal, loss of future earnings etc.

The case of former copper Ali Dezaei springs to mind.

[BEagle]

adminblunty - more power to your pen! You made some very sage points made amongst the flotsam of drivel on this thread!

[EESDL]

......you can't have a pregnant officer posted in Falklands as it is general knowledge that drinking is bad for the unborn.....it would be a criminal waste of a drinking tour........get the women out of there and replace her with someone who could make full use of facilities...............
16K would not cover my bar bill.
endex

[BEagle]

EESDL, you have a point there!

It would be an utter waste to travel all the way south only to be clinically barred from the joys of spicy-on-the-rocks!

Mind you, there are limits. I recall once being asked by my Wg Cdr why Albert wasn't flying, so rang the flight...

"Errm...we're working a small snag. Should be fixed soon"

The snag? Their Auth, it seemed, was too pi$$ed to turn up to work. Fortunately, in the interests of harmony, I managed to hide this from my Boss. But it cost OC1**2 many a beer thereafter. Blackmail, they say, is a dirty word...but accurate!

[Canadian Break]

How long before someone who did abide by the rules (written or spirit - whichever you want) sues the MOD for not having had babies! Oh bugger, now there's an idea!

CB

[Bruce Wayne]

a key piece of wording in the article link in the OP...



the Equality and Rights Commission, which funded the case


now.. the EHRC.. The chairman of the Commission is Trevor Phillips who was previously chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality.

so Trevor Philips.. .
His long-standing friendship with Peter Mandelson (who worked with Phillips at LWT and was best man at his wedding to Asha Bhownagary) brought him close to the New Labour project and he became friends with Tony Blair.

Phillips joined the Labour Party in London in 1996.

He was awarded an OBE in 1999 for services to broadcasting. Later in 1999, Phillips ran to be Labour's candidate for Mayor of London.

Phillips was initially reported to be Tony Blair's preferred choice for the role

[ZuluMike]

What happens to the pregnant wives of the 'permanent' Armed Forces personnel in FI? They get to choose whether to remain and accept the medical care offered in FI or return to UK. Why was she not offered the same choice? The level of care in FI is actually superior to that in some remote UK locations (anyone been to RAF Valley?). Surely the choice is hers and she signs as having made that choice and taken whatever risk is deemed to be associated with it. Even back in the UK no one is ordered to live within a certain travel distance of a certain level of medical care if they are serving and pregnant.

Incidentally, she's not the first and that may have complicated the matter. I know of at least one other who was on a 4 monther there and was allowed to remain and complete her tour. No mention of her ability to mobilise at a moment's notice and defend the penguins with her SA80, she was allowed to stay. Whatever else, the RAF needs to be consistent.

[Justanopinion]

ZuluMike

Thanks for that info - nice to hear from someone else who has a balanced view based on facts and not the normal diatribe from the bigots (and you know who you are)


A bigot is a person devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. The correct use of the term requires the elements of intolerance, irrationality, and animosity (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/Animosity) toward those of differing beliefs.
The term has evolved to refer to persons hostile to people of differing race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, religion in modern English usage.

[/quote]

[SirPeterHardingsLovechild]

Justanopinion, you have overlooked the fact that most bigots are not aware that they are bigots. So they don't know who they are. :ok:

[baffman]

How long before someone who did abide by the rules (written or spirit - whichever you want) sues the MOD for not having had babies! Oh bugger, now there's an idea!

How long before someone who did abide by the rules, followed orders and then sought and obtained some redress through an official system authorised by parliament, gets hammered for it by a lot of blokes who are no longer serving and/or in at least one case is a foreign chap?

Hmmm...

[Justanopinion]

Airpolice

Fabulous - no names mentioned and my first bigot fish hooked straight away-

One of yours i believe from a previous forum

Not me, I didn't go on it, I think all that stuff is for Shirt lifters and Lefties.

I did study Diversity though, it was an old wooden ship used in the American civil War.

Yep - if the cap fits.....

[baffman]

So now we have reached the point where name calling is deemed to be a suitable response.

Instead of this being a forum where we can all state our opinion on the part of the case that has been made public, now we have to be subjected to being called Bigots by those who do not share our view. Oh the irony.

Years ago I was told that Opinions are like Ar$eh0les, everybody has one, but the safe thing to do is run away from anybody who seems interested in yours!

...

Personally I havent accused anyone here of being a bigot, but those who used the term might have been referring to posts like this:

In the RAF that I served in, splits were shown the door as soon as they got pupped.

I have no problem at all with rational criticism and debate about the employment tribunal's decision, or even the law that allows armed forces personnel to take their case to such a tribunal in strictly limited circumstances. Change the law and change the advertising if you like.

What I object to is retired individuals queuing up to have a go at an individual serving member of the armed forces for seeking redress through a system intended for that purpose.

[BEagle]

Originally Posted by airpolice
In the RAF that I served in, xxxxxx were shown the door as soon as they xxx xxxxxx.

baffman, the original highly offensive wording in that post was removed by the Moderators.

As a 'retired individual', I was very pleased to read that a successful case was brought against the MoD on this occasion - the situation could easily have been resolved had the MoD actually decided to join the 21st century instead of attempting to hide behind some blinkered 1982-era stupidity.

[London Eye]

airpolice said

but I do feel quite strongly about the impact and consequences of the actions taken by the subject.

and

On knowingly making herself unfit (in terms of the rules) for duty at MPA she caused either another person to be sent there to fill the role or the staff at MPA to be a body short.

You seem to know far more than was in the article - "knowingly" for example, do you know the full circumstances or perhaps you are advocating compulsory celibacy for married accompanied personnel in the Falkland Islands to avoid any "accidents"? And in any case, is not the point of her case that she wanted to stay (and to fill her role for as long as possible) but she was sent home against her will?

I'm glad that some things have moved on from the RAF that I served in, but not all of this progress has been good for the troops or the service.

Lots have things have moved on in the RAF that I serve in and I regret many of them but I am definitely glad that the Neanderthal faction have been made to feel much more uncomfortable than the females in the Service who simply want to do their bit; I certainly don't begrudge them the chance to have a family as part of that career aspiration.

I may be wrong in this case

You are not kidding.

[cargosales]

adminblunty: Good points chap and very well made (post #50)

airpolice: Oh dear. Please do have a good look at the front page of your copy of the Daily Mail tomorrow, if only to remind yourself in which century the rest of us are now living. :ugh:

I doubt the the rest of the page will be in any way accurate, and will simply reinforce your prejudices, but at least the date should be correct.

CS

[DummyRun]

No issues with this one at all as long as the Officer concerned is comfortable cashing the cheque, tucking the folding into her maternity bra, visiting a triple amputee at Headley Court and buying him a beer while explaining her claim.

Moose.

Out.

[Training Risky]

join the 21st century
remind yourself in which century the rest of us are now living

Sheesh...what on earth has the Gregorian calender racking up 2000 years got to do with the state of social affairs in Britain today? Have a stiff hard word with yourselves please.

The monarchy (to mention just one old institution/idea/philosophy) isn't exactly a 21st century idea is it? But I don't see it being deposed because it's 2010. (Incidentally I think it has its good and bad points in equal measure.)

But blatant opportunism, the compensation culture, refusing to take responsibility for your actions, milking the system...these are behavioral traits that have never been a good thing...regardless of what century it is. A bad idea is still a bad idea whether it's 1910 or 2010.

I do accept that people have different opinions on issues, am I still a bigot if I think they are talking ar$e?

Finally, if the majority of people thought that this woman was justified in her actions...surely ZANU-Labour would have been re-elected with a clear majority last month?!:} (Think about it)

[Justanopinion]

Training Risk

A couple of your previous posts as below....



And may I ask what's wrong with being sexist and racist? Its more fun than being PC

To make absolutely certain you are accepted, try one, (or all) of the following:

1. Grow tits and blonde hair (if you are already a girl, get breast implants).

2. Wear a turban (or black yourself up like in Carry on up the Khyber).

3. Tell them you are an ethnic minority.

If all else fails and you can't use any of the PC auto-guaranteed options above, you will have to fall back on your ability and skill.

Good luck.

politically correct and so uptight that one's sphincter could be used to crack walnut

I do accept that people have different opinions on issues, am I still a bigot if I think they are talking ar$e?


Nope - you are still a bigot when you have opinions as above

I apologise for going off thread - i will leave it at that. SPHLC - you were correct, they sure don't!

[SRENNAPS]

Originally Posted by Canadian Break
How long before someone who did abide by the rules (written or spirit - whichever you want) sues the MOD for not having had babies! Oh bugger, now there's an idea!

To quote your words now there's an idea

When I got married in the early eighties, my wife was serving as a dental nurse. We wanted to start an early family so we stuck to the rules, did the right thing and she left the RAF straightaway.

A very short time later, WRAF’s who were booted out because they had become pregnant, either by planning or by accident, were able to sue the MOD for many thousands of pounds.

So, for doing the right thing and playing by the rules we started off a family quite often struggling to make ends meat. Yet we knew of others, who broke the rules, being able to start off with enough money for a deposit on their own house and all the best things they could buy for the young one.

We have no regrets in the way we commenced our family life and I have two wonderful daughters to be proud of, both with very high moral values.

But I did and still do, feel just a little bit annoyed that by playing by the rules we lost out a bit.

But hey! as they say, “that’s life”.

[Neptunus Rex]

SRENNAPS
You say you have two daughters to be proud of. They, in turn, have two wonderful parents to be proud of.
You and Mrs SRENNAPPS are Jets!

[Training Risky]

Nope. Those 'opinions' don't make me a bigot, they merely demonstrate tongue-in-cheek advice for someone trying to join the RAF. If I was a bigot I would have said something like "women and blacks should not be allowed in the RAF", but I said no such thing.

Well done, you can use a search engine:D

You seem to have a stick up your proverbial about bigotry hiding around every corner, akin to reds-under-the-bed! You're not a black disabled lesbian are you?

You are the minority voice. Get used to it.:zzz:

[onlywatching]

So whatever happened to the 'No Touching Rule' when in Military Establishments or on Operations...