Homosexual service personell.

Discussion in 'The Quarterdeck' started by jesse, Jul 5, 2009.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. The presence of the armed services at the Gay Pride parade gives me the thought;- Were gay and lesbian service persons ,of all ranks, who were hounded out and discharged from their service, ever reinstated or compensated following the change in regulations?
  2. There have been several claims for compensation which I believe were successful.
  3. No disrespect to those of a diferent sexual orientation, but why should they be compensated, at the times regs stated that they were not eligable to serve, as for reinstatement, again no, they knowingly broke QRRN's.

    I know its not a fair and even view, but life is far from fair and even, and before any jumps all over me and shouts homophobe, I agree that they should be allowed to serve
  4. I am sure the thousands of homosexuals who have/are serving are grateful that you do not object to them serving.
    It is usual for those wrongly convicted, or those who win civil cases for harm, to be rewarded compensation. Which is exactly what happened here. The armed forces got off lightly, after the legal floor was duly wiped with them, largely because many people entitled to claim did not. They, the hierachy of the armed forces should be grateful for that.
  5. I know of one who was successful in getting back in to finish his 22.
  6. Er simply b*llshit. I was knocked off for speeding on the A38 doing 56mph in a 50 zone. Said zone is now 70mph so do I get my fine back.

    No, the law at the TIME is the one to be obeyed.
  7. In this case I am in full agreement with Rumrat.
    The rules at the time were understood by all no matter what was their sexual preference.
    As such there should be no redress under Law.
    Whether the law was right is open to debate.
    At the time the RNs reasons were that homosexuals were open to blackmail, that was the biggest load of bolloxs in the world. Had homosexuality been legal then there would have been far less chance of the homosexual serviceman been open to blackmail than the heterosexual married matelot bagging off out of watch.
  8. Before I throw my two-pence worth, I want to say that I have no problem with someone's sexual orientation, it's their ability to do their job that counts, indeed, I served in Iraq with a soldier who was open about the fact that he cohabitated with his same-sex partner, and he was, and still is, one of the most outstanding and professional servicemen with whom I have served. For what it's worth, I believe anyone should be allowed to serve and the days of someone being forbidden to so because of their sexual orientation are over, and rightly so.......but I do agree with Rumrat on this one.

    On a related point, as it was illegal to be a homosexual and serving in HM Forces, what happened to all those who held DV clearance? One of the questions asked was "do you have, or have you ever had tendencies of a homosexual nature?" or words to that effect. Now, my point is that anyone who answered 'yes' to this, would have been discharged, or bearing in mind the nature of discretion involved in the entire DV process, at the very least refused at DV.

    Subsequently, when it became no-longer unnacceptable to be a homosexual and serve in HM Forces, several holders of DV clearance "came out of the closet" so to speak. I have no problem with that from a professional standpoint, but from a security point of view......they had obviously lied during their DV interviews previously, otherwise they wouldn't hold their clearance.....thereby making them automatically ineligible to hold DV clearance. However I know of no cases of anyone losing their DV's over this. How come?
  9. Now at least all our gay friends are invited to see the bishop and be cured of their afflications. :p


    Bishop tells gays to seek a cure
    Nov 7 2003 Exclusive By David Holmes Chester Chronicle

    THE BISHOP of Chester is calling on gay people to seek medical help to try to become heterosexual

    What is this pillock spouting on about, more to the point why is he spouting such dross. What is more annoyubg is that as a Bishop he is allowed to sit in the House of Lords.
    The man is retarded and foolish. :twisted:
  10. I was one of those who was initially against homosexuals serving in the navy but over time my views changed. I came to realise that we were there to do a job and one's sexuality should not matter nor influence how that job is done.

    Anyone joining the forces at that time knew what the regulations were regarding homosexuality, which meant that anyone discovered to be homosexual was discharged, and there could be no complaints. However, the law was changed and applied retrospectively. I don't know about any cases of compensation but there was an officer in one of the ships in which I served, who rejoined after the ban was lifted. He was the AOPS and was colloquially known as Gay Ops. :D

    I don't suppose you are alluding to a certain CCCT by any chance?
  11. Not refering to anyone personally shipmate, CT's aren't the only people in the Andrew to hold DVs, far from it.
  12. The initial law case was brought by, amongst others, the son of a prominent barrister, a gentleman who clearly saw that the ongoing treatment of people, simply for their sexuality, was illegal. His repost to his son on being told of what had happend was something along the lines of 'Then you must sue them'.
    The regs at the time stated 'innapropriate sexual conduct or activity, some such words. Not 'being homosexual'.
    However homosexuals were being thrown out simply because of their supposed or admitted sexuality, not necessarily having practiced any kind of sexual behaviour which would land them in conflict with the regs.
    It was kangaroo courts at their most unpleasant.
    Once agains simples, and a wonder the MOD got away with it for as long as they did.
  13. 'No, the law at the TIME is the one to be obeyed' - Unquote

    Read above post which shows more of the facts of the law, as it stood, rather than the popular or accepted myth.
  14. I remember when the homosexuality laws were changed so that acts of homosexuality were no longer illegal.
    The powers that be at the time went to great lengths to impress on all service personnel that these laws did not apply to them and homosexuality was still a bar to serving.
    It is my belief that if we had not joined the EU claims in British law courts would have been dismissed.
  15. In the armed forces there are rules and regulations that by the nature of the beast conflict with UK criminal law.
    The most obvious is that of the Firearms law which makes it an offence for any person under the age of 18 to carry or discharge a firearm in a public place. So how do the armed forces comply?
    There may be a lot of others but not being a lawyer I do not confess to be able to quote them.
    What I said was that if it was against Naval law at the time why should anyone gay or otherwise be able to fight for compensation.
    DQ's was brought up recently in respect that the treatment at the time was not only against all human rights but actually barbaric.
    That was then now is now live with it, or do you think I and a lot more like me should be compensated.
    They changed the pension rules in 1975, so should all those who dipped out get a slice.
    It could go on for ever. I have no argument with the Gay community, quite the contrary, but equality means you get the same considerations as all.
    That was then now is now for all.
  16. Not having a copy of the old QRRN's to hand, I cannot comment on the exact wording, however in 1979 and again in 1988 when joining the RN, I was asked if I was or had any Homosexual tendencies at which time I was made aware that it would have barred me from serving in the RN.

    Now I believe sussex served prior to the change of regs, so either at the time of joining he was unaware of his sexuality or he lied, and if he had been 'outed' under the old regs he should have been dismissed, and rightly so. There are many rules and regulations that are wrong, or wrongly applied, but when all is said and done, the law is the law and should be obeyed or you must face the consequences. As I said earlier, the world is not a fair place!
  17. And someone with a username of Jesse wishes to enquire about what? :lol: :lol:
    In answer, yes I believe that was the case and you may find some useful information in the archives of www.pinknews.co.uk
  18. This is an interesting debate (happily being treated sensibly).

    Must admit I was always in the 'it was illegal then and they knew it'... err...camp, but if what sussex says is correct, surely that view is no longer valid? It wasn't being light on one's feet that was the problem, it was doing it?

    Therefore - compo I suppose.

    Edit - composed before last two posts.
  19. Bloody hell mate do you know how tired you argument is - have you read my post as to the origins of the legal case. A case that ended up showing that the MOD had been acting illegaly for year upon year, dating back generations. So, it was not the 'law' but an illegal practice running unabated, because no one had challenged it.
    Read up on it and you will see.
    Do you honestly think the MOD with all their ability to purchase considerable legal clout would have lost if they were not wrong?
  20. I have to agree with rumrat.Those that did in those days were knowingly breaking QRRN for which (if found out)were discharged .Just because it is now OK it does not mean (to me) they should be compensated .I also do think even though it is now lawful.It should not be flaunted all over in parades etc .After all (we straight people).We dont have parades do we ?? :)

Share This Page