Red Arrows - toxic culture
The following users liked this post:
At least some poor sods have got a modicum of justice. The Postmaster in a neighbouring village did jail time and lost his livelihood. Folk said thay could not believe his peculations. They were right. A life and marriage ruined by arrogant VSOs of the PO. Yes, parallels indeed.
The silence is deafening
I thought I would take a peek at this thread to get a temperature check about how we, as a Service, are reflecting on the Sky programme and on the headlines which preceded it.
I have to say the response has seemed to be rather muted within the wider public - I only just picked up on the programme some days later. It doesn’t look like this is generating any interest…
It is heartening to see a robust, considered and thoughtful debate in this thread. I am slightly concerned that there has not been more discussion/perspective from those close to the Service beyond this thread. I get that this story is perhaps not something one would wish to give oxygen to but it does seem like everyone is hunkering down, and hoping that it will all just blow over.
Apart from one retired VSO, I have seen no commentary on this latest episode in the Reds story/saga from any who might be expected to provide an informed view. Lord knows there are enough retired RAF VSO quick to offer an opinion on most subjects and people with “previous Red X” in their LinkedIn profile to be able to provide some context/comparison on their experiences in the squadron? There must have been a turning point where the culture shifted?
I know it’s a very difficult subject but unless those with perceived credibility call it out and say this behaviour was unacceptable, that it did not reflect the culture (Eclat) of the Reds, that this did not reflect their experiences, and that this was a toxic anomaly, brought about by a few individuals, then people may sadly conclude that this episode simply reflected a longstanding culture of
impunity that eventually caught up with the squadron when people called it out?
Perhaps this is a naive expectation - it is simply seen as bad form and disloyal to our mates and our Service to discuss this but it does feel like we could do more as “bystanders” (albeit most of us are one step removed).
Will read how this debate progresses with interest.
I have to say the response has seemed to be rather muted within the wider public - I only just picked up on the programme some days later. It doesn’t look like this is generating any interest…
It is heartening to see a robust, considered and thoughtful debate in this thread. I am slightly concerned that there has not been more discussion/perspective from those close to the Service beyond this thread. I get that this story is perhaps not something one would wish to give oxygen to but it does seem like everyone is hunkering down, and hoping that it will all just blow over.
Apart from one retired VSO, I have seen no commentary on this latest episode in the Reds story/saga from any who might be expected to provide an informed view. Lord knows there are enough retired RAF VSO quick to offer an opinion on most subjects and people with “previous Red X” in their LinkedIn profile to be able to provide some context/comparison on their experiences in the squadron? There must have been a turning point where the culture shifted?
I know it’s a very difficult subject but unless those with perceived credibility call it out and say this behaviour was unacceptable, that it did not reflect the culture (Eclat) of the Reds, that this did not reflect their experiences, and that this was a toxic anomaly, brought about by a few individuals, then people may sadly conclude that this episode simply reflected a longstanding culture of
impunity that eventually caught up with the squadron when people called it out?
Perhaps this is a naive expectation - it is simply seen as bad form and disloyal to our mates and our Service to discuss this but it does feel like we could do more as “bystanders” (albeit most of us are one step removed).
Will read how this debate progresses with interest.
Not that that is a bad thing, but it strikes me (just an observation) that young women joining up now, and this came across in the interviews, want to be regarded by their male colleagues as blokes as well, this was not quite case say 30 and more years ago. It might also explain why there are adverse reactions to any approaches from male colleagues on a more personal level. FB
Originally Posted by Downsizer
Ultimately IMHO this instance fails the service test as every flying Sqn I've ever been on the (and my) CoC ends with the Wing Commander, so I fail to see how a married Wing Commander sleeping with a Cpl passes the service test. Further with the Boss setting the example of openly having an affair with a subordinate it would set the atmosphere of what behaviour is acceptable.
Moving fleets was no better as a Sqn Exec was doing the rounds of the female cabin crew [SAC/Cpl] and the superior was known to be active where he shouldn't. Both were promoted with this as common knowledge.
I remember, on a course about 15 years ago, the main topic at the "Fireside chats" was why the VSO's would not release the AP1, the document entitled RAF Ethos, Core Values and Standards. It was on hold for years. I presume it has been published now. As far as I am concerned, after spending more than 60% of my life in the RAF, the lived Core Values and Standards in some parts of the Service have never changed.
PALLAS ATHENA
pallas_athena,
Welcome to pprune.
Care to let us know what newspaper you work for?
Either way, this whole debacle is all sorted now as the RAF Inclusion Training Team has just received a commendation in the latest new years honours list.
Phew!
Welcome to pprune.
Care to let us know what newspaper you work for?
Either way, this whole debacle is all sorted now as the RAF Inclusion Training Team has just received a commendation in the latest new years honours list.
Phew!
I thought I would take a peek at this thread to get a temperature check about how we, as a Service, are reflecting on the Sky programme and on the headlines which preceded it.
I have to say the response has seemed to be rather muted within the wider public - I only just picked up on the programme some days later. It doesn’t look like this is generating any interest…
It is heartening to see a robust, considered and thoughtful debate in this thread. I am slightly concerned that there has not been more discussion/perspective from those close to the Service beyond this thread. I get that this story is perhaps not something one would wish to give oxygen to but it does seem like everyone is hunkering down, and hoping that it will all just blow over.
Apart from one retired VSO, I have seen no commentary on this latest episode in the Reds story/saga from any who might be expected to provide an informed view. Lord knows there are enough retired RAF VSO quick to offer an opinion on most subjects and people with “previous Red X” in their LinkedIn profile to be able to provide some context/comparison on their experiences in the squadron? There must have been a turning point where the culture shifted?
I know it’s a very difficult subject but unless those with perceived credibility call it out and say this behaviour was unacceptable, that it did not reflect the culture (Eclat) of the Reds, that this did not reflect their experiences, and that this was a toxic anomaly, brought about by a few individuals, then people may sadly conclude that this episode simply reflected a longstanding culture of
impunity that eventually caught up with the squadron when people called it out?
Perhaps this is a naive expectation - it is simply seen as bad form and disloyal to our mates and our Service to discuss this but it does feel like we could do more as “bystanders” (albeit most of us are one step removed).
Will read how this debate progresses with interest.
I have to say the response has seemed to be rather muted within the wider public - I only just picked up on the programme some days later. It doesn’t look like this is generating any interest…
It is heartening to see a robust, considered and thoughtful debate in this thread. I am slightly concerned that there has not been more discussion/perspective from those close to the Service beyond this thread. I get that this story is perhaps not something one would wish to give oxygen to but it does seem like everyone is hunkering down, and hoping that it will all just blow over.
Apart from one retired VSO, I have seen no commentary on this latest episode in the Reds story/saga from any who might be expected to provide an informed view. Lord knows there are enough retired RAF VSO quick to offer an opinion on most subjects and people with “previous Red X” in their LinkedIn profile to be able to provide some context/comparison on their experiences in the squadron? There must have been a turning point where the culture shifted?
I know it’s a very difficult subject but unless those with perceived credibility call it out and say this behaviour was unacceptable, that it did not reflect the culture (Eclat) of the Reds, that this did not reflect their experiences, and that this was a toxic anomaly, brought about by a few individuals, then people may sadly conclude that this episode simply reflected a longstanding culture of
impunity that eventually caught up with the squadron when people called it out?
Perhaps this is a naive expectation - it is simply seen as bad form and disloyal to our mates and our Service to discuss this but it does feel like we could do more as “bystanders” (albeit most of us are one step removed).
Will read how this debate progresses with interest.
You want to stop this kind of thing? Then go back to a segregated force.
Boys and girls will be boys and girls. The married men involved in this should be ashamed of themselves, of course. The single men don't really have a case to answer and the underlaying theme of your contribution seems to be an attack on heterosexual men doing what they have always done. Please note that no criminal charges have been laid against these men.
You want to stop this kind of thing? Then go back to a segregated force.
You want to stop this kind of thing? Then go back to a segregated force.
The following users liked this post:
The aspect of the programme that made me jump was the Red in the Bed reconstruction. Sky News' legal eagles must have been all over that for a long time, and felt very sure.
I wonder if some feel aggrieved at the different treatment of others? Driving that wedge in, and the obvious lies from MoD in response to Sky, could do more damage than the programme. Trust is already lost, and many will be looking to CAS to respond to this.'It's all been dealt with and is water under the bridge' ain't good enough. There's a honking great dam downstream, and it's about to burst on you.
I'm left thinking Sky are sitting on much more and a follow-up is coming. (As mooted earlier). And with the BBC having announced a 30th anniversary 2-parter about Mull of Kintyre.... The investigations on that one are nowhere near complete. And then there's the Jon Bayliss case, with a retired Air Marshal coming forward to call BS on MoD's claims (lies) in court. 2024 could be an awkward year for the RAF.
I wonder if some feel aggrieved at the different treatment of others? Driving that wedge in, and the obvious lies from MoD in response to Sky, could do more damage than the programme. Trust is already lost, and many will be looking to CAS to respond to this.'It's all been dealt with and is water under the bridge' ain't good enough. There's a honking great dam downstream, and it's about to burst on you.
I'm left thinking Sky are sitting on much more and a follow-up is coming. (As mooted earlier). And with the BBC having announced a 30th anniversary 2-parter about Mull of Kintyre.... The investigations on that one are nowhere near complete. And then there's the Jon Bayliss case, with a retired Air Marshal coming forward to call BS on MoD's claims (lies) in court. 2024 could be an awkward year for the RAF.
Boys and girls will be boys and girls. The married men involved in this should be ashamed of themselves, of course. The single men don't really have a case to answer and the underlaying theme of your contribution seems to be an attack on heterosexual men doing what they have always done. Please note that no criminal charges have been laid against these men.
You want to stop this kind of thing? Then go back to a segregated force.
You want to stop this kind of thing? Then go back to a segregated force.
There seems to be a below average amount of morality and plain honour on this particular unit, which goes back some way. Probably down to Selection, Alcohol culture, empire protection and lack of effective external oversight.
Married men sleeping with their staff? as pointed out - no excuses.
Single men repeatedly pestering females and sending late night messages begging for ***? Perhaps not illegal or uncommon, but it is pathetic for someone who's supposed to try and portray an image of honour and excellence.
As a result of female aircrew arriving on the sqn, my Sqn boss was known by all to be sleeping with a Flt Lt.
CG
The following users liked this post:
I'm not so sure.
There seems to be a below average amount of morality and plain honour on this particular unit, which goes back some way. Probably down to Selection, Alcohol culture, empire protection and lack of effective external oversight.
Married men sleeping with their staff? as pointed out - no excuses.
Single men repeatedly pestering females and sending late night messages begging for ***? Perhaps not illegal or uncommon, but it is pathetic for someone who's supposed to try and portray an image of honour and excellence.
There seems to be a below average amount of morality and plain honour on this particular unit, which goes back some way. Probably down to Selection, Alcohol culture, empire protection and lack of effective external oversight.
Married men sleeping with their staff? as pointed out - no excuses.
Single men repeatedly pestering females and sending late night messages begging for ***? Perhaps not illegal or uncommon, but it is pathetic for someone who's supposed to try and portray an image of honour and excellence.
I have retired now but would not be surprised if we are still using the same D&I training module that has been used for decades - with the obvious multiple choice answers and the clearly incorrect options.
Just to be clear, are you saying women shouldn't be in the military?
The following 2 users liked this post by alfred_the_great:
Join Date: Dec 2023
Location: Earth
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not so sure.
There seems to be a below average amount of morality and plain honour on this particular unit, which goes back some way. Probably down to Selection, Alcohol culture, empire protection and lack of effective external oversight.
Married men sleeping with their staff? as pointed out - no excuses.
Single men repeatedly pestering females and sending late night messages begging for ***? Perhaps not illegal or uncommon, but it is pathetic for someone who's supposed to try and portray an image of honour and excellence.
There seems to be a below average amount of morality and plain honour on this particular unit, which goes back some way. Probably down to Selection, Alcohol culture, empire protection and lack of effective external oversight.
Married men sleeping with their staff? as pointed out - no excuses.
Single men repeatedly pestering females and sending late night messages begging for ***? Perhaps not illegal or uncommon, but it is pathetic for someone who's supposed to try and portray an image of honour and excellence.
perhaps it wasn’t just married men sleeping with women and couldve also been married women sleeping with men.