Warrant Officer loses sex discrimination case

Discussion in 'Army Pay, Claims & JPA' started by Spanner, Mar 24, 2004.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  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.
  3. chimera

    chimera LE Moderator

    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. 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. Wibble - mea culpa and all that. Obviously dodgy finger trouble can cause all sorts of double entendres.
  7. DangerMouse

    DangerMouse Old-Salt Moderator

    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.


    (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? :)
  13. I'd still do her.
  14. WHAT! Didn't you see the photo? And as for her girlfriend....... a definite 12 pinter! :mrgreen:
  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.