There's one more for you BV :ok:

But is this one a "Bob" as in Blackadders "Bob"??;)

In my experience, admittedly an un-scientific assessment, I would say that proportionately more female officers get promoted than male ones so that there seems to be a gender bias in the opposite direction.

In this case the leap to 'gender bias' seems to me, without having seen the evidence, a bit of a stretch as the unwritten job spec preferred a doctor to a nurse so the outcome would presumably have been the same if the nurse had been male. Just because she had been a Gp Capt longer than the successful candidate would be immaterial as the system is not a queue and the extra time in rank could indicate that she had already been passed over as not a high flyer.

All in all though it's an unfortunate outcome for the RAF (& by extension the other 2 services?) as it would seem to establish precedence for future cases so that more money can be diverted from the budget to mollify individual's hurt feelings.

Thinks: must contact my lawyer as I've been the same rank for ages so I must have been overlooked on racial/ gender/ height/ some other pretext.

Discrimination
 

Ken.
Your last post made me think. A friend of mine was promoted to Sqn Ldr about 4 years ago after spending a mere 4 years as a Flt Lt. I, on the other hand, have been a Flt Lt for 12 years. Since he has a darker skin colour than me I can only assume I have been discriminated against based on my ethnicity. Of course it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he worked his balls off doing umpteen secondary duties and ticked an awful lot of boxes in very short order, while I concentrated purely on flying. It's not my fault. The system is corrupt and unfair. Anyone got the number for a good employment lawyer?
BV

Ken

Stats are here;

http://www.dasa.mod.uk/modintranet/U...ukds2012r2.pdf

Table 2:7

Fair point, as the number of flying squadrons decreases, the rank misnomers will become less apparent.

''The tribunal, led by employment judge Veronica Dean''

As this was a gender discrimination case found in favour of the female with the case being heard by a judge of the same sex (one would assume from the name?) surely there must be good grounds for appeal?..... Although as has already been pointed out it would appear to be an own goal by 'the system' which has caught the RAF with it's trousers round it's ankles.

Group Captain Nurses - how many beds do they command.....?

OutlawPete, interesting stuff.

In terms of explaining why a candidate is better, I thought we already did that now? Isn't it like flying training, where we have some measurable standards and can say that someone is a grade 2 while someone else is a grade 3 with some sort of veracity? I guess unless they somehow picked a lower-scored candidate, that'd be quite a robust process.

More to the point, like BV, I want to find out how I sue; I was passed over for a couple of quals and a course that I was definitely well suited to on paper and by most measurable standards. Asked why, turns out my then-Flt Cdr just didn't like me, and said as much when his guard was down at a dining in night....

Anyone know a good no-win no-fee employment lawyer? :E

Lj101: thanks for the stats, a veritable mine of interesting statistics.......(+lies & damn lies)

Fig 2.7 doesn't quite do it as the figures aren't broken down enough. My gut feeling is that proportionally more females make the jump to Sqn Ldr than do their equivalent males & it only gives figures for Sqn Ldr & below. On the face of it ladies make up 17.7% of them but only 7.2% of Wg Cdr & above which would make the RAF discriminatory but there are a host of other factors such as wimmin leaving to have children & their generally shorter careers (they leave once they've bagged their pilot!!)

My interest in the statistics lasted just long enough for me to note that in 2006 the military had a total trained strength of 163 150 ORs & there were 140 2** & above whereas in 2012 the ORs had reduced to 149 100 & the 2** & above had reduced to...........140.

There are quite a few similar stats that show that whilst the number of indians has reduced the number of chiefs, particulalry the more senior ones, has remained largely static. But I won't stretch your patience by quoting them, have a look if you're interested or rain's stopped play at Wimbledon.

Damned right - I have no interest in seeing the RAF develop through positive discrimination at the expense of ability. I want to see it develop by the best people getting the right jobs. And if that means, at some point down the line, that a pilot is beaten to a plum job as a VSO by a better non-flyer, or a nurse is beaten to a job by a better doctor then so be it.

As it is, this has story is being peddled during a slow news week as nothing more than a case of sexism to make a political point. The only problem being that reading the press coverage as it is, her argument of I'm a female nurse and I've been a Gp Capt for so much longer than the Gp Capt doctor fatally undermines her case as it goes against the principles of best individual for the job at the time with an implicit suggestion that promotion should be time based.

Without knowing the background of the other individuals involved and how their performance was judged by the relevant board, it is very difficult to make a balanced judgement, not something we are likely to get from a rag that wants to sell copy through sensational stories on a quiet week. But there is absolutely nothing short sighted about pointing out the weaknesses in her case as published or in aguing that the best performer should get the job.

I commanded a flying sqn as a sqn ldr. A very small one with six helicopters, but a sqn nonetheless.

Melchett - it wasn't that, from what I can make out from a combination of press reports.....

She was a Gp Capt, as was the chap; she was a Nurse, the chap a Medical Officer. They were being boarded for a 1* post that is nominally open to any Tri-Service Medical Service member, MO, Nurse or MSO, but is normally filled by a MO.

The MO Gp Capt was selected because it was felt that he would be a 'better fit' against the RN/Army candidates, simply because he was a MO.

PMRAFNS is primarily female, MOs are primarily male (especially at OF5 level); thus selecting someone simply because they are a MO is indirect discrimination, especially when the 1* job is 'open' to Nurses as well, and she met the stated specification.

There is also a wider point that lots of senior jobs are 'advertised' as open to x, y and z, but for historical reasons, only x who has done a, b and c is a realistic candidate. It is here that all the Forces fall down, and I suspect that a SDSR 15 implementation will be to take 1*+ appointment processes away from the individual Services and put them into a civilian run process.

Mel
 

This has nothing to do with My comment referred to the majority of postings on this thread which utterly fail in There is not one single posting which even pretends to adduce her professional suitability (or otherwise). Instead it's mostly at this level:If I posted "Group Captain Pilots - how many aircraft do they command....?" that would be equally meaningless.

Rgds SOS

Civilians appointing to 1* service posts, that will work well, given civilian lack of understanding of the Services, even amongst MOD civilians

W00
 

After I hung up my uniform for the last time and handed in my gas mask etc. I managed to land a contract as a consultant, supporting a civil servant 1*.

I soon learned that he had a very sophisticated and detailed understanding of the Services and he showed it in his actions and decisions.

People in uniform are special and deserve respect, but they don't have a monopoly on understanding.

Rgds SOS

SOSL
 

None of us on here have the knowledge to deduce anything about her professional ability. You clearly think she was hard done by but you don't know any better than anyone else whether she was competent to fulfil the role. You just have the biased media story to base your assumptions on.
What you are seeing are opinions based on impressions gleaned from the story. Maybe, just maybe, folks get a little peeved when a race/gender/age... card is pulled out when someone is upset. Maybe it's because some of us don't have a card (white, able bodied, British male for instance) and we're jealous. Maybe we're all bigoted, mysoginist dinosaurs who need to move with the times. Or maybe we've seen too many cases of positive discrimination that we get a bit hacked off by cases like this.
Either way, opinions will vary and unless you sat on the tribunal you have no idea what was really said.
Standing by to be flamed for daring to have an opinion that does not conform to the latest EO directives.
BV:ooh:

Well, there is very little inherent different to the vast majority of the 1* posts in Defence from their opposite number in Civilian Street (and, frankly, very few Defence wide). Moreover, if we actually knew how to run a HR system, creating the right job specification and recording personal (and personnel) competencies appropriately, matching the two would be a piece of widdle.

Instead we use the old boy system, where we "know" who's best for a job without actually testing that person against other peers, or against those below or above who might be better suited to it. Whilst we're doing this, we use "Career Managers" who have no background in HR, will likely only do it for 18 months - 2 years, and who are not appropriately trained.

And as long as we "Career Manage" like that we will nearly always lose employment tribunals like this, because we don't have a leg to stand on.

I bear her no ill will at all, but if this IS all about equality, and in light of PMRAFNS escaping the incremental pay cuts that will blight their civilian counterparts, I hope that the RCN doesn't expect a quid pro quo if she gets the job..:ok:

Gp Capt Gaffney commanded TPMH Aki I think. I don't know what command experience GP Capt Williams has, but if we were told that an engineer was in line to be CG of the RAF Regiment (it happened quite recently) because his/her overall appraisals were better, would that still make him/her the best candidate for a specialist apt?

I don't know who wins out of this. I wonder too, if equality really is important, just how hard Judge Veronica Dean fought to see her occupational judiciary pension affected to the same extent as that of NHS nurses.

BV
 

My post at #41 simply said "she was probably the best candidate" (I just added the bold for emphasis).

My post at #55 was a sort of internal (to this thread) beef about the tenor of the majority of posts aimed with disrespect (sp!) at women/nurses.

I don't think you have to be EO trained simply to respect other human beings!

Rgds SOS