Assistance requested please
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Assistance requested please
Could anyone here point me in the right direction to find information on the pregnant WRAF decisions? I am aware of the reasoning behind the decisions arrived at and the ‘unfair contract’ that members of the WRAF were forced to sign up to. What I am looking for is at what level the decisions were made, and when the RAF changed it’s stance from ‘anti pregnant’ to warm and cuddly, caring modern Air Force. The same thing obviously happened for homosexuals as well. I am not looking for pointers to European Court decisions, they are easy enough to find, it’s what happened before at station level that intrigues me. Did one member of the WRAF take this on board by herself and campaign it through the military system and then into the civilian side, if so at what level?
Obviously I have interests involved here, and no, I am not pregnant or gay, if that was the case I would be happy (well not actually happy, but money from Sun for 1st pregnant gay bloke would be handy.
In addition, I would like pointers to well known / publicised cases (and only those) of extramarital affairs by members of the RAF (before and after Sir Peter Harding). What was the effect on the people involved?
Apologies for this not being a flying thread, however there is a wealth of knowledge on this board. I would appreciate all serious answers.
Obviously I have interests involved here, and no, I am not pregnant or gay, if that was the case I would be happy (well not actually happy, but money from Sun for 1st pregnant gay bloke would be handy.
In addition, I would like pointers to well known / publicised cases (and only those) of extramarital affairs by members of the RAF (before and after Sir Peter Harding). What was the effect on the people involved?
Apologies for this not being a flying thread, however there is a wealth of knowledge on this board. I would appreciate all serious answers.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: England
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are asking us to hang out the dirty washing regarding a very wide range of subjects in a public forum which smacks of a journo with ill intent. Sunday Sport is it??
If you personally had a specific issue you may receive a word from those who have experience of the many misdemenours of service life, not least of which is how out of date the Manual of Air Force Law is, but with this intro I would expect not a lot.
If you personally had a specific issue you may receive a word from those who have experience of the many misdemenours of service life, not least of which is how out of date the Manual of Air Force Law is, but with this intro I would expect not a lot.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you for your hasty reply Spot 4, let me assure you it really is not my intention to hang out anything in public, only to view what is already hanging there, hence I asked for well known / publicised cases. If I was a SS Journo I surely would have access to these already. I am looking many years in the past, as the name in the previous thread will confirm, and surely any journo interest from the early 90s will have waned by now.
“If I personally had a specific issue,” then I would be careful how I worded my initial enquiry!
This is totally genuine and I would be happy for any information to be PM’d instead, however you have to start somewhere.
I reiterate this is only a search for information already out there. Hoping for constructive replies, however will remove if appears a non starter.
“If I personally had a specific issue,” then I would be careful how I worded my initial enquiry!
This is totally genuine and I would be happy for any information to be PM’d instead, however you have to start somewhere.
I reiterate this is only a search for information already out there. Hoping for constructive replies, however will remove if appears a non starter.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sumpy
There was no revelatory stage at which the Royal Air Force decided to change its unfair discriminatory policies. The changes you mention were forced upon all three armed services, because the policies were unlawful.
There are many cases where the courts have upheld the rights of the armed forces to impose restrictions on their members, for sound operational reasons. But these cases rarely make good headlines, so we tend to get a slanted view of an armed forces, constantly being undermined by the evil scourge of modern employment law.
Unsurprisingly, most people I know in the armed forces (and I know quite a few) view greater protection under the law as something to be welcomed. The Colonel Bufton-Tufton types will always complain about the 'erosion of ethos' (which is just another name for progress), but they are viewed as something of an anachronism.
Extra-marital affairs happen in the armed forces, just as they happen in society as a whole. Why the interest?
There was no revelatory stage at which the Royal Air Force decided to change its unfair discriminatory policies. The changes you mention were forced upon all three armed services, because the policies were unlawful.
There are many cases where the courts have upheld the rights of the armed forces to impose restrictions on their members, for sound operational reasons. But these cases rarely make good headlines, so we tend to get a slanted view of an armed forces, constantly being undermined by the evil scourge of modern employment law.
Unsurprisingly, most people I know in the armed forces (and I know quite a few) view greater protection under the law as something to be welcomed. The Colonel Bufton-Tufton types will always complain about the 'erosion of ethos' (which is just another name for progress), but they are viewed as something of an anachronism.
Extra-marital affairs happen in the armed forces, just as they happen in society as a whole. Why the interest?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: An airfield by the sea
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why should anyone believe that journo interest from the early 90's has faded by now when the last week has been dominated by news of an extra-marital affair that ended in 1988?!?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you very much for your constructive input Legalapproach, I have viewed Aspals previously, but will give it another go with a finer comb.
Also thanks to Scud-U-Like, you are of course correct that extra-marital affairs happen in the armed forces, just as they happen in society as a whole. The difference is of course that the Colonel Bufton-Tufton types, ensure your treatment is not the same as in civvy-street.
Also thanks to Scud-U-Like, you are of course correct that extra-marital affairs happen in the armed forces, just as they happen in society as a whole. The difference is of course that the Colonel Bufton-Tufton types, ensure your treatment is not the same as in civvy-street.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: An airfield by the sea
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry for a further post with no constructive input... but having had a crewroom free-for-all on the subject of 'ethos' recently I would like to suggest that Col Bufton-Tufton is far from anachronistic in treating adultery in the Forces in a different manner from that in civilian life. It abuses the trust and integrity that are a fundamental part of the military ethic. By joining the armed forces we have agreed to be bound by standards that are, by necessity, different to those expected of Joe Public (including jail sentences for absence from work... could have been havoc during the world cup!!)
This, anyway, was the consensus of a group of under-30's - a generally liberal generation! So I think while Col B-T may be out of touch on many issues, he is still correct on this one.
This, anyway, was the consensus of a group of under-30's - a generally liberal generation! So I think while Col B-T may be out of touch on many issues, he is still correct on this one.
Last edited by Nearly there!; 7th Oct 2002 at 23:56.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nearly there
I agree that extra-marital affairs can undermine trust and integrity among members of the armed forces. I do believe, however, that each case should be judged on its merits or demerits. Simply to say, as the armed forces do, that extra-marital relations are wrong, under any circumstances, is naive and unrealistic.
If it's good enough for Air Vice Marshal HRH The Prince of Wales to have an extra-marital affair with the wife of a serving member of the armed forces, why isn't it good enough for SAC Bloggs to do the same?
I agree that extra-marital affairs can undermine trust and integrity among members of the armed forces. I do believe, however, that each case should be judged on its merits or demerits. Simply to say, as the armed forces do, that extra-marital relations are wrong, under any circumstances, is naive and unrealistic.
If it's good enough for Air Vice Marshal HRH The Prince of Wales to have an extra-marital affair with the wife of a serving member of the armed forces, why isn't it good enough for SAC Bloggs to do the same?
Gentleman Aviator
S-U-L
You're a little out of date. Since the introduction of "The Service Test" (last year or the year before??), all cases are treated individually.
In practice the "Test" asks: "Does it affect operational effciency?". So if matey is making the beast with two backs with someone he shouldn't, the Service minds its own business - if it doesn't affect the Service. So the local barmaid is game on, but not:
a. your mate's wife or
b. (worse) your subordinate's missus.
This is seen (quite fairly IMHO) as
a. the worst sort of theft from a comrade
b. undermining the command structure
So this approach ties in with Nearly There's approach, but is suitably civilised for the "noughties".
Cos it won't reeeely affect operational efficiency if a widower with honorary rank is sleeping with a brigadier's ex...........
You're a little out of date. Since the introduction of "The Service Test" (last year or the year before??), all cases are treated individually.
In practice the "Test" asks: "Does it affect operational effciency?". So if matey is making the beast with two backs with someone he shouldn't, the Service minds its own business - if it doesn't affect the Service. So the local barmaid is game on, but not:
a. your mate's wife or
b. (worse) your subordinate's missus.
This is seen (quite fairly IMHO) as
a. the worst sort of theft from a comrade
b. undermining the command structure
So this approach ties in with Nearly There's approach, but is suitably civilised for the "noughties".
Cos it won't reeeely affect operational efficiency if a widower with honorary rank is sleeping with a brigadier's ex...........
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
teeteringhead
Thanks. I should have read my copy of The Sir Richard Johns Guide to Illicit Nookie more carefully. I shall dig it out and re-acquaint myself.
I was referring to HRH's pre-divorce antics. But, no matter. With a little spin, he appears to have passed the Service Test with flying colours.
Thanks. I should have read my copy of The Sir Richard Johns Guide to Illicit Nookie more carefully. I shall dig it out and re-acquaint myself.
I was referring to HRH's pre-divorce antics. But, no matter. With a little spin, he appears to have passed the Service Test with flying colours.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with previous posts about social misconduct. But if we are talking about the '24 Hour Posting' ie QR554, it ain't always straightforward.
In my friends case, the lady was separated, divorce proceedings begun, but still working in the NAAFI.
My contribution therefore is this:-
A board of Officers is going to sit in judgement on you, and make a decision that will drastically affect your career and finances, and you have no redress. It's all done behind you back. The only input you have is that one interview with your hat on.
I'd question the legality of that.
In my friends case, the lady was separated, divorce proceedings begun, but still working in the NAAFI.
My contribution therefore is this:-
A board of Officers is going to sit in judgement on you, and make a decision that will drastically affect your career and finances, and you have no redress. It's all done behind you back. The only input you have is that one interview with your hat on.
I'd question the legality of that.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for that Sir Peter Hardings Lovechild.
What if the lady had never even been married, but just happened to be in the same service as yourself, the same board will sit and destroy your career for you. No right to defend yourself at all? Question the legality of that? But How??
What if the lady had never even been married, but just happened to be in the same service as yourself, the same board will sit and destroy your career for you. No right to defend yourself at all? Question the legality of that? But How??
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My guess is that some brave chap is going to have to stick his neck out, like the group of gays, and the first pregnant WRAF.
Even good boys and girls can be posted anywhere, anytime, and it can affect our lives.
May I suggest that you apply for access to the details of the meeting that decided your fate. Freedom of information and all that.
Its a starting point.
Good Luck
Even good boys and girls can be posted anywhere, anytime, and it can affect our lives.
May I suggest that you apply for access to the details of the meeting that decided your fate. Freedom of information and all that.
Its a starting point.
Good Luck
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: An airfield by the sea
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thankyou Teeteringhead for adding a bit of substance to my point...
I reckon that in most instances the case suggested by Sumpy (two posts above) would pass the service test, if the military 'other woman' was single and no-ones' toes were being trodden on. The wife's distress would probably not be regarded as affecting the service, unless she was military herself or closely involved in community activities on the base. Of course, if the affair had been conducted in such a way as to compromise the credibility of the personnel involved, then there would be grounds for action.
Presumably, under the service test, the senior ranks are more vulnerable to disciplinary action (as the press interest in their indiscretions is likely to be higher, and hence more damaging to the service). Was this always the case in days gone by?
I reckon that in most instances the case suggested by Sumpy (two posts above) would pass the service test, if the military 'other woman' was single and no-ones' toes were being trodden on. The wife's distress would probably not be regarded as affecting the service, unless she was military herself or closely involved in community activities on the base. Of course, if the affair had been conducted in such a way as to compromise the credibility of the personnel involved, then there would be grounds for action.
Presumably, under the service test, the senior ranks are more vulnerable to disciplinary action (as the press interest in their indiscretions is likely to be higher, and hence more damaging to the service). Was this always the case in days gone by?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks again Sir Peter LC
“My guess is that some brave chap is going to have to stick his neck out, like the group of gays, and the first pregnant WRAF.”
Takes us nicely back to my first question, who did it, and how? Where is that information.
And as for access to the meeting that decides your fate, what if - “it’s not kept, sorry”!
“My guess is that some brave chap is going to have to stick his neck out, like the group of gays, and the first pregnant WRAF.”
Takes us nicely back to my first question, who did it, and how? Where is that information.
And as for access to the meeting that decides your fate, what if - “it’s not kept, sorry”!
Gentleman Aviator
Nearly There
Up to a point, yes it is more important for senior officers. Clearly a VERY senior officer (like Sir Peter) will attract attention, as would anything prurient, like the "little pink friend" of one case.
Also if the senior officer is , eg, a Station Commander, I would guess all his own peeps and their spouses would be off limits. Equally obviously, if said man is now Gp Capt i/c Paperclips at HQ Glider Command, I doubt anyone will give a toss what he does, if it remains discreet and doesn't (for whatever reason) cause bad publicity.
Under the Service Test (which didn't exist then), some of the well known "Balkans CO sh*gs Interpreter" cases may not be seen as bad in themselves. But if they generated a tabloid headline such as I suggest, they would affect op efficiency. The important thing as I see it is that every case is looked at individually. I certainly know of a number of cases which would have attracted the wrath of the airships a very few years ago, which now attract a well-deserved "so what".
Equally, and unsurprisingly, we can get a bit too tree-huggy. I do know of one case which I think your "crew room free-for-all" would have agreed had a bad affect on ops, which was allowed to continue because (IMHO) the hierarchy was afraid of redress.....
And at the risk of opening a can of worms (of whatever temperature
), the Service Test does not restrict itself to heterosexual relationships...........
Up to a point, yes it is more important for senior officers. Clearly a VERY senior officer (like Sir Peter) will attract attention, as would anything prurient, like the "little pink friend" of one case.
Also if the senior officer is , eg, a Station Commander, I would guess all his own peeps and their spouses would be off limits. Equally obviously, if said man is now Gp Capt i/c Paperclips at HQ Glider Command, I doubt anyone will give a toss what he does, if it remains discreet and doesn't (for whatever reason) cause bad publicity.
Under the Service Test (which didn't exist then), some of the well known "Balkans CO sh*gs Interpreter" cases may not be seen as bad in themselves. But if they generated a tabloid headline such as I suggest, they would affect op efficiency. The important thing as I see it is that every case is looked at individually. I certainly know of a number of cases which would have attracted the wrath of the airships a very few years ago, which now attract a well-deserved "so what".
Equally, and unsurprisingly, we can get a bit too tree-huggy. I do know of one case which I think your "crew room free-for-all" would have agreed had a bad affect on ops, which was allowed to continue because (IMHO) the hierarchy was afraid of redress.....
And at the risk of opening a can of worms (of whatever temperature
), the Service Test does not restrict itself to heterosexual relationships...........
Last edited by teeteringhead; 9th Oct 2002 at 08:30.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
......................speaking of which,
Sumpy,
You may find some useful information regarding the gay issue among the following press releases:
http://www.dircon.co.uk/info/news.shtml
Sumpy,
You may find some useful information regarding the gay issue among the following press releases:
http://www.dircon.co.uk/info/news.shtml