BBC: "Falklands Veteran 'Forced Out Over Sexuality' Will Get Medal Back"

I can't be sure but in the UK I don't think it has ever been against the law to simply be gay, but rather if you engaged in such activity.

On the general matter of being in and being gay again I am not sure it was an offence simply to be gay. I think it was more an admin matter than a charge so perhaps SNLR. Even back in the day it would seem improbable that someone could be found guilty at CM where they had NOT done something (or at least not planned or conspired to).

The underlying attitude of those who were keen to find and sack was driven by homophobia rather than a simple fear of the blackmail risk. Interestingly, having heard some presentations on the matter, before about the 1950s it was more of a morality issue and homophobia was not so evident.

From those who I have spoken to so charged it was a Spanish Inquisition type process and once accused the search for an admission or evidence was relentless and brutal, such was the prevailing paranoia/homophobia. I think the blackmail idea alone does not simply explain why homosexual acts were dealt with by CM and MCTC, other activities that could just as easily expose a Soldier to blackmail were not dealt with by any such draconian response, other than homophobia then I can't think why that was the case.
I don't know for sure about your first point but I thought it was having homosexual tendencies which was an offence, not just engaging in such activity. Even so, it seems that a 'three wise monkeys' approach was usually taken unless circumstances arose where it couldn't be ignored and action had to be seen to be taken.

I agree that the risk of blackmail was probably less of an actual issue than claimed. Perhaps homosexuality was seen more as an 'unnatural act' and the fear was of a breakdown in trust and cohesiveness.

One thing we can be fairly sure of, the military has pretty much been behind the curve when it comes to most things when compared to civvy street, including equality and diversity. Maybe the military hierarchy has struggled with, and perhaps continues to struggle with, balancing the needs of being a unified force having a particular group ethos compared to the way civilian life has become more about individuality and the needs of the individual above the group, when it's those individuals the military needs to attract to maintain its existence. Just a rambling thought.
 
He lost his good conduct medal due to being gay and he has managed to have it restored, but still on the basis that he was dismissed as per the terms at the time.

He’s not got any new benefits other than the ability to wear that medal on his blazer without having to get one from eBay with a free VC thrown in
You could say he also lost it for not obeying the rules.
 
If it is never okay to apply laws and prohibitions retrospectively then neither should forgiveness and pardons.

Discuss.

Takes cover.
Depends, if you were gay before 1967 you had no choice but to break the law. No one forced this bloke to either join or stay in the armed forces.
 
On that basis then, so did all his shipmates who failed to dob him in to the Crushers. Perhaps they should of got the boot too?

Yes, LSGC Medal - not Campaign medals. I stand corrected.
Yes. anyone who chooses to ignore a breach of regulations should be punished.
Some people believe drugs isn't that bad would you be happy if they turned a blind eye to squaddies getting high.
Should individuals just turn a blind eye to regulations they don't agree with.
 

Beachdaze2

Clanker
Already called it on the first page... are you hoping his trail to compo will set you up well for your attempt? Or do you just have a genetic need to white knight for the rainbow brigade to score some woke points or a docking on the sly?
Despite how it may appear, no. Far from it my friend.

I'm a relatively senior Cop of vintage years, working in an environment where being anything other than a heterosexual, white bloke is a positive professional bonus. In fact, had I been more on the ball with it, I'm sure I could of squeezed at least one more jump up the ladder had I bothered to join the rainbow bandwagon. I know lots who have; some are genuine, some aren't.

Do I feel a need to grandstand in order to display my viewpoint an such matters? No. My close colleagues would be the first to tell you that I'm unusually private - I spend little time discussing my private life with others and have next to zero interweb footprint. This esteemed blog site is the only place I occasionally choose to leave comments and I only really come here for the slightly offball shits and giggles.

Irrespective of their physical, sexual, political and emotional attributes, people are people. Genuinely decent people will generally be decent in most matters of their life. The dickeads amongst us will likely be just that, *********. Sexuality in any of its current (and often shifting) forms will make no difference.

For what it's worth, I have little time for those who cloak themselves in the alphabet soup of gender/sexual politics for the simple reason that I think they're wrong. I don't think you can categorise sexuality in any meaningful way because we're all different. The only sexuality that I have any understanding of is mine. I would like to think that I have a better than average understanding of my partners sexuality but it won't be complete and never can be - only she can know and understand it. In a room full of 20 people, there will be 20+ sexual beings - it's not necessarily a static state.

Why did I choose to comment on this guys predicament? Because I think he and all the others in HMF who suffered because of the sexuality were wronged - it's as simple as that.
 
Depends, if you were gay before 1967 you had no choice but to break the law. No one forced this bloke to either join or stay in the armed forces.
I think that if you were gay but remained celebate then no law was broken, even if you were an out and out type. Not that I am stating this was a good thing, just the fact of the matter.

For the bloke in question he might well have joined before he realised which side he batted for. In those dim and dark days denial or even a naïve lack of awareness was not uncommon.
 
Why did I choose to comment on this guys predicament? Because I think he and all the others in HMF who suffered because of the sexuality were wronged - it's as simple as that.
They were treated in accordance with the rules and regulations in force at the time.

The rules and regulations currently in place would produce a different outcome.

You can't reach back into the past and manipulate laws to conform with current thinking. Immeasurably more so if you're looking at history through your standard issue butthurt-generating, SJW rainbow timescope.
 
The underlying attitude of those who were keen to find and sack was driven by homophobia rather than a simple fear of the blackmail risk. Interestingly, having heard some presentations on the matter, before about the 1950s it was more of a morality issue and homophobia was not so evident.

From those who I have spoken to so charged it was a Spanish Inquisition type process and once accused the search for an admission or evidence was relentless and brutal, such was the prevailing paranoia/homophobia. I think the blackmail idea alone does not simply explain why homosexual acts were dealt with by CM and MCTC, other activities that could just as easily expose a Soldier to blackmail were not dealt with by any such draconian response, other than homophobia then I can't think why that was the case.
Given the amount of people who have remembered that they never had a problems with gays, it couldnt have possibly been anything to do with homophobia.

Blackmail was a real threat, granted Pte Bloggs from dental Corps wasn't likely to carrying state secret around with him but the KGB targeted people like John Vassall, Jeremy Wolfenden and Donald Maclean. If someone was in the closet and was threatened with exposure, resulting in their family and friends finding out and losing their job, they were valuable assets.
 
Given the amount of people who have remembered that they never had a problems with gays, it couldnt have possibly been anything to do with homophobia.

Blackmail was a real threat, granted Pte Bloggs from dental Corps wasn't likely to carrying state secret around with him but the KGB targeted people like John Vassall, Jeremy Wolfenden and Donald Maclean. If someone was in the closet and was threatened with exposure, resulting in their family and friends finding out and losing their job, they were valuable assets.
abd the gays can be blackmailed card is played.

bit of a bugger, pun intended, the biggest risks to blackmail were the blokes who‘s wives had run up huge debts when they were away.
 
abd the gays can be blackmailed card is played.

bit of a bugger, pun intended, the biggest risks to blackmail were the blokes who‘s wives had run up huge debts when they were away.
And?
 
How narrow minded, homophobic and bigoted, comparing the taking of another humans life with a consensual interaction between two adults.
Taking human life is a central role for the provision of the military. They aren't called forces because they say "m'kay" until you agree, just to shut them up.
 
I don't know for sure about your first point but I thought it was having homosexual tendencies which was an offence, not just engaging in such activity. Even so, it seems that a 'three wise monkeys' approach was usually taken unless circumstances arose where it couldn't be ignored and action had to be seen to be taken.

I agree that the risk of blackmail was probably less of an actual issue than claimed. Perhaps homosexuality was seen more as an 'unnatural act' and the fear was of a breakdown in trust and cohesiveness.

One thing we can be fairly sure of, the military has pretty much been behind the curve when it comes to most things when compared to civvy street, including equality and diversity. Maybe the military hierarchy has struggled with, and perhaps continues to struggle with, balancing the needs of being a unified force having a particular group ethos compared to the way civilian life has become more about individuality and the needs of the individual above the group, when it's those individuals the military needs to attract to maintain its existence. Just a rambling thought.
As others have already pointed out, simply “having homosexual tendencies” as you call it was never an offence, how could it be? Nor was having homosexual or bisexual tendencies “lying” in any legal sense.

There is no doubt that some were tolerated and others were treated harshly, sometimes after “investigations” which themselves could be prurient and suspect. At the time most of us accepted that was the way things were. But it was unjust and unsustainable and let it not be forgotten, it was the dreaded ECHR which accelerated its demise.
 
Donald Maclean was openly communist and was recruited by the NKVD at Cambridge - he wasn't targeted for his sexuality; perhaps you are thinking of Guy Burgess - but he, too, was recruited as a Communist undergraduate. His homosexual promiscuity was a huge risk to his espionage, because of the real possibility of arrest for his outré behaviour.
 
Donald Maclean was openly communist and was recruited by the NKVD at Cambridge - he wasn't targeted for his sexuality; perhaps you are thinking of Guy Burgess - but he, too, was recruited as a Communist undergraduate. His homosexual promiscuity was a huge risk to his espionage, because of the real possibility of arrest for his outré behaviour.
Philby had photos of him, just to keep him in line.
 
As others have already pointed out, simply “having homosexual tendencies” as you call it was never an offence, how could it be? Nor was having homosexual or bisexual tendencies “lying” in any legal sense.

There is no doubt that some were tolerated and others were treated harshly, sometimes after “investigations” which themselves could be prurient and suspect. At the time most of us accepted that was the way things were. But it was unjust and unsustainable and let it not be forgotten, it was the dreaded ECHR which accelerated its demise.
I've mentioned in another thread an RAF officer undergoing flying training who was dismissed in 1993/4 for being gay. I was adjutant at the time- he was accused of being gay and admitted it; there were no allegations that he had undertaken any gay activities, but by admitting it, that was it. He committed suicide a couple of weeks later.
 
it’s self evident except to rampant homophobes
No it isnt, its just something you decided to say that has no relevance to queers being blackmailed.
 

Joker62

ADC
Book Reviewer
I've mentioned in another thread an RAF officer undergoing flying training who was dismissed in 1993/4 for being gay. I was adjutant at the time- he was accused of being gay and admitted it; there were no allegations that he had undertaken any gay activities, but by admitting it, that was it. He committed suicide a couple of weeks later.
He couldn't have been a real gay, after all what kind of gay wants to wear polyester?
 
I've mentioned in another thread an RAF officer undergoing flying training who was dismissed in 1993/4 for being gay. I was adjutant at the time- he was accused of being gay and admitted it; there were no allegations that he had undertaken any gay activities, but by admitting it, that was it. He committed suicide a couple of weeks later.
Not an offence but still career-ending and in that case tragically life ending.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top