Gay recruitment drive by RAF
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Just down the road from ISK
Posts: 328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At least, once the non-hetrosexual cadre is promoted to positions of power, everyone would have a chance to sleep with the boss to further ones own career - it wouldn't be limited to the ladies!!
Three,
Just promise me the traditional call for a game of Uckers will not change!
Just promise me the traditional call for a game of Uckers will not change!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: inside the train looking onto the platform.
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only reason for it is because retention and recruiting are in such a state. I dont care what a persons, gender, proclivity, religion or race is/are; all I want is someone able bodied with integrity who can do the job they are employed to do and is prepared when the chips are down to go that little bit further. If CAS wants to sit at a dinner party with other service chiefs and say that we too are jumping on the band wagon then thats up to him; I would say he has been poorly advised and is wasting money that is needed elsewhere. MOD giving moneyto Stonewall - the mind boggles and I think it does Homosexuals a diservice - the people we want are intelligent enough to make the decision themselves.
I'm with the swinging monkey - CAS, Sir put the money where we need it supporting the front line or into infrastructure, God knows we need it.
I'm with the swinging monkey - CAS, Sir put the money where we need it supporting the front line or into infrastructure, God knows we need it.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many of the estimated 35,000 Scots personnel in the Armed Forces have fought – and in some cases been killed – in Iraq and Afghanistan but, according to Stanedyke, few if any serving Scots troops feel confident enough to declare their nationality publicly.
What a load of a£$e!
I do not know of any fellow Scots who do not feel able to declare their nationality, and I am sure the Welsh and Irish are the same.
Without going into numbers, I would also say that if there are 35,000 Scots in the Armed Forces, that figure is well above the average, so why the need to give large amounts of money to stanedyke?
Y_G
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 146 Likes
on
28 Posts
Y-G. Check your 'humour identification' software, you might find that whole post was none too serious! The idea of a Scotsman keeping quiet about his nationality....!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having just finished watching Brig. Mel Jamieson's quite excellent last Tattoo on the telly, I fear my bid for Stanedyke's bit of the 'equality industry' pie may well be bu88ered. Although, if we wait until Gay Gordon takes over, I may just be able to sell the Scots as a downtrodden military minority.
I recall dancing lessons for young Scots officers always used to transit to mess rugby, the signal being when someone tried to swing Mel into the ante-room fire, he being CoS at Crazyhall at the time. Happy days!
I recall dancing lessons for young Scots officers always used to transit to mess rugby, the signal being when someone tried to swing Mel into the ante-room fire, he being CoS at Crazyhall at the time. Happy days!
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I served nearly 13 years in the RAF and never once met a single homosexual or anyone I thought might be one. It is absolute rubbish to say there are 12,000 homosexuals in the armed forces - a fantasy created by sexually messed-up people to justify their own position. Homosexual practices were universally shunned and no male I met felt comfortable around them. As an airline pilot I now work daily with homosexuals, and indeed can go for days at a time before I meet a hetrosexual cabin crew member. I have never once been rude to them and would never dream of doing so. Many of these guys are nice blokes who are kind, thoughtful and considerate. Nonetheless, I am unashamedly of the view that homosexuality is perverse, immoral, unattractive and just plain wrong.
I would not have felt comfortable on a fast jet squadron around, for example, two of my squadron mates doing unspeakable things with each other - whether publicly or in private. During the Gulf War I spent night and day for 3 months with the same bloke who I shared everything from flying missions into Iraq, meals, showers, letters home, laughter and sadness. I simply could not have done that had he been a homosexual. Many men do not like homosexuality and are repulsed by the thought of sexual acts with another man. What has been wrong for thousands of years has not suddenly become right. That, folks, is normality whatever our politically correct Lords and masters may wish to tell us.
If you want a fighting force of primarily hard-nosed young men and women who will fight and die on behalf of the country then you surround them people who they are at one with. However much Stonewall and other pro-gay organisations may be upset by this, ordinary blokes do not want to be sharing intimate moments with homosexuals - they never have and never will. By insisting you have homosexuals everywhere, you will destroy the fabric of the fighting community and the time you will find that out is when you most need that fabric to be in place.
I would not have felt comfortable on a fast jet squadron around, for example, two of my squadron mates doing unspeakable things with each other - whether publicly or in private. During the Gulf War I spent night and day for 3 months with the same bloke who I shared everything from flying missions into Iraq, meals, showers, letters home, laughter and sadness. I simply could not have done that had he been a homosexual. Many men do not like homosexuality and are repulsed by the thought of sexual acts with another man. What has been wrong for thousands of years has not suddenly become right. That, folks, is normality whatever our politically correct Lords and masters may wish to tell us.
If you want a fighting force of primarily hard-nosed young men and women who will fight and die on behalf of the country then you surround them people who they are at one with. However much Stonewall and other pro-gay organisations may be upset by this, ordinary blokes do not want to be sharing intimate moments with homosexuals - they never have and never will. By insisting you have homosexuals everywhere, you will destroy the fabric of the fighting community and the time you will find that out is when you most need that fabric to be in place.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist
I don't think you're the one that's confused. This must be a record for PPRuNE: We got through 50 posts on a gay topic before our first lady who doth protest too much reared her ugly head.
Do us all a favour, Billy: Keep your shower fantasies and 'intimate moments' to yourself!
I don't think you're the one that's confused. This must be a record for PPRuNE: We got through 50 posts on a gay topic before our first lady who doth protest too much reared her ugly head.
Do us all a favour, Billy: Keep your shower fantasies and 'intimate moments' to yourself!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done Billy - that must rate as one of the most hilarious postings I've ever seen on Pprune!
First-off, I have to ask how on earth you know that you served for 13 years in the RAF and never met a homosexual? Apart from the fact that this would (by anybody's judsgement) be utterly impossible, I wonder how you expected to identify us homos? Were badges required?
As for homosexual practises being universally shunned, I fear that this universaily applied only to the darker regions of your confused brain. Like any other aspect of life there were (and of course are) lots of gay men in the RAF and I'm sure they were happily doing whatever they did back then, regardless of your rather blinkered assumptions to the contrary.
There's only one point in your comments that I could possibly agree with, and that's the number of serving men who are (or at least identify themselves as) homosexual. It probably is much, much lower than 12,000. Looking at your comments, you don't need much intelligence to work-out why.
Equally comical is your nonsense about sharing your life for three months with another bloke in the Gulf. I'm not quite sure what difference you imagine sharing it with a homo would entail (and of course this assumes that your friend wasn't a homo - I imagine he wouldn't have been falling over himself to tell you if he was, judging by your attitude). What exactly do you imagine in your over-active mind? Would he have been applying make-up? Would he have tried to cop a feel once the lights went out (dream on!) or were you worried he might wake up wearing sequins?
I agree that many (well, I guess "some" would be more accurate) men are repulsed by the thought of sexual acts with another man. Conversely, lots of gay men are equally repulsed at the thought of relations with a person of the opposite sex. You see, that's what "gay" means; it's not about tv-esque Julian Clary figures or some bizarre sexual act which probably only takes place in your imagination. It's simply a person who happens to be attracted to a person of the same sex. That's it - nothing more exciting and scary than that. Everything else is purely a symptom of your tv, media and religion-fuelled imagination, sir.
As for your definitions of what might be determined to be "wrong", I guess this depends on your religious beliefs, if you happen to have any. But even if you have you're on thin ice. Without starting to quote chapters from Matthew and so on, you'll be aware that even the Bible is just as ambivolent about homosexuality as society in general. The problem is that the Church heroically manages to dodge this fact but then, as we know, our lives would be much happier (and lots of servicemen would still be alive) if the poison, hatred and outright lies of the Church weren't around.
You see, you spectacularly miss the point; it's not about insisting that homosexuals are everywhere. They already are and they always have been, and always will be. It's about trying to teach bigots such as yourself to understand that gay people are just as "normal" as you are, and it is you that has some sort of psychological problem which prevents you from dealing with this fact. It's not surprising to note that truly normal, well-adjusted straight men have absolutely no problem or even any interest in another man's sexual preference. They're capable of getting on with their lives (and in this case jobs) without feeling the need to even question such insignificant matters. You have to ask yourself, why on earth does someone's sexual preference interest you?
However, I accept that I'm probably wasting my time even replying, as a bigot doesn't listen to reason, almost by definition. I think the only positive comment I could make is to be thankful that views such as yours have become so out-of-date and comically absurd that nobody with even an ounce of intelligence takes them seriously any more. As various people have already commented on this thread, the RAF needs people who can do the job and any sane individual would be glad to have a faggot by his side if he was the guy who could do the job better than anyone else. If you feel differently then I have to tell you that you are (thank heavens) a member of a very, very small minority of people. Let's hope the minority keeps shrinking.
First-off, I have to ask how on earth you know that you served for 13 years in the RAF and never met a homosexual? Apart from the fact that this would (by anybody's judsgement) be utterly impossible, I wonder how you expected to identify us homos? Were badges required?
As for homosexual practises being universally shunned, I fear that this universaily applied only to the darker regions of your confused brain. Like any other aspect of life there were (and of course are) lots of gay men in the RAF and I'm sure they were happily doing whatever they did back then, regardless of your rather blinkered assumptions to the contrary.
There's only one point in your comments that I could possibly agree with, and that's the number of serving men who are (or at least identify themselves as) homosexual. It probably is much, much lower than 12,000. Looking at your comments, you don't need much intelligence to work-out why.
Equally comical is your nonsense about sharing your life for three months with another bloke in the Gulf. I'm not quite sure what difference you imagine sharing it with a homo would entail (and of course this assumes that your friend wasn't a homo - I imagine he wouldn't have been falling over himself to tell you if he was, judging by your attitude). What exactly do you imagine in your over-active mind? Would he have been applying make-up? Would he have tried to cop a feel once the lights went out (dream on!) or were you worried he might wake up wearing sequins?
I agree that many (well, I guess "some" would be more accurate) men are repulsed by the thought of sexual acts with another man. Conversely, lots of gay men are equally repulsed at the thought of relations with a person of the opposite sex. You see, that's what "gay" means; it's not about tv-esque Julian Clary figures or some bizarre sexual act which probably only takes place in your imagination. It's simply a person who happens to be attracted to a person of the same sex. That's it - nothing more exciting and scary than that. Everything else is purely a symptom of your tv, media and religion-fuelled imagination, sir.
As for your definitions of what might be determined to be "wrong", I guess this depends on your religious beliefs, if you happen to have any. But even if you have you're on thin ice. Without starting to quote chapters from Matthew and so on, you'll be aware that even the Bible is just as ambivolent about homosexuality as society in general. The problem is that the Church heroically manages to dodge this fact but then, as we know, our lives would be much happier (and lots of servicemen would still be alive) if the poison, hatred and outright lies of the Church weren't around.
You see, you spectacularly miss the point; it's not about insisting that homosexuals are everywhere. They already are and they always have been, and always will be. It's about trying to teach bigots such as yourself to understand that gay people are just as "normal" as you are, and it is you that has some sort of psychological problem which prevents you from dealing with this fact. It's not surprising to note that truly normal, well-adjusted straight men have absolutely no problem or even any interest in another man's sexual preference. They're capable of getting on with their lives (and in this case jobs) without feeling the need to even question such insignificant matters. You have to ask yourself, why on earth does someone's sexual preference interest you?
However, I accept that I'm probably wasting my time even replying, as a bigot doesn't listen to reason, almost by definition. I think the only positive comment I could make is to be thankful that views such as yours have become so out-of-date and comically absurd that nobody with even an ounce of intelligence takes them seriously any more. As various people have already commented on this thread, the RAF needs people who can do the job and any sane individual would be glad to have a faggot by his side if he was the guy who could do the job better than anyone else. If you feel differently then I have to tell you that you are (thank heavens) a member of a very, very small minority of people. Let's hope the minority keeps shrinking.
Last edited by Tim McLelland; 2nd Jan 2007 at 21:29.
Nixor ut Ledo
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: In a Beaut of a State
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you want a fighting force of primarily hard-nosed young men and women who will fight and die on behalf of the country
A number of ancient sources have reported on Alexander's attachments to both males and females. While the object of his affection may have varied, he was admired for treating all his lovers humanely. Plutarch has argued that Alexander's love of males took an ethical approach, inspired by the teachings of his mentor, Aristotle. He gives several examples of Alexander's morality in this domain:
When Philoxenus, the leader of the seashore, wrote to Alexander that there was a youth in Ionia whose beauty has yet to be seen and asked him in a letter if he (Alexander) would like him (the boy) to be sent over, he (Alexander) responded in a strict and disgusted manner: "You are the most hideous and malign of all men, have you ever seen me involved in such dirty work that you found the urge to flatter me with such hedonistic business?"
When Philoxenus, the leader of the seashore, wrote to Alexander that there was a youth in Ionia whose beauty has yet to be seen and asked him in a letter if he (Alexander) would like him (the boy) to be sent over, he (Alexander) responded in a strict and disgusted manner: "You are the most hideous and malign of all men, have you ever seen me involved in such dirty work that you found the urge to flatter me with such hedonistic business?"
I knew that some of the blokes that I worked with in the RAF were gay but so long as they were doing their job effectively I couldn't have cared less whether they were gay, had 4 ears, were coloured green or what the hell.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By all accounts you could also nominate Field Marshall Montgomery, who liked to do his "we're fighting men of steel, we'll have no poofs here" stance, whilst pursuing a distinctly different lifestyle in his private life. So unless anyone's up for suggesting that Monty was actually a crap Field Marshall...
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few quotes from the MOD Accounts report 05 - 06
"3. The MoD’s performance against its force readiness targets has deteriorated in recent quarters on account of the current level of operational deployments. In the circumstances this is understandable. Over 30% of units are showing serious or critical weaknesses against both their peacetime readiness levels and their ability to generate from peacetime readiness to immediate readiness for deployment. This gives us cause for concern. (Paragraph 16)
4. We remain concerned at the availability of serviceable battlefield helicopters, especially support helicopters, in Iraq and Afghanistan. We welcome the MoD’s response that the potential use of private lease helicopters would remain under consideration. In Afghanistan the MoD should first press NATO partners to provide additional helicopter support. (Paragraph 24)
19. We are very disappointed by the MoD’s poor performance against its diversity targets. The UK Armed Services should reflect the people it serves and despite years of good intentions, the MoD has failed to achieve this. In addition the MoD seems to have little grasp of the reasons behind its failure to recruit black and ethnic minorities in sufficient numbers. We look to the MoD to give the issue of black and ethnic minority recruitment greater priority and recommend that it conduct research into why the Royal Navy and RAF in particular are failing to recruit sufficient numbers of ethnic minorities. We also recommend that the MoD learns from the experience of other organisations such as the Police who have increased their intake of ethnic minority personnel over recent years. (Paragraph 74)
20. Recent increases in the number of women entering the Services are welcome, and we accept that it will take time for this to impact on the number of women in senior ranks. The MoD should monitor the situation closely to ensure that there are no barriers to the career progression of able Servicewomen. We recommend that in future the MoD include in the Annual Report a table giving statistics for women in the Armed Forces by Service and by rank. (Paragraph 77)"
These are the conclusions and recommendations from this report, obviously much more to it than these four paragraphs. The impression it left me with from these paragraphs is that more emphasis is placed on reaching "Diversity targets" than providing and maintaining proper up to date equipment and having sufficient amounts of that equipment available at home to train on before deploying to the sandy places.
I don't care who fills a vacant post, recruiting should be for the best person no matter what sexual orientation, colour or creed for that job. However I do object to groups such as the Black Police Officers Association. Just think of the outcry if there was a White Police Officers Association. Or if there was a Hetrosexual organisation campaigning for Hetrosexual rights. I am sure many have heard comments about the White Hetrosexual Male being the most disadvantaged employee, well in my opinion there is an element of truth to this. I do not care about EO or PC, I believe in common decency and respect for all, no matter age, sex or colour.
This is more Blair Bulls**t and the same thing is probably happening in all government departments. New Labour certainly won't be getting my vote next time!!!
"3. The MoD’s performance against its force readiness targets has deteriorated in recent quarters on account of the current level of operational deployments. In the circumstances this is understandable. Over 30% of units are showing serious or critical weaknesses against both their peacetime readiness levels and their ability to generate from peacetime readiness to immediate readiness for deployment. This gives us cause for concern. (Paragraph 16)
4. We remain concerned at the availability of serviceable battlefield helicopters, especially support helicopters, in Iraq and Afghanistan. We welcome the MoD’s response that the potential use of private lease helicopters would remain under consideration. In Afghanistan the MoD should first press NATO partners to provide additional helicopter support. (Paragraph 24)
19. We are very disappointed by the MoD’s poor performance against its diversity targets. The UK Armed Services should reflect the people it serves and despite years of good intentions, the MoD has failed to achieve this. In addition the MoD seems to have little grasp of the reasons behind its failure to recruit black and ethnic minorities in sufficient numbers. We look to the MoD to give the issue of black and ethnic minority recruitment greater priority and recommend that it conduct research into why the Royal Navy and RAF in particular are failing to recruit sufficient numbers of ethnic minorities. We also recommend that the MoD learns from the experience of other organisations such as the Police who have increased their intake of ethnic minority personnel over recent years. (Paragraph 74)
20. Recent increases in the number of women entering the Services are welcome, and we accept that it will take time for this to impact on the number of women in senior ranks. The MoD should monitor the situation closely to ensure that there are no barriers to the career progression of able Servicewomen. We recommend that in future the MoD include in the Annual Report a table giving statistics for women in the Armed Forces by Service and by rank. (Paragraph 77)"
These are the conclusions and recommendations from this report, obviously much more to it than these four paragraphs. The impression it left me with from these paragraphs is that more emphasis is placed on reaching "Diversity targets" than providing and maintaining proper up to date equipment and having sufficient amounts of that equipment available at home to train on before deploying to the sandy places.
I don't care who fills a vacant post, recruiting should be for the best person no matter what sexual orientation, colour or creed for that job. However I do object to groups such as the Black Police Officers Association. Just think of the outcry if there was a White Police Officers Association. Or if there was a Hetrosexual organisation campaigning for Hetrosexual rights. I am sure many have heard comments about the White Hetrosexual Male being the most disadvantaged employee, well in my opinion there is an element of truth to this. I do not care about EO or PC, I believe in common decency and respect for all, no matter age, sex or colour.
This is more Blair Bulls**t and the same thing is probably happening in all government departments. New Labour certainly won't be getting my vote next time!!!
Whilst being firmly of the female prefering persuasion (Mrs M does look good in webbing ), I couldn't care less whether the people I work with are straight, gay, greedy (bi) or just plane deviants (Noo Labour disciples) as long as they can do the job. But I do object to having this sort of politically correct nonsense rammed down my throat when it is something that works only in one direction - surely it amounts to some sort of institutional harrassment?
When I was at uni, my UAS was banned from setting up a recruiting stall inside university premises at freshers because the LGB Club complained about the military's then attitude towards recruiting homosexuals and the Student Union bent over forwards to accommodate them.
Queue much muttering and chuntering from us because we were being denied ready access to the tons of young and impressionably totty floating around the place that fine warm summer weekend. One of the guys then hit up on an interesting idea that would have resulted in the entire UAS membership joining the LGB Club, possibly with the assistance of the OTC. When we tried to do that, there was hell to pay (not from the Boss who throught it was hilarious) but from the LGBs themselves. Admittedly, had the plan worked, we would have probably changed the Club's constitution by forming one big majority bloc, but that was by-the-by.
It appears that little has changed and that an overly-PC vociferous minority are trying to enforce their views on a majority that has little interest in their lifestyle choices, whilst refusing to acknowledge the other point of view
When I was at uni, my UAS was banned from setting up a recruiting stall inside university premises at freshers because the LGB Club complained about the military's then attitude towards recruiting homosexuals and the Student Union bent over forwards to accommodate them.
Queue much muttering and chuntering from us because we were being denied ready access to the tons of young and impressionably totty floating around the place that fine warm summer weekend. One of the guys then hit up on an interesting idea that would have resulted in the entire UAS membership joining the LGB Club, possibly with the assistance of the OTC. When we tried to do that, there was hell to pay (not from the Boss who throught it was hilarious) but from the LGBs themselves. Admittedly, had the plan worked, we would have probably changed the Club's constitution by forming one big majority bloc, but that was by-the-by.
It appears that little has changed and that an overly-PC vociferous minority are trying to enforce their views on a majority that has little interest in their lifestyle choices, whilst refusing to acknowledge the other point of view
Last edited by Melchett01; 2nd Jan 2007 at 23:21.