Females can not march like men....
 

This must be a wind up...what will the next claim be for...

Female RAF recruits get £100,000 compensation each... because they were made to march like men | Mail Online

Are the injuries because of differences in pelvic structure or because these ladies are of shorter stature? Funny how all the ladies on my course at Henlow seemed to manage the standard 30 inch stride without breaking anything.

Anyway, it would be impossible to change the stride to 27, all the pace sticks would require recalibrating and there's not enough money left in the budget.

Females can not march like men....
 

When can we start the compensation trail for the Air Cadets too? We were making the regulation pace with a bunch of yoof, surely making them march as men is equally actionable!!!

God bless the Fail and its stories...

There is a 24" setting on issue pace sticks, a length of stride that my countrymen who join the Colonial Air Force are quite happy to march at.

To be honest the knowledge that marching at a 30" stride can cause injuries to females isn't anything new, Hill et al (1996) published a paper on this, as have quite a few others.

There are now lots of short men wondering if there is blame is there a claim !

WAAFs unable to open their legs wide enough?

Not what I remember! ;)

As I understand it the issue is that in mixed groups the pace is 27". The instructors chose not to follow the clear rules and instead forced the women to march at 30", causing them injuries which led to their being medically discharged.

If an engineer wilfully ignored regulations, putting in place a change which caused an aircraft to crash then people here would be very angry. In this case a group of service personnel in an environment where they have enormous exposure and influence to trainees who are pretty vulnerable people have decided that they know better than the regulations.

Their actions caused physical injury, cost the MOD a lot of money in compensation and presumably wasted the money for not only getting the recruits in, but then having to replace them.

To add insult to injury, some people seem to be blaming those who were injured for trying to rightly in my view seek compensation for loss of earnings caused by what I would personally view as an abuse of position from people who should have known better.

The people at fault here are those who chose to break the rules set up deliberately to prevent this sort of thing from happening and no one else.

How much for a blister? Just preparing my case.

So, they have been compensated by the MOD for Does that mean that in 9 years time, they are eligible to re-pay the amount they actually earned in said 9 years?

They were never going to be able to earn 18 years worth of salary if they stayed in the RAF so why should they now be able to? :=

I know this is off topic, and I'm sure it's not how the legal system sees it, but it does seem absurd! :eek:

Please remember all that Pain and Suffering the poor things went through....why the Mental Anguish alone is grounds enough for ample compensation.:=


http://rt.com/files/news/1e/96/a0/00/k-1.jpg

Thank you Jimlad!

It was the instructors that chose to disregard written policy, not the recruits. Despite the Daily Wail's usual attempt to inspire anger and outrage on behalf of "Middle Britain" if anyone should be made to pay for this, it should be those responsible for ignoring the policy.

I always found the 30" stride far too short. Thankfully after leaving Cranditz I never had to march on parade again during the 20 years before I left.

It's the ones who get outraged at stories in the Daily Mail that I feel sorry for.

Edited to add:

Also, those who would use a picture of a nations military known for their shocking abuse of human rights across all of their population to make a cheap point. They also deserve our pity.

I call bull****

I used to be an Air Cadet and then an Air Cadet adult instructor.

I taught and marched alongside hundreds of cadets, male and female, aged 13-20 and not one of them ever complained about having to march a 30 inch pace. Never harmed me, never harmed them and we/they were even shorter than these RAF recruits would be so whats the difference?

.

About five quid. I'd work on that ingrown toenail if I were you. far more lucrative!

Burnie, unfortunately, that's wrong. X-Rays don't lie, as far as I am aware.:ugh: The problem here is surely the value of compensation received and those who chose to ignore training standards as Jimlad1 mentioned.

[Quote]There are now lots of short men wondering if there is blame is there a claim ![Quote]


In my B/E entry, three of us in D Flight were 5'2" with colleagues over 6'3". I don't recall the pace ever being measured or seeing a pace stick used. Nor do I recall having difficulty staying in step, in fact on many occasions I was the only one "in step"

JimLad


You SHOULD be right, but unfortunately ......... Chinook, Nimrod, Sea King, Hercules et al.

Dervish wrote, re engineers:

You SHOULD be right, but unfortunately ......... Chinook, Nimrod, Sea King, Hercules et al.




I would hope you are not referring to ground crew with this comment but significantly further up the food chain!

Mad Jock, such eloquence for one so, err, scottish? :cool: