Recruits now to be asked to declare their sexual orientation

Various media are reporting that Army recruits are now to be asked to declare their sexual orientation. This information will be treated as "confidential", and individuals can opt out of making the declaration if they wish.

At first sight this is only a journalistic exploitation of the fact, recently mentioned on ARRSE, that there is now a field for JPA users to declare their orientation voluntarily.

The move has been welcomed by LBGT campaigners Stonewall, whose spokeswoman says "By knowing more about personnel, the forces can support them better.”

The MOD spokesman said that the ministry ‘encourages diversity at all levels’.

The spokesman said: "Service personnel are now encouraged to declare their sexual orientation. Although this is not mandatory, collecting this data will give us a better understanding of the composition of our armed forces and help ensure our policies and practices fully support our personnel."

I can't help feeling that some of these statements come from the same spin factory which originally justified the foolish ban on gays in the military. Apparently 298 serving personnel were kicked out in the final year of the ban.

I had some misgivings already about this development, but I have even more so about the information being asked from applicants, including 16 and 17 year olds.

What do ARRSE colleagues think about this?
 
How rapidly things move on, used to be 2 years jail for being gay, seems like the dinasaur age now but not that long ago
 
How rapidly things move on, used to be 2 years jail for being gay, seems like the dinasaur age now but not that long ago
Pfft... They'll be allowing women to join next.


Joking aside, does anyone actually care these days?
 
"By knowing more about personnel, the forces can support them better.”

Why would the level of support offered to someone differ due to their sexual orientation?

When I was serving, just being a homosexual was an imprisonable offence so I'm not exactly well informed about the modern armed forces. However if somebody's spouse dies or runs off with the milkman, I can't see why the support given would be different if the spouse was homosexual rather than heterosexual.
 
Pfft... They'll be allowing women to join next.


Joking aside, does anyone actually care these days?
I know, its mad isnt it. Just struck me it wasnt that long ago [my time] when these draconian punishments were still available to the CM system.....:(
 

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
RIP
It wasn't being it that got people thrown out in the 50s & 60s, it was being caught doing it under the White Ensign, or juniors complaining of advances. Officers had to sign that they had read the annual CAFO about what to do if one stumbled across such an activity. IIRC something like 'separate the participants' was required. One had visions of having to tell the quartermaster to pull them apart. Fortunately it was something that in the end I never had to deal with. As for being it, the Cdr of one big ship I was in had been known in his previous job as the Diesel Driven Doughnut (as in 'as queer as a .. ') but went his happy way and ended up as a rear admiral. Indeed in retirement in a chateau in France shacked up with another retired rear admiral.
 
It wasn't being it that got people thrown out in the 50s & 60s, it was being caught doing it under the White Ensign, or juniors complaining of advances. Officers had to sign that they had read the annual CAFO about what to do if one stumbled across such an activity. IIRC something like 'separate the participants' was required. One had visions of having to tell the quartermaster to pull them apart. Fortunately it was something that in the end I never had to deal with. As for being it, the Cdr of one big ship I was in had been known in his previous job as the Diesel Driven Doughnut (as in 'as queer as a .. ') but went his happy way and ended up as a rear admiral. Indeed in retirement in a chateau in France shacked up with another retired rear admiral.
Right, so 298 people were "caught doing it" in the final year of the ban. I'm amazed anyone found time to do anything else.
 
I know, its mad isnt it. Just struck me it wasnt that long ago[my time] when these draconian punishments were still available to the CM system.....:(
Yet now, its against their 'human rights' to take away the Wi-fi that they don't even pay for.
I wonder what is the modern day equivalent of... What is it... Field punishment no. 21?
 

RABC

LE
Remember Rheindalen in the 80s? Didnt need to ask. Only ever recall it
being women though.
 
Who gives a toss what someone puts their penis in.
 

aberspr

Old-Salt
From applicants? From those in under-18 apprenticeships?
Seems to be a standard on HR forms in most places. Personally I think it's none of their business as everyone should be treated the same. Why are they collecting it if they don't intend to do anything with it?

I hope it doesn't result in someone deciding we aren't representative at a certain rank so some people will get extra points at boards.etc. "Positive" discrimination is totally unacceptable and devisive.
 

CQMS

LE
Frankly it's unnecessary and a sop to pressure groups, if we are supposed to treat people equally it's irrelevant what their sexual peccadillos are.
 

Latest Threads

Top