MOD Apologises for.....

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by Lamri, Jun 28, 2007.

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. Discriminating against Gay Service personnel WHEN IT WAS ILLEGAL!
    Can't understand it myself, if it was illegal, then surely it isn't discrimination!

  2. Yes everyone is bending over backwards with the gay revolution and trying to cover their a***s . Unusual though to become ultra permissive given the now lethal diseases associated with catching the boat up . Rotten idea I reckon and a relief to no longer be playing the field .

  3. yep agree Lamri, it wasnt wrong at the time, so why apologise now. Just rule a line underneath it, put it down to experience and MOVE ON.
  4. "Wing Commander Phil Sagar"… a Crab… figures
  5. Reading the quotations in the article that's not what's been said, it's certainly not a policy statement and it'll be more useful to listen to the programme and see how the interview plays out.

    I'm amused by the example at the end of the article though, a WO1 has clearly had his career limited....
  6. sgtpepperband

    sgtpepperband War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    Freudian slip, surely?! :wink:

  7. Nah ! puns intended but arseking for trouble no doubt

  8. Old indian quote if you cant get it down you get it up you now eff off FB PITA
  9. "Discriminating against Gay Service personnel WHEN IT WAS ILLEGAL!"

    I think they are apologising since the UK Gov was found to be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights (Articles 8 and 13) and was forced to pay compensation. Admitting that it was wrong to discriminate against people based on their sexuality is the first step in moving on, and hopefully will go some way to heal the damage done (and perhaps mitigate against further compensation claims).

    That said, I understand your point Lamri, as I remember you were asked to sign a statement that you were not homosexual (or a member of the communist party etc etc), so that when it came time to boot them out, they were discharged for "knowingly making a false statement", and not bum fun. Although clearly an attempt by SIB to sidestep the issue and prolong a policy they knew was way behind public opinion, it allowed the status quo to continue , which is where the problem lay.

    Ah well, RIP Rule 1: No pooftahs!! :happy10:
  10. I don`t understand, "way behind public opinion" what public opinion? where is the poll, or the referendum? The gays are a minority, so does the minority rule now? We`re all going to hell in a handcart.
    Be nice to yourself.

  11. Most people whilst not being gay do seem to accept that gays should not be dicriminated against. One of the things that has always mistified me is that so many of the anti gay brigade think it is at the same time quite OK to watch porn about lesbians.
  12. Since "The Sexual Offences Act 1967 decriminalised homosexuality" Id say the MOD was a bit behind, only took them 33 years to get the gist. Not that the MOD should be in step or leading civilian legislation, but even so, it was well past time to deal with this. Racism for instance, still exists, but now most people can see it for the indicator of low IQ that it is. One day, homophobia will go the way of the dinosaur too. I wonder if there are any serving LBGTs yet with "civil partenrships"? That should be a test of tolerance for you....... :pissedoff:

    And Maxi, we all love a bit of girl on girl :thumright: , until the girl in question is Rosie O'Donnell on Janet Reno....... :pukel: Not all of 'em look like Jenna Jameson...... :whew:
  13. Im one of those people Maxi, that while Im not gay, I find gay bashing abhorrent. Im not talking about the light hearted stuff that is usually on here and the way matelots deal with peoples differences (colour, regional accents, body types, ginger hair etc) but the stuff that reminds you of the KKK and mein kampf. Where would we (esp the RN) have been without people like Alan Turing.
  14. And there was me under the impression that the MOD was exempt [​IMG]
  15. I can think of a couple, so to speak.

    Both good at their jobs, professional people.

    I should probably add that they're in relationships with other people, not together.
  16. The government only have any obligation to pay compensation to those they discriminated against when the case was first brought before the ECHR, not earlier. The fact that Lord Robertson as the then Defence Secretary couldn't bring himself to change the law simply compounded the problem.

    Most people who were discharged for being gay didn't realise they were sexually attracted towards their own gender until sometime after they joined, one of the issues raised before the ECHR itself. Many had joined at 15 or 16 and at that age assumed they were straight or, to use the common belief of the time, 'Just confused. They'd grown out of it.' Therefore they didn't lie when they signed up.

    Finally, homosexuality was not fully decriminalised until the Sexual Offences Act 2003 came into force. In 1967 only "homosexual acts" carried out in private by consenting civillian males over the age of 21 were legalised. Homosexuality was still outlawed (and punishable with imprisonment) in both the Armed Forces and the Merchant Navy. It was also grounds for instant dismissal in the civil service with loss of pension rights - and that was the case when I was in the then DHSS between 1983-85. Private meant in a dwelling where no more than two people were physically present in the property. If a flat was shared by three people and two has sex in another room, they faced prosecution. In the mid 1990s I was almost arrested near Covent Garden by a young policeman for kissing an older man in a doorway. Luckily his older colleague intervenced and told him not to be so stupid. Otherwise we would both have been charged (as the younger policeman wanted to) with gross indecency in public place! In 2003 all convictions for this where the convicted were still on the sex offenders register for their area were ordered to be wiped from the record - but the then Home Secretary, Jack Straw, seemed reluctant for some weeks to change the law. Many people convicted, were charged with gross indency for publically kissing or holding hands - things that were not crimes when done by straights. :pissedoff:
  17. Wow, thanks for the insight AAC. Sounds like a nightmare from a George Orwell novel. And I wasnt defending the use of the "false statement" discharges, as you point out how could a 28 year old be held to the same beliefs or practices he/she had at 16 or 17. I guess the court though so too.

    Lamri, it always seems to be the case with the pusser, H&S law, COSHH, equality etc, until someone takes a case far enough to get it overruled. In this case the UK courts supported the govt. but the EU did not. I remember joining up without "leave to sue" the pusser, all changed in about '95 (IIRC) after the case of the matelot who fell in the dry dock with a civvy while painting the side, civvy got a big payout for his injuries matelot got a paltry monthly sum. His legal team sued and despite knockbacks eventually won, then came the suckback from the MOD, with caveats mind. Dont know what the status is these days but I imagine the MOD will be moving to treat PTSD far more seriously for the current sandbox vets, in order to mitigate for future litigation.
  18. I think it is a positive move, the problem with our currently litigious society is it prevents people saying sorry when they should. I personally ain't in favour of all these people taking the government to court for compensation, I don't the individuals concerned's personal circumstances however.

    Hopefully we can now all move on.
  19. rum rat that topic has already been done to death on another thread, lets move on.

Share This Page