£190K
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: England
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Enough of the childish comments
Jackonicko,
Do you approach your journalistic subjects with the same degree of prejudice and malice? If so your writing is not worth a jot.
I realise this is an (almost) anything goes anonymous forum, but I for one would prefer you to keep your caveman-like, offensive opinions on this subject to yourself.
VP
On a personal basis I have little sympathy for deviants and perverts who think that their 'abomination' is compatible with military service,
shirtlifters/rug munchers
I realise this is an (almost) anything goes anonymous forum, but I for one would prefer you to keep your caveman-like, offensive opinions on this subject to yourself.
VP
Funnily enough, on a robust internet forum, where insult and banter flies thick and fast, and where exaggerating for 'comic' effect is commonplace, I do write rather differently ......
There is a serious underlying point, however. I would, in all seriousness, admit to a complete lack of understanding of homosexuality, whose practises I find even the thought of as being utterly repellent. I guess that means that I have a degree of homophobia, and that by the standards of the day, I'm a little illiberal and bigoted. My point is that even someone with old-fashioned, traditional and even bigoted views about homosexuals would recognise the right of any minority group to protection from bullying and harassment.
However, simply stating one's belief in such people's right to protection/compensation would lead some to write one off as a 'right on' liberal hippy gay rights-supporting type, who would be bound to support any oppressed minority. Whereas, by stating one's fundamental lack of sympathy ...... ("Even someone who calls them an abomination would want them to be protected...")
And while I would have to agree that using terms like 'shirt-lifter' is childish and undeniably insensitive, there are many who genuinely believe that homosexuality is an 'abomination' (I believe that's from the bible) and that homosexuals are deviant and/or perverts. Their opinion (when stated using such straightforward factual terms) is no less valid than the opinion of the more politically correct who would loudly push homosexuality as being merely an equally valid alternative lifestyle choice. Words like abomination and deviant are not (or should not be viewed as) pejorative, though I would accept that they are judgemental, and that they may cause offence. I'm offended by people telling me that I have to view homosexuality as being 'normal', 'acceptable' and 'healthy'.
It's certainly valid to have a personal belief that homosexuality is still incompatible with military service (though an individual holding such a belief would have to accept that the democratically elected government, and the hierarchy of the forces, have decided otherwise), whether you happen to agree with that point of view or not.
There is a serious underlying point, however. I would, in all seriousness, admit to a complete lack of understanding of homosexuality, whose practises I find even the thought of as being utterly repellent. I guess that means that I have a degree of homophobia, and that by the standards of the day, I'm a little illiberal and bigoted. My point is that even someone with old-fashioned, traditional and even bigoted views about homosexuals would recognise the right of any minority group to protection from bullying and harassment.
However, simply stating one's belief in such people's right to protection/compensation would lead some to write one off as a 'right on' liberal hippy gay rights-supporting type, who would be bound to support any oppressed minority. Whereas, by stating one's fundamental lack of sympathy ...... ("Even someone who calls them an abomination would want them to be protected...")
And while I would have to agree that using terms like 'shirt-lifter' is childish and undeniably insensitive, there are many who genuinely believe that homosexuality is an 'abomination' (I believe that's from the bible) and that homosexuals are deviant and/or perverts. Their opinion (when stated using such straightforward factual terms) is no less valid than the opinion of the more politically correct who would loudly push homosexuality as being merely an equally valid alternative lifestyle choice. Words like abomination and deviant are not (or should not be viewed as) pejorative, though I would accept that they are judgemental, and that they may cause offence. I'm offended by people telling me that I have to view homosexuality as being 'normal', 'acceptable' and 'healthy'.
It's certainly valid to have a personal belief that homosexuality is still incompatible with military service (though an individual holding such a belief would have to accept that the democratically elected government, and the hierarchy of the forces, have decided otherwise), whether you happen to agree with that point of view or not.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst I think that the use of the word abomination is completely out of order, Jacko is factually correct in his use of the English language, if we're talking biologically and sociologically for the vast majority of the population!!!
deviant - a person or thing that deviates or departs markedly from the accepted norm. In the case of the armed forces you could argue that this is true!
pervert - a person whose behavior deviates from what is acceptable, especially in sexual behavior. Ditto
The really annoying thing is that this has gone all the way to the award of the same amount of money you might expect should you lose a limb whilst on ops!!! I don't know whether it is fair but it warrants discussion.
deviant - a person or thing that deviates or departs markedly from the accepted norm. In the case of the armed forces you could argue that this is true!
pervert - a person whose behavior deviates from what is acceptable, especially in sexual behavior. Ditto
The really annoying thing is that this has gone all the way to the award of the same amount of money you might expect should you lose a limb whilst on ops!!! I don't know whether it is fair but it warrants discussion.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: bored
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is, of course, no comparison. I would, however, suggest that what is obscene about all this is not the large size of this payout, but the insultingly small size of the payouts to which you refer.
It will be interesting to see the implications of the first punitary exemplary damages award against the MOD for neglecting to provide appropriate equipment to troops. Difficult to prove, but when it happens it will change considerably the politics of embarking on pointless and unwinnable wars.
Having said that, I wish I had sued the MOD after my TQ training. I bet the fat Int Corps captain who repeatedly screamed at me that my frozen willy was far too shrivelled to satisfy her was really a lezza :-)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: A home for the bewildered
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
£190K
From the Torygraph:
Hear, hear!
Is lewd abuse more traumatic than losing an arm and a leg?
By Andrew Pierce
The taxpayer is to pay £187,000 in compensation to a lesbian soldier who was subjected to lewd abuse by a stupid male colleague. I'm sure the harassment was hard on Lance Bombardier Kerry Fletcher. But what skewed system of morals awards her such a sum when Marine Ben McBean, who had his arm and leg blown off in Afghanistan, received only £161,000 in compensation?
At just 21, Marine McBean – lauded as a hero by Prince Harry when the two met this month – faces the long task of recovering from the trauma caused by the landmine that exploded underneath him.
Of course the sexual harassment of Miss Fletcher, 32, was repugnant and unacceptable (part of the award reflected the tribunal's unhappiness at the behaviour of the MoD). She was sent a text message by a sex pest sergeant that said: "I might be able to convert you." I'm sorry if her life was made hell by the idiotic behaviour of a soldier who, frankly, should be paying the compensation bill, rather than the rest of us.
Sexual bullying is as unacceptable in the Armed Forces as elsewhere. But let's get this in perspective. A woman, whose feelings were hurt but who will doubtless make a full emotional recovery, receives a payout that dwarfs the money paid to a young man, fighting for Queen and country, whose life can never be the same again.
Yet again, the scourge of political correctness has replaced common sense. I'm sure Kerry Fletcher is an admirable woman. She could demonstrate it in a compassionate way. I hope Miss Fletcher very publicly gives some of her award to one of the charities set up to help the soldiers who have been hideously injured in Afghanistan and Iraq, and who have been so disgracefully abandoned by this Government.
By Andrew Pierce
The taxpayer is to pay £187,000 in compensation to a lesbian soldier who was subjected to lewd abuse by a stupid male colleague. I'm sure the harassment was hard on Lance Bombardier Kerry Fletcher. But what skewed system of morals awards her such a sum when Marine Ben McBean, who had his arm and leg blown off in Afghanistan, received only £161,000 in compensation?
At just 21, Marine McBean – lauded as a hero by Prince Harry when the two met this month – faces the long task of recovering from the trauma caused by the landmine that exploded underneath him.
Of course the sexual harassment of Miss Fletcher, 32, was repugnant and unacceptable (part of the award reflected the tribunal's unhappiness at the behaviour of the MoD). She was sent a text message by a sex pest sergeant that said: "I might be able to convert you." I'm sorry if her life was made hell by the idiotic behaviour of a soldier who, frankly, should be paying the compensation bill, rather than the rest of us.
Sexual bullying is as unacceptable in the Armed Forces as elsewhere. But let's get this in perspective. A woman, whose feelings were hurt but who will doubtless make a full emotional recovery, receives a payout that dwarfs the money paid to a young man, fighting for Queen and country, whose life can never be the same again.
Yet again, the scourge of political correctness has replaced common sense. I'm sure Kerry Fletcher is an admirable woman. She could demonstrate it in a compassionate way. I hope Miss Fletcher very publicly gives some of her award to one of the charities set up to help the soldiers who have been hideously injured in Afghanistan and Iraq, and who have been so disgracefully abandoned by this Government.
Hear, hear!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well I got no issues with Gays or Lesbians but when they blatantly go out and join the victimisation band wagon in order to extract much money from the public purse then I do have a problem.
We all get called names and if you are a stroker you get Verbally abused , its called moulding you into an acceptable worker. If you cant take it leave , if you are gay and you have issues then leave..... Most will look for the free cash and a story
We all get called names and if you are a stroker you get Verbally abused , its called moulding you into an acceptable worker. If you cant take it leave , if you are gay and you have issues then leave..... Most will look for the free cash and a story
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On a personal basis I have little sympathy for deviants and perverts who think that their 'abomination' is compatible with military service, but since HMG has decided that gays are welcome in the Forces, then I'd recognise that (however much I might disapprove)
I would, in all seriousness, admit to a complete lack of understanding of homosexuality, whose practises I find even the thought of as being utterly repellent. I guess that means that I have a degree of homophobia ...
2. Your much-vaunted disapproval of deviants, perverts, shirt-lifters, rug-munchers and homosexuals whose practises you find even the thought of as being utterly repellent is noted. I will only comment that I have invariably found that most well-adjusted heterosexual peoples' thoughts as to matters sexual revolve around the objects of their attraction. They generally do not feel the need to broadcast to all and sundry about that which (ostensibly) repels them. Doth the lady protest too much?
3. Proone or another legal beagle can correct this if I'm wrong, but my analysis of the compensation award is:
£30,000 for solatium (injury to feelings).
£65,558 for loss of earnings and pension.
So the total compensation payout is £95,558.
The further £70K for exemplary and aggravated damages were largely incurred because of the way the MoD handled the case and victimized her after she had legitimately complained. The prats who say that she should have got nothing for earnings or pension should really sit down and think about whether they would wish to continue to work for an employer who had treated them in that manner.
4. Making comparisons with compensation for battle injuries is facile in the extreme. The case for higher compensation for injuries in commercial wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan is, to my mind, irrefutable. Whether the nation could afford same in wars of national survival such as WW2 is a different matter.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This case is reminiscent of one I heard of in the mid-90s, where women were still forced to leave the forces when pregnant. While forcing them to give up their career was undoubtedly wrong, as usual there were some who took advantage of the system to pay off their mortgage.
Said WRAF Cpl became pregnant, but didn't want the RAF to know at the time - can't remember exactly why - instead she told her sgt, who agreed to take her off 24hr and weekend duties, and instead put her in a 8-5 Mon-Fri office job that minimised her stress and suited her quite nicely. Over a few months it became an open secret that she was pregnant, with other staff pulling extra duties because she was still on strength, up until it was unavoidable that she told the RAF, and subsequently left.
About 2 years later the same ex-WRAF is in the Daily Mail in a mournful pose, having successfully sued the MoD for her mistreatment while pregnant. In summary she claimed that her sgt - the one that had helped her by covering for her and changing her job as requested - had undermined her and made her feel undervalued as a member of the team, while victimising her for being pregnant.
Kerching about £160k.
This lesbian story has the same opportunist ring to it.
Said WRAF Cpl became pregnant, but didn't want the RAF to know at the time - can't remember exactly why - instead she told her sgt, who agreed to take her off 24hr and weekend duties, and instead put her in a 8-5 Mon-Fri office job that minimised her stress and suited her quite nicely. Over a few months it became an open secret that she was pregnant, with other staff pulling extra duties because she was still on strength, up until it was unavoidable that she told the RAF, and subsequently left.
About 2 years later the same ex-WRAF is in the Daily Mail in a mournful pose, having successfully sued the MoD for her mistreatment while pregnant. In summary she claimed that her sgt - the one that had helped her by covering for her and changing her job as requested - had undermined her and made her feel undervalued as a member of the team, while victimising her for being pregnant.
Kerching about £160k.
This lesbian story has the same opportunist ring to it.
An T
1) You don't need to be in to see what is, and what isn't compatible with military service. I have family and close friends who are in, or who have served, and I've seen service life at fairly close quarters. Behaviour that is unexceptionable in civilian life (dabbling with drugs, going on strike, being a shabby, scruffy herbert, being thoroughly unpatriotic, etc.) is problematic in the serviceman.
2) You got me. The lady doth protest too much. I must be a lesbian trapped in a man's body.
3) Good point! In my view, the only contentious part of this award is the £30k for hurt feelings. Loss of earnings/pension is a direct compensation, as you say, and the rest is punitive - intended to punish the MoD for its cack-handedness. One can only hope that the lady in question will see fit to donate this portion (at least) to charity.
4) 'Commercial wars', eh? Was that what they called them in the Guardian, ya fluffy bunny!
1) You don't need to be in to see what is, and what isn't compatible with military service. I have family and close friends who are in, or who have served, and I've seen service life at fairly close quarters. Behaviour that is unexceptionable in civilian life (dabbling with drugs, going on strike, being a shabby, scruffy herbert, being thoroughly unpatriotic, etc.) is problematic in the serviceman.
2) You got me. The lady doth protest too much. I must be a lesbian trapped in a man's body.
3) Good point! In my view, the only contentious part of this award is the £30k for hurt feelings. Loss of earnings/pension is a direct compensation, as you say, and the rest is punitive - intended to punish the MoD for its cack-handedness. One can only hope that the lady in question will see fit to donate this portion (at least) to charity.
4) 'Commercial wars', eh? Was that what they called them in the Guardian, ya fluffy bunny!
Laar72
Little bit off thread but from the RAF Historical pages ...
and
So in 1990-ish technically the RAF ladies were still WRAF. But still had their legs on upside down!
Little bit off thread but from the RAF Historical pages ...
On the 1st August 1968, the WRAF adopted RAF ranking, but the salary scales did not become equivalent for some time.
In 1994 the WRAF completely merged with the RAF to become the RAF - which it has been in fact, if not in name, for some time!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the comparisons with combat injuries are irrelevant. The woman in question was quite clearly victimised and the Mod should be ashamed for it's treatment of her. She did have a form of redress and that was through the courts - she won her case and received compensation. It doesn't appear to have been her fault - she joined to serve her country not to be bullied.
Clearly members of the armed forces have died as the result of bullying in the past - should it be allowed to continue? The enemy is supposed to be on the battlefield not at work.
The forces personnel who have and are suffering from combat injuries deserve our support - it shouldn't however be from comparison to what other amounts people get for unrelated events. It should be from compassionate and sensitive evaluation of each person's needs and not pegged at a set level.
Clearly members of the armed forces have died as the result of bullying in the past - should it be allowed to continue? The enemy is supposed to be on the battlefield not at work.
The forces personnel who have and are suffering from combat injuries deserve our support - it shouldn't however be from comparison to what other amounts people get for unrelated events. It should be from compassionate and sensitive evaluation of each person's needs and not pegged at a set level.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackonicko,
You are talking out of your a
se.
Compatibility with life in the Armed Forces is not an issue for Carpet Munchers nor Jobby Jabbers... (to use language you understand)
The fact that
proves nothing... after all, in life we tend to chose firends who more often or not, share similar views on subjects.
If you were to ask every single active serviceman or woman if they cared, the vast majority wold say they couldn't give a monkeys, as long they (the gays) could do their job.
That's not to say that I agree with compensation culture, whether it be a lesbian, poof, or hetero that is allegedley bullied.
It's small minded people like you that make things such a big issue, which in turn fuels opportunity for compensation claims. The fact of the matter is, with your attitude, you'd soon have been drummed out of the services if you'd been good enough to get in the first place.
You are talking out of your a
se. Compatibility with life in the Armed Forces is not an issue for Carpet Munchers nor Jobby Jabbers... (to use language you understand)
The fact that
You don't need to be in to see what is, and what isn't compatible with military service. I have family and close friends who are in, or who have served, and I've seen service
If you were to ask every single active serviceman or woman if they cared, the vast majority wold say they couldn't give a monkeys, as long they (the gays) could do their job.
That's not to say that I agree with compensation culture, whether it be a lesbian, poof, or hetero that is allegedley bullied.
It's small minded people like you that make things such a big issue, which in turn fuels opportunity for compensation claims. The fact of the matter is, with your attitude, you'd soon have been drummed out of the services if you'd been good enough to get in the first place.
