Can Wigston survive the onslaught?
I would be happy to discuss the merits of my point, but not someones else's.
Errr, I think you’ll find the Recruiting System at large last year was racist against white males - read the FOI link that clearly states that and what was being directed. Also, in recent years the honours lists and promotion lists do not appear to have represented, by proportion, the actual demographics of the Service. Now, you can call me all the names you like old fruit if you can’t handle the truth and it makes you feel better. 
A system that does not consider race, that selects solely on merit, is the only way to go. But then again, you have to put up with the results it gives rather than some sort of social experiment that the Wokemeisters seems to want to have.
A system that does not consider race, that selects solely on merit, is the only way to go. But then again, you have to put up with the results it gives rather than some sort of social experiment that the Wokemeisters seems to want to have.
The following 9 users liked this post by iRaven:
Most Western militaries are facing the same challenges. The reality is the traditional recruitment pool of 19 to 25 year old white males are becoming a smaller and smaller proportion of the population. In addition they have a range of career choices that are much greater than 30 years ago. In addition it is IMO important that the military broadly speaking, represents the general population.
For all those reasons militaries have to appeal to broader segment of the population. The problem is “leaders” that want instant results so they look good for their bosses. Exhibit 1 is ACM Wigston. Instead of taking a wholistic long term approach to identifying what actually works for attracting and retaining a diverse military, they game the system with quotas and other short term work arounds
The ultimate irony is the only senior officer who showed some principle and a spine was a female Group Capt who resigned rather than be complicit in this complete abdication of command authority.
For all those reasons militaries have to appeal to broader segment of the population. The problem is “leaders” that want instant results so they look good for their bosses. Exhibit 1 is ACM Wigston. Instead of taking a wholistic long term approach to identifying what actually works for attracting and retaining a diverse military, they game the system with quotas and other short term work arounds
The ultimate irony is the only senior officer who showed some principle and a spine was a female Group Capt who resigned rather than be complicit in this complete abdication of command authority.
The following users liked this post:
Latest ‘no ****, Sherlock’ moment…from the meejah machine.
Wiggy thinks Vlad is a very nasty man, and could be vindictive if he loses in Ukraine.
4FS!
Did the Air Marshall think Vlad was just going to roll over in the face of the Air Staffs self righteous inclusivity onslaught?
….And while we’re at it, how did his ‘One Priority’ of sorting out MFT go before he/him/it stepped down? I Haven't heard
Wiggy thinks Vlad is a very nasty man, and could be vindictive if he loses in Ukraine.
4FS!
Did the Air Marshall think Vlad was just going to roll over in the face of the Air Staffs self righteous inclusivity onslaught?
….And while we’re at it, how did his ‘One Priority’ of sorting out MFT go before he/him/it stepped down? I Haven't heard
The following users liked this post:
The following users liked this post:
Big Pistons Forever - spot on. The strategic impatience of wanting 40% female and 20% non-white by 2030 was exactly the problem. It was also a totally arbitrary figure too, with no apparent science behind it (probably made up with the help of the naked 3 star who seemed to have a habit of doing that). But it helped nobody, it discriminated against white men, leaving them angry and without the roles they deserved, and it left a bunch of women and non-white skinned individuals wondering if they were there because of what they looked like, rather than being any good. You can’t treat what you think is discrimination through discrimination, and you can’t fiddle the figures through discriminating against others due to their appearance.
Whilst I agree that the country’s make up by ethnic appearance is gradually changing, the other real problem is one of culture. The senior leaders that set up these ‘targets’ failed to recognise that. Sadly, we live in a society where girls still have pink bedrooms painted for them with My Little Pony in the corner - is it any wonder why 75% of UK horse riders are women, but less than 10% are general aviation pilots? Further, you need to break into the cultures from the 1st and 2nd generation immigrant communities that value roles such as Lawyers, Doctors, Business and celebrity over that of military service to your adopted country. Only when you have fixed the culture, which is not for the RAF to fix, will you stand a chance of having a military service that reflects more modern society.
Oh, on the wider matter, the Armed Forces are also systemically discriminatory in 2 other areas - age and health. Both for very good reason given the nature of the military role. Those are allowed under UK Law, but discrimination by appearance is not, as there is no valid reason to do so. But all said, systemic discrimination can be a good thing and also a bad thing. It is certainly not a term only to be banded about by enraged activists and so-called ‘snow flakes’.
Whilst I agree that the country’s make up by ethnic appearance is gradually changing, the other real problem is one of culture. The senior leaders that set up these ‘targets’ failed to recognise that. Sadly, we live in a society where girls still have pink bedrooms painted for them with My Little Pony in the corner - is it any wonder why 75% of UK horse riders are women, but less than 10% are general aviation pilots? Further, you need to break into the cultures from the 1st and 2nd generation immigrant communities that value roles such as Lawyers, Doctors, Business and celebrity over that of military service to your adopted country. Only when you have fixed the culture, which is not for the RAF to fix, will you stand a chance of having a military service that reflects more modern society.
Oh, on the wider matter, the Armed Forces are also systemically discriminatory in 2 other areas - age and health. Both for very good reason given the nature of the military role. Those are allowed under UK Law, but discrimination by appearance is not, as there is no valid reason to do so. But all said, systemic discrimination can be a good thing and also a bad thing. It is certainly not a term only to be banded about by enraged activists and so-called ‘snow flakes’.
The following 5 users liked this post by iRaven:
Big Pistons Forever - spot on. The strategic impatience of wanting 40% female and 20% non-white by 2030 was exactly the problem. It was also a totally arbitrary figure too, with no apparent science behind it (probably made up with the help of the naked 3 star who seemed to have a habit of doing that). But it helped nobody, it discriminated against white men, leaving them angry and without the roles they deserved, and it left a bunch of women and non-white skinned individuals wondering if they were there because of what they looked like, rather than being any good. You can’t treat what you think is discrimination through discrimination, and you can’t fiddle the figures through discriminating against others due to their appearance.
Whilst I agree that the country’s make up by ethnic appearance is gradually changing, the other real problem is one of culture. The senior leaders that set up these ‘targets’ failed to recognise that. Sadly, we live in a society where girls still have pink bedrooms painted for them with My Little Pony in the corner - is it any wonder why 75% of UK horse riders are women, but less than 10% are general aviation pilots? Further, you need to break into the cultures from the 1st and 2nd generation immigrant communities that value roles such as Lawyers, Doctors, Business and celebrity over that of military service to your adopted country. Only when you have fixed the culture, which is not for the RAF to fix, will you stand a chance of having a military service that reflects more modern society.
Oh, on the wider matter, the Armed Forces are also systemically discriminatory in 2 other areas - age and health. Both for very good reason given the nature of the military role. Those are allowed under UK Law, but discrimination by appearance is not, as there is no valid reason to do so. But all said, systemic discrimination can be a good thing and also a bad thing. It is certainly not a term only to be banded about by enraged activists and so-called ‘snow flakes’.
Whilst I agree that the country’s make up by ethnic appearance is gradually changing, the other real problem is one of culture. The senior leaders that set up these ‘targets’ failed to recognise that. Sadly, we live in a society where girls still have pink bedrooms painted for them with My Little Pony in the corner - is it any wonder why 75% of UK horse riders are women, but less than 10% are general aviation pilots? Further, you need to break into the cultures from the 1st and 2nd generation immigrant communities that value roles such as Lawyers, Doctors, Business and celebrity over that of military service to your adopted country. Only when you have fixed the culture, which is not for the RAF to fix, will you stand a chance of having a military service that reflects more modern society.
Oh, on the wider matter, the Armed Forces are also systemically discriminatory in 2 other areas - age and health. Both for very good reason given the nature of the military role. Those are allowed under UK Law, but discrimination by appearance is not, as there is no valid reason to do so. But all said, systemic discrimination can be a good thing and also a bad thing. It is certainly not a term only to be banded about by enraged activists and so-called ‘snow flakes’.
Be prepared for being called either a gammon, a terf or a snowflake, dinosaur etc.
The following users liked this post:
Improve the terms and conditions, improve the woeful accommodation, make a career in the military attractive again instead of purgatory, fix the flying training system and stop the senior officer career agendas blighting service peoples lives - then we might not have a recruiting problem at all and can again choose on merit rather than quota.
The following 5 users liked this post by [email protected]:
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Improve the terms and conditions, improve the woeful accommodation, make a career in the military attractive again instead of purgatory, fix the flying training system and stop the senior officer career agendas blighting service peoples lives - then we might not have a recruiting problem at all and can again choose on merit rather than quota.
The following users liked this post:
I don’t know if this has been on before, not sure where to place it.
The official statistics of the UK Regular Forces have been disclosed as of 1 January 2023, shedding light on the rank structure within the Royal Navy, Royal Marines, Army, and Royal Air Force.
The UK Regular Forces, as of 1 January 2023, comprise a total of 143,558 full-time service personnel across the Royal Navy, Royal Marines, Army, and the Royal Air Force.Officers, who comprise 28,017 of the personnel, are distributed across several ranks within each service:
- OF-9/OF-10: Total 7 (Navy/Marines: 3, Army: 3, RAF: 1)
- OF-8: Total 27 (Navy/Marines: 9, Army: 11, RAF: 7)
- OF-7: Total 97 (Navy/Marines: 26, Army: 43, RAF: 28)
- OF-6: Total 330 (Navy/Marines: 98, Army: 150, RAF: 82)
- OF-5: Total 1,104 (Navy/Marines: 280, Army: 509, RAF: 315)
- OF-4: Total 3,877 (Navy/Marines: 1,100, Army: 1,685, RAF: 1,092)
- OF-3: Total 8,078 (Navy/Marines: 1,956, Army: 4,134, RAF: 1,988)
- OF-2: Total 10,109 (Navy/Marines: 2,322, Army: 4,407, RAF: 3,380)
- OF-1/OF (D): Total 4,388 (Navy/Marines: 1,133, Army: 2,167, RAF: 1,088)
- OR-9: Total 2,832 (Navy/Marines: 683, Army: 1,255, RAF: 894)
- OR-8: Total 4,055 (Navy/Marines: 498, Army: 3,557, RAF: N/A)
- OR-7: Total 9,941 (Navy/Marines: 2,598, Army: 5,130, RAF: 2,213)
- OR-6: Total 15,946 (Navy/Marines: 3,925, Army: 7,600, RAF: 4,421)
- OR-4: Total 23,770 (Navy/Marines: 6,218, Army: 11,630, RAF: 5,922)
- OR-3: Total 12,720 (Navy/Marines: 777, Army: 11,788, RAF: 155)
- OR-1/OR-2: Total 55,277 (Navy/Marines: 11,383, Army: 23,990, RAF: 10,904)
The Royal Navy and Royal Marines consist of 33,009 personnel, the Army includes 78,059 members, and the RAF is composed of 32,490 personnel
Errr, I think you’ll find the Recruiting System at large last year was racist against white males - read the FOI link that clearly states that and what was being directed. Also, in recent years the honours lists and promotion lists do not appear to have represented, by proportion, the actual demographics of the Service. Now, you can call me all the names you like old fruit if you can’t handle the truth and it makes you feel better.
A system that does not consider race, that selects solely on merit, is the only way to go. But then again, you have to put up with the results it gives rather than some sort of social experiment that the Wokemeisters seems to want to have.
A system that does not consider race, that selects solely on merit, is the only way to go. But then again, you have to put up with the results it gives rather than some sort of social experiment that the Wokemeisters seems to want to have.
If a brave female Group Captain had not refused to carry out an illegal order then you might have a case, but she did and therefore you haven’t.
Post 412 is interesting and statistics tell a story that should always be studied carefully. Wigston's stated aim of 40% women and 20% ethnic minorities by 2030 is not and never was achievable. First, let us look at the female percentage of total strength data:
RN/Marines Army RAF
1 April 1989 (pre-end of Cold War) 3,486 (5%) 6,505 (5%) 6,299 (7%)
1 April 2022 (latest data) 3,500 (10%) 8,060 (10%) 5,130 (15%)
So, in 33 years (when the Armed Forces have more than halved in their manpower totals), each Service has doubled its proportion of females. What data supported Wigston and his team in creating an aim that added a further 25% in 10 years (ie, aim set out in 2020)? I doubt any exists.
Second, data for ethnic minorities is available from 2012 onwards:
RN/Marines Army RAF
1 April 2012 1,230 (3.5%) 10,300 (10%) 770 (2%)
1 April 2022 1,640 (5%) 11,320 (14%) 1,150 (3.5%)
Whilst the RAF data does make uncomfortable reading compared with the other Services, it also shows that Wigston's aim of 20% was never going to be achieved by 2030. Others have commented on the time it takes to engender the idea of "serving your country" and it is perfectly valid - for a recent immigrant family - to not have such immediate thoughts. And current trends are reducing the pool of those wanting to serve: 20% of the UK workforce is foreign-born and 25% of all UK schoolchildren have an immigrant mother (data from "The Spectator" of 20 May 2023).
Wigston and his dentist "Head of Personnel" were ill-informed and too PC in creating this unachieveable aim. Both should have resigned a year ago. The brave female Group Captain who stood up to this nonsense deserves a promotion and a medal (and that will not happen).
RN/Marines Army RAF
1 April 1989 (pre-end of Cold War) 3,486 (5%) 6,505 (5%) 6,299 (7%)
1 April 2022 (latest data) 3,500 (10%) 8,060 (10%) 5,130 (15%)
So, in 33 years (when the Armed Forces have more than halved in their manpower totals), each Service has doubled its proportion of females. What data supported Wigston and his team in creating an aim that added a further 25% in 10 years (ie, aim set out in 2020)? I doubt any exists.
Second, data for ethnic minorities is available from 2012 onwards:
RN/Marines Army RAF
1 April 2012 1,230 (3.5%) 10,300 (10%) 770 (2%)
1 April 2022 1,640 (5%) 11,320 (14%) 1,150 (3.5%)
Whilst the RAF data does make uncomfortable reading compared with the other Services, it also shows that Wigston's aim of 20% was never going to be achieved by 2030. Others have commented on the time it takes to engender the idea of "serving your country" and it is perfectly valid - for a recent immigrant family - to not have such immediate thoughts. And current trends are reducing the pool of those wanting to serve: 20% of the UK workforce is foreign-born and 25% of all UK schoolchildren have an immigrant mother (data from "The Spectator" of 20 May 2023).
Wigston and his dentist "Head of Personnel" were ill-informed and too PC in creating this unachieveable aim. Both should have resigned a year ago. The brave female Group Captain who stood up to this nonsense deserves a promotion and a medal (and that will not happen).
Army ethnic minority 14%, RAF 3.5%.
Did nobody in authority ask the simple question "why is the army so much more able to recruit them?
The Regiment is not large, but is the part of the RAF with the most similarities to the army [apologoes if that ruffles feathers]............ does it get anywhere near 14%, or more or less 3.5%?
If the airships did not ponder these questions they were idiots even before setting idiotic targets and vowing to discriminate against white males.
Did nobody in authority ask the simple question "why is the army so much more able to recruit them?
The Regiment is not large, but is the part of the RAF with the most similarities to the army [apologoes if that ruffles feathers]............ does it get anywhere near 14%, or more or less 3.5%?
If the airships did not ponder these questions they were idiots even before setting idiotic targets and vowing to discriminate against white males.
The following users liked this post:
415 - There has been a central ( I think CDS) push to improve, but my understanding is that Wigston/Byford pushed even harder (ie, much more than was achieveable).
416 - Cannot answer your point, but here is more detail for 1 April 2022:
RN/Marines Army RAF
Mixed Race 480 1,530 480
Asian 190 3,210 320
Black 880 5,660 280
Other 90 920 70
TOTAL 1,640 11,320 1,150
The Army does recruit significant numbers of Fijian soldiers.
416 - Cannot answer your point, but here is more detail for 1 April 2022:
RN/Marines Army RAF
Mixed Race 480 1,530 480
Asian 190 3,210 320
Black 880 5,660 280
Other 90 920 70
TOTAL 1,640 11,320 1,150
The Army does recruit significant numbers of Fijian soldiers.
The following users liked this post:
Further to 417 & 418, the number of Gurkas in the British Army is about 3,400 and the number of Fijians is about 1,300. Clearly, these two special areas of recruitment enhance the Army's diversity stats considerably.
Er, how can the recruitment at large last year be seen to be racist against white males when the recruitment figures demonstrably recruited almost exclusively white males?
If a brave female Group Captain had not refused to carry out an illegal order then you might have a case, but she did and therefore you haven’t.
If a brave female Group Captain had not refused to carry out an illegal order then you might have a case, but she did and therefore you haven’t.
If you get a certain percentage of variance (ethnicity and sex) across your applicant cadre then you expect that demographic variance to convert and maybe match the intake’s variance too. Otherwise, some sort of systemic actor has been at play to make the output look different than the input (and that system was whistleblown last year by Lizzie). Oddly enough, they ran out of so-called “BAME” (I hate that term) and females after a couple of intakes as there just weren’t the applicants (that was also reported). In fact, much of this has been reported on through various media outlets… here are another couple to go with the others:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...rsity-targets/
https://newseu.cgtn.com/news/2022-08...RjO/index.html
Now, the thing is, if I had a son with a white person’s appearance who had applied for a job that they had dreamed about for years. A young lad who had put their heart and soul into Air Cadets and aviation in general. Then they had tested to be good enough on CBAT, interviews and the hangar exercises - only to be sifted out of the running for a few places because of who they were and what they looked like - I would be bloody furious. The recruitment numbers required the past few years have been suppressed - in fact, Pilot has been closed for months and has only just opened again as mentioned in this thread this weekend: Pssssst . So with those very few places, with a systemic discriminatory policy in place, what do you think happened to those lads who may have had a better score than the “target” groups that were being recruited against? They would have been sifted out as there were no longer any places left and failed to have been recruited. The numbers being mentioned elsewhere on various forums are of those being recruited being 20-30 a year as the balance of the intake for Pilot will come from UASs and University Bursaries. So the chances of success under a system like that must have been unlikely anyway - but if you were born a boy with a pale complexion, then it was even harder thanks to the discriminatory action that has been reported since 2022 but has been in place since at least 2020 according those reports.
People should be held accountable for ruining young lives and for damaging the good reputation of a Service that has a good history of embracing diversity at a fair an reasonable pace (first black Pilot in 1918 and first woman Pilot in 1952). It really boils my p!ss that this good reputation has been damaged and no one has, yet, been held accountable.
The following 7 users liked this post by iRaven: