Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Not-so-woke Reds

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Not-so-woke Reds

Old 22nd Oct 2022, 21:59
  #181 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Baston
Posts: 3,336
Received 807 Likes on 276 Posts
Originally Posted by Haraka
And a self deprecating sense of humour?
An Astrophysicist I worked with once pointed out to me that if you just predicted that today's weather would be the same as yesterday's, you would have an 80% chance of being correct.
Apparently a significantly higher percentage than that achieved by Meteorologists
Your astrophysicist was on another planet. If you are a British taxpayer, rejoice. You have the best Met. service in the world, forecasting for the most difficult. [Actually Falklands is worse].
My duties included an annual inspection of each office and a meeting with the station commander or OC Ops. At a time of cuts cuts cuts not one of them were willing to lose instant access to dedicated Met. We must have been doing something right, and progress since then [mid 1990s] has been staggering.

"When I'm right, no one remembers, when I'm wrong no one forgets"
langleybaston is online now  
Old 23rd Oct 2022, 09:37
  #182 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Fresno
Age: 74
Posts: 290
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
General Thomas Power of Strategic Air Command observed at one briefing that, “at the end of the war, if there are two Americans and one Russian left alive, we win!” The RAND Corporation’s Professor William Kaufmann replied "Well, you'd better make sure that they're a man and a woman". I honestly think that there are some people (many but not all of the LGBTQ++ camp) who would genuinely feel that Professor Kaufmann's riposte could be construed as homophobic.
Thud105 is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2022, 01:45
  #183 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 6,064
Received 559 Likes on 261 Posts
You're being homophobic Thud , seems you missed some, lgbtqia+, gotta be inclusive I'm told, personally I wouldn't have had a clue, had to look it up.
.
megan is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2022, 19:30
  #184 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Baston
Posts: 3,336
Received 807 Likes on 276 Posts
Originally Posted by Thud105
General Thomas Power of Strategic Air Command observed at one briefing that, “at the end of the war, if there are two Americans and one Russian left alive, we win!” The RAND Corporation’s Professor William Kaufmann replied "Well, you'd better make sure that they're a man and a woman". I honestly think that there are some people (many but not all of the LGBTQ++ camp) who would genuinely feel that Professor Kaufmann's riposte could be construed as homophobic.
That was the Russian, batting for the other team.
langleybaston is online now  
Old 9th Nov 2022, 06:11
  #185 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Lincs
Posts: 24
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
Looks like Flt Lt Green will be looking for a new job.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...legations.html
mad_collie is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2022, 09:27
  #186 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: W. Scotland
Posts: 662
Received 66 Likes on 31 Posts
I'm a little disturbed over this. Setting to one side for a moment the allegations, it does smack of "let's have another go and find him guilty this time". What effect will it have on those who said there was "insufficient evidence" first time around? What of the allegations that pressure was applied on those affected to shut up? That surely is a worse offence. Would a proper investigation reveal full knowledge of what was going on among higher ups? What a mess.
dervish is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2022, 09:58
  #187 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Charlie Mike
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by dervish
I'm a little disturbed over this. Setting to one side for a moment the allegations, it does smack of "let's have another go and find him guilty this time". What effect will it have on those who said there was "insufficient evidence" first time around? What of the allegations that pressure was applied on those affected to shut up? That surely is a worse offence. Would a proper investigation reveal full knowledge of what was going on among higher ups? What a mess.
No idea what went on previously but it would be perfectly reasonable to decide not to progress criminally, based on insufficient evidence then subseqently conduct a non-statutory enquiry which resulted in his dismissal. The former has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt whereas the latter could be concluded on the balance of probability. Seems a likely scenario when it is someones word against another.

Last edited by CharlieMike; 9th Nov 2022 at 10:11.
CharlieMike is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2022, 11:15
  #188 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Here n there.
Posts: 905
Received 9 Likes on 3 Posts
Plenty of work for him via a South African Trg Company..who might supply pilots for Instructional duties North of Hong Kong....
Hueymeister is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2022, 13:52
  #189 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: where-ever nav's chooses....
Posts: 835
Received 46 Likes on 26 Posts
Originally Posted by dervish
I'm a little disturbed over this. Setting to one side for a moment the allegations, it does smack of "let's have another go and find him guilty this time". What effect will it have on those who said there was "insufficient evidence" first time around? What of the allegations that pressure was applied on those affected to shut up? That surely is a worse offence. Would a proper investigation reveal full knowledge of what was going on among higher ups? What a mess.
it is a curious mindset that says “it wasn’t criminal, therefore we can’t sack him”…
alfred_the_great is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2022, 14:00
  #190 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Baston
Posts: 3,336
Received 807 Likes on 276 Posts
Originally Posted by alfred_the_great
it is a curious mindset that says “it wasn’t criminal, therefore we can’t sack him”…
Sorry I cannot agree. Sacking can be for a variety of legitimate causes, with criminality top of a long scale.
langleybaston is online now  
Old 9th Nov 2022, 14:17
  #191 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: A far distant land
Posts: 100
Received 34 Likes on 6 Posts
Is he going to hand back his Ping golf clubs, Breitling watch and Barbour coat then?
Big Unit Specialist is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2022, 14:44
  #192 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: liverpool uk
Age: 67
Posts: 1,339
Received 16 Likes on 5 Posts
It would be an interesting case to bring before an employment tribunal?
air pig is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2022, 15:01
  #193 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,867
Received 156 Likes on 72 Posts
Originally Posted by langleybaston
Sorry I cannot agree. Sacking can be for a variety of legitimate causes, with criminality top of a long scale.
Indeed. It took me a long time to adminatratively remove one of my airmen, whose only offence was uselessness. But that route always exists ... DSNLR.
MPN11 is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2022, 16:09
  #194 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: W. Scotland
Posts: 662
Received 66 Likes on 31 Posts
Originally Posted by CharlieMike
No idea what went on previously but it would be perfectly reasonable to decide not to progress criminally, based on insufficient evidence then subseqently conduct a non-statutory enquiry which resulted in his dismissal. The former has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt whereas the latter could be concluded on the balance of probability. Seems a likely scenario when it is someones word against another.
Thanks CM. I didn't fully appreciate that subtlety.
dervish is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2022, 21:47
  #195 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Location: Up Narf
Posts: 467
Received 241 Likes on 136 Posts
Originally Posted by dervish
Thanks CM. I didn't fully appreciate that subtlety.
One can be sacked from a civilian company for gross misconduct that is not criminal. Isn't bringing the service into disrepute still a Kings Regulation? ( I had to think then!)
Diff Tail Shim is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2022, 22:41
  #196 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Richard Burtonville, South Wales.
Posts: 2,349
Received 109 Likes on 64 Posts
Originally Posted by Diff Tail Shim
One can be sacked from a civilian company for gross misconduct that is not criminal. Isn't bringing the service into disrepute still a Kings Regulation? ( I had to think then!)
Section 69? (We can always find a way to get you.)

CG
charliegolf is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2022, 22:50
  #197 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Grid ref confused
Age: 63
Posts: 898
Received 25 Likes on 16 Posts
Originally Posted by Diff Tail Shim
One can be sacked from a civilian company for gross misconduct that is not criminal. Isn't bringing the service into disrepute still a Kings Regulation? ( I had to think then!)
Non-criminal conduct (disciplinary) offences (manual of service law)

CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO GOOD ORDER AND SERVICE DISCIPLINE CONTRARY TO SECTION 19(1) OF THE ARMED FORCES ACT 2006

https://assets.publishing.service.go...ct-AL42-v1.pdf

God, I remember well the arm ache of Marching from No 1 Mess to Whittle hall with a kit bag full of QRs and MAFL ( Even if we rarely used them!), along with everything else needed for the day!
The catch-all that covers anything else not covered in KRs It was a different section number (CG has it correct) before 2006, but the intent remains the same.
cynicalint is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2022, 00:14
  #198 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Nevada, USA
Posts: 1,664
Received 75 Likes on 46 Posts
Air Marshal Richard Knighton - now DCOM Capability & People (RAF) - giving evidence to HCDC 8 Nov 22:

From 11:13:07 here:

Change in policy wef 19 Nov 22: those who have committed sexual harassment will be removed from the Service.

AFB decided on Green after the investigation was concluded.

Another case will be considered by the AFB when the investigation is complete.


https://parliamentlive.tv/event/inde...a-976d73d7e5aa
RAFEngO74to09 is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2022, 08:03
  #199 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Overseas
Posts: 453
Received 13 Likes on 7 Posts
Judging from what I've heard from some of the team, this was long overdue. It's about to get worse too.
LateArmLive is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2022, 09:02
  #200 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Baston
Posts: 3,336
Received 807 Likes on 276 Posts
Originally Posted by RAFEngO74to09
Air Marshal Richard Knighton - now DCOM Capability & People (RAF) - giving evidence to HCDC 8 Nov 22:

From 11:13:07 here:

Change in policy wef 19 Nov 22: those who have committed sexual harassment will be removed from the Service.

AFB decided on Green after the investigation was concluded.

Another case will be considered by the AFB when the investigation is complete.


https://parliamentlive.tv/event/inde...a-976d73d7e5aa
Whereas I am totally opposed to sexual harassment [indeed any harassment] this is a very difficult area, particularly if there are no third party witnesses or written or texting evidence.
We can quickly be in an area where malicious accusations can wreck someone's career and life: male or female.
That is not to say don't try, but I am glad that I have nothing to do in the matter. I only had one case to deal with, the female complaining. Under the urgent circumstances I had the good sense to bring a trusted female colleague into the office to observe and note.
Can of worms
langleybaston is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.