Splash Coxswain

Headline in today's Sunday Times:

The Navy, in an effort to recruit more gays into the Navy, are in contact with Stonewall, according to the Sunday Times today. The 2nd Sea Lord, Vice Admiral B-N (famous for his quote in 2000 that the recruitment of gays would cause less angst than women going to sea), is quoted as saying "it would help a culture in which all our people are valued for themselves". Commodore Paul Docherty said " it is quite possible that we will have a gay admiral one day!"

That'll be a first then! Yeah, Right!!!!

BEagle

Has he never heard of Earl Mountbottom?

incubus

<insert mandatory Rear Admiral comment here>

Wycombe

I thought they were called "Admirals of the narrow seas"

The Rocket

That has got to be the best headline I have ever seen.

Have they thought about recruiting the Village People again? I was under the impression that they worked miracles in the late 70's with their catchily titled gay recruitment theme "In the Navy"!!!


Bl££bing hell, I ask you!!!

FJJP

I can't wait for the first RN gay marriage! First Wrens at sea, then banning pin-ups, it's got to be next...

soddim

Well, bu**er me!

airborne_artist

There already is one - Admirals never retire from the RN, they go onto half-pay, and there's one (who must be 80+ now) who left his wife and daughter (after he left the service) and now lives on a Med. island with his "houseboy".

Engineer

Thought that half the navy was gay anyway and the other half nervous. So does this signal the biggest outing party in military history .

For serving naval members (pun intended) assistance here

cupasoup

If the RN want to recruit gays, there are a lot of spare ones available in the RAF!

Training Risky

Will this apply to unmarried straight couples too? It doesn't affect me now as I am now married, but when I was 'cohabiting in sin', this affected me somewhat.

Does the Navy (and the rest of the MoD) intend to discriminate against the majority of straight couples who want a quarter?

Navaleye

I haven't laughed so much, since the day I saw a fat Split A*se get stuck in a kidney hatch.

Ridiculous.

tablet_eraser

As one of the "spare" gays in the RAF, I think I'm quite happy where I am...

As for the RN, good for them! I do get annoyed by the occasional silliness of E&D/EO (or whatever it's called this week), but it serves a purpose. The Forces benefit from allowing gay personnel to serve without fear of administrative discharge (no puns, please), which must mean they work better.

It does fall down in some cases, though. As Training Risky points out, it's hardly fair that gay couples can register for a civil partnership and apply for MQs, whereas a common-law heterosexual couple cannot. The Civil Partnerships Act itself is discriminatory, not allowing heterosexual couples to register their partnership legally withou going the whole hog and getting married. Makes the whole exercise a little pointless, in my opinion.

Scud-U-Like

And, as another 'spare', so am I....

Isn't a register office marriage a civil partnership? The point of the civil partnerships legislation was to give same sex couples a legally recognised form of partnership. It is marriage, in all but name.

I'm not sure the RN needed to announce this policy with such a fanfare, which tends to suggest their priority is getting a tick in the box, rather than making their administrative regs fairer for all.

Training Risky

I don't know the in's and out's (pun intended) of the Civil Partnership scheme... but I assess that it is in no way as binding as a Registry Office marriage.

Marriages are very sticky to dissolve, with issues of divorce, property ownership, child custody, etc (if it all goes wrong, that is).

I would like to know if gay couples would face this problem when splitting up.


Therefore, why should a straight couple have to jump through the hoop of marriage in order to qualify for a quarter. When a gay couple can go through this partnership thing for less hassle.

This makes a mockery of equality in the workplace, but what's new?

PerArdua

Isn't it about time the RAF/Navy/Army just got on with the task in hand (Defending Freedom etc) and stopped 'reporting' to the media. I have known of numerous gays and lesbians in the RAF who do fantastic jobs, get on with everybody and just want to be left to get on with their private lives privately.

Live and let live.

PA

hyd3failure

Trainingrisky said -
You don't need to be married to live in a "FAMILY" quarter. BUT if you are Gay then you have to prove your relationship is stable by participating in a civil ceremony... is that discrimination or not?

sounds like it is to me.

Engineer

Taking into account the whingeing that goes on in the Military forum. It would appear that task is on the back burner at the present

An Teallach

As one of those who fought for change through the Courts, I am left wondering what the hell the RN think they are going to learn from NuLabour's pink wing (Stonewall).

Gay folk have served, are serving and will serve perfectly well if left alone. They are attracted to a Service career for exactly the same reasons as their straight colleagues, enjoy the good bits of Service life and, indeed, put up with the same crap as their straight colleagues. Of course SFQs should be available for gay couples and common law straight couples.

I find the very thought that the Service feels it needs to consult the self-appointed leaders of gay Britain both condesdending and discriminatory.

Stonewall is in the game of perpetuating the Gay Ghetto from which it draws most of its funding. It appears now that NuLabour are channelling funds from the Defence Vote to its own Pink Wing for spurious 'consultative' work. I fear this has rather more to do with 2SL kissing NuLabour arse than anything else.

I'll save Buff Hoon some money:

Other than their choice of partners, gay folk and straight folk are exactly the same.

People who want a career in the Armed Forces, want one whether they are gay or straight.

They will respond to the same advertising, do the same training, fight the same wars and die the same deaths.

You do not need to have Service recruiters mince through Manchester with the dizzy queens on 'Pride' marches which a large majority of gay folk don't attend, or place 'special' adverts in the alleged 'gay' press which the great majority of gay folk do not read.

All you need to do to get the best out of your gay Servicemen and women is to do whatever you do to get the best out of your Servicemen and women.

There you go Buff, PM me and I'll tell you where to send the cheque. I'll charge half of whatever Stonewall is charging.

teeteringhead

not I think hyd 3 as there has to be a family: that is, single parents can get FQs (as they are now), but not UNmarried heteros with no kids.

I recall a case (in the Army) where two single parents who were an "item" were forced to have (and of course pay for) two separate quarters, as they could not be seen to live together! Brings a whole new meaning to the phrase "your place or mine?"

And I certainly don't think that "Civil Partnership" is the same as even a civil marriage

[Come to think of it, aren't all marriages civil (no pun). ISTR being told that mine was only valid cos of the registrar sat in the front row of the Church - and she was a muslim!]