I think it can look smart.
13 Likes
Ditto.
I’ve dealt with the Nordic militaries on a few things, they are some of the most professional out there and have long had a progressive hair (and beard) policy
1 Like
Do they also carry battle axes and hammers?
Only at weekends
Ensure hair is secure and moved to the left shoulder? In fairness, hair has been worn down in the field for a long time. Let’s not make it too difficult.
2 Likes
Total agreement.
I’m in FULL favour and support this change.
It was just (with hindsight) a funny tale…
Theres no justification for not supporting it, IMHO.
1 Like
Pound to a pinch of salt, ‘give them an inch they’ll take a mile’ [‘they’ being everyone, before the snowflakes kick-off]
Men/ boys will be allowed to have long hair and ponytails next as its against their HRs or they are not being treated as equals…
Its already allowed hair to the lower edge of the collar… Corps is turning into Thunder Dome
Yeah. Good.
6 Likes
You mean the whole force and entire defence org.
These are changes led from the very top of our parents service
Stop moaning and get back in your wooden pre 1950s box please
4 Likes
Equalised regs are just the right direction to go, but on top of that I’m fairly sure there have been members of this forum who’ve speculated that us as a run-of-the-mill youth organisation using the actual armed forces’ gendered dress regulations might actually be in violation of the law.
Unless you’re going to start waging a culture war on legislation that’s not very new at all, just accept this is the way things are going.
3 Likes
To be fair, there is a lot of talk about the dress regs across the MOD just going non-gendered entirely. And I agree with it!
Just as long as they dont take away my lovely soft worn in pair of ancient tatty brown parade gloves… they can do what they like.
1 Like
And they’re the ones who can get away with it. There’s an exception carved out in the Equality Act for something along the lines of ‘Ensuring combat effectiveness.’
1 Like
Yeah, pretty sure there is. But it doesn’t mean they have to use it!
There’s no reason that in the dress regs when it talks about wearing of skirts, or piercings, that it needs to be gendered. Currently those two things refer to what women can do. It can just say “in blues you can wear trousers or a skirt. This is how you wear your trousers properly, and this is his you wear your shirt properly.”
I reckon that’s how it will go soon enough. And hopefully it does!
1 Like
Yes, you are correct:
Schedule 3 provides the get out clause:
"Armed forces
4(1)Section 29(6), so far as relating to relevant discrimination, does not apply to anything done for the purpose of ensuring the combat effectiveness of the armed forces.
(2)“Relevant discrimination” is—
(a)age discrimination;
(b)disability discrimination;
©gender reassignment discrimination;
(d)sex discrimination.
This clearly does not apply to us, so yes, AP1358C has been in breach of the EA for years, and I keep telling people this, I just need a cadet with Standing and I may give it a go, for poos and giggles.
4 Likes
Is it discrimination though; legally?
Without having the time right now to go down the rabbit hole I might park this one and come back to the discussion later… Is having different hair regulations between male and female treating one or other “less favourably” (what is “favourable treatment”?) ; or is it putting one or other at a particular disadvantage?
Yeah, if you are affected, like if you want to wear an earring for instance, you are not allowed, so are being tested less favourably than a female staff member who can. The only reason is because of your sex.
1 Like
I accept that the reason is simply because of sex, but from where do we draw the definition of what is considered favourable treatment?
It’s a genuine question to satisfy my interest in law; not me looking to pick holes.
It just means your worse of because of it. It’s a pretty low bar.
1 Like