Kipper fleet macho, chauvinist and tribal
lazy fairweather PPRuNer
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Forres,Scotland
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wee Branch Fan,
You are indeed correct. I don't now what they're all complaining about. This person has supplied the Nimrod fleet, the newspapers and this forum with more entertainment than the MRA4, FSTA and J Herc put together.
We should give her an award...or something.
You are indeed correct. I don't now what they're all complaining about. This person has supplied the Nimrod fleet, the newspapers and this forum with more entertainment than the MRA4, FSTA and J Herc put together.
We should give her an award...or something.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: A 1/2 World away from Ice Statio Kilo
Posts: 404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BHR
Call me a cynic but I feel if this is used as an illustration the subtle point will be missed by a Lazy student trying to get more time in the Student Union Bar
Call me a cynic but I feel if this is used as an illustration the subtle point will be missed by a Lazy student trying to get more time in the Student Union Bar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CL,
I am afraid you are to cryptic for me. Could you please explain what you mean.
Cheers
BHR
p.s. I am not at Uni, this is a distance learning course done in my evenings after work.
I am afraid you are to cryptic for me. Could you please explain what you mean.
Cheers
BHR
p.s. I am not at Uni, this is a distance learning course done in my evenings after work.
So, the kipper fleet is "macho, chauvinist and almost tribal", is it? Nice to see some things don't change, keep up the good work lads (and lasses).
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Beds
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Gaurdian reports it thus:
RAF woman wins sex discrimination case
Press Association
Saturday August 9, 2003 3:53 AM
A female RAF pilot who was subjected to constant verbal sexual harassment by members of her crew has won her claim for sex discrimination.
The RAF was condemned in a judgment that recognised a culture of sexism among senior levels of staff.
The sexual discrimination the woman received was "illegal" and there were too many instances of "senior officers with sexist views", it was found.
The flight lieutenant - who cannot be identified for legal reasons - claimed she was driven out of the RAF by sexism and harassment senior officers did little to stop.
The tribunal failed to find that the woman was constructively dismissed from her job, but commented that the RAF "should take little comfort from that".
"We heard too many instances of senior officers with sexist views, which have no place in an organisation committed to equal opportunities and are quite frankly illegal," the tribunal panel said in its judgment.
One of a small band of females to fly an RAF Nimrod, the woman became pregnant by a married high-ranking officer 20 years her senior in 2000.
After maternity leave, she was treated for anxiety and depression, but was not allowed to fly again and took premature voluntary retirement in 2001.
She told the tribunal she had been determined to maintain her career but that she had been removed from flying, had become ill and had not had her concerns noted by senior officers.
In hearings at Croydon Employment Tribunal that spread over six months this year, the woman claimed RAF personnel were "macho, chauvinist and almost tribal".
RAF woman wins sex discrimination case
Press Association
Saturday August 9, 2003 3:53 AM
A female RAF pilot who was subjected to constant verbal sexual harassment by members of her crew has won her claim for sex discrimination.
The RAF was condemned in a judgment that recognised a culture of sexism among senior levels of staff.
The sexual discrimination the woman received was "illegal" and there were too many instances of "senior officers with sexist views", it was found.
The flight lieutenant - who cannot be identified for legal reasons - claimed she was driven out of the RAF by sexism and harassment senior officers did little to stop.
The tribunal failed to find that the woman was constructively dismissed from her job, but commented that the RAF "should take little comfort from that".
"We heard too many instances of senior officers with sexist views, which have no place in an organisation committed to equal opportunities and are quite frankly illegal," the tribunal panel said in its judgment.
One of a small band of females to fly an RAF Nimrod, the woman became pregnant by a married high-ranking officer 20 years her senior in 2000.
After maternity leave, she was treated for anxiety and depression, but was not allowed to fly again and took premature voluntary retirement in 2001.
She told the tribunal she had been determined to maintain her career but that she had been removed from flying, had become ill and had not had her concerns noted by senior officers.
In hearings at Croydon Employment Tribunal that spread over six months this year, the woman claimed RAF personnel were "macho, chauvinist and almost tribal".
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Times (9 Aug 03) adds:
"Commenting on a number of documents shown to the tribunal, including an e-mail sent by a wing commander, the panel said: “They are more sad evidence that among the very senior ranks in the RAF, outdated, sexist attitudes persist.” "
Hoist by their own petard perhaps.
"Commenting on a number of documents shown to the tribunal, including an e-mail sent by a wing commander, the panel said: “They are more sad evidence that among the very senior ranks in the RAF, outdated, sexist attitudes persist.” "
Hoist by their own petard perhaps.
Before all the blokes say "silly tart" think about this -
1) How much did it cost to train her to do her job. As she is effectively a single parent with a toddler I can understand why she would want a posting that allowed her to look after the child until it at least reached primary school age.
2) If a black man had been subjected to abuse like this how many people would have said this is acceptable (except members of the BNP).
3) I have, in the course of my job, advised people with employment cases. Take it from someone who has attended a number of employment tribunals, they are not rubber stamps and they will put you through the mill. If she had no evidence she would have lost her claim.
4)As for her obsessive diary keeping - if the kipper fleet is as bad as she says it was she no doubt saw other women go through the same thing, in which case she was only being prudent. I have personally advised people (both men and women) to do just this sort of thing, a accurate and detailed diary kept over weeks or months can be of considerable assistance in putting forward a claimants case.
1) How much did it cost to train her to do her job. As she is effectively a single parent with a toddler I can understand why she would want a posting that allowed her to look after the child until it at least reached primary school age.
2) If a black man had been subjected to abuse like this how many people would have said this is acceptable (except members of the BNP).
3) I have, in the course of my job, advised people with employment cases. Take it from someone who has attended a number of employment tribunals, they are not rubber stamps and they will put you through the mill. If she had no evidence she would have lost her claim.
4)As for her obsessive diary keeping - if the kipper fleet is as bad as she says it was she no doubt saw other women go through the same thing, in which case she was only being prudent. I have personally advised people (both men and women) to do just this sort of thing, a accurate and detailed diary kept over weeks or months can be of considerable assistance in putting forward a claimants case.
Last edited by Woff1965; 9th Aug 2003 at 21:05.
1) How many other dedicated people missed the opportunity of a flying career in light blue because this waste of space applicant was chosen instead.
2) Black men, short men, tall men, thin men, fat men and Welshmen - all are subject to service banter.
3) She lost the vast majority of her claims. Employment tribunals have little or no competency with regards to cases involving the military. These worthy bodies have grown in size and power out of all proportion to that which was orginally intended. Most of this growth has occurred since 1997.
4) Long term diary keeping smacks of a well calculated plan to extract maximum revenue for a service retirement she knew she was forcing on herself by a wilful disregard for the contract of employment.
That she should have anonymity is also illogical. She should be named and her name then associated with scorn for ever more.
WWW
2) Black men, short men, tall men, thin men, fat men and Welshmen - all are subject to service banter.
3) She lost the vast majority of her claims. Employment tribunals have little or no competency with regards to cases involving the military. These worthy bodies have grown in size and power out of all proportion to that which was orginally intended. Most of this growth has occurred since 1997.
4) Long term diary keeping smacks of a well calculated plan to extract maximum revenue for a service retirement she knew she was forcing on herself by a wilful disregard for the contract of employment.
That she should have anonymity is also illogical. She should be named and her name then associated with scorn for ever more.
WWW
Join Date: May 2002
Location: desert mostly
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fully agree with all your points WWW. We are doing the top bunch of ladies(professional & part of the team) who are on the fleet at the present time a great dis-service by associating them with this sad excuse for an aviator. The sooner she disappears from view the better.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Watch out fellas, plenty more out there ready to collect some cash. Anyway, what ever happened to the Pilots Pals Calendars?
Oops! Here come the handcuffs.
I'm thinking of having a sex change, I understand the RAF will pay and are then obliged to promote me and post me back to a flying job.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: landan
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only motive i'm driven by is that of fair treatment which forces me now to play devils advocate.
a few points for thought / discussion
1. the complainant was subject to the same selection process as every other raf pilot and was therefore deemed to have sufficient characteristics / promise for selection as GD(P). She also had sufficient ability and officer qualities to pass EFT possibly BFT and then METS during which she would have had 3 independent assessments of ability as both a pilot and an officer. My best mate through training went to HMP Kinloss due to the fact that he was exceptionally capable, and i believe this to still be the case for a posting to the rod
2. the complainant felt strongly enough about the treatment to complain. The complaint was seemingly ignored by those in her chain of command. whilst every military employee is subject to banter, whether you agree with it or not, they are also afforded the protection against sexual and racial discrimination by the fact that said behaviour is unlawful. The throwaway remark by www that she lost the vast majority of her claims purposefuly ignores the fact that the independant tribunal found she had been the victim of unlawful sexual discrimination; a fact which vindicates her complaint and for which she will be compensated.
3.Those in the military do not have a contract per se, they are reliant on terms conferred in the air force act. It seems entirely proper and reasonable to allow female military personel the opportunity to have families without recourse to burning them at the stake for the mere suggestion. They should also be afforded the courtesy of having family situations considered upon posting, as their male counterparts do.
4. Employment tribunals have sufficient competency in deciding employment issues, as that is all they were designed to do. Sexual discrimination or other employment matters do not take on a magical appearance merely because they are alleged against the military. People are only allowed to seek recourse to these tribunals after exhausting all avenues of the internal grievance procedure. I assume that all of the complaints were dismissed out of hand during this, which indicates the lack of impartiality in the redress process.
5. Long term diary keeping smacks of someone whose complaint was perhaps ignored and the instances were of sufficient severity that she had no option but to make note of them; self preservation.
6. The fact that there was a finding of sexual discrimination means that someone within the RAF is responsible for that, and the chain of command is responsible for ignoring it. That she should have anonymity is essential, why should someone be punished twice for the unlawful actions of some that led to the complaint reaching the stage it did. I left the raf last year for airlines new, and i still get approached as to my opinion of some applicants. I cannot believe that this situation could not have been sorted a lot sooner and to the benefit of both parties.
I do not know the individual nor am i particularly interested in the nitty gritty of the case. The bottom line is "has she been treated fairly and in accordance with the law" on some counts this was yes but on others it was no which renders the RAF and a few employees responsible. This is a very sad story which could possibly have been sorted a lot sooner and for a lot less public money. Everyone has the right not to be crapped on from a great height, and i wonder if those flaming her would be so severe if they had been crapped on too.
there are one or two complete spanners at every station, perhaps she was unfortunate to get them on her crew? just to reiterate, i play devils advocate because there are 2 sides.
a few points for thought / discussion
1. the complainant was subject to the same selection process as every other raf pilot and was therefore deemed to have sufficient characteristics / promise for selection as GD(P). She also had sufficient ability and officer qualities to pass EFT possibly BFT and then METS during which she would have had 3 independent assessments of ability as both a pilot and an officer. My best mate through training went to HMP Kinloss due to the fact that he was exceptionally capable, and i believe this to still be the case for a posting to the rod
2. the complainant felt strongly enough about the treatment to complain. The complaint was seemingly ignored by those in her chain of command. whilst every military employee is subject to banter, whether you agree with it or not, they are also afforded the protection against sexual and racial discrimination by the fact that said behaviour is unlawful. The throwaway remark by www that she lost the vast majority of her claims purposefuly ignores the fact that the independant tribunal found she had been the victim of unlawful sexual discrimination; a fact which vindicates her complaint and for which she will be compensated.
3.Those in the military do not have a contract per se, they are reliant on terms conferred in the air force act. It seems entirely proper and reasonable to allow female military personel the opportunity to have families without recourse to burning them at the stake for the mere suggestion. They should also be afforded the courtesy of having family situations considered upon posting, as their male counterparts do.
4. Employment tribunals have sufficient competency in deciding employment issues, as that is all they were designed to do. Sexual discrimination or other employment matters do not take on a magical appearance merely because they are alleged against the military. People are only allowed to seek recourse to these tribunals after exhausting all avenues of the internal grievance procedure. I assume that all of the complaints were dismissed out of hand during this, which indicates the lack of impartiality in the redress process.
5. Long term diary keeping smacks of someone whose complaint was perhaps ignored and the instances were of sufficient severity that she had no option but to make note of them; self preservation.
6. The fact that there was a finding of sexual discrimination means that someone within the RAF is responsible for that, and the chain of command is responsible for ignoring it. That she should have anonymity is essential, why should someone be punished twice for the unlawful actions of some that led to the complaint reaching the stage it did. I left the raf last year for airlines new, and i still get approached as to my opinion of some applicants. I cannot believe that this situation could not have been sorted a lot sooner and to the benefit of both parties.
I do not know the individual nor am i particularly interested in the nitty gritty of the case. The bottom line is "has she been treated fairly and in accordance with the law" on some counts this was yes but on others it was no which renders the RAF and a few employees responsible. This is a very sad story which could possibly have been sorted a lot sooner and for a lot less public money. Everyone has the right not to be crapped on from a great height, and i wonder if those flaming her would be so severe if they had been crapped on too.
there are one or two complete spanners at every station, perhaps she was unfortunate to get them on her crew? just to reiterate, i play devils advocate because there are 2 sides.
No, no no no NO!
WWW
WWW
The only real changes I can remember in Employment following 1997 were the -
1) Reduction in the time a worker had to be employed before taking a employer to court for unfair dismissal from 2 years to 1 year. However these time limits don't apply to sex or race discrimination cases as it is possible to take an employer to an ET if they discriminate in recruitment and/or selection..
2) Employees are expected to follow the internal greivance procedure before applying to a ET, failiure to do so will probably ensure his/her case falls.
As for the scope of ET's, there have been no substantial changes in their scope or powers.
If there are any women reading this thread who were thinking of joining the RAF, I suspect a number of them won't be, after all why join an organisation that has no commitment to obeying the law of the land in relation to their employment and then brand them as gold diggers if they have the temerity to stand up for their rights.
There is always going to be banter in any organisation, unfortunately there are too many racists and misogynists who hide behind that banter and then argue it was all meant in a "ironic postmodernist kind of way".
This is not 1850 or even 1950, women are not going to put up with this sort of cr@p anymore and more importantly the LAW says they don't have to.
One final question to WWW and co - how would you like it if your daughter (assuming you actually associate with women) had to go through this sort of cr@p to do her job?
1) Reduction in the time a worker had to be employed before taking a employer to court for unfair dismissal from 2 years to 1 year. However these time limits don't apply to sex or race discrimination cases as it is possible to take an employer to an ET if they discriminate in recruitment and/or selection..
2) Employees are expected to follow the internal greivance procedure before applying to a ET, failiure to do so will probably ensure his/her case falls.
As for the scope of ET's, there have been no substantial changes in their scope or powers.
If there are any women reading this thread who were thinking of joining the RAF, I suspect a number of them won't be, after all why join an organisation that has no commitment to obeying the law of the land in relation to their employment and then brand them as gold diggers if they have the temerity to stand up for their rights.
There is always going to be banter in any organisation, unfortunately there are too many racists and misogynists who hide behind that banter and then argue it was all meant in a "ironic postmodernist kind of way".
This is not 1850 or even 1950, women are not going to put up with this sort of cr@p anymore and more importantly the LAW says they don't have to.
One final question to WWW and co - how would you like it if your daughter (assuming you actually associate with women) had to go through this sort of cr@p to do her job?
Inter Arma Enim Silentius Lex Legis
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 733
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Woff
Hear Hear!! Well said.
Let us not forget how the RAF (and what we really mean of course is the MOD) treats people.
You only have to be watching the daily news to see just how high the MOD and its' services regard their personnel.
Recent history shows that "they" believe they are beyond the law. The pregnant women fiasco is to name but one such sad example. There are many others in the public domain, but the days of honouring themselves will soon be at an end.
So I say wake up those isolated and insular service people!! Society has changed beyond ALL recognition in a few short years. The right to work in a harassment free environment is enshrined in basic rights to which HMG has signed up to. Doesn't matter what your creed, colour, religion or sexuality etc is. In this case the fact she is a woman is really quite irrelevant in my view, she was bullied and harassed at work. That's illegal and is the end of the story. Lots of people in the services get treated this way day in day out. It is in our ethos to do so!! Or is deepcut just a media conspiracy then?
My direct experience of the last 15 months shows that harassment and bullying are alive and well and enshrined in daily operations. If you don't do this X will happen (X being very unpleasant)
The RAF pays as much lip service to harassment as it does to Flight Safety, and I should know. I was that man who highlighted fatigue issues in Oman, and has paid dearly for it!!
Until the cancer within the system is cut out, there will be many more such cases to come. It isn't 1955 anymore and I sincerely hope she gets £Millions. Since money seems to be the only thing that motivates our out of date dinosaurs!! Hit them where it hurts!!
Hear Hear!! Well said.
Let us not forget how the RAF (and what we really mean of course is the MOD) treats people.
You only have to be watching the daily news to see just how high the MOD and its' services regard their personnel.
Recent history shows that "they" believe they are beyond the law. The pregnant women fiasco is to name but one such sad example. There are many others in the public domain, but the days of honouring themselves will soon be at an end.
So I say wake up those isolated and insular service people!! Society has changed beyond ALL recognition in a few short years. The right to work in a harassment free environment is enshrined in basic rights to which HMG has signed up to. Doesn't matter what your creed, colour, religion or sexuality etc is. In this case the fact she is a woman is really quite irrelevant in my view, she was bullied and harassed at work. That's illegal and is the end of the story. Lots of people in the services get treated this way day in day out. It is in our ethos to do so!! Or is deepcut just a media conspiracy then?
My direct experience of the last 15 months shows that harassment and bullying are alive and well and enshrined in daily operations. If you don't do this X will happen (X being very unpleasant)
The RAF pays as much lip service to harassment as it does to Flight Safety, and I should know. I was that man who highlighted fatigue issues in Oman, and has paid dearly for it!!
Until the cancer within the system is cut out, there will be many more such cases to come. It isn't 1955 anymore and I sincerely hope she gets £Millions. Since money seems to be the only thing that motivates our out of date dinosaurs!! Hit them where it hurts!!
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: SE England
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wolf said;
>The only real changes I can remember in Employment following >1997 were the -
You miss the most fundamental shift in the tribunal process wrt sex or race discrimination - that the burden of proof has been reversed. It is now up to the employer to prove that he/she has not been discriminatory, essentialy creating a 'blaggers charter'. Our wise leaders thought this change was needed because 'discrimination is a very serious matter' - let's hope that they don't start taking things like murder seriously or any one of us could suddenly find that we're up before a court, assumed guilty and having to prove our innocence. Employers are now 'guilty until proved innocent'.
It's now an honest [silly?] employee who doesn't launch an action for discrimination against their employer if they decide they fancy a change of career and a 'leaving present'. Of course this option is generally only open to certain people.
Most employers are now sensibly advised to seek a financial settlement before a claim reaches tribunal, whatever its apparent merits, or lack of. They are expensive to defend, awards are unlimited, and even if the vexatious claims are thrown out it is virtually unheard of for costs to be awarded [<1%]. Combine this with the bad publicity such a case brings to a large employer, and the potentially ruinous time / money lost to a small employer, any lawyer who doesn't tell their client to 'just try to pay them off' is not advising them well. Goes some way to explaining the 30% annual growth in tribunal cases.
As for faith in tribunals, I've seen plenty of utterly bizzare decisions - truly jaw-dropping. The Kamlesh Bahl case being one of the more recent. Fortunately the Appeal Tribunal overturned the original decision, but such lengthy battles to obtain justice are not always an option for many employers.
>The only real changes I can remember in Employment following >1997 were the -
You miss the most fundamental shift in the tribunal process wrt sex or race discrimination - that the burden of proof has been reversed. It is now up to the employer to prove that he/she has not been discriminatory, essentialy creating a 'blaggers charter'. Our wise leaders thought this change was needed because 'discrimination is a very serious matter' - let's hope that they don't start taking things like murder seriously or any one of us could suddenly find that we're up before a court, assumed guilty and having to prove our innocence. Employers are now 'guilty until proved innocent'.
It's now an honest [silly?] employee who doesn't launch an action for discrimination against their employer if they decide they fancy a change of career and a 'leaving present'. Of course this option is generally only open to certain people.
Most employers are now sensibly advised to seek a financial settlement before a claim reaches tribunal, whatever its apparent merits, or lack of. They are expensive to defend, awards are unlimited, and even if the vexatious claims are thrown out it is virtually unheard of for costs to be awarded [<1%]. Combine this with the bad publicity such a case brings to a large employer, and the potentially ruinous time / money lost to a small employer, any lawyer who doesn't tell their client to 'just try to pay them off' is not advising them well. Goes some way to explaining the 30% annual growth in tribunal cases.
As for faith in tribunals, I've seen plenty of utterly bizzare decisions - truly jaw-dropping. The Kamlesh Bahl case being one of the more recent. Fortunately the Appeal Tribunal overturned the original decision, but such lengthy battles to obtain justice are not always an option for many employers.
Last edited by Smoketoomuch; 10th Aug 2003 at 21:22.
Yes, Deepcut *is* a media conspiracy.
I have good friends who are officers commanding men at Deepcut and I am intimately aware of how spurious the allegations are and how fuelled by the tabloids they are.
The place enjoys a <30 male suicide rate that is half one would find in civvy street.
As for those that cannot see how a fully auto assault rifle could possibly fire more than one round into someones head - well - they've never handled one I suspect.
She signed up knowing the obligations of a prestigious miltary Commission.
She failed to meet those obligations.
She engineered a lucrative escape strategy.
Shame on her. She demeens the spirit of the law, the process of it, her fellow female colleagues and herself.
Or does the RAF not have the right to decide to which tour its pilots are assigned any more?
WWW
I have good friends who are officers commanding men at Deepcut and I am intimately aware of how spurious the allegations are and how fuelled by the tabloids they are.
The place enjoys a <30 male suicide rate that is half one would find in civvy street.
As for those that cannot see how a fully auto assault rifle could possibly fire more than one round into someones head - well - they've never handled one I suspect.
She signed up knowing the obligations of a prestigious miltary Commission.
She failed to meet those obligations.
She engineered a lucrative escape strategy.
Shame on her. She demeens the spirit of the law, the process of it, her fellow female colleagues and herself.
Or does the RAF not have the right to decide to which tour its pilots are assigned any more?
WWW
WAFFs
I can remember at least 2 WRAFs who deliberately got pregnant so that they could leave the mob, as they had no other easy way out.
Then had the cheek to claim and get compensation.
At least that loophole is closed. The blokes now just have to manage short handed when pregnant females are on the sqn. Can't lift this, can't go there, then want 6 months off. Nothing like putting cr@p on your fellow workers.
Sexism, Racism and Bullying have no place in todays modern RAF, but some rules were there for a reason, not for discrimination.
Oh to emigrate to a Country that has sense.
Then had the cheek to claim and get compensation.
At least that loophole is closed. The blokes now just have to manage short handed when pregnant females are on the sqn. Can't lift this, can't go there, then want 6 months off. Nothing like putting cr@p on your fellow workers.
Sexism, Racism and Bullying have no place in todays modern RAF, but some rules were there for a reason, not for discrimination.
Oh to emigrate to a Country that has sense.
