For those with a little more than an hour to spare, here's a suggestion that the so-called Diversity Chief is only about 90 years behind the curve:


It's a long way from the days when the Second Sea Lord's response to a request from a Service minister for details of how many non white serving personnel there were was to the effect that "We don't keep any such records, we don't need to, and we don't intend to".

Additionally, and looking at Alan West's comments in the Mail, it's interesting to recall that he was very prominent in making the case for integrating the WRNS into the Royal Navy.

Jack

Here is one, Diversity Chief


As the head of the Indian tribes and Clans were normally male and French leaders as in Kings were always Male, surely by using that title she is in herself failing to be Diverse!


https://www.etymonline.com/word/chief

So you've yet to meet a man who objects to everything, every time, everywhere? Lucky you..

If you seriously think that gendered rank terminology may deter some young budding pilot from applying...then your priorities may need readjusting. Try shuffling some of the following to the top of your list: pay, food, accommodation, location, mission, military covenant, pension, etc, etc...

Maybe that young person may find military life is not for them, if pronouns and gendered language are at the top of THEIR list.

And the Mail may be a bit of a rag, but at least they are shining a light on chaff like this. I don't see the Grauniad doing so.

There is an apocryphal story that when homosexuality was first accepted in the armed forces a senior naval officer was asked at a press conference how he felt about this change in policy. Allegedly, his response was "Fine, as long as they don't make it compulsory"!

Any Mancunians in the house?

Bring back the veggie patch.

Many years ago I used to deal a lot with a big national telecommunications company. Over the years I eventually found out why sometimes things would get done and other times things would take forever - they had an ecosystem within their organisation called the "veggie patch" where all the not-so-useful and not-so-effective people would be sent. Best of all it was already brimming with diversity.

I've since concluded every big organisation needs a veggie patch. It also ticks a box.

LOMCEVAK

The old ones are always the best.
On the other hand, as he was a fish head, I'm surprised he didn't say 'What's new?".

I would rather they were committed to creating a seriously unwelcoming and exclusive environment where our enemies are concerned.

I am reminded of the tale during the 39-45 unpleasantness when a bowler hatted gent walking down Whitehall was asked 'Which side is the War Office on?', and replied 'Ours, I hope.'

I somehow managed in 9 years of service to avoid my name appearing on a Form 252. My language at the time, if overheard nowadays would clearly have resulted in a plethora. Eheu fugaces labuntur anni

Take a Chill Pill
 

It doesn’t take much to get you lot all riled up does it?!

I think the outrage has gone on long enough.

I’m a serving Officer and it doesn’t bother me one bit. I agree it’s not the best way to spend the money (it may be pro rata and her work may be done in a few months). If it makes a few people happy then so be it. It will not change our fighting effectiveness for the worse so, for the sake of your blood pressure just let it slide and find something else to twist your knickers.

BV

I agree Bob. I’m aircrew and have been in just short of 35 years. Things have changed for the better but what definitely hasn’t changed is our ethos.

Weirdly, as the RAF got more “woke” I and my colleagues ended up deploying on more and more operations.

A damn sight more fighting-focused than the Cold War days, of which I was also a part.

But hey, what do I know.

PBA Target....perhaps the alternative strategy being utilized by the RAF is shrinking the force size to equalize the shortage of recruits rather than growing the numbers of recruits to meet the existing force structure.

Yes, of course. :ok:

I mean, the recent review mad a big deal about army cuts not being cuts because the army hasn't been that size for a decade, so you're not wrong sasless. Does seem to be perhaps not quite the right approach however, although eventually the UK military will trend to a single mainframe AI with no personnel. If we're lucky we'll have some drones to go with the AI!

Bob,
I am sure that you can see that there is also humour running through this thread. 'Back in the day' there were some behaviours that were inappropriate and out of order but some of what was said that today would be verboten was intended in good humour and was accepted as such. What we must never lose sight of is that we must always be able to criticise justifiably any poor performance and not be threatened with action due to the individual being from a 'diverse' background; I have seen this happen. The bottom line is that everyone deserves due respect and appropriate and fair interaction with others, irrespective of any 'group' within which they fall.

To quote from one of the greatest influences upon the English language, Monty Python's 'Life of Brian': "It's not so much the ability to have babies, Reg, it's the right to have babies"

Y-Fronts are also available upon request.

LOMCEVAK
 

You're right. I agree that we shouldn't try to put a stop to the humour that has been the glue that holds us all together.

I suspect, though, that this review will come and go and life will carry on which is why I, for one, will not waste any more time worrying about it.

BV