Red Arrows - toxic culture
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Manchester
Posts: 891
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have never forget my RAF PV interview back in the 80s
“Airman, Do you like porn”?
Me “I’m a twenty year old single guy, what do you think !”
”Airman, do you find men attractive ?
Me “Am I required to do so ?”
”Airman, you are not taking this seriously are you ?”
“No sir !!”
I couldn’t resist, needless to say I didn’t advance much further in my RAF career !
“Airman, Do you like porn”?
Me “I’m a twenty year old single guy, what do you think !”
”Airman, do you find men attractive ?
Me “Am I required to do so ?”
”Airman, you are not taking this seriously are you ?”
“No sir !!”
I couldn’t resist, needless to say I didn’t advance much further in my RAF career !
PV top up:
what sexual activity do you consider deviant?
Anything I wouldn't do!
what sexual activity do you consider deviant?
Anything I wouldn't do!
Absolutely not :-) Given the tone of what was being said ref mixed units I incorrectly assumed that this theme would have carried on. I had a friend who was gay before the rules changed to allow it. His experience was markedly different. Terror that he would be found out and forced to leave. The sexual experiences were certainly not full of thrill or excitement.
I would say however, going back on topic, that (I’m pretty sure) all of the instances of sexual harassment were male on female and, despite some seriously misogynistic views, this is not down to having mixed units. Sometimes ar**holes are gonna be ar**holes.
In addition, having recently received a brief by the unit formerly known as SIB, well over 90% of sexual harassment cases involved alcohol.
I would say however, going back on topic, that (I’m pretty sure) all of the instances of sexual harassment were male on female and, despite some seriously misogynistic views, this is not down to having mixed units. Sometimes ar**holes are gonna be ar**holes.
In addition, having recently received a brief by the unit formerly known as SIB, well over 90% of sexual harassment cases involved alcohol.
Last edited by Toadstool; 31st Dec 2023 at 05:20.
The following users liked this post:
Join Date: Dec 2023
Location: Earth
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely not :-) Given the tone of what was being said ref mixed units I incorrectly assumed that this theme would have carried on. I had a friend who was gay before the rules changed to allow it. His experience was markedly different. Terror that he would be found out and forced to leave. The sexual experiences were certainly not full of thrill or excitement.
I would say however, going back on topic, that (I’m pretty sure) all of the instances of sexual harassment were male on female and, despite some seriously misogynistic views, this is not down to having mixed units. Sometimes ar**holes are gonna be ar**holes.
In addition, having recently received a brief by the unit formerly known as SIB, well over 90% of sexual harassment cases involved alcohol.
I would say however, going back on topic, that (I’m pretty sure) all of the instances of sexual harassment were male on female and, despite some seriously misogynistic views, this is not down to having mixed units. Sometimes ar**holes are gonna be ar**holes.
In addition, having recently received a brief by the unit formerly known as SIB, well over 90% of sexual harassment cases involved alcohol.
I think there is a wider cultural shift at play here and I think we all need to brace ourselves for more of the same.
Having been involved in phase 1, 2 and 3 training/education during my career, I noticed a change in the attitude of the new generation of personnel over the span of 2 decades. There is a far greater willingness to call out poor behaviour - something that I certainly would not have considered doing (and did not do) when I first joined up.
A few years ago, I remember a group of trainees coming straight to me as the boss to highlight comments made by their instructor which they saw as unacceptable. I remember my first instinct was to think “who do you lot think you are?” But. I reflected that they were doing exactly what was expected of them - they had to bypass some of the command chain because that was the source of their complaint.
We train our people about having moral courage, speaking truth to power, (more recently) being an active bystander and the importance of upholding standards and ethos, so they are only doing what we have trained them to do. This sets high expectations which may not be met if they are then posted into a toxic pocket with no other frame of reference than their previous phase 1/2 training environment (I note that one of the individuals in this example was a holding officer, so this must have been a baptism of fire into the wider RAF).
So how did we get to the point where there was a documentary made? It goes back again to expectations about moral courage and speaking truth to power. When the individuals highlighted to the CoC that this was happening they had an expectation that it would be acted upon. When it wasn’t they went up and outside the command chain. Again, honestly reflecting - I am not sure I would have had the courage to raise such an issue with an Air Commodore, as happened in this case. I was more of the “put up or shut up” generation.
I am not sure how wise it was to go outside the RAF and involve the media (a point that Baggers has made) but the well publicised stats on distrust of the Service Complaint system mean that going outside the RAF will likely continue until that trust is improved.
I am hoping that the media will move on and let the squadron settle and reset in peace. I note that the Navy has yet to report on issues within the submarine fleet so I am sure the eye of Sauron will soon point elsewhere.
Having been involved in phase 1, 2 and 3 training/education during my career, I noticed a change in the attitude of the new generation of personnel over the span of 2 decades. There is a far greater willingness to call out poor behaviour - something that I certainly would not have considered doing (and did not do) when I first joined up.
A few years ago, I remember a group of trainees coming straight to me as the boss to highlight comments made by their instructor which they saw as unacceptable. I remember my first instinct was to think “who do you lot think you are?” But. I reflected that they were doing exactly what was expected of them - they had to bypass some of the command chain because that was the source of their complaint.
We train our people about having moral courage, speaking truth to power, (more recently) being an active bystander and the importance of upholding standards and ethos, so they are only doing what we have trained them to do. This sets high expectations which may not be met if they are then posted into a toxic pocket with no other frame of reference than their previous phase 1/2 training environment (I note that one of the individuals in this example was a holding officer, so this must have been a baptism of fire into the wider RAF).
So how did we get to the point where there was a documentary made? It goes back again to expectations about moral courage and speaking truth to power. When the individuals highlighted to the CoC that this was happening they had an expectation that it would be acted upon. When it wasn’t they went up and outside the command chain. Again, honestly reflecting - I am not sure I would have had the courage to raise such an issue with an Air Commodore, as happened in this case. I was more of the “put up or shut up” generation.
I am not sure how wise it was to go outside the RAF and involve the media (a point that Baggers has made) but the well publicised stats on distrust of the Service Complaint system mean that going outside the RAF will likely continue until that trust is improved.
I am hoping that the media will move on and let the squadron settle and reset in peace. I note that the Navy has yet to report on issues within the submarine fleet so I am sure the eye of Sauron will soon point elsewhere.
The following 8 users liked this post by Pallas_Athena:
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The 24th & a Half Century
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
7 Posts
The comment about the Service complaint system is well founded. I endured a Gp Capt marking a Gp Capt’s own conduct several years ago, the complaint ended my career and the individuals involved made sure all knew that I was ‘trouble’ to the system.
As for the Reds, only time will tell and I sincerely hope things will change with new leadership, supervision, and accountability. I wish the new team all the best. Personally, I’d be more worried about the continued state of the orphan Hawk T1 fleet and the significant £££ safety bill coming due.
As for the Reds, only time will tell and I sincerely hope things will change with new leadership, supervision, and accountability. I wish the new team all the best. Personally, I’d be more worried about the continued state of the orphan Hawk T1 fleet and the significant £££ safety bill coming due.
The following 2 users liked this post by DuckDodgers:
BBMF - uniform
Then you'd have to do the same to BBMF, who to the best of my knowledge, have not suffered the same issues? Why should they lose their identity for the actions of RAFAT personnel?
The difference is that one organisation is all about the mission and not about elitism. The other is all about a select group and absolutely all about elitism. Which one had the issues?
The difference is that one organisation is all about the mission and not about elitism. The other is all about a select group and absolutely all about elitism. Which one had the issues?
My post was in response to your #11, and also #12. The display flying suits and badges ARE uniform. As we all know they aim to promote identity, generate unit pride and dangle a carrot to prospective volunteers.
My point was that by taking away the Red/Blue of RAFAT to facilitate improvement in their behaviours and standards (and prick the bubble of separateness elitism...), you would have to apply the same rule to those other teams (BBMF, Typhoon, Chinook) whose behaviours and standards have NOT been brought into question. Losing their little bit of public identity due to RAFAT's actions wouldn't be a positive move, so on the whole I'd contend such a move would be counter-productive.
Clothing wasn't the reason for the culture. Egocentricity was.
Pr00ne, thank you.
My point was that by taking away the Red/Blue of RAFAT to facilitate improvement in their behaviours and standards (and prick the bubble of separateness elitism...), you would have to apply the same rule to those other teams (BBMF, Typhoon, Chinook) whose behaviours and standards have NOT been brought into question. Losing their little bit of public identity due to RAFAT's actions wouldn't be a positive move, so on the whole I'd contend such a move would be counter-productive.
Clothing wasn't the reason for the culture. Egocentricity was.
Pr00ne, thank you.
RAFAT and BBMF are elements of the same Display Wing facing the same public! Two public dress policies would be ridiculous and also go against the idea of standardisation-one reason why Displays was set up!!
We begin to drift....
The following users liked this post:
