Well, such people generally retain very good contacts with those who they served with, even those who were significantly lower on the rank structure (protégées or otherwise) - & of course, if those “lower ranks” are now much higher up the chain, they certainly can’t raise their point of view publically.
Happened before, & it’ll happen again.
They mentioned that our attempts to make our organisation more open and inclusive are racist.
10 POINTS on gammon bingo!
Imagine putting your name to that dross.
Potentially valid points aside, they nuked their own letter with their pearl-clutching hysteria and strawman arguments.
That part of their letter is just completely out of touch.
Also, referencing “our ancestors” and “lead(ing) the world in ending slavery”…
I think the suggestion is that the secular act of remembrance can be followed by an optional Christian service. So Christianity isn’t being removed, just that it’s going to be there for people who actually want a Christian element, whilst all you heathens can nip off to the pub early. 
Letters like this really don’t help. There is certainly an argument that the current “diversity” drive in the public sector is counter productive. The sessions that I had to sit through in the civil service were designed to stoke division and were in some instances outright racist. I recall one session that said, and I quote, “all white people are inherently evil and if you’re going to have to work with us then you shouldn’t be in leadership”. This wasn’t said to demonstrate the ridiculousness of past accusations against other races, the person saying it genuinely hated everyone white and they were in charge of running the all the training in the department. It was also the outright focus on race, and ignoring all the other factors that affect privilege. If you are white then you are always in a more privileged position than a black person, regardless of anything else in your life. They were adamant that a black person from a rich family with private school and Oxbridge education will be worse off than a white boy with disabilities who grew up in the care system.
As a result people would switch off rather than listen. There’s a definite need for raising awareness and more cultural diversity, but the current public sector model is not fit for purpose and is doing more damage and providing fuel for those that would like the country to be pure Aryan.
That makes sense. The rest of us can head off and sacrifice a lamb and then we’re all included!
Exactly the type of people typically associated with being apoplectic with rage at the suggestion that a man might wear some make up.
On a scale of 1 to 5 million of how important a man’s decision to wear or not to wear some foundation is on the outcome of a full scale land invasion… I think it’d struggle to get out of a single digits.
Do they not have any sort of media rep given their positions, they just still do lots of consulting. Someone to stay ‘stop being a pillock’ and snap them out of it.
As someone has already pointed out, you were banned from joining the military gay whilst most of these were still running the gig.
This West Wing clip is from before the US military stopped banning people who are gay from joining the military. Incredibly powerful scene. Very safe for work.
The people who say “all men” or “all white people” are the exception, but they’re amplified to support this idea that there’s a war that needs fighting.
Those people are as stupid as those who wrote the letter.
I agree they’re the exception, but in my old department they run the show, and I know it’s similar in other departments. I’m sure not all departments, but they need reigning in to stop fueling the fire
This is not an easy issue to fix - look at the Parkrun palaver for example!
ignore when they joined up, these are senior officers - they didn’t get to that position via a “short commission” route based on the ages of those 6 of these (ie in their 80s, 2 almost in their 90s)) are likely to have retired 20-25 years ago, ie at or soon after 2000 when recruits were allowed to be homophobic (I wonder how many of these officers saw the decision and retired in protest soon after?)
there are five others who may well have retired in the last 10-15 years and so likely to have spent 75% or more of their service in a non-diverse Armed Forces, and when you consider who’ll they be sat around tables with in meetings, (ie other senior officers) it is unlikely they worked closely with a diverse Armed Forces.
If these were Senior officers who were recently (ie <5 years/since the pandemic) retired I could perhaps have more sympathy with their view point - but the language used, and with their ages confirmed, highlights just how out of touch with modern Britain they are and how unqualified they are to indicate what the Armed Forces of a Modern Britain should look like.
it reminds me of RBL members ranting that it “…isn’t as good as it was back in my day…” style soap boxing.
Their Solution would have been National Service, and it’s not the “wokerati” that are causing Recruitment issues, it’s Government.
3 months after I submitted my (now withdrawn) application, I was still waiting just to undertake the aptitude tests.
I had seen a person in recruitment just once in all that time - for 30 seconds as they checked my passport.
Crapita are far more responsible for the recruitment problems than the bogeyman “Wokerati”
I’m currently Applying for a Commission in the Army (yes yes i know shame on me) and the Actual army personnel in recruitment are brill, always trying to give you the upper hand
Capita, and Civil servants on the other hand: I had my Application Deferred the day after my Candidate Support manager started her 20 days annual leave, for issues with my Health Care Records that could have been handled if they had actually digged a little.
And at my in person medical, they tried to flag up injuries From Rugby, and Working in a kitchen as Self Harm.
My SI put it best “ The Medics are always going to try to get rid of you, they don’t want to have to work”
No shame in going Army; I’m ex-Army non-commissioned myself.
Same old stuff. My original application nearly 20 years ago was handled purely by in-service recruiters. I had managed to join and start training more quickly that time than it took to get to the aptitude test this time.
Some random thoughts/observations:
Ref a changing demographic.
From the Census of 2021 Across England and Wales, 82% of people identified with a White ethnic group, 9% with an Asian ethnic group, 4% with a Black ethnic group, 3% with Mixed or Multiple ethnic groups, and 2% with other ethnic groups. The percentage who describe themselves as White British was 74.4%. While the other ethnic groups are growing, 3 in 4 of the population still identify as what might be described as “traditional British”. It would therefore seem logical to concentrate the recruitment effort proportionately, but no more than that, if we are to retain a level playing field ?
Recruits Allowed to Be Homophobic?
There have always been homosexuals serving in the Armed Forces of the Crown, many with great distinction. Prior to 1967 homosexuality was illegal n the UK and so it was thought that serving individuals could be blackmailed and therefore were a security risk. Post 1967 the focus became more on unit cohesion - the risk that individuals in a same sex relationship would put care for their partner above meeting the unit objective in the battlespace. The introduction of female personnel into frontline operations with the inevitable making and breaking of personal relationships forced the military to reassess an untenable stance. That some young men in overtly macho elements of the military felt (and I suspect still feel) it necessary to demonstrate their masculinity in inappropriate ways should undoutedly be dealt with firmly.
Christianity.
The vast majority of both our national and military modus operandi have their foundation in Judeo - Christian value sets. That this influence has weakened over time is a fact. My only observation would be that any changes to the format of national events should be carefullly considererd before they are made, the law of unintended consequences often takes us in directions we have not considered.
And for reference:
(1) I am no spring chicken but that doesn’t automatically mean I have a closed mind!!!
(2) When called upon to do so, those who currently serve, whatever their background, will prove just as resiliant as their forebears
If the reason for religious overtones has always been “the majority”, then those same reasons are now sufficient for getting rid of it in the name of equality.
One factor is that the head of state is also the head of the national church which is a formal part of our national legislature. I would also draw a distinction between those who do not attend church but those who follow Christian values.
Unfortunately everyone knows it was actually because they just didn’t want people who were gay in the military. That’s just the best they could come up with.
at which point do “values” become “Christian”
I confess i am highly ignorant of other religions through a lack of exposure and indeed need to know more to get through life (my neighbourhood, work and Squadron/Wing environment is predominantly white/Christian) but of the ten commandments, how many do other religious disagree with?
for example “you shall not make idols” is one of the commandments, which is not too distinct from the Islamic belief of not representing Muhammad in picture or sculpture form
you shall not murder, steal, covet etc are all “good solid moral” values to hold one’s self by, and doing so does not make one a Christian, or not a muslim, or a jew etc
and much the same are true for the remaining commandments and indeed other “Christian” Values
This is going off on a religious tangent now but i find the term “Christian values” an odd one as if somehow a Nation which is “Christian” has a different expectation than a non-Christian nation (or indeed community)…when it comes to treating other people with respect etc.
I get there are subtle and not to subtle differences between religious (even between Catholics and Protestants) but by and large struggle with the “christian values” as something specific to Christianity as it suggests other religions hold quite different values which contradict those of Christianity (which i doubt is the case)
perhaps I am too rose tinted to believe that by having mutual respect for my family and wider community is not uniquely “Christian”?
NB Happy to be proven wrong, as indicated I am largely ignorant on the topic of religion full stop, and even more so anything non-Christian.
If we’re doing “Christian Values”, I’d also take issue that of the big ten, that’s what they chose to go with.
I’m glad, for example, to prioritise not taking slaves over worshiping false idols.
It’s easy to talk about our judeo-Christian foundation when anything else was prosecuted with extreme prejudice, including sources for such lessons as “the golden rule”, which predate Christianity and are recorded as far back as the analects of Confucius.
Much like Christianity taking credit for scientific advancements. Of course many of those scientists believed, there weren’t many socially acceptable alternatives and we weren’t as enlightened — didn’t stop Christian authorities locking them away for suggesting the earth revolved around the sun or even burning clergymen for believing the wrong interpretation of the gospel.
Few have been as damaging to the LGBTQ+ community as some loving Christians, so I’m quite proud to not share these supposedly ubiquitous Christian values.