£190K
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: neither here nor there
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
£190K
I'm all for equality.......but £190K????? I'm a lesbian too
BBC NEWS | England | West Yorkshire | MoD must pay gay soldier £190,000
BBC NEWS | England | West Yorkshire | MoD must pay gay soldier £190,000
"This is as severe a case of victimisation following an allegation of sexual harassment as one could see in an employment tribunal.
"The claimant was subjected to a sustained campaign of victimisation over a lengthy period.
"The victimisation extended to imposition of disciplinary sanctions, impinging the claimants mental stability and obstructing her transfer to a more suitable posting."
The MoD has been ordered to pay £30,000 in respect of "injury to feelings", £20,000 for "aggravated damages" and £50,000 for "exemplary damages".
A further £65,558 was ordered to be paid in respect of lost earning and pension entitlement.
I have no understanding of what kind of 'injury to feelings' would warrant a £30,000 payout. 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) they must be accorded protection against bullying, harrassment and victimisation.
The villain of this piece is the pratt who could not keep his distaste for this woman to himself, and instead bullied her to a degree that attracted this kind of extreme penalty, and those in the chain of command who failed to address or prevent it.
"The claimant was subjected to a sustained campaign of victimisation over a lengthy period.
"The victimisation extended to imposition of disciplinary sanctions, impinging the claimants mental stability and obstructing her transfer to a more suitable posting."
The MoD has been ordered to pay £30,000 in respect of "injury to feelings", £20,000 for "aggravated damages" and £50,000 for "exemplary damages".
A further £65,558 was ordered to be paid in respect of lost earning and pension entitlement.
I have no understanding of what kind of 'injury to feelings' would warrant a £30,000 payout. 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) they must be accorded protection against bullying, harrassment and victimisation.
The villain of this piece is the pratt who could not keep his distaste for this woman to himself, and instead bullied her to a degree that attracted this kind of extreme penalty, and those in the chain of command who failed to address or prevent it.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackonico- I don't think your reading it correctly - her boss didn't have a 'distaste' for her -quite the opposite. I think in this day and age where the armed forces are supposedly fighting for human rights in the likes of Afghanistan to have attitudes from 100 years ago in the minds of a few is tragic.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
Live with it........... This is chicken feed to the money that the Social Security is paying out every day. Most people know this figure is high, but if you look into it, you would be appalled. At least she has a reason for claiming. PS, I do not agree with 'liberal' views, but I hate workshy incapacity faking scum even more.......
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: england
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The MOD didn't allow women to join the RAF, Army or RN until 1994. The MOD didn't let women who were pregnant stay in the Armed Forces until the mid 90's when they lost some expensive legal battles. The MOD discharged gays/lesbians in the military until approx 2000 when they lost another legal battle. Now at the drop of a hat the MOD expects military personnel to treat women, gays and lesbians with respect, after years of the MOD treating them like second class citzens. The MOD shaped the culture of the military and it isn't going to change overnight. In the interim the MOD is paying for its policies, in this particular case £190K.
I'm waiting for a claim from a female air officer because the AFB won't make her an AOC, DCINC, AMP etc. How many female air officers does the RAF have? 3 I believe, out of 130ish.... Sounds like sex discrimination to me. That bill will be larger than £190K
I'm waiting for a claim from a female air officer because the AFB won't make her an AOC, DCINC, AMP etc. How many female air officers does the RAF have? 3 I believe, out of 130ish.... Sounds like sex discrimination to me. That bill will be larger than £190K
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: bored
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have little sympathy for deviants and perverts who think that their 'abomination' is compatible with military service
CirrusF,
The point is that even an admitted homophobe (exaggerating for effect) can see a need for the rights of shirtlifters/rug munchers to be protected from bullying, if not from harsh banter.
Whether or not you view my attitude to gays as being 'distasteful' is irrelevant.
The point is that even an admitted homophobe (exaggerating for effect) can see a need for the rights of shirtlifters/rug munchers to be protected from bullying, if not from harsh banter.
Whether or not you view my attitude to gays as being 'distasteful' is irrelevant.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Nairn
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Positive Discrimination Rules
Sorry adminblunty but its bound to take time for women to progress through the ranks to the Air Rank but the RAF is trying. In our Branch the female % is around 16% but the quota of females promoted off the last 3 promotion boards have all been above 40%. So while it does take time the RAF is actively promoting females infront of males to address the correct balance. I love equal opportunities.
adminblunty.
"The MOD didn't allow women to join the RAF, Army or RN until 1994."
That statement is total BS.
You do not know what you are talking about.
"The MOD didn't allow women to join the RAF, Army or RN until 1994."
That statement is total BS.
You do not know what you are talking about.
Adminblunty,
What are you talking about? Have you never seen the film "Battle of Britain"? What uniform do you think Susannah York was wearing before she got down to her scanties?
What are you talking about? Have you never seen the film "Battle of Britain"? What uniform do you think Susannah York was wearing before she got down to her scanties?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: shrewsbury
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
She was in the uniform of the Womens Auxillary Air Force not the Royal Air Force.
This was before it became the Womens Royal Air Force and finally the RAF.
Agree she looked far better out of uniform tho.
This was before it became the Womens Royal Air Force and finally the RAF.
Agree she looked far better out of uniform tho.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 82
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The villain of this piece is the pratt who could not keep his distaste for this woman to himself, and instead bullied her to a degree that attracted this kind of extreme penalty, and those in the chain of command who failed to address or prevent it".
Jackonico is right. This was a nasty case of bullying by a SNCO of a subordinate and the unit chain of command seems to have done little to prevent or stop it. The SNCO should be CMd.
What I don't like was that the complaint is fast-tracked and given more weight because it was "sexual harassment". I am not comfortable with the sexual and racial discrimination and harassment thing. Harassment, bullying and unfair treatment are all reprehensible and should be stamped on hard. The motivation for the treatment is irrelevant. If she had been picked on because she had a posh accent or pointy ears, her treatment would have been just as indefensible.
Jackonico is right. This was a nasty case of bullying by a SNCO of a subordinate and the unit chain of command seems to have done little to prevent or stop it. The SNCO should be CMd.
What I don't like was that the complaint is fast-tracked and given more weight because it was "sexual harassment". I am not comfortable with the sexual and racial discrimination and harassment thing. Harassment, bullying and unfair treatment are all reprehensible and should be stamped on hard. The motivation for the treatment is irrelevant. If she had been picked on because she had a posh accent or pointy ears, her treatment would have been just as indefensible.
I say take the settlement out of the SNCO's wages... he's clearly a prat of the highest order.
As for the settlement, the figure doesn't strike me as amazingly high, I'm no expert but sure I've seen similar figures banded about after civilian cases similar to this
As for the settlement, the figure doesn't strike me as amazingly high, I'm no expert but sure I've seen similar figures banded about after civilian cases similar to this
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 82
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When viewed beside the figures awarded to soldiers who are maimed physically and mentally while doing their duty in action against the country's enemies, this hand-out is obscene.
Clockwork,
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 146 Likes
on
28 Posts
I have to say that I'm not entirely sure why she needs such a payout. Now that the degree of harrassment that she suffered is in the open the way should be open for her to resume her career. She is, I believe, in the final year of her engagement, but if she stayed I am sure she could enjoy meteoric promotion, who would mark her down now? Does she really need to be compensated for loss of earnings & pension when she could have those things?
Unless of course the mental scars of being pestered for sex are so deep that she's traumatised beyond ever working again, in which case she fully deserves all £190K of the defence budget/ taxpayers cash.
Sadly our nation seems to be slipping ever deeper into a 'victim society' where everything is someone else's fault and every situation can be milked for compensation. I know that the awards are not strictly comparable but the value placed on an RSI typing injury or mental scars from sexual harrassment seems to be much higher than that for being maimed on active duty.
Oh no, I think I've just injured my thumb on the spacebar.....anyone know the number of a good lawyer?
Unless of course the mental scars of being pestered for sex are so deep that she's traumatised beyond ever working again, in which case she fully deserves all £190K of the defence budget/ taxpayers cash.
Sadly our nation seems to be slipping ever deeper into a 'victim society' where everything is someone else's fault and every situation can be milked for compensation. I know that the awards are not strictly comparable but the value placed on an RSI typing injury or mental scars from sexual harrassment seems to be much higher than that for being maimed on active duty.
Oh no, I think I've just injured my thumb on the spacebar.....anyone know the number of a good lawyer?
