Dependant or not.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Middle Drawer
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dependant or not.
For those types who are married, your spouse may or may not hold a "Married Dependant ID" card.
Whilst the benefits of this card are superb, (No need to go through the rigmarole of registering your kinship every time you move camp etc).
It also allows your spouse to enter camps that they may have previously "served" at, giving them direct contact with friends of the family through earlier postings and so on.
However, I would like to challenge the word "Dependant". Particularly as a reference on ID cards and in general.
I believe that the word "dependant", when describing the wife/husband of a serving airman/airwoman, officer/officer(W) is now obsolete.
Consider that many serving Airwomen/Officers(W) are now supported by their Civvy husbands, because they earn more.
Consider that many serving Airmen/Officers are bettered monetary wise by higher earning wives.
So,
The word "Dependant" is obsolete, offensive, insipid, outmoded and downright offensive.
Opinions on "dependants" and their standing, most welcomed.
Talk Wrench
Whilst the benefits of this card are superb, (No need to go through the rigmarole of registering your kinship every time you move camp etc).
It also allows your spouse to enter camps that they may have previously "served" at, giving them direct contact with friends of the family through earlier postings and so on.
However, I would like to challenge the word "Dependant". Particularly as a reference on ID cards and in general.
I believe that the word "dependant", when describing the wife/husband of a serving airman/airwoman, officer/officer(W) is now obsolete.
Consider that many serving Airwomen/Officers(W) are now supported by their Civvy husbands, because they earn more.
Consider that many serving Airmen/Officers are bettered monetary wise by higher earning wives.
So,
The word "Dependant" is obsolete, offensive, insipid, outmoded and downright offensive.
Opinions on "dependants" and their standing, most welcomed.
Talk Wrench
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Age: 55
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whoah Talk Wrench. Are you trying to drag the RAF into the 21st Century? Careful, you might start a trend.
Whilst I agree that the word 'dependant' is old fashioned, it seems awfully PC to change it. A change in title would need careful wording.
It couldn't have the word 'Married' in the title because it might offend someone, and if the phrase 'Life Partner'
is on it I would have a ritual sacrifice of said card on the (non gas) barbeque.
How about 'RAF Family ID Card'?
Bless the Mrs and Kids
Whilst I agree that the word 'dependant' is old fashioned, it seems awfully PC to change it. A change in title would need careful wording.
It couldn't have the word 'Married' in the title because it might offend someone, and if the phrase 'Life Partner'
is on it I would have a ritual sacrifice of said card on the (non gas) barbeque.How about 'RAF Family ID Card'?
Bless the Mrs and Kids
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't believe I wasted about 19 seconds of my life reading this thread..
(and then another 30 seconds posting on it!)
Given the definition is:
and your spouse is relying on the fact YOU (another)are in the military to gain access to the base - I don't see a problem??
Then again.. the MoD could spend a few hundred thousand pounds changing ID's and publications that use the term, instead of spending it on worthless things like Explosion Suppression Foam or ASE
(and then another 30 seconds posting on it!)
Given the definition is:
Relying on or requiring the aid of another for support: dependent children
Then again.. the MoD could spend a few hundred thousand pounds changing ID's and publications that use the term, instead of spending it on worthless things like Explosion Suppression Foam or ASE
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Arbistan
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I got married last year and was told that the RAF no longer issues Depandants' Passes. I can't imagine why anybody ever thought they were such a good idea in the first place. I love having to go to the guardroom all the time to prove who she is.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pre 11/9 (or 9/11 as the yanks call it ) I heard of what I'd call an urban rumour.
Some of the guys at an RAAF base had a competition to see who could get through the front gate holding up the silliest item possible to the security guard to drive straight through. The winner held up a half eaten sausage roll, and the security guy let him drive straight through.
I do know of someone who got onto the base during a base "security exercise" with something he drew up with a purple pen.
) I heard of what I'd call an urban rumour.Some of the guys at an RAAF base had a competition to see who could get through the front gate holding up the silliest item possible to the security guard to drive straight through. The winner held up a half eaten sausage roll, and the security guy let him drive straight through.
I do know of someone who got onto the base during a base "security exercise" with something he drew up with a purple pen.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
P-A-F
2,738 US citizens perished on 9th September 2001 in the terrrorist attacks. As did 10 Australians. As did 67 UK citizens.
At the opposite end of the square to the US Embassy in Grosvenor Square (in London) is a memorial to those UK citizens that died in those attacks. A very sobering experience. As is the site of the WTC itself.
I think it reasonable to use the term 9/11 under the circumstances.
"yanks" and a bad teeth "smiley"?
It's not big and it most certainly is not clever. Just like gaining access to a military base without ID.
Before you ask, no, I am not American.
A poor show, Mr P-A-F.
2,738 US citizens perished on 9th September 2001 in the terrrorist attacks. As did 10 Australians. As did 67 UK citizens.
At the opposite end of the square to the US Embassy in Grosvenor Square (in London) is a memorial to those UK citizens that died in those attacks. A very sobering experience. As is the site of the WTC itself.
I think it reasonable to use the term 9/11 under the circumstances.
"yanks" and a bad teeth "smiley"?
It's not big and it most certainly is not clever. Just like gaining access to a military base without ID.
Before you ask, no, I am not American.
A poor show, Mr P-A-F.
While not wishing to denigrate the innocent victims of terrorism around the world...
The numbers that perished in the WTC attacks pale into insignificance with the numbers killed/murdered on the roads in the USA every year (42 815 in 2002: so 15 x WTC attacks the following year!)
This does not detract from the idiotic US habit of putting the month before the day - WHY WHY WHY!!
It makes so much more sense build the date sequentially. When writing financial data, do you state tens, units, hundreds? - or the other way round?
Points to ponder....
The numbers that perished in the WTC attacks pale into insignificance with the numbers killed/murdered on the roads in the USA every year (42 815 in 2002: so 15 x WTC attacks the following year!)
This does not detract from the idiotic US habit of putting the month before the day - WHY WHY WHY!!
It makes so much more sense build the date sequentially. When writing financial data, do you state tens, units, hundreds? - or the other way round?
Points to ponder....
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
TR - Severe thread drift, sorry, however:
For decades, I was the first to castigate the US for being blinkered. Now I see it from the other side, too, and things are much clearer. Your post reminded me of that. Why is stating the month not "sequential"? I'd venture to suggest that it's because it is not what you are used to. Within any given year, the month is more significant than the day. Up to the 28th, there are 12 of each date. It is sequential, just not in the sequence that seems familiar.
Equally, on these computer thingies, files named by date will list sequentially, if named with month first, not date.
On the same lines, a piece of 4x2 timber is a 2x4 here. A 7x5 photo is a 5x7. Just different. Not better, not worse.
I just took exception to P-A-F's implicit condemnation of the US, in the context of September 11th, 2001.
Back to ID Cards. I divorced my wife. Problem solved.
For decades, I was the first to castigate the US for being blinkered. Now I see it from the other side, too, and things are much clearer. Your post reminded me of that. Why is stating the month not "sequential"? I'd venture to suggest that it's because it is not what you are used to. Within any given year, the month is more significant than the day. Up to the 28th, there are 12 of each date. It is sequential, just not in the sequence that seems familiar.
Equally, on these computer thingies, files named by date will list sequentially, if named with month first, not date.
On the same lines, a piece of 4x2 timber is a 2x4 here. A 7x5 photo is a 5x7. Just different. Not better, not worse.
I just took exception to P-A-F's implicit condemnation of the US, in the context of September 11th, 2001.
Back to ID Cards. I divorced my wife. Problem solved.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the opposite end of the scale, I have just got married.
Wife is ex-RAF and never wants to see another ID card! She is so busy she never 'pops in' to see me anyway (thank God
). Things might be different if we lived in MQs though.
Wife is ex-RAF and never wants to see another ID card! She is so busy she never 'pops in' to see me anyway (thank God
). Things might be different if we lived in MQs though.
Jeeeeeeezzz.
One of the things I truly hate about the forces today is the number of people with fcuk all else to do but worry about the definition of certain words and then justify it with 'I find it offensive'. 
One of the things I truly hate about the forces today is the number of people with fcuk all else to do but worry about the definition of certain words and then justify it with 'I find it offensive'.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2,738 US citizens perished on 9th September 2001 in the terrrorist attacks. As did 10 Australians. As did 67 UK citizens.
So you took exception to "Yankee" and me pointing out that the US and Australia refer to dates differently??
ok... Yankee definition:
A native or inhabitant of New England.
A native or inhabitant of a northern U.S. state, especially a Union soldier during the Civil War.
A native or inhabitant of the United States
A native or inhabitant of a northern U.S. state, especially a Union soldier during the Civil War.
A native or inhabitant of the United States
If I wished to denigrate (which I don't, I lived in the US and my g/f is American) there are much better terms to use.
I'd venture to suggest that it's because it is not what you are used to. Within any given year, the month is more significant than the day.
You assume because I refer to 9/11 as 11/9 I denigrate the US??? How about this smiley then:
Say it as is spoken: "Pre 11th September". Do you take exception to the US teaching me in High School that WW2 was 1941-1945??? The assumption would be that the massive number of deaths pre Pearl-Harbour were not part of WWII
I really think you've taken a small literary issue to an extreme.
It's not big and it most certainly is not clever. Just like gaining access to a military base without ID.
I just took exception to P-A-F's implicit condemnation of the US, in the context of September 11th, 2001.
Last edited by Pass-A-Frozo; 2nd Jun 2006 at 11:07.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I got out of bed the wrong side this morning. I'm sorry.
I've become ambidextrous with dates and measurements, other views of history etc.
I'll try and be less grumpy tomorrow. I promise.
I've become ambidextrous with dates and measurements, other views of history etc.
I'll try and be less grumpy tomorrow. I promise.
No worries. <group hug>
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 1,360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now I find that statement highly offensive, Roadster, you bl@@dy homophobe
A guy offers you a "team" hug and you jump to the conlcusion that he wants to slip you a crippler as opposed to an innocent apologetic hug. This sort of gender specific behaviour has no place in the modern RAF and is a slap in the face to all gay/bi sexual/in touch with their feminine side guys and you should be ashamed of yourself
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol indeuced
A guy offers you a "team" hug and you jump to the conlcusion that he wants to slip you a crippler as opposed to an innocent apologetic hug. This sort of gender specific behaviour has no place in the modern RAF and is a slap in the face to all gay/bi sexual/in touch with their feminine side guys and you should be ashamed of yourself
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol indeuced