Not-so-woke Reds
Yes, but…
whikst every individual who conducts lower grade sexual harassment won’t escalate their behaviour, every individual who commits serious or very serious sexual crimes has started with lower grade sexual harassment.
it’s for that reason I’d suggest every lower level case should be recorded and discussed. Does this mean calling someone “love” innocuously mean a permanent record: I very much doubt it. Does it mean repeatedly and deliberately making someone feel uncomfortable results in formal action: absolutely.
whikst every individual who conducts lower grade sexual harassment won’t escalate their behaviour, every individual who commits serious or very serious sexual crimes has started with lower grade sexual harassment.
it’s for that reason I’d suggest every lower level case should be recorded and discussed. Does this mean calling someone “love” innocuously mean a permanent record: I very much doubt it. Does it mean repeatedly and deliberately making someone feel uncomfortable results in formal action: absolutely.
If the allegations against these officers are true, then it might be seen as part of a culture which for some years has encouraged the squadron to "deviate" from the norm with impunity. And those who condoned it are well known, as they confirmed they were content when interviewed (e.g.) after Sean Cunningham was killed. And while the allegations are certainly serious, is it not interesting that the RAF hierarchy deem multiple avoidable deaths as unworthy of further action? Should those cases not be pursued with the same vigour? They are certainly far more clear cut.
This.
If the allegations against these officers are true, then it might be seen as part of a culture which for some years has encouraged the squadron to "deviate" from the norm with impunity. And those who condoned it are well known, as they confirmed they were content when interviewed (e.g.) after Sean Cunningham was killed. And while the allegations are certainly serious, is it not interesting that the RAF hierarchy deem multiple avoidable deaths as unworthy of further action? Should those cases not be pursued with the same vigour? They are certainly far more clear cut.
If the allegations against these officers are true, then it might be seen as part of a culture which for some years has encouraged the squadron to "deviate" from the norm with impunity. And those who condoned it are well known, as they confirmed they were content when interviewed (e.g.) after Sean Cunningham was killed. And while the allegations are certainly serious, is it not interesting that the RAF hierarchy deem multiple avoidable deaths as unworthy of further action? Should those cases not be pursued with the same vigour? They are certainly far more clear cut.
As far as I am aware the Red Arrows have a far worse safety record than many (all) of the other jet display teams around the world?
If that is correct, then one has to ask if the lack of self discipline and "untouchable" attitude that has lead to the current accusations spills over into their attitude to flight safety?
"Depending on the future of the team given the age of the jets, the lack of an obvious alternative and the current financial situation then maybe the time has come to pull the plug entirely?"
Agreed, sad as it is.
ECLAT "brilliant display or effect" - looking at the whole, this has not been true for some time.
Three fatal accidents. Two of which show poor knowledge and discipline.
Unacceptable personal behaviour, tarnishing the public's imagine of the RAF and the team.
Is this team still a good recruiting tool? Are we still demonstrating excellence? Are we still helping UK defence sales?
Best thing is to close down the RAF aerobatic team.
Place all the personnel into RAF squadrons, where their skills will be welcomed and much needed.
Revisit the whole concept downstream - something smaller and more easily (and closely) managed perhaps.
lsh
Agreed, sad as it is.
ECLAT "brilliant display or effect" - looking at the whole, this has not been true for some time.
Three fatal accidents. Two of which show poor knowledge and discipline.
Unacceptable personal behaviour, tarnishing the public's imagine of the RAF and the team.
Is this team still a good recruiting tool? Are we still demonstrating excellence? Are we still helping UK defence sales?
Best thing is to close down the RAF aerobatic team.
Place all the personnel into RAF squadrons, where their skills will be welcomed and much needed.
Revisit the whole concept downstream - something smaller and more easily (and closely) managed perhaps.
lsh
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: England
Posts: 485
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Should a second individual be sanctioned for behaviour similar to that of Flt Lt Green, then reports about the broader culture within the team gain significant credibility, indicating a failure of leadership and oversight. Those holding positions of leadership or oversight of this unit when these events occurred must be held to account. Accountability is not demonstrated by simply dismissing the perpetrators.
Last edited by Brain Potter; 12th Nov 2022 at 20:49.
As I understand it, up to a certain point in the pre season training they will fill a gap with a past team member if a suitable person is available.
Should a second individual is sanctioned for behaviour similar to that of Flt Lt Green, then reports about the broader culture within the team gain significant credibility, indicating a failure of leadership and oversight. Those holding positions of leadership or oversight of this unit when these events occurred must be held to account. Accountability is not demonstrated by simply dismissing the perpetrators.
Worse, of course, is not dismissing a perpetrator because of the difficulty / impossibility of finding a replacement and leaving a very public gap.
Did one pilot not resign from the team this year because he was so unhappy with the "culture" of the rest? If so, then that is commendable in many ways.
Disbandment - can't speak for the pilot cadre, but how many of those engineers will want to stay in the RAF when their options for posting are realistically only Odiham, Benson and Lossiemouth? When many of them are in their own houses in the area, not a retention-positive outcome I'd suggest.
I don't think very many of us know the exact details of what's gone on. The chances are that these behavioural incidents centre on a minority rather than a majority, and if that's the case notwithstanding the PR damage the team should not be disbanded. It looks like the individuals concerned are being targeted and dealt with, as they should, and there may yet be more than than these two pilots' cases to go in front of the AFB. If not directly involved, I would still expect that the command group would be replaced for failing in their responsibilities - I would if I was there myself. There have to be consequences for their performance.
This would be the starting place for the cultural shift that has to take place, the "last chance" for the team to get its act together. They should also take the opportunity to review who has simply been there too long and have become entrenched, incapable of or resistant to change, and move them on. Those people always exist and will be well-known within the team. If what is left is able to continue operating, the game goes on. If not, then maybe it IS time for them to go. Give the decent people there a chance to fix the whole set-up, and give them quality replacements to work with - those who can walk the walk, not just talk a good job in front of senior officers.
Don't throw the team away just yet, that's the easy way out.
I don't think very many of us know the exact details of what's gone on. The chances are that these behavioural incidents centre on a minority rather than a majority, and if that's the case notwithstanding the PR damage the team should not be disbanded. It looks like the individuals concerned are being targeted and dealt with, as they should, and there may yet be more than than these two pilots' cases to go in front of the AFB. If not directly involved, I would still expect that the command group would be replaced for failing in their responsibilities - I would if I was there myself. There have to be consequences for their performance.
This would be the starting place for the cultural shift that has to take place, the "last chance" for the team to get its act together. They should also take the opportunity to review who has simply been there too long and have become entrenched, incapable of or resistant to change, and move them on. Those people always exist and will be well-known within the team. If what is left is able to continue operating, the game goes on. If not, then maybe it IS time for them to go. Give the decent people there a chance to fix the whole set-up, and give them quality replacements to work with - those who can walk the walk, not just talk a good job in front of senior officers.
Don't throw the team away just yet, that's the easy way out.
Last edited by Jobza Guddun; 12th Nov 2022 at 12:46. Reason: Clarity - many new posts after the one I'm responding to.
FB
That's quite simply put, but what about the current team, and the already selected new members? What have they done to deserve being disbanded? Is "toxic culture" just a sweeping insinuation now? That once levelled requires an extreme and hysterical reaction.
FB
Heard on R4 this pm, that from 19th Nov, there will be a presumption of dismissal for anyone investigated for, and found guilty of sexual harassment. What's shocking to me, is that until the 19th, if a person alleges rape, his or her own chain of command investigates. Even after the 19th changes, serious 'civil' crimes will continue to be dealt with by the military. But we're assured they won't cover anything up, so that's ok....
CG
CG
Especially, and I say this advisedly, as these women are serving members of the armed forces, people may like to mull over what that might mean.
FB
Ahhh Get it so because they join the military its OK for them to be sexually assaulted and raped because they are "tough" whats the cut off. Nurses who work in ER more a likely to be physically assaulted than someone in the military and I would consider it a tougher job than an average women in the military. So guess its fine to rape them. Same with female police officers. Guessing male on male rape is also fine according to your theory
In Oz the legal definition of sexual harassment includes,
unwanted invitations to go out on a date - how is a fella to make that initial contact, how in the world is he going to know its unwanted prior to the lass saying she's not interested
staring - if they are drop dead gorgeous and dress provocatively who's not going to take a look or two
requests for sex - where do I complain, have had one or two
- unwelcome touching;
- staring or leering;
- suggestive comments or jokes;
- sexually explicit pictures or posters;
- unwanted invitations to go out on dates;
- requests for sex;
- intrusive questions about a person's private life or body;
- unnecessary familiarity, such as deliberately brushing up against a person;
- insults or taunts based on sex;
- sexually explicit physical contact; and
- sexually explicit emails or SMS text messages
unwanted invitations to go out on a date - how is a fella to make that initial contact, how in the world is he going to know its unwanted prior to the lass saying she's not interested
staring - if they are drop dead gorgeous and dress provocatively who's not going to take a look or two
requests for sex - where do I complain, have had one or two
Very well, and just for the record, I'm not on a crusade to change anything, I know the score so here goes, why do we treat women as particularly vulnerable and then seek to place them in harms way (in the name of equality of course) where they will be relied upon to rely on their mettle in a life or death situation?
Men and women join the services understanding and accepting the risk to life and limb that combat entails. They do not join to be bullied, humiliated and raped by their fellows in arms. Yes, rape happens to men as well.
Your analysis, I believe, uses a false premise that women are being treated as vulnerable by feminists and yet being employed to be put in harm's way. But, that's a different argument and this is not the right venue.
Ahhh Get it so because they join the military its OK for them to be sexually assaulted and raped because they are "tough" whats the cut off. Nurses who work in ER more a likely to be physically assaulted than someone in the military and I would consider it a tougher job than an average women in the military. So guess its fine to rape them. Same with female police officers. Guessing male on male rape is also fine according to your theory
I have to say I was appalled by some of Finningley Boy's comments.
Yes, anybody joining the armed forces (or police etc) accepts that they are putting themselves in harms way from the enemy (or in the case of the police, criminals).
What they should not be is in harms way from their own colleagues, let alone superiors!
Repeated requests is the issue.
I really wonder if people are being deliberately obtuse on some of these matters.
It's really easy to not be a sex pest ffs.
Ahhh Get it so because they join the military its OK for them to be sexually assaulted and raped because they are "tough" whats the cut off. Nurses who work in ER more a likely to be physically assaulted than someone in the military and I would consider it a tougher job than an average women in the military. So guess its fine to rape them. Same with female police officers. Guessing male on male rape is also fine according to your theory
FB
