Nobby Cybergoat
Well-known member
- Jul 19, 2021
- 8,754
That's fascinating. Thanks for sharing
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[News] Homosexuality and the Armed Forces.
- Thread starter lawros left foot
- Start date
I really don`t know how things are now , i was just referring to what the OP had said , being cynical i would not trust some people not to use this as an excuse .
Insel affe
HellBilly
Wow, just wow, what strength of character you have, as someone else said, thank you for your service.
I wonder if this will extend to the other services such as the police, my uncle had to leave the met due to bullying in the mid 80s for being gay. I hope he does not get anything though, despite being gay I was shocked at some of his racist comments the last time I saw him, shocked (probably picked that up in the force back in the 80s)
Thanks for telling your story. It was truly shocking the trauma you were put through when all you wanted to do was serve your country. I wish you every success should you decide to make a claim.
Professor Andrew Hartle was interviewed this morning on the Today programme. He was a medic in the RAF and in 1996 he was outed by the News Of The World and had to leave the forces. Yes, 1996. 1996! The editor of the NOTW (or “Britain’s biggest selling newspaper” as he prefers to call it in his bio) at the time was Phil Hall who now, surprise surprise, runs a PR company.
Milano
Well-known member
Firstly I think that the law at the time was wrong, very wrong.
However it WAS the law.
As the very moving reply above about the RAF stated, he knew what the law was, yet still chose to join.
Therefore as harsh as it sounds, why almost 25 years after this law was rightly changed are people now seeking compensation? Whether the law was right or wrong, they KNEW that they were breaking it. My guess is that it is because this has reached the top of a never ending list of retrospective 'justice'. Lawyers will be getting richer, they always do.
I am completely against re-judging a legal situation decades later by using current law or views. This is not a miscarriage of justice, like the Postmasters, this is a law being imposed which was law at the time. Whether the law is deemed wrong today (it clearly is) is irrelivent IMO.
However it WAS the law.
As the very moving reply above about the RAF stated, he knew what the law was, yet still chose to join.
Therefore as harsh as it sounds, why almost 25 years after this law was rightly changed are people now seeking compensation? Whether the law was right or wrong, they KNEW that they were breaking it. My guess is that it is because this has reached the top of a never ending list of retrospective 'justice'. Lawyers will be getting richer, they always do.
I am completely against re-judging a legal situation decades later by using current law or views. This is not a miscarriage of justice, like the Postmasters, this is a law being imposed which was law at the time. Whether the law is deemed wrong today (it clearly is) is irrelivent IMO.
Personally I find it disgusting that within my life time gay people were persecuted by the military for their sexuality - it had no affect on their ability to do the job.
Many who were bullied, dismissed or/and imprisoned have ended up in poverty with no pensions and a criminal record meaning they couldn't get decent jobs. I'd equate their right to compensation to that of the Post Masters and Mistresses who are now due far more compensation.
I'd be happy for every one of the persecuted to get £500k and full 30 years served military pension. £70k is misery to compensate them for their suffering.
Many who were bullied, dismissed or/and imprisoned have ended up in poverty with no pensions and a criminal record meaning they couldn't get decent jobs. I'd equate their right to compensation to that of the Post Masters and Mistresses who are now due far more compensation.
I'd be happy for every one of the persecuted to get £500k and full 30 years served military pension. £70k is misery to compensate them for their suffering.
The point you are making is a little contradictory. As you yourself state the law then was "wrong", but then your argument for not awarding compensation is because despite the law being "wrong" it was the law.
Surely if the law was "wrong" then those directly affected by it were "wronged" and are therefore deserving of compensation.
Insel affe
HellBilly
As wrong as it all is, where do you think they will get 500k to pay possibly thousands of folk, shall they increase your tax or take it from the NHS, Schools, council budgets or the underfunded military in a time of world conflict ?
Ah, the "it would be too expensive" argument ! Firstly there is plenty of wasteful spending within government which if cut out could pay for it. Or stop HS2 or the Trident upgrade. Maybe pull out of Diego Garcia and save the running costs. There is a myriad of areas that could easily cover the money required.
The bottom line is that it was wrong and immoral and the government and the taxpayer should pay the bill ( very few taxpayers objected to the policy when it was in place ).
Deportivo Seagull
I should coco
i and number of lads knew of one guy who was gay. one of the lads new a friend of friend whose brother was gay. Shows just what a small world it is. He knew that we knew which did make it awkward for a while. General consensus was that you’d have to some sort of miserable **** to grass him up so we just ignored it and let him be. He did his 9 years and left without any problems. Thinking back I can’t think of anyone saying they’d shop someone if they were gay (this is early eighties). Plenty of jokes which would definitely not be tolerated today but it was a case of ’who gives a shit’. Things that were important were ‘women, going on the piss, make and mends, leave and food’, if someone decided that women wasn’t on their list, then yeah whatever.
Insel affe
HellBilly
yes I suppose the funds from those above mentioned, however are current issues with the NHS and Schools, Prisons, not more pressing, if they won't divert them for these now, why should they for those poorly treated in the past. I am not saying I know the answer or that they do not deserve anything but being subjective.
The bottom line is it was wrong and immoral correct.
But not at the tax payers expense, I am a tax payer and I did not vote in this law, I probably was not even alive.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
They could ask Baroness Mone or Dido Harding to pay some back.
portlock seagull
Well-known member
- Jul 28, 2003
- 17,931
How is it affecting you now though? What’s the point in being bothered by? Like nearly everything in the news, you can have zero influence so what’s the blooming point, coldly, of caring never mind being upset by. Unless of course you’re still involved and able to affect / impacted by.
Well the wheels of social progress are quite slow in military institutions...
In Sweden it has never been illegal to be HBTQ in the military, but while homosexuality has not been illegal here since 1944, it was still considered a "disease" until 1979 and plenty of potential recruits were denied to do service on the basis of being homosexuals. After 1979 there's no questions of that nature.
...but still it took until 2000 until someone in the Swedish military finally came out in public and said he was gay. Still in recent times some 80% feel that the Swedish military has a negative attitude towards HBTQ-people.
I think the concept of "defense" generally attracts people who are more keen on preserving their country/the world. In a lot of cases, maybe more so the higher up the ranks you go, I imagine this desire of preservation doesn't match well with socially progressive development... meaning it takes time for societal change to reach the cores of the military in any given country.
- Jul 10, 2003
- 27,946
Never having served, I have to say I'm stunned by some of the posts on here. I'm pretty sure that since the mid 80's, I've known the sexuality of people I've worked with/for or have worked for me 95% and all we've ever done is sit in an office, chat for a bit and go for a few drinks occasionally.
There's always one or two, who bring their partners to a Xmas do, some celebration of a good project, or drinks after work and you think 'I'd never have guessed, from all orientations' but it's really sad that it could be so important in simply doing a job
There's always one or two, who bring their partners to a Xmas do, some celebration of a good project, or drinks after work and you think 'I'd never have guessed, from all orientations' but it's really sad that it could be so important in simply doing a job
Last edited:
Looking at it another way, you were a more than able member of the armed forces who clearly put service to your country before your sexuality. If you want my answer....yes, you do deserve compensation.
Van Cleef
Well-known member
- Jun 17, 2023
- 863
I'm generally in agreement about retrospectively applying the law as it is now. But if you look at this from a purely financial viewpoint it will cost 50-75m to, correctly in my view, attempt to resolve this. Peanuts really. Although I would much rather each case was looked at individually rather than a blanket amount for all.
In the news the same day we were told that we are all paying up to 46m for a QE2 memorial ffs.
The ban back then was clearly wrong. As someone who was serving pre 2000 and still serving I think in an ideal world compensation is due but lets be honest if we are so skint we can't look after our old folk properly then we can't afford to pay this. Plus as has been said previously its opening a can of worms. How many "I signed off because I was gay but didn't tell anyone that was why" could we get? Well intended but impractical me thinks.