Guardian: "Women On The Front Line: The Right To Fight"

janner

MIA
Book Reviewer
#2
What a poorly written article. It would appear from reading it that the RN has something other than Nuclear Submarines. Nicola was also well versed in things Naval
 
#4
FunkyJunky said:
terrible article...and women wont be allowed to serve on submarines IMO....just a daft idea in this day and age
Wrong. You've said the same thing on another thread, don't you like the idea of women in frontline roles?. It will happen and sooner than you think.

Watch this space.
 
#7
WreckerL said:
FunkyJunky said:
terrible article...and women wont be allowed to serve on submarines IMO....just a daft idea in this day and age
Wrong. You've said the same thing on another thread, don't you like the idea of women in frontline roles?. It will happen and sooner than you think.

Watch this space.
I'm watching, but I still see no satisfactory evidence that contradicts earlier studies which show risks associated with elevated levels of carbon dioxide on the foetus. I believe Julian Ferguson to be wrong in his assertion with regard to the existing medical evidence. Now if a qualified submarine Medical Officer were to tell me that studies had been carried out on the sheep no longer living at INM (or indeed, any reputable study) showing that prolonged levels of carbon dioxide (ideally at up to 10,000ppm, compared to the MPC90 7,000ppm, an average submarine atmosphere of 4-6,000ppm and a normal atmospheric concentration of 400ppm) had no significant risk, I would stop bleating on about this, but until such time, I will repeat, until blue in the face, that there is currently plenty of medical evidence to suggest elevated levels of carbon dioxide can cause harm to unborn children, and no satisfactory evidence that I know of which contradicts this.

Normong_Gruntham said:
What a jolly silly idea! There are no ladies toilets on submarines.
Actually, they are all 'ladies toilets'.

Jon Henley in the GrauniadOnLine said:
("Oh FFS," wrote one sarcastic submariner to an online bulletin board for naval personnel, "that's the end of our reputation as the Silent Service, then.")
I wish I'd thought of that one. Does anyone here lay claim? I only ask, as I cannot find it anywhere on the interwebs without it referring back to the Grauniad, which would mean that it is (yet another) fabricated quote.
 
#8
WreckerL said:
FunkyJunky said:
terrible article...and women wont be allowed to serve on submarines IMO....just a daft idea in this day and age
Wrong. You've said the same thing on another thread, don't you like the idea of women in frontline roles?. It will happen and sooner than you think.

Watch this space.
maybe it will...but it serves no purpose what so ever...it will mean incresed costs in getting things fitted out..increased costs in "man power"...just more increased costs that we as a service, as an armed force and as indeed, a country cannot afford..

I thought we were looking to make real savings everywhere..?

putting women at sea on subs right now will offer NOTHING in OC and will end up costing an amount we dont need to pay
 
#9
News this week that the Royal Navy will soon allow women sailors to serve on submarines – including its 11-strong fleet of nuclear submarines has drawn a predictably colourful range of reactions ("Oh FFS," wrote one sarcastic submariner to an online bulletin board for naval personnel, "that's the end of our reputation as the Silent Service, then.")

Was that you WreckerL :lol:
 
#10
Merlin28 said:
News this week that the Royal Navy will soon allow women sailors to serve on submarines – including its 11-strong fleet of nuclear submarines has drawn a predictably colourful range of reactions ("Oh FFS," wrote one sarcastic submariner to an online bulletin board for naval personnel, "that's the end of our reputation as the Silent Service, then.")

Was that you WreckerL :lol:
Innocent m'lud :wink:

(and for Funky Junky, it won't cost that much if you think about it)
 
#13
If they want to go (and I only ever met one who wanted to) and they're needed then it will be done. Bombers probably as they have already got the facilities (not a jibe, thinking of the eleven man or woman! bunkspaces).

I very much doubt Astutes or T boats will ever have them.
 
#14
I know of several new minted subbies who want a crack at the submarine world. Someone I was chatting to at Collingrad suggested the first fem would be a Loggie officer, on a V boat due to berthing arrangements.

And another thing, I don't see why male/female heads have to be seperate. The Dutch and others manage quite well and doesn't seem to cause any issues, why are we so prudish?
 
#16
WhizzbangDai said:
I know of several new minted subbies who want a crack at the submarine world. Someone I was chatting to at Collingrad suggested the first fem would be a Loggie officer, on a V boat due to berthing arrangements.

And another thing, I don't see why male/female heads have to be seperate. The Dutch and others manage quite well and doesn't seem to cause any issues, why are we so prudish?
Not prudish, just worried about the number of complaints from lady submariners about the smelly farts that hang around (Lady farts not submariners farts which of course smell of old spice).
 
#18
seenoffteefcuk said:
Normong_Gruntham said:
WhizzbangDai said:
Someone I was chatting to at Collingrad suggested the first fem would be a Loggie officer, on a V boat due to berthing arrangements.

A Cook? Quite right too!

You sir are a knob.

I certainly hope so as without a knob I'd be one of those ladies trying to get onto boats and clutter up the toilets with all their lipsticks and hairsprays.
 
#19
WhizzbangDai said:
I know of several new minted subbies who want a crack at the submarine world. Someone I was chatting to at Collingrad suggested the first fem would be a Loggie officer, on a V boat due to birthing arrangements.
There you go. Fixed it for you. :sign10:
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top