Changing face and culture of HM Forces
 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...oke-force.html

Is this really what the heads of the armed forces need to be devoting anytime to?
Its one thing to accept all comers for whom a hat can be found to fit! Its another, and I'd say completely unnecessary approach, to go down the line of trying to find ways of incriminating (how I read what's in the link) young servicemen for not passing a woke theory and practical test.

FB

I'll try to bury my immediate prejudice from an article that appears in the "Daily Hate Monger" but it's difficult when they use the kind of language they know will inflame their already agitated readership. Let's be clear here, "Politically Correct" is just a term we use to either dismiss ideas that make us uncomfortable, or dismiss those people we don't believe have a valid viewpoint, that's why this article is littered with it. It goes on to say:

It must be quite the affront to the Daily Stormfront that we might want to understand differences and understand needs. What an absolute shocker - it's anarchy right there.

I'm old enough to remember my service peers moaning and bitching about the downfall of society when it was first floated that the physical abuse of recruits might not be good thing. They also hated when women became integrated members of military units instead of the "Women's Royal this" or "Woman's Royal that". I remember the joviality in a certain Aldershot Battalion when somebody decided you couldn't actually bar women from undergoing the same physical acceptance tests that had previously only been open to the boys club.

I get it. Change is very scary, development of equality that displaces fiefdoms and empires terrifies those who control the fiefdoms and empires. The service I was in was the last bastion of white male supremacy, we just never wanted to admit it or change it. That's all gone now, and the last hold-outs of discrimination and bigotry are being fully exposed for what they are, despite the efforts of the Daily National Front and the same old has-been Colonel they drag out when they want misogynist and racist view of how change and evolution will destroy the military.

So i guess I'm saying I disagree with you, which probably makes me "Politically Correct" in your world.

Two's in,

The changes that allow for all comers were accepted over two decades ago. This isn't a sudden pop up threat to the old days, its a Battle that has been won, a long time since. Therefore, what is the point in pursuing the subject by now trying to make having a positively enthusiastic view compulsory? Unless, the Chiefs of Staff are struggling with a constant litany of disruption and disharmony surrounding the matter, which if so, may require another ore subtle approach. Nobody should be giving a flying guff about how someone expresses themselves so long as they aren't being rude or uncharitable. This is a fetish not of the right, but of the progressives, nothing seemingly can be pushed too far, or in this case, pushed endlessly. As for the usual condemnation of the paper carrying the story, they've used the name of Colonel Richard Kemp, if they've made it up or misrepresented the man then they should expect a letter from his Solicitors in the days ahead. This isn't about encouraging all for one and one for all, it is divisive and provocative. We can always expect the likes of ER to try and shut down the Daily Mail or the Telegraph etc, while leaving the Guardian well alone, but I wouldn't trust them to achieve utopia, more likely a nightmare vision of Animal Farm!

FB

Complete and utter waste of good money!

Job summaries on recruitment websites describe how successful candidates will be expected to ensure troops and civilian Ministry of Defence employees 'feel authentic in the workplace', that people's differences are 'valued' and that 'everyone's needs are considered'.

'Please, sir - I don't feel authentic in my workplace.'
'Authentic? Oh, I'm very sorry to hear that, Airman; let's sort this out, shall we. Have you got your full complement of limbs and other body parts?'
'Yes, sir, I'm all present and correct.'
'Excellent. Does your uniform conform to Dress Regulations and does it fit nicely?'
'Er, yes, sir.'
'Have you been adequately trained for your role in military service?'
'Um, yes,sir, I'm fully qualified.'
'Very good. Have you got all the equipment needed to carry out that role?'
'Yes, sir.'
'Are you gainfully occupied during your working day and are your efforts appreciated?'
'Er... yes, sir, I'm performing a vital function in my squadron.'
'Are there sufficient recreational and sporting facilities on the station to fill your off-duty hours?'
'Yes, sir, there are plenty of opportunities.'
'And do you require anything more than your colleagues are getting?'
'No, sir, we're all in this together.'
'Most commendable. Is there anything else we can do to make you into a more efficient airman?'
'No, sir, the food menu is varied, there are religious services to suit my beliefs, the accommodation and pay is fine and I think I'm very good at my job.'
'Right, then, you horrible little man, you are authentic - get back to work now and don't waste my @&**%#~&$ time again.'

You think it’s a waste of money?
Some of it might be, but we still have work to do. The old days have gone, never to return. The best way to react to this is to accept and embrace, work on making it as sensible as possible. If you fight, you will lose. The young people joining now are different to us, but they still get the job done.”

Toxic leadership, service complaint, removed from command. That's where we are heading.

If you this madness continues we will very soon have no armed forces to talk about.

jayteeto

I would beg to differ - the current joiners are Gen Z (or sometimes called the iGen). They are pretty similar to the Gen X in all but digital competence (or incompetence for the Gen X!) and vastly different to the Gen Y Millenials, or so-called “Wokes”. In fact, in my experience, there is almost as much dislike for “wokism” from Gen Z as there is from Gen X (which is people born between 1965 and 1980). The Gen Zs (1997 to 2012) are our first truly digital generation and you only have to look at their sharp-whitted memes belittling some of today’s crazy “wokism” to understand what makes them tick. As ever, a natural balance is found in these things and, as ever, the senior leadership is out of touch by thinking that the latest generation want a virtue signalling woke world - they don’t!!

I also agree with FB, in that we have now broken down the last barriers in the Armed Forces with all welcome in all roles. Which is a good thing. It is time to stop mentioning it now and just normalise it - everyone is welcome and the very best will rise on merit (and nothing else). :ok:

All very well if it works out that way and promotions aren't made to tick certain boxes... I'm not just talking about the Armed Services.

Having sat in on many a risk assessment, however never one regarding the risks, likelihood and outcome of possessing a goldfish.

Well, that's the Army doing what they do best: focussing on trivial details and missing the big picture. Look at how the RAF and the RN have recapitalised their fleets over the last decade. And what has the Army achieved?

We managed to arrive at a decision on sleeves up or down 👀

I agree with Two's in. It is the Daily Mail's particular slant on the subject. Let's be honest, the press in recent years has been full of stories of army recruits being humiliated and ill treated by people who neglected their duty of care, and soldiers dying on exercises because basic actions were not undertaken. If this helps in any way to stop such events it is not a bad thing.

"how junior soldiers face punishment unless they include politically-correct 'mantras' on their annual self-assessment forms.

"Self assessment? does the Army do that sort of thing? No such thing in the RAF of course.

Do they perhaps mean their objectives? not quite the same thing.

It's a slight thread drift, but remember the case of the Australian Rugby player Israel Folau, who was pilloried for his beliefs about homosexuals. Had he been in the armed forces and stated said beliefs, would his differences be 'valued' or 'considered'?

I think not.

I don't believe that that the armed forces, or anyone else for that matter, is as 'inclusive' as they would like to think. Most of these initiatives are carried out without fully thinking them through and someone is always on the negative end of them.

Which sort of goes against the whole point...

No colour, gender or race in a foxhole under fire, surpisingingly it is when people get religion and see the person next to them, scared ****less as much as they are, as a comrade rather than anything else.

The "re education" lesson always have a danger in that the people giving them end up being in charge.

I have a number of female friends who serve across all three services, and others (male and female) who would fall into the BAME category.

The horror stories that I have heard of how they have been treated, the serious cultural bars they face, the astonishing misogony and sexist behaviour, the casual racism and the general sense that if you are not a straight white male, somehow you don't belong in the same way is deeply upsetting. Whether we like it or not there are very serious issues lying just beneath the surface around military culture that badly need to be addressed - you can complain about this being 'PC gone made' or you can accept that for many members of the forces, being treated in a way that isn't in line with what we loudly proclaim our V&S to be isn't appropriate and needs addressing.

Frankly many of the posts on this thread and elsewhere on this forum merely confirm that these are still live problems.

The thing is Jimlad 1, cultures develop a certain way in different groups. Its one thing to open up all options to one and all subject to qualifications and criteria being fully met, but the mind set and culture, the outlook of the services, as for other organizations is shaped by what they are and what they do. I wouldn't want anyone to feel badly about being in the armed force, for example. I recall from my own time in the RAF, there weren't many women who came across as unhappy or feeling out of place. I don't recall from the same era anyone from a BAME background who struggled to fit in either, quite the opposite. I accept what you've heard from others but what the army is attempting to do is dangerous and counter-productive. After all, we're talking about the Armed Forces, not RADA and I say that knowing how hackles are going to rise, the point is, each has traditionally attracted folk from backgrounds which fit a set description, a particular broad but identifiable character, many can crossover, but there are such things as typical types. Were it not so, there would never be any need for initiatives around diversity and inclusivity.

FB

Most studies of Diversity issues show the same pattern - those in charge and the bulk of the organisation can't see a problem - those affected have a long list of stories running from "banter" to actual physical abuse.

We need to LISTEN to them and talk to them - sometimes all that is needed is an explanation of why certain decions were taken, other times you realise things are not as right as they should be

There seems to be much bandying about of the Merits and demerits of these changes. Remember, the bottom line is; dies it produce a better ‘fighting force’?

The final assessment of any military force is carried out by the opponent!

What he said - just because 90% of your organisation thinks something is right doesn't mean it is for the 10%. When that 10% represents 50% of your recruiting pool you should probably think you're doing something wrong.

I viewed the online profiles of several very senior officers and each CV has a statement on diversity, inclusivity and various 'itys'. These seem to go on for ages, often using terms which to me appear meaningless rubbish.

Surely all that is needed is a statement that says something like: 'all personnel are treated equally' end of story.

Old Duffer

Treating all people equally doesn't equal treating all people like white middle age males, nor does it mean treating everyone the same.

Alfred the great,
I take your point but this leads us to dozens if not hundreds of separate ways of handling individuals, many of whom we have no idea of what their actual persona is. I try to treat people as I would hope to be treated and for me (white and elderly) that's as far as I can take it.

O-D

frankly you have to treat individuals as exactly that. Cookie-cutter leadership just isn't good enough.

I think that's it - you have to know your people and understand what is important to them - do that and D&I comes part of normal operations

Waste of time and money.

Dont be a dick, treat everyone as you want to be treated and stop obsessing over any one demographic.

It's ironic that today's view is that we don't want to hurt an individual's feelings, yet at the same time, want them to go out in situations where they could well be killed.

I'm sure it will be a lot of comfort to them that before they die, they knew that their needs were valued and considered...

"could well be killed" and, of course, kill.

Life doesn't stand still.
 

I disagree with the policy, but not because I'm an "older white man."
I disagree with it because if you need training on how to view your fellows in the job, maybe YOU shouldn't be in it.

Served with plenty of lads and lasses of various origin, and alternative lifestyle persuasions (as far back as the 70's). During basic training, in my room of eighteen, we had a lad from Northern Ireland, three Scots, and a lad from St. Kitts.
The bloke from St. Kitts took a lot of stick from the DI staff, but he brushed it off with "I knew I would get it here, but it's better that getting it from a **** who doesn't even know me".

I then worked for a multinational company, and despite the mandatory inclusiveness training courses, people who held certain views still held them, they simply chose the expected (and obviously expected) answers from the quiz at the end of the training module. I'm not at all sure that this works, regardless of the supposed good intentions.

It sounds as though you consider yourself as the one demographic.
It is far better to consider how you don't want to be treated and don't treat others that way. I know it sounds pedantic, but it isn't. It is far more logical when you realise that not everyone is like you.

One more post before I get myself into trouble.
If you think things are better these days, you are correct.
If you think we don't have a lot to do still, you are incorrect.
Many of you know me personally. I'm not woke, I'm quite outspoken and I'm certainly not Mr PC.
Embrace yourself in this, the majority is good stuff, if someone like me supports it, there may just be a point to it.
I'm not bothered if anyone disagrees with me, its a still a free country.

literally no idea what you are trying to say.....

Just in case I confused you, I meant, just be nice to EVERYONE until they give you reason to dislike them based on their character and actions.

Everyone regardless of the latest wank-word for the week deserves to be treated with dignity and not discriminated against.

OK I'll try again. It's an easy concept that predates Christianity but does require a bit of effort and practice, since you have to think about other people and realise that not everyone is like you.

Not everyone likes nor wants to be treated in the same way you want to be treated. To believe so puts you and your views centre stage.
Think of how you don't want to be treated and then try hard not to treat anyone else that way. It is not easy because you have to be able to put yourself in the other person's shoes and think about how they will react.

Beardy, what are you on about?

"Think about how you don't want to be treated and try hard not to treat anyone that way". So you can't be nice to someone because they might not like it?, but similarly, they might not like the way you don't want to be treated. That seems to me to be still putting yourself centre stage...

You misunderstand, it is not necessarily about being 'nice'. What may be and acceptable to you may not be nor acceptable to the person that you are communicating with and vice versa. You have to be aware of what they consider acceptable behaviour. For example blasphemy may acceptable to an atheist but not a theist, Marriage to a 14 year old may not be acceptable to you, but is in Alabama, New Hampshire etc.. (subject to court orders) So an off the cuff remark concerning God or child brides could cause offence to some. The use of the 'N' word is acceptable in some social groups, but not in others There are many other examples. Your difficulty is determining which, that requires education, thought and understanding.

Good, glad you got the point. If you don't like being insulted then it's best not to insult somebody else, because they may not like it either. The idea is that you consider what you don't want to happen to you and make sure you don't make same thing happen to somebody else.

The MOD has got itself into a massive recruitment vicious circle. The more it 'reaches out' to the minority groups the less the majority group feels inclined to join. With less numbers coming from the majority group, the more it has to change itself to attract the minority groups to fill the gaps. And so on and so on.........

How long before this woke culture does away with ranks and respect for senior personnel. I can see it coming; saluting an officer is demeaning. Glad I left,

Bring back national service and conscription .


lights blues touch paper and runs :)