Kipper fleet macho, chauvinist and tribal

[ORAC]

The Times: -

AN RAF pilot who has accused the Ministry of Defence of sex discrimination says that a top-ranking commander described women air crew as having “lumps in the wrong places”.

The remark, referring to women’s supposed difficulties in sitting in a cockpit, was condemned by counsel for the Ministry of Defence during an employment tribunal brought by a former Nimrod pilot. “The RAF disassociates itself from the comment,” David Barr, for the MoD, told the hearing in Central London.

Air Marshal Sir John Harris, now retired, a former commander of No 18 Group at RAF Strike Command in High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, was alleged to have made the remark during a squadron anniversary event. “It was communicated at the highest level to Harris that these comments were not welcome,” Mr Barr said. One of the women attending was given a bunch of flowers “to show that these feelings were not shared by others”.

However, Mr Barr told the tribunal that it would be unfair to draw inferences about sex discrimination in the RAF on the basis of comments from one officer. The former pilot, a 30-year-old flight lieutenant identified as Mrs A, claims she was driven out by a culture of sexism and harrassment. She claims that she was asked by a commanding officer which colleagues she was going to sleep with, as there was “a large price on her head”.

She also claims the captain of her Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft flew low over a cruise ship so that male crew members could photograph topless women on the deck.

Mrs A, who became pregnant by a married high-ranking officer 20 years her senior, claims that colleagues at RAF Kinloss were “macho, chauvinist and almost tribal”. After returning from maternity leave Mrs A claims that although she was qualified to fly Nimrods she was only offered a job flying VC10s, which would have meant her serving overseas. She refused because she wanted to be with her baby. She took voluntary retirement in May 2001. The MoD rejects her claims.

[Boy_From_Brazil]

Oh my God.....do RAF pilots have to serve overseas?

Has anyone got copies of the topless photographs?

[whowhenwhy]

Now play fair! Some people want their cake and be able to eat it!

[Training Risky]

The sad thing for us all, is that this will probably turn out like all the other compo cases the MOD has handled in the past:
Like the women who sued for being thrown out when pregnant (even though they knew the score from the start), and the Cranwell cadet who tripped while marching in high heels.

I can see this women getting thousands, after the millions she has already cost the RAF!:yuk:

[StopStart]

Lordy.

I do hope the "married senior officer" managed to claim the bounty....

I'm discriminated against. I've got lumps in the wrong places too although that's mostly down to the pies.
Whom do I sue? Is it the MoD for giving me in-flight or Messrs Ginsters & Son (Purveyors of Fine Meaty Goods to the Royal Household) for making such interesting pies?

Surely I can sue someone for something?
I was good enough to fly the Eurofighter in all but ability. I have been horribly wronged.

What about the mental scarring? The flying suits make my bum look big. As do the trousers. And nudity in fact.........

As for the overseas business.....I've been there once or twice...called England isn't it? Frightful. She's got the right idea.

In fact, I'd heard they were selling off all the Mk5 C130Js to pay her off. etc etc.

Jolly good luck to her.

Ftang ftang olé biscuit barrel......
http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/nut.gif

[BEagle]

It is a shame when some woman wrecks the generally good name which the huge majority of female aircrew have by behaving in this way. The Kipper Fleet is not known for suffering fools gladly; clearly this woman didn't make many friends (well, perhaps just the one...) and somehow I can't believe that to have been the fault of the rest of the Kipper Fleet.

Remove first the plank from thine own eye, woman.


...and I'm sure that the VC10 wing is sooooooooooooo sorry that you couldn't accept a job with them because that would have kept you away from your self-inflicted feeding and wiping duties.

[moggie]

Question: When is the boyfirend going to face his court martial for adultery and did Mrs A ever face similar charges?

If the answer to both is "never", then shut up, sod off and grow up.

Thank God that she was not a lesbian from the Ethnic Minorities - the leagl bill could have wiped out a whole Sqn of Typhoons!

[Charlie Luncher]

This is exactly the reason I left the Women’s Auxiliary Balloon Corp, as for the charges levelled guilty and so so much more fun was had. I see no complaint about the special sauce she mentioned.:yuk:
It is disappointing to see this has finally made the headlines again as there are several very good girls who did a very good job getting me into trouble on Kippers, anyhow we have had tarts on the Flt deck for years it is nothing new!
:E

[Freedom Flyer]

Charlie Luncher:

I don't remember reading anything about "Special Sauce" in the articles I've seen. Is there something you know, that we don't???

[Mad_Mark]

I do believe that 'special sauce' was one of the many entries made in the certain female's diary (I'm sorry, I tried to refer to her as a lady, but I just can't seem to!). In fact I understand she recorded so many things that she had to scrap her week-to-a-view diary and buy an hour-to-a-view one ;)

Thank God the Kipper Fleet has plenty of other wonderful ladies serving that seem to accept that they joined a fighting force that has banter and regular overseas deployments and are willing to join in fully. A very small number of comments may be uncalled for, but the vast majority are pure good humoured banter and are directed at all and sundry, regardless of sex.

MadMark!!! :mad:

[steamchicken]

My woman's response to this was "Jesus - aren't all professions tribal? I know our department is...Macho? Fck it, I'm macho and tribal and I'm a woman..."

[Tartan Giant]

colleagues at RAF Kinloss were “macho, chauvinist and almost tribal”.

Well that's just dandy........sounds like a well disciplined fighting force to me.

which would have meant her serving overseas. She refused because she wanted to be with her baby

"refused"......bloody terrific. I wonder if she refused any detachments to drop things from the bomb-bay ?

Having married before I reached the age of 25 I was not allowed a 'married quarter' - perhaps I can sue in retrospect for the damage it has caused..........or maybe being seperated from my young family when the beastly RAF sent me overseas on detachment for months.

Having "been there, done that" this women did not deserve the company she kept.
It's a shame she has tarnished other fine woman pilots.

TG

[kippermate]

This incident is not worthy of serious comment.

[BlueWolf]

kippermate, you are bang on.

It is, however, worthy of some serious p1ss-taking, which is what it appears to be getting.

Silly tart. Hurrah for the penis!!
:D :D

[BEagle]

...and BlueWolf knows more than most of us about silly tarts!

[BlueWolf]

...and the particular one to whom the erstwhile Beags is refering knows nothing about penises!:)

[Vortex what...ouch!]

Oh I don't know BlueWolf she sounds like one to me.

[JimNich]

Actually, I quite liked her.

[BlueWolf]

You can have her back anytime, JimNich. We'll even pay the postage....

Apparently she wants to be the next Secretary General of the UN, which really says it all about the stupid b:mad:ch

[WE Branch Fanatic]

I think JimNich was refering to the former Nimrod pilot girlie, not "Mizz" H Clark, a disgrace to lesbians everywhere...

[JimNich]

Wee Branch Fan,

You are indeed correct. I don't now what they're all complaining about. This person has supplied the Nimrod fleet, the newspapers and this forum with more entertainment than the MRA4, FSTA and J Herc put together.

We should give her an award...or something.:D

[BillHicksRules]

Dear all on this thread,

I am writing a thesis for my MA in Military Studies. Would u mind if I used this thread for illustration?

Cheers

BHR

[Charlie Luncher]

BHR

Call me a cynic but I feel if this is used as an illustration the subtle point will be missed by a Lazy student trying to get more time in the Student Union Bar:}

[BillHicksRules]

CL,

I am afraid you are to cryptic for me. Could you please explain what you mean.

Cheers

BHR

p.s. I am not at Uni, this is a distance learning course done in my evenings after work.

[J.A.F.O.]

So, the kipper fleet is "macho, chauvinist and almost tribal", is it? Nice to see some things don't change, keep up the good work lads (and lasses).

[West Coast]

Welcome to tailhook 2003. Deny everything and make counter accusations.

[Yarpy]

The Gaurdian reports it thus:

RAF woman wins sex discrimination case
Press Association
Saturday August 9, 2003 3:53 AM


A female RAF pilot who was subjected to constant verbal sexual harassment by members of her crew has won her claim for sex discrimination.

The RAF was condemned in a judgment that recognised a culture of sexism among senior levels of staff.

The sexual discrimination the woman received was "illegal" and there were too many instances of "senior officers with sexist views", it was found.

The flight lieutenant - who cannot be identified for legal reasons - claimed she was driven out of the RAF by sexism and harassment senior officers did little to stop.

The tribunal failed to find that the woman was constructively dismissed from her job, but commented that the RAF "should take little comfort from that".

"We heard too many instances of senior officers with sexist views, which have no place in an organisation committed to equal opportunities and are quite frankly illegal," the tribunal panel said in its judgment.

One of a small band of females to fly an RAF Nimrod, the woman became pregnant by a married high-ranking officer 20 years her senior in 2000.

After maternity leave, she was treated for anxiety and depression, but was not allowed to fly again and took premature voluntary retirement in 2001.

She told the tribunal she had been determined to maintain her career but that she had been removed from flying, had become ill and had not had her concerns noted by senior officers.

In hearings at Croydon Employment Tribunal that spread over six months this year, the woman claimed RAF personnel were "macho, chauvinist and almost tribal".

[Scud-U-Like]

The Times (9 Aug 03) adds:

"Commenting on a number of documents shown to the tribunal, including an e-mail sent by a wing commander, the panel said: “They are more sad evidence that among the very senior ranks in the RAF, outdated, sexist attitudes persist.” "

Hoist by their own petard perhaps.

[Woff1965]

Before all the blokes say "silly tart" think about this -

1) How much did it cost to train her to do her job. As she is effectively a single parent with a toddler I can understand why she would want a posting that allowed her to look after the child until it at least reached primary school age.

2) If a black man had been subjected to abuse like this how many people would have said this is acceptable (except members of the BNP).

3) I have, in the course of my job, advised people with employment cases. Take it from someone who has attended a number of employment tribunals, they are not rubber stamps and they will put you through the mill. If she had no evidence she would have lost her claim.

4)As for her obsessive diary keeping - if the kipper fleet is as bad as she says it was she no doubt saw other women go through the same thing, in which case she was only being prudent. I have personally advised people (both men and women) to do just this sort of thing, a accurate and detailed diary kept over weeks or months can be of considerable assistance in putting forward a claimants case.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

1) How many other dedicated people missed the opportunity of a flying career in light blue because this waste of space applicant was chosen instead.

2) Black men, short men, tall men, thin men, fat men and Welshmen - all are subject to service banter.

3) She lost the vast majority of her claims. Employment tribunals have little or no competency with regards to cases involving the military. These worthy bodies have grown in size and power out of all proportion to that which was orginally intended. Most of this growth has occurred since 1997.

4) Long term diary keeping smacks of a well calculated plan to extract maximum revenue for a service retirement she knew she was forcing on herself by a wilful disregard for the contract of employment.

That she should have anonymity is also illogical. She should be named and her name then associated with scorn for ever more.

WWW

[difar69]

Fully agree with all your points WWW. We are doing the top bunch of ladies(professional & part of the team) who are on the fleet at the present time a great dis-service by associating them with this sad excuse for an aviator. The sooner she disappears from view the better.

[Arctic Tern]

:yuk: Watch out fellas, plenty more out there ready to collect some cash.
Anyway, what ever happened to the Pilots Pals Calendars?
Oops! Here come the handcuffs.
I'm thinking of having a sex change, I understand the RAF will pay and are then obliged to promote me and post me back to a flying job.:)

[uncle peter]

The only motive i'm driven by is that of fair treatment which forces me now to play devils advocate.

a few points for thought / discussion

1. the complainant was subject to the same selection process as every other raf pilot and was therefore deemed to have sufficient characteristics / promise for selection as GD(P). She also had sufficient ability and officer qualities to pass EFT possibly BFT and then METS during which she would have had 3 independent assessments of ability as both a pilot and an officer. My best mate through training went to HMP Kinloss due to the fact that he was exceptionally capable, and i believe this to still be the case for a posting to the rod

2. the complainant felt strongly enough about the treatment to complain. The complaint was seemingly ignored by those in her chain of command. whilst every military employee is subject to banter, whether you agree with it or not, they are also afforded the protection against sexual and racial discrimination by the fact that said behaviour is unlawful. The throwaway remark by www that she lost the vast majority of her claims purposefuly ignores the fact that the independant tribunal found she had been the victim of unlawful sexual discrimination; a fact which vindicates her complaint and for which she will be compensated.

3.Those in the military do not have a contract per se, they are reliant on terms conferred in the air force act. It seems entirely proper and reasonable to allow female military personel the opportunity to have families without recourse to burning them at the stake for the mere suggestion. They should also be afforded the courtesy of having family situations considered upon posting, as their male counterparts do.

4. Employment tribunals have sufficient competency in deciding employment issues, as that is all they were designed to do. Sexual discrimination or other employment matters do not take on a magical appearance merely because they are alleged against the military. People are only allowed to seek recourse to these tribunals after exhausting all avenues of the internal grievance procedure. I assume that all of the complaints were dismissed out of hand during this, which indicates the lack of impartiality in the redress process.

5. Long term diary keeping smacks of someone whose complaint was perhaps ignored and the instances were of sufficient severity that she had no option but to make note of them; self preservation.

6. The fact that there was a finding of sexual discrimination means that someone within the RAF is responsible for that, and the chain of command is responsible for ignoring it. That she should have anonymity is essential, why should someone be punished twice for the unlawful actions of some that led to the complaint reaching the stage it did. I left the raf last year for airlines new, and i still get approached as to my opinion of some applicants. I cannot believe that this situation could not have been sorted a lot sooner and to the benefit of both parties.

I do not know the individual nor am i particularly interested in the nitty gritty of the case. The bottom line is "has she been treated fairly and in accordance with the law" on some counts this was yes but on others it was no which renders the RAF and a few employees responsible. This is a very sad story which could possibly have been sorted a lot sooner and for a lot less public money. Everyone has the right not to be crapped on from a great height, and i wonder if those flaming her would be so severe if they had been crapped on too.

there are one or two complete spanners at every station, perhaps she was unfortunate to get them on her crew? just to reiterate, i play devils advocate because there are 2 sides.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

No, no no no NO!

WWW

[Woff1965]

The only real changes I can remember in Employment following 1997 were the -

1) Reduction in the time a worker had to be employed before taking a employer to court for unfair dismissal from 2 years to 1 year. However these time limits don't apply to sex or race discrimination cases as it is possible to take an employer to an ET if they discriminate in recruitment and/or selection..

2) Employees are expected to follow the internal greivance procedure before applying to a ET, failiure to do so will probably ensure his/her case falls.

As for the scope of ET's, there have been no substantial changes in their scope or powers.

If there are any women reading this thread who were thinking of joining the RAF, I suspect a number of them won't be, after all why join an organisation that has no commitment to obeying the law of the land in relation to their employment and then brand them as gold diggers if they have the temerity to stand up for their rights.

There is always going to be banter in any organisation, unfortunately there are too many racists and misogynists who hide behind that banter and then argue it was all meant in a "ironic postmodernist kind of way".

This is not 1850 or even 1950, women are not going to put up with this sort of cr@p anymore and more importantly the LAW says they don't have to.

One final question to WWW and co - how would you like it if your daughter (assuming you actually associate with women) had to go through this sort of cr@p to do her job?

[The Gorilla]

Woff

Hear Hear!! Well said.

Let us not forget how the RAF (and what we really mean of course is the MOD) treats people.

You only have to be watching the daily news to see just how high the MOD and its' services regard their personnel.

Recent history shows that "they" believe they are beyond the law. The pregnant women fiasco is to name but one such sad example. There are many others in the public domain, but the days of honouring themselves will soon be at an end.

So I say wake up those isolated and insular service people!! Society has changed beyond ALL recognition in a few short years. The right to work in a harassment free environment is enshrined in basic rights to which HMG has signed up to. Doesn't matter what your creed, colour, religion or sexuality etc is. In this case the fact she is a woman is really quite irrelevant in my view, she was bullied and harassed at work. That's illegal and is the end of the story. Lots of people in the services get treated this way day in day out. It is in our ethos to do so!! Or is deepcut just a media conspiracy then?

My direct experience of the last 15 months shows that harassment and bullying are alive and well and enshrined in daily operations. If you don't do this X will happen (X being very unpleasant)
The RAF pays as much lip service to harassment as it does to Flight Safety, and I should know. I was that man who highlighted fatigue issues in Oman, and has paid dearly for it!!

Until the cancer within the system is cut out, there will be many more such cases to come. It isn't 1955 anymore and I sincerely hope she gets £Millions. Since money seems to be the only thing that motivates our out of date dinosaurs!! Hit them where it hurts!!



:D

[Smoketoomuch]

Wolf said;
>The only real changes I can remember in Employment following >1997 were the -

You miss the most fundamental shift in the tribunal process wrt sex or race discrimination - that the burden of proof has been reversed. It is now up to the employer to prove that he/she has not been discriminatory, essentialy creating a 'blaggers charter'. Our wise leaders thought this change was needed because 'discrimination is a very serious matter' - let's hope that they don't start taking things like murder seriously or any one of us could suddenly find that we're up before a court, assumed guilty and having to prove our innocence. Employers are now 'guilty until proved innocent'.
It's now an honest [silly?] employee who doesn't launch an action for discrimination against their employer if they decide they fancy a change of career and a 'leaving present'. Of course this option is generally only open to certain people.

Most employers are now sensibly advised to seek a financial settlement before a claim reaches tribunal, whatever its apparent merits, or lack of. They are expensive to defend, awards are unlimited, and even if the vexatious claims are thrown out it is virtually unheard of for costs to be awarded [<1%]. Combine this with the bad publicity such a case brings to a large employer, and the potentially ruinous time / money lost to a small employer, any lawyer who doesn't tell their client to 'just try to pay them off' is not advising them well. Goes some way to explaining the 30% annual growth in tribunal cases.

As for faith in tribunals, I've seen plenty of utterly bizzare decisions - truly jaw-dropping. The Kamlesh Bahl (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F08%2F01%2Fnlaws01.xml) case being one of the more recent. Fortunately the Appeal Tribunal overturned the original decision, but such lengthy battles to obtain justice are not always an option for many employers.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Yes, Deepcut *is* a media conspiracy.

I have good friends who are officers commanding men at Deepcut and I am intimately aware of how spurious the allegations are and how fuelled by the tabloids they are.

The place enjoys a <30 male suicide rate that is half one would find in civvy street.

As for those that cannot see how a fully auto assault rifle could possibly fire more than one round into someones head - well - they've never handled one I suspect.

She signed up knowing the obligations of a prestigious miltary Commission.

She failed to meet those obligations.

She engineered a lucrative escape strategy.

Shame on her. She demeens the spirit of the law, the process of it, her fellow female colleagues and herself.

Or does the RAF not have the right to decide to which tour its pilots are assigned any more?

WWW

[ZH875]

I can remember at least 2 WRAFs who deliberately got pregnant so that they could leave the mob, as they had no other easy way out.

Then had the cheek to claim and get compensation.

At least that loophole is closed. The blokes now just have to manage short handed when pregnant females are on the sqn. Can't lift this, can't go there, then want 6 months off. Nothing like putting cr@p on your fellow workers.

Sexism, Racism and Bullying have no place in todays modern RAF, but some rules were there for a reason, not for discrimination.

Oh to emigrate to a Country that has sense.

[Mach the Knife]

ZH875
What makes you think it's any better overseas? It's certainly the same where I am. You could always try the Saudi Airfarce.

[FJJP]

The Gorilla

The RAF pays as much lip service to harassment as it does to Flight Safety, and I should know. I was that man who highlighted fatigue issues in Oman, and has paid dearly for it!!

That's a very sweeping statement - or is it sour grapes because the execs didn't agree with your opinion?

Flight safety has come a long way in the Royal Air Force, and those who pay 'lip service' to it tend not to last very long.

I served on many Sqns in a number of roles, and I can't think of a single instance where anybody paid 'lip service' to the subject, on the ground or in ther air.

Perhaps you would care to give us some examples, since clearly in your view this is widespread....

[The Gorilla]

FJJP

Not until 1st October 2003!!

:ok:

[moggie]

WWW - care to tell us what Military experience you have that allows you to talk with SUCH authority about what it is like to be in the RAF?

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

moggie - absolutely badger all - as you well know. Air Training Corps, UAS, some sponsorship and loads of mates in uniform was/is it.

Did I ever pretend otherwise?

Cheers

WWW

[moggie]

Just the tone of your posts, old chap...................may lead others who don't know you to suspect that you DID have some time served taking the Queen's shilling.

[moggie]

I agree in large part with what FV has said. Even if this woman was sexually harrassed/discriminated against the fact that she had consensual sex with her (married) senior officer is in direct contravention of service law and as such goes to prove that she was probably no better than those she complained against.

I suspect that we are seeing six of one and half a dozen of the other and as such any legal case should really have been declared a draw.

[Flatus Veteranus]

All this is effing madness! If the lady had (as reported in my broadsheet) consensual sex with her boss, her case should have been chucked out because she was clearly exploiting her sexuality to obtain career advantage. And her boss should have been chucked out of the mob for having sex with a subordinate. The Croydon Employment Tribunal are clearly a self-important bunch of w*nkers.

[John Purdey]

Flatus Veranus, Absolutely right. What have we come to? JP

[Biggus]

My information is second hand, from a kipper mate, so no doubt that makes it "hearsay" in legal terms, subject to dispute, and I personally cannot verify it.... However,...

I believe the lady in question was "allegedly" a pilot of dubious quality who should probably not have passed the Nimrod OCU. However, the senior officer who eventually fathered her child was on the OCU staff at the time, with their relationship still a secret,.....

She reached a Sqn where her lack of ability was noticed, she was effectively up for the chop when pregnancy interupted events. A move to another (dare I say less demanding job) was mooted when the "I don't want to leave my child" card was played.

Throughout her pilot training her ability to dish out foul mouth invective, and consume alcohol, was allegedly as good as any male. And no, she was not keeping up with the boys for the sake of appearances.

Whether she was sexually harassed or not I know not. I do know that I, as a red blooded male, could probably go to work tomorrow and start my own diary of events/conversations that could be used by a competent legal mind to provide "evidence" that I was being bullied, harassed etc, even though I am not. I would suggest that could apply equally to many offices up and down the country, and is not unique to the RAF, military, etc...

At the end of the day a pilot who may well have been asked to leave the RAF due to lack of ability (and there is a great deal of pressure on the training system to push people through as training risks and let the next agency "chop" them if they don't come good - the arguement that she must have been good enough to reach a Sqn is not valid) left in a manner coldly calculated to ensure a financial return on her time in the service - ALLEGEDLY!

[Jack The Kipper]

Nice post, Biggus.

Things are going the same way as civvy street. Got a mate who works in Forex and they have parallel cases – women who get a lower bonus than some of the guys because they have performed worse in what is, frankly, a highly competitive and macho environment. All of the toys come out of the pram and the court believes the ‘discrimination’ card almost every time. Everybody in the industry (including the claimant) knows its bollocks but the claim gets paid.

The world has gone mad and I’ve stopped opening doors for women.

[John Purdey]

If my memory is reliable, I seem to recall that when this whole 'human rights' badwaggon began to roll in Europe during the 1950s, the French government saw more clearly than our own that such legislation would cause serious difficulties if it applied to their Armed Forces. The French therefore specificaly excluded their Forces from the legislation. Am I right? (Any lawyers out there able to comment?)If I am right, then one wonders whether it might still be possible for our own wet politicians to renegotiate the human rights obigations, but this time exclude the Forces, the Police and so on? What a load of unecessary nonsence that would save us. John Purdey.

[Training Risky]

I'll second that, Biggus.

I was up at Ice Station Kilo a few months ago, chatting to some mates in the bar. They swore blind that she was useless on the Sqn, and this harrassment stuff is just background noise.

Shame on the MoD for allowing this kind of civilian cr@p to happen to us!:mad:

[Samuel]

Serious stuff this, both saddening and incredible at the same time. So let me get this right; is it true that all the experience of teaching people to fly professionally is being ignored in order to allow a candidate, who clearly can't, to pass though the system because she is a woman?

Didn't anyone, at any stage, stand up and say, "enough, you're chopped"? How can it be that she made it through to being in the right-hand seat, with all that implies to eventual transition to captaincy, if she was so incapable? Can it possibly be true that someone was overruled in order to allow her to progress?

I've no axe to grind here, I'm just saddened if it's true that political correctness has over ridden common sense, and the best pilot training system in the world!:(

[pr00ne]

Samuel,

I think you are missing the fact that she was allegedly "involved" with a senior married officer on the OCU?
Perhaps he should be a subject of some close scrutiny here?

I know a lot of female aircrew in ABFC, this one sounds a real exception, and we all know they occur irrespective of gender.

I saw some pretty ropey male aircrew get through the system when no one around them could understand why.

[Samuel]

No, I didn't miss the transitory relationship with a 'senior officer' , but doesn't that make it even worse? A senior GD putting illicit nooky before the safety of an aircraft and crew? That's a question by the way, not a statement!

I'm also aware that chops are not gender exclusive, the guy who was my best man was chopped after earning his wings, but the other posts weren't referring to that; just this particular female!

[Ali Barber]

If, as some people are alleging, she had sex with a maried senior officer who was also one of her instructors, why didn't they charge his and/or her sorry arses under Section 69 as "Conduct Prejudicial" and fire them?

[Scud-U-Like]

It is worth remembering the Tribunal did not uphold the majority of this person's claims. Regardless of the complainant's veracity and personal motives, the real issue here is how seriously the RAF regards itself as a so-called 'equal opportunities' employer. The Tribunal, citing evidence (including documentary evidence) originating from senior officers, concluded, "We heard too many instances of senior officers with sexist views, which have no place in an organisation committed to equal opportunities and are quite frankly illegal."

What sort of message does that give to people with aspirations toward an RAF career?

Coupled with the Deepcut controversy, this paints a grim picture of the environment we're asking people to enter and parents to send their kids into.

Incidentally, WWW, I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss some of the non-suicide theories regarding Deepcut. If a doctor can bump-off 250 patients, before being suspected of murder, is it not possible some nut case of an instructor could do the same with armed forces recruits?

[John Purdey]

Ali Barber,

Quite right. I believe MOD is appealing against the findings, and so they should. When the MOD staffs read this series of comments, as I believe they do and should, perhaps they will reflect on the strength of feeling about this whole sorry tale. John Purdey

[STS]

Now I'm not going to attempt to comment on the case in this thread or this issue in general in the RAF, but as a woman I would like to add my tuppence worth to this thread for better or worse.

I was out this evening with some friends and we were discussing this one and were absolutely furious. We all work in "traditionally" male environments agreed that we get slightly miffed to say the least with women who seem to level these accusations at men very easily. We all agreed that we have met women that have done this, and usually they do have a track record and are not exactly the best at what they do. By doing that they make it harder for those that do face a genuine instance of sexual discrimination and aren't believed. That must be absolute hell, and I hope that everyone here would agree with that.

However, they also make it difficult for us. I have been in jobs where the guys are very cautious in their behaviour towards me and are quite clearly very nervous about being accused of inappropriate behaviour. How lousy must that be for them. I remember a training video I had to watch once that said that touching a member of the opposite sex on the shoulder was inappropriate behaviour. As far as that is concerned, I think the world has gone mad.

If anyone has been out with a group of women, you will know that we can hold our own. It just smacks of double standards. We make a joke - fine. Bloke makes a joke - go run to your boss and complain. Aaaagh.

The day that a laugh and banter become redundant is the day I hold up the white flag and become a lady of leisure.

[BEagle]

Good post, STS and I'm sure that's the view of most of the ladies in the RAF.

[moggie]

STS - thank you for that post - it is great to have the female perspective upon this.

I recall from my time in the RAF that female aircrew are just as likely to be subjected to prefferential treatment as discrimination (does anyone of the F3 fleet remember xxxxxxxx?). Ladies being given preferential treatment thyrough the training sytem is just as harmful as the "he looked at me - sexual harrasment" type.

Let anyone who can do the job do it (age, race, gender, sexual orientation unimportant) and let anyone who can not find an alternative career.

moggie--no names, not even "slightly disguised" ones -- McD

[BATS]

Does anyone out there know if the tribunal have announced the amount of damages/compensation awarded ?

[SirPeterHardingsLovechild]

Reported today....an out of court settlement...substantial damages.

The tribunal dismissed 8 of her 11 claims

Estimate (by employment law experts) of £15,000 for 'injury to feelings'

[ORAC]

The better of the three press reports online: RAF pilot wins sex bias payout (http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/9269.html)

[Vage Rot]

I was at ISK at the time and remember this one well! Biggus' post is spot on!

Also, the Senior Officer concerned was rewarded for his sh499ing prowess and promoted!! Me however, for sh499ing a single, unmarried woman and getting caught - carpeted, formal warning etc etc!

Perhaps I was just better at it so I had a worse punishment!!!!

;-)

Thankfully, there now seems to be a decent calibre of lady aviator at ISK and many of my femail friends in the Service give and take as much banter as the blokes. What the namby-pamby world of political correctness seems to forget is that my job is to kill people whenever President Tony says so. In doing so some bu99er is likely to try and kill me - kind of makes you look at life with a sense of humour - if you can't take the banter and, more importantly, give it back you are the wrong person to come to war with me. If you break down in tears because you get called a name then sod off and join the flower arranging course at the local college.

Perhaps the PC advertising campaign should be dropped, then we might get real people to do a real job!

Rant ends!

[vascodegama]

I am just a bit confused here. Am I not right in thinking that the whole idea of aircrew is that we are employed on FLYING duties. Firstly, I dont think 9 months a year away on the VC10 fleet is accurate but also why should any Pilot, male or female, get away with refusing a posting. What would the service say to a male aircrew chap who said he wouldn't take a particular posting because he had a young family. Just what multi engine flying tour does she think would suit her? As for compensation figures the rumour mill suggests a much higher figure. I think the 15K mentioned above is only part of the story.

[Biggus]

"I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave earlier....."

[Vage Rot]

I thought that she'd already had some - money that is! Is she stirring it up again for more? Maybe another sprog on the way!

I firmly believe that certain males were discriminated against in the late 80's. Female pilot studes seemed to get an awful lot more flex then the males - maybe they should file a law suit as well!!!

I thought that she'd already had some - money that is! Is she stirring it up again for more? Maybe another sprog on the way!

I firmly believe that certain males were discriminated against in the late 80's. Female pilot studes seemed to get an awful lot more flex then the males - maybe they should file a law suit as well!!!

Wish she would get a life and accept that she was not up to the job - not because she was a woman but just because!

[European Crash]

I am astounded by many of the posts on this thread. The Tribunal has upheld the substantive claims of the complainant and have awarded compensation accordingly. Her personal (off-duty/off det behaviour) are of no accord in this case. The behaviour of her fellow 'professionals' is shameful and as as one who was 'maritime' (albeit in NZ in the 1980s), the crew's behaviour (as described in the complaint) was all too familiar. For example, I recall porn being played on the data handling system and some pretty disgusting behaviour amongst an all-male crew; behaviour which would result in immediate dismissal in most organisations. Such behaviour of individuals constituting a crew is not acceptable (was it ever?) and the sad ravings by predominantly rear crew reinforce the image of a Dinosaur mentality locked in world of Sgts' Messes and 'saucy' sea-side post cards.


Moreover you cannot necessarily protest your innocence by 'proving' the guilt of others:


I firmly believe that certain males were discriminated against in the late 80's. Female pilot studes seemed to get an awful lot more flex then the males - maybe they should file a law suit as well!!!

If this is so, then let the Courts decide.

Grow up, Guys.

[Anton Dhorn]

:eek: European Crash

Dirty knocker types watching porn. Wow, no one else in the world watches porn now do they. Do you work for a politically correct organisation where everyone has group hugs and dresses down on a Friday to encourage corporate spirit?

We are in a military organisation after all where banter and humour which is close to the edge is prevelant. Perhaps I should swap my uniform for a flowered dress.

I never knew the female involved but I have seen loads like her. Sounds like she was clever enough to screw the system in order to cover up her problems.

[nav attacking]

Vage

Couldn't agree more with the PC line. Not sure how much money she got the first time around but surely this is obviously just a way of getting a bit more out of the situation. Didn't get enough the first time then. Apparently she was offered an out of court for about £0.3M but refused it hoping for the big £1M.

Euro

I believe the tribunal actually only upheld her complaint on something like 3 cases rejecting 8 of the 11 complaints. As per the last section of the article in the papers. As for her behaviour with her married instructor......well. She and he should have been kicked out for that (eyes down for a second debate on adultary in the military).

[Vage Rot]

Euro,

Not as you suggest at all old boy!

I for one would gladly serve in a highly PC RAF. Smile at everyone, tollerate those who are not up to the job and never mind that they might kill me with their incompetance. After all, we should really put up with other peoples' failings as we are not all perfect are we? Also, when the bullets start to fly, it will be "after you old chap!" "No, I insist, after you!"

This is not about male/female discrimination. This is about someone that didn't have the right mentality to do a job of war, someone that couldn't cope with the banter and someone that was clever enough to exploit the system for her own ends. Moreover, she wasted £3m of training by becomming preggers just after she finished the OCU. Perhaps the MoD would like to recover that at 5 days pay a month!!

Discrimination is not right but it is a fact of life. I get banter about my specs - can I have £15K please - it's making my life hell. NOT. I just retaliate and it's all a bit of fun (I hope!!)

any spoolung mesteaks are RANT induced!

[vascodegama]

I am glad to see that I am not aone in views here. I reckon we have Mrs A ( actually Mrs B but we all knew that all along) summed up. I dont know how she got her posting to ISK but my ex kipper fleet colleagues all say she was cr@p. No mention of the fact that she did the OCU twice. Also can anyone up north confirm the story that she called abort above V1 and a fair amount of damage. If so why not send her the bill. I think the trouble with all of these Tribunals is that they know little of the Services and cannot easily tell if the claimant is just plain lying. Of course if the service defended a bit better then things might be different. Quite agree about the adultery the bit they should both have been dealt with. Cant agree at all with you Euro.

[kippermate]

Vasco,

Re aborted take-off.

During the take-off run the handling pilot flys and the eng and the non-handling pilot monitor the engine. Above V1 the flying pilot should have had both hands on the 'stick', in order to prevent aborting after V1. (Like we used to practise in the Sim regularly)

For those not used to the term V1 it is effectively the position on the runway, related to a speed, before which there is not enough room to take-off following an engine failure and after which there is not enough room to stop.

That was good enough for me before anyone gets pedantic.

[vascodegama]

kippermate

Thanks for your input but I know exactly what it is all about. The procedures vary slightly between different ac but the principles are the same. Notwithstanding the safeguards referred to there are still f**k ups on all ac. The question is did it occur with Mrs B or not?

[santiago15]

Any truth in the rumour that she couldn't engage the autopilot because her nails were too long?

[Vage Rot]

Just coming up to my 38 point and have realised that after 20 years of dets to hot places I have a craving for the sun. Problem is that when I leave I won't be able to afford to spend circa 7 months a year in the sun and playing in the sand! How do I get the MoD to pay me compensation now that THEY have got me so used to the sun??

:}

[I was Lucky_B*]

I was on the aircraft when we aborted above v1, taxied back to the pan, got on another aircraft and did the sortie. It was on the OCU, one of the early ocean phase trips and she was the non-handling pilot. The Captain who was the handling pilot got away with it and we never worked out how.

She was a poor pilot and was held behind for more flying but she did not do a second OCU. Her boyfriend was an instructor on the OCU but a different branch!

For my sins I went to the same sqn as she did but a different crew. In fact I was on the crew she joined to be given her last chance. Apparently we were told to be "nice" to her, but we weren't, we were just a girlie PC crew because our average age was older and we were more grown-up. We also already had a female nav who told us some of the stuff that happened, and although most of it was banter or just taking the mickey some of it was totally out of order!!

[RobinXe]

Glad to read in the paper today that a decent proportion of public opinion is also that this is exploitative use of political correctness gone mad!

[Capt. Manuvar]

I read an article in one of the tabloids yesterday written by a woman.
I was delighted to see that even women think this is a load of BLX.
When i pay my taxes I would like to see the money spent on buying protective equipment and ammunition for guys who need it and not on settling ridiculous legal battles. I think the MOD needs to take a serious look at how it handles its personnel (a fact highlighted by the Dr kelly affair) and probably think about hiring some better lawyers given their track record:} :} :} .
i have an old fashioned view on women in combat and this isn't going to do anything to win me over the the PC side. The problem here is that women are less likely (as opposed to 'not able') to fit into an environment where comradari(i aint gonna try and spell it properly
:} ) is essentail. unfortunately the MOD is more interested in giving out a PC image than in building an efficient fighting force. i'm not saying women should be kicked out of the military, but they should not be forced unto the armed forces and extra caution should be exercised when recruiting them. Women have certain natural charcteristics that may be a disadvantageous to the in a military setting but make them excel in other environments e.g. academic studies, customer services and even certain areas of management.
Occasionally we do get the odd Xena :E and i don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to serve in the military. i do acknowledge that some of the best servicemen(no pun intended) are female and i have nothing but respect and admiration for them.
My views may not be totally PC cos i'm not a PC person so forgive me for any offence i might have caused.
Capt. manuvar ( off to do a bit of seal-bashing):}

[Capt Widebody]

She pinned me up against a wall and stuck her tongue in my mouth outside a night club many years ago when I was obviously incapable of any discrimination or rational thought due to some overindulgence on Mr (or Ms) Artois' special potion.

I think I'll sue her retrospectively for harassment and give all the money back to the MOD. Looks like they (still) need all the help they can get to combat claims like this...

PS Hello again, everyone :)

[DP Harvey]

The question was asked above: Did she call abort above V1? Yes, she did. It was documented in an IR which is probably available in an FS archive somewhere. But, she was an OCU student in the RHS at the time and there should be an element of mitigation in that. Not being a pilot, I wouldn't know how much multi-engine training, involving practical use of the V1 concept, is given to ab initio pilots prior to their OCUs.

The QFI was clearly at fault when he reacted to her call.

[BEagle]

DPH -I don't know about the Nimrod OCU, but the take-off 'words and hands' sequence is drilled into new VC10 pilots until it is second nature... (Can one say 'drilled' without some daft tart getting sulky?)

The only time 'abort' might ever be called above V1 is if there is a real and genuine doubt that the ac will not fly and the alternative runway overrun seems the only possible option. Highly unlikely - but if you ingested half a zillion $hitehawks down 3 engines at V1 plus 5 knots, a totally non-SOP 'abort' call might possibly save the day whereas sitting like confused rabbits might not. Nor would attempting to stagger off on 1 out of 4 donks.

An 'abort' call given by a student above V1 in the simulator is quite probable. Because that's wherE we used to let them learn from their mistakes. Do it once and they'd probably be hot-debriefed and re-pos'd at take-off, no comment in their write up. It's training, they're not 100% perfect. But make a habit of it and they'd probably be on review.

But a spurious 'abort' call above V1 in a real ac was something I never came across in 20 years on the VC10.