‘Stop choosing useless white male pilots’, RAF told
Guy Gibson - Application 2022
Dear Mr Gibson,
Thank you for attending OASC for aircrew selection. Sadly I have to inform you that you did not meet the criteria we are looking for we already have enough white male pilots, despite scoring exceedingly well in all areas and with what we deemed to be potentially exceptional leadership qualities. I wish you well in whatever career path you choose and that you can enjoy a spot of schadenfreude over the coming years as those who did less well in selection struggle to master the complexities and challenges of flying training.
Yours sincerely
Dai Vercity
Gp Capt
OASC
Thank you for attending OASC for aircrew selection. Sadly I have to inform you that you did not meet the criteria we are looking for we already have enough white male pilots, despite scoring exceedingly well in all areas and with what we deemed to be potentially exceptional leadership qualities. I wish you well in whatever career path you choose and that you can enjoy a spot of schadenfreude over the coming years as those who did less well in selection struggle to master the complexities and challenges of flying training.
Yours sincerely
Dai Vercity
Gp Capt
OASC
The following users liked this post:
The guy painting the yellow and black lines was useless for sure....he was one tire off center.
The following 2 users liked this post by SASless:
It's not just the RAF but Qantas. My daughter friend passed as the DUX of the class but missed a position in Qantas because a female and an Indian got there places despite the other 2 failing the SIM aptitude test and he passed
Speaking as both a female and a British Indian, the situation you describe is completely crazy and makes me about as angry as it is possible for a person to be. This sort of thing is almost always done by completely insane people who are not part of the target demographic but who want to seem like they are doing the right thing. To be clear this is NOT doing the right thing.
The following 12 users liked this post by TheOneWhoNeverWas:
Report release on recruiting inquiry
What's happening to the Gp Capt whose resigned? Reinstated? Full compo?
What's happening to those who caused this? And those who stood back and allowed it?
Didn't think so. Shower of sh*ts.
What's happening to those who caused this? And those who stood back and allowed it?
Didn't think so. Shower of sh*ts.
The following users liked this post:
Para 5.84 of the report:
in an email to COS Pers on 8 August 2022, DLS set out the principles to be applied dependent on whether or not there were criteria by which to distinguish candidates, and concluded that "If the executive ask R&S to do this it would constitute in my view a lawful order —there is a recent case from the Courts-Martial appeal court which states that even where there is a risk civil law may be broken (and this is by no means certain here) it does not stop the activity being lawful for the purposes of an order — the legal and reputational risk is borne by the RAF and CAS —not the individuals in R&S"
This is an amazing statement - effectively the Nurenberg defence! “We vere just followink orders!”
in an email to COS Pers on 8 August 2022, DLS set out the principles to be applied dependent on whether or not there were criteria by which to distinguish candidates, and concluded that "If the executive ask R&S to do this it would constitute in my view a lawful order —there is a recent case from the Courts-Martial appeal court which states that even where there is a risk civil law may be broken (and this is by no means certain here) it does not stop the activity being lawful for the purposes of an order — the legal and reputational risk is borne by the RAF and CAS —not the individuals in R&S"
This is an amazing statement - effectively the Nurenberg defence! “We vere just followink orders!”
"One of the "bending out of shape" options discussed at that meeting was whether to create an additional 196 Personnel Operations (Pers Ops) posts in the Service above the ITR, in part because these roles were historically attractive to both female and EM candidates". It was made clear by ACOS WRR that the total cost of this would be around £11M and gaps would be created elsewhere on the front line"
WTF!
WTF!
Last edited by RAFEngO74to09; 29th Jun 2023 at 22:26.
The following users liked this post:
"R&S were told that the achievement of the EM and female ratios were the Chief of the Air Staff's (CAS) highest priority after operations" - so not fixing flying training which had been directed as #1 then.
Last edited by RAFEngO74to09; 29th Jun 2023 at 22:02.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Great Britain
Age: 51
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes
on
5 Posts
This from the Non-Statutory Investigation (NSI):
Finding the names of those that Tobias Ellwood has said, should be held to account is fairly simple:
They are listed here: https://www.raf.mod.uk/our-organisat...-appointments/
I’ve saved the effort here:
Some of their names and email addresses appear in this FOI request, that also seems to show them carrying out these despicable and illegal orders and directions: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque..._passthrough=1
Surely, Wigston should be told to go back and set the record straight as he would have appeared to have misled the House of Commons Defence Committee - he shouldn’t be allowed to hide in retirement. The 3-star DCom Cap at the time appears to be AM Turner who was suspended and what looked like being forced to resign for some alleged ‘naked gardening’, ‘naturist dog ball throwing’ and ‘showing his neighbour where he could park his bike’: https://www.witneygazette.co.uk/news...rs-spot-naked/ . This NSI revelation appears to be a further black mark on his record. But according to the Senior Appointments list COS Pers is still in post, as is ACOS WRR. At the very least, they should no longer be in post as of today and moved to other roles - or given a ‘blue letter’ as 1-star and above are given if their is no next posting.
Whilst it is really pleasing to see Sir Rich Knighton taking the NSI criticism for the Service squarely on the chin. I would expect no less from him. There is no bluff and bluster that we had grown to expect with his predecessor. However, the job is unfinished whilst the 4 named in the NSI as having made the direction to Gp Capt Nicholl have not been held to account. That must surely happen.
CPL Clott
Finding the names of those that Tobias Ellwood has said, should be held to account is fairly simple:
Tobias Ellwood, the chair of the defence select committee, said he and his colleagues would be considering whether to ask the previous chief of the air staff to correct the record after he previously denied any unlawful discrimination had taken place."I do hope that Mike Wigston, now conveniently retired, recognises how perhaps he misled parliament in coming in front of our committee and should now take this opportunity to correct the record," Mr Ellwood said.
"Discrimination was taking place and that was illegal."
He also said those responsible for the unlawful activity should be held to account.
"Discrimination was taking place and that was illegal."
He also said those responsible for the unlawful activity should be held to account.
I’ve saved the effort here:
Some of their names and email addresses appear in this FOI request, that also seems to show them carrying out these despicable and illegal orders and directions: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque..._passthrough=1
Surely, Wigston should be told to go back and set the record straight as he would have appeared to have misled the House of Commons Defence Committee - he shouldn’t be allowed to hide in retirement. The 3-star DCom Cap at the time appears to be AM Turner who was suspended and what looked like being forced to resign for some alleged ‘naked gardening’, ‘naturist dog ball throwing’ and ‘showing his neighbour where he could park his bike’: https://www.witneygazette.co.uk/news...rs-spot-naked/ . This NSI revelation appears to be a further black mark on his record. But according to the Senior Appointments list COS Pers is still in post, as is ACOS WRR. At the very least, they should no longer be in post as of today and moved to other roles - or given a ‘blue letter’ as 1-star and above are given if their is no next posting.
Whilst it is really pleasing to see Sir Rich Knighton taking the NSI criticism for the Service squarely on the chin. I would expect no less from him. There is no bluff and bluster that we had grown to expect with his predecessor. However, the job is unfinished whilst the 4 named in the NSI as having made the direction to Gp Capt Nicholl have not been held to account. That must surely happen.
CPL Clott
The following 5 users liked this post by Corporal Clott:
The NSI is not a police enquiry or court of law. Nevertheless, the RAF has admitted it conducted an illegal act.
Saying things like, it wasn't intentional, it wasn't appreciated it was illegal is irrelevant. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
So who is to be held accountable for a breach of law? Does the RAF expect to get away with "we're sorry and it won't happen again", while the instigators of this action slip quietly away with their reputations and pensions intact?
Saying things like, it wasn't intentional, it wasn't appreciated it was illegal is irrelevant. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
So who is to be held accountable for a breach of law? Does the RAF expect to get away with "we're sorry and it won't happen again", while the instigators of this action slip quietly away with their reputations and pensions intact?
To my mind this whole thing has done huge damage to the organisation, morale and image of the Royal Air Force. Here is hoping Sir Richard Knighton can start to put things right,
Para 5.84 of the report:
in an email to COS Pers on 8 August 2022, DLS set out the principles to be applied dependent on whether or not there were criteria by which to distinguish candidates, and concluded that "If the executive ask R&S to do this it would constitute in my view a lawful order —there is a recent case from the Courts-Martial appeal court which states that even where there is a risk civil law may be broken (and this is by no means certain here) it does not stop the activity being lawful for the purposes of an order — the legal and reputational risk is borne by the RAF and CAS —not the individuals in R&S"
This is an amazing statement - effectively the Nurenberg defence! “We vere just followink orders!”
in an email to COS Pers on 8 August 2022, DLS set out the principles to be applied dependent on whether or not there were criteria by which to distinguish candidates, and concluded that "If the executive ask R&S to do this it would constitute in my view a lawful order —there is a recent case from the Courts-Martial appeal court which states that even where there is a risk civil law may be broken (and this is by no means certain here) it does not stop the activity being lawful for the purposes of an order — the legal and reputational risk is borne by the RAF and CAS —not the individuals in R&S"
This is an amazing statement - effectively the Nurenberg defence! “We vere just followink orders!”
If you take that into the ROE sphere, as Red Line Entry notes, ordering someone to use force outwith the ROE profile would not be described as 'lawful for the purposes of giving an order'. If you comply with that order, knowing it to be unlawful, your act is itself unlawful. When Sgt Fool orders Cpl Knuckles to take Gunner Smith behind the hangar and give him some percussive counselling which then occurs, both commit an offence. Etc.
It is worth noting that the DLS email came around the time that the good Gp Capt had pulled the handle; could you construe this as an attempt to justify the advice her own team had given previously, or is it just marking one's own homework?
The following users liked this post: