Warrant Officer loses sex discrimination case

#1
Without going into the why's and wherefore's of the case, it was interesting to watch Channel 4's news broadcast on the above subject. Seems like all of us in the army are just immature public school boys who are still fascinated with sex! I suppose we all had nannies a la Carry On!

It really amazes me just how ignorant the media can be about the workings of the army, and just how judgemental they are. Do they not realise that the overwhelming majority of us are not bigots, racists, or sexist pigs, but reasonable human beings who expect the highest professional standards out of those that work for us, and those whom we work for.

We must be easy game for them, as we are not allowed to respond to these pathetic insinuations.

Right, I feel better now!
 
#2
I would encourage those of you with a more laid back view of the above to consult the related poll in the Int Cell.
 

chimera

LE
Moderator
#3
I think most of us will be glad to see that she lost. Whilst noone comes out of it looking good, she was a supposedly responsible warrant officer, who knew exactly what she was doing, and got caught out, and had the cheek to try and blame 'The System' for her troubles. I hope that this stops a few other money grabbing disaffected from trying the same stunt. By the same token though there are still parts of the Army where our attitude to dealing with women (and by extension other minorities)as professional soldiers is pretty shabby, and these are the people who need to be sorted.

No doubt though the tabloids will be paying her tens of thousands for 'her story' so I suspect this one isn't dead yet,
 
#4
What is so depressing in this is that they were both serial offenders whose peer groups and superiors knew what they were like. Taking JSP 505 as an example it is quite clear that any lack of commitment to EO or the code of conduct must be reported on. There is no latitude in this.

Time and time again I have seen individuals who have (eventually) been brought to book revealed as serial offenders like these two. Investigation reveals that they were doing it as more junior officers/soldiers but no one has had the balls to sort it out. It is about time commanders showed a bit more moral courage and ensured that those who act in this manner dragging us all into the mire are properly dealt with at the earliest opportunity.

Promotion (at any level) is a tough business and promoting those who are dodgy (in any respect) only serves to undermine confidence in the system. No matter how bright or gifted if the individual can't keep his flies down up/her knickers on and are seen to be breaking the code of conduct - they shouldn't be rewarded with good confidential reports.
 
#5
if the individual can't keep his flies down up
From the above quotation, are you suggesting that an officer who keeps his flies firmly done up deserves to be given a worse CR than an individual who ensures his flies go down and up?
 
#6
Cynical-Subbie said:
if the individual can't keep his flies down up
From the above quotation, are you suggesting that an officer who keeps his flies firmly done up deserves to be given a worse CR than an individual who ensures his flies go down and up?
Wibble - mea culpa and all that. Obviously dodgy finger trouble can cause all sorts of double entendres.
 

DangerMouse

Old-Salt
Moderator
#7
Percy said:
What is so depressing in this is that they were both serial offenders whose peer groups and superiors knew what they were like. Taking JSP 505 as an example it is quite clear that any lack of commitment to EO or the code of conduct must be reported on. There is no latitude in this.

Time and time again I have seen individuals who have (eventually) been brought to book revealed as serial offenders like these two. Investigation reveals that they were doing it as more junior officers/soldiers but no one has had the balls to sort it out. It is about time commanders showed a bit more moral courage and ensured that those who act in this manner dragging us all into the mire are properly dealt with at the earliest opportunity.

Promotion (at any level) is a tough business and promoting those who are dodgy (in any respect) only serves to undermine confidence in the system. No matter how bright or gifted if the individual can't keep his flies down up/her knickers on and are seen to be breaking the code of conduct - they shouldn't be rewarded with good confidential reports.
Isn't this a failure of the Regt? The Infantry and Cavalry are very quick to promote the virtues of the regimental system, but in this case the KRH appears to have been in many ways rotten to the core. What actions will be taken against those complicit in these events, and how will the attitudes clearly prevalent in that Regt be changed?
 
#8
Dangermouse,

You are right; in this case the Regiment failed. However, I would like to believe that this is the exception that proves the rule. In the infantry and cavalry because officers (and soldiers) grow up in the same battalion/regiment all know each other and their foibles. By and large unacceptable behaviour is stamped out by peer group pressure.

In my experience of dealing with those that breach the code of conduct the vast majority come from large corps where trickle posting between different units means that they are not necessarily well known in a new unit. It is then vital that accurate reporting takes place; but so often an officer or soldier is posted from one unit to another to prevent an embarrassing situation rather than confronting the key issue of unacceptable behaviour.
 
#9
From a purely civillian view point this whole case is a pile of poo.

It seems very unfair that an officer gets to keep his pension and a payout whilst the WO gets demoted.

I would suspect that had the protagonists genders had been reversed the result would have been the same so no actual sexual discrimination has taken place but certainly a nasty taste of class distinction and hypocisy is in the air.

Frankly what happens between two adults of nearly the same age and postion in their relative heirachys is their business alone (this is not a case of a 40 year old major pressuring a 18 year old private).

I expect I will get a barrage of "you don't understand" now, but frankley if the armed forces don't get with the programme and realise that sexual mores have moved on in the last 100 years, and become a matter of personal conciscience rather than public appearence they will continue to be a public laughing stock every time a middle manager gets caught with his or her trousers down.

Trotsky

(Incidently the grandchild of a relationship between an officer and an NCO that would no doubt have got them both sacked if their hadn't been a war on)
 
#10
So the officer is advised that retirement is a good idea, gets a pension and settles down to a life in civvy street.

The WO2 gets demoted, but otherwise keeps her job and when she decides that the army is no longer for her, she too gets a pension.

Where's the problem? I think him going quietly is a lot more dignified than taking the whole thing to court and trying to get a big payout on sex discrimination grounds. I might add that in the process she's dragged a lot of names through the mud including hers, and proved that she's a real slapper. He may be no angel, but should she have access to the whole regiment's personel docs? Should someone whith that sexual history have that level of vetting?
 
#11
at what stage did her husband find out that she had slumberland boldly tattood on her back?? i wonder how many confidentials were written on her by grateful if misguided bed mates both male and female?? sounds like she prospered in the army by laying down, what a princess
 
#12
Ha ha, demoted? Just making life a little 'up and down'. She seems to have been doing that herself for her whole career.

Her husband's a fireman, so I bet his mates are giving him a hard time... or queueing at his door for a go. And when I think of all the firemen on here during their last strike shouting about how good they were in bed. Seems she didn't think so huh? :)
 
#15
Think we are missing something here. I make the assumption that the Officer was given no option but to fall on his sword and in doing so, lose his job, his career and livelihood for his family. The fact that he manged to fine another (good) job was perhaps lucky. I am certainly NOT condoning his appalling behaviour.

Does anyone know what happened to her? Was she given the "honourable" option of resignation? Did she reject that option on the advice of some ambulance chasing lawyer? I thought that most ETs were sympathetic to the complainant, so why did it not find in her favour?

What I don't understand is why she considered herself such a victim? Seemed to be a confident person ( perhaps even sexually predatorial) and in fact a WO. So why turn to jelly all of a sudden soon as a cheque was flashed in front of her eyes? Certainly had no problem dishing the dirt on anyone she could - what about them? Can you imagine being one of the people whose private life was blurted out in open court for the amusement of all?

Why is it that one minute it's a moral free for all ( just look at the trash on TV these days), yet when it comes to a complaint, it's Victorian sexual values?

What she sought to do was reinforce the stereotype of women as being perpetual victims - hardly a role model for young female soldiers.

I would not want to serve with this person and justice was done.
 
#16
I tend to agree with Trotsky's comments above.

The fact that one party was allowed to retire at their existing rank with full pension entitlements and another isn't smacks of inequality.

I also agree that she appears to be the biggest slapper I've come across for some time but this is surely been made known to make her look exactly that in the eyes of the tribunal and others and is being used to justify different treatment.

This will set the Army's case back in the eyes of many people.
 
#17
Can't agree with you Rudolph.

Firstly, do you know if she was offered the chance to take the same option as the Cav Major? I don't but be suprised if she wasn't. What would you have done if you were the CO? Perhaps give all concerned the chance of a quiet exit with some dignity intact?

If she wasn't, what about a reddress? Why hit the Big Red Button of sex discrimination? And the highly public forum of an ET? I think she was badly advised at a legal level but again I stress, I don't know the facts.

As for the reputation of the Army. Agreed not a good thing but I think it merely provides the public with some salacious reading until the next time Jordan needs some cash from the Mirror or the next episode of Footballers Wives :D
 
#18
Sorry Hootch,

You are of course correct and I should have said 'on the face of it'.

Notwithstanding that I've never heard of a non com being allowed to resign and walk away. This was something for officers only. I'm sure I'll be corrected if wrong.

It still does appear as if there has been a degree of inequality. Given all the fuss surrounding this case I'd be surprised if the fact that she'd been offered the quiet way out hadn't surfaced.

Still, as you say, we don't have the facts.

Perhaps Mrs McConnell would like to post her version of events (with pictures for some!) 8O 8O :D
 
#19
Sorry to get picky but I think that you have missed something here. We all sit in on the ITD each year so must have faith the system works and is seen to work. It is meant to protect us all from both our own possible misbehaviour and the potential allegations of others against us; male, female, black, white or whatever.

So what exactly was McConnells complaint ? – NOT that she was treated differently than he was so let’s not get tied up in “anti-girly bias”. This is more serious.

Her complaint was that she was pressurised her into a sexual relationship by a senior and predatory senior officer. It was up to the judge to decide based on the evidence produced, the judge ruled she was a willing player in the relationship and I am sure she was.

Against her. Her behaviour during the relationship and before meant that her character would be difficult to defend. A man can be championed as a stud, a comparable woman is called a tart: they were both married with kids and knew what they were doing. She was always likely to lose to a competent lawyer if her record was unearthed; he lives in Kensington, where money is no object, so research was thorough. She was undoubtedly a “go-er” but should this have led HIM into a relationship with her that he knew was against the Service Test ?

Against him. He was a senior Field Officer chosen to be the next CO – what the hell was he doing getting himself into this situation ? He claimed he was promiscuous but not a predator. Would he have encouraged anyone, including a probable “player” into a relationship ? If so, what evidence WAS produced in court ? Prior offence of the serving RMP SNCO sending him sexually explicit material of her and her husband in the act years previously, the KRH CO stating “he (Ross) had some previous”. Testimony from the female RAO of KRH to Mcconnell that she too was sleeping with Ross. The Unit EO, a young female Det Comd is named in the Officers’ Mess Bets Book that he would seduce her. The stables girl is also named in the bets book as a target because she is supposedly a lesbian. A young female LCPL (NOT in his Sqn) who has attended a career course is phoned repeatedly by Ross inviting her to “come and discuss her report with him at his cottage”. He then arranges for a number of people to give false statements against her to undermine her character – he admits all this in court…….

A reality check - is this really innocent, reasonable and acceptable behaviour we expect from those in positions of power ? Does his behaviour fail the Service Test “affected the operational effectiveness of the unit” – if she has failed it, has he not also done so ? If so, should he not ALSO be punished while in the service like she was, not simply slink away ?

AGAI 67 is a minefield but the emphasis is not whether there is the occasional “bonk” between willing partners occurs but the “Test”, the level of award can be intelligently applied. In serious cases it is there to stop the sexual intimidation of juniors by senior ranks “do this/don’t do this to me LCPL Snooks and you will/will not get a recommendation for promotion/demotion etc”. Whether or not Ross did so in this case, he had the rank and appointment to intimidate others if he was so minded- I will leave it to you to decide.

Her behaviour WAS wrong but I can understand her frustration at losing her rank while he is simply allowed to leave without punishment but play with fire and you can get burnt. She lost her rank and pension because did wrong. She was demoted and SHE chose to leave.

Ross is a disgrace but I suggest he’ll dine well on the case. It was pleasing to read that his “father and family are standing with him” – if he was my son I would give him a severe kicking (my Infantry breeding) not just because he has acted with the morals of a Jack Russell on heat but also on behalf of his wife & kids and the disgrace he has brought to the family and Regiment. He has completed his pensionable term so may leave with a pension but, as he brought the Army into disrepute, the MOD SHOULD withhold it as they are entitled to do ? (it will only be pocket money for him). I’d also disinherit him and send him to work as a stablehand in Newmarket to service predatory males where he could then revisit his “unhappy experience” at Prep School.

He fits into the Hewitt officer mould and it is time the cavalry take a hard look at their internal codes of personal conduct – if they want to live in the 18th Century then I suggest they reintroduce the Mess Webley rather than resignation. Forget the Regimental system, can we really defend the institutional behaviour revealed in this Regiment ? Bets books, CO’s Xmas cards, if they want parts in Footballer’s wives then start wearing their uniforms & not ours.

A final thought on who REALLY was to blame here ? It was stated by the CO during the trial that Ross would have been the next CO so presumably his previous behaviour and character was not considered relevant. If so, and he had become CO, then his opportunities in that appointment to “groom” and seduce juniors would have been far greater.

Daughter at University considering a career in the Army ? Would anyone really want their daughter/wife serving in a Regiment who condone and reward officers such as Alistair Ross ?

:evil: I rest my case………….
 
#20
I reckon that's a good summary GG, - thanks for some information that I wasn't aware of.

You say this isn't necessarily a girly versus bloke thing. Then why was she demoted and felt she had no option other than to leave while he was allowed to quietly retire on full pension?

I'm not a majorly PC type person and tend to believe people will generally reap what they sow but I still can't get my head round what appears to be grossly unequal treatment.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top