serving Britain's armed forces
|
|
serving Britain's armed forces |
|
| informing, supporting and sustaining the men and women of Britain's Armed Forces who are unashamedly proud2serve | |
| home :: sitemap :: news :: key
documents :: civil
partnership :: contact :: forum ::
chat :: links :: shopping :: finance :: search ::
guestbook |
|
6 OCT 06 MEETING AT HQ PTC TO DISCUSS CURRENT RAF LGB ISSUES INTRODUCTION 1. This brief concerns current issues related to the LGB community within the RAF, as discussed at a meeting at HQ PTC on 6 Oct 06 where the following topics were discussed: the proposed establishment of a Sexual Orientation Working Group (SOWG); RAF participation in pride events; methods for monitoring or gauging the size of the LGB population in the Service; RAF membership of Stonewall; and the RN LGB Conference to be held in Jan 07. SOWG 2. Background. Sexual orientation (SO) is considered by the MOD to be a private issue. Some LGB personnel might be concerned that the MOD’s stance is a ‘smokescreen’ for ineffective policy; this could create a need for an action plan to support the RAF’s aims concerning SO. Although the Civil Partnership Act 2004 satisfied some aims, including housing policy, some issues still linger. It has been suggested that the creation of a SOWG could support HQ PTC in identifying and dealing with the LGB community’s concerns. 3. Current Position. The possibility of creating working groups (WGs) for different ‘strands’ of E&D policy has been discussed at air rank level. There is no conclusive support for WGs due to the range of WGs that would be required. Consequently, it might be more appropriate to create an LGB ‘focus group’. 4. Proposals. The SOWG would consist of selected LGB personnel from all ranks, who would draw upon their personal experiences and networking to examine the effects of policy on the LGB community. The wide range of personnel would help HQ PTC to have a clear understanding of the response to and effect of policy; in that respect the SOWG would aim to be a smart customer for HQ PTC and would not be a ‘pressure group’. 5. Potential Difficulties. Policy can take a long time to implement, and during this time personnel might feel that the SOWG was weak or ineffective. Perceptions of weakness could compromise the SOWG’s ability to represent its target community. In addition, it would be necessary to identify which budget would support the SOWG. 6. Decision. HQ PTC would continue to consider the SOWG, but could not make any commitment to its creation. HQ PTC would continue to welcome feedback on policy from LGB personnel. PRIDE EVENTS 7. Background. The RAF has supported pride events in the past by manning uniformed recruiting stands. However, due to uniform policy, the Army and RAF were not permitted to march in uniform at the Europride event in London on 1 Jul 06. The RN did march, and this led to concerns that the RAF did not fully support the LGB community. Europride is seen as having divided the Services, and there are concerns that the RAF’s public image might be harmed if it does not march in uniform should the RN decide to do so at future events. 8. Current Position. AMP’s decision was that uniform could be worn to official military events but not to public events such as Europride; this decision remains in force. It was acknowledged that there is a need for a tri-service approach to this issue. The RAF permits uniformed recruiters to participate in pride parades, but support cannot be guaranteed as there are no proven benefits from supporting recruiting stands at pride events. 9. Proposal. Some LGB personnel would be willing to support recruiting stands in their own time. This would require DofR to brief volunteers and to provide pamphlets and other items. Volunteers would help ensure that recruiting stands were relevant to the target community. It was also proposed that if the Service march in uniform at future pride events, if at all. 10. Potential Difficulties. Wearing uniform to pride would necessitate an equal approach to other minority-specific events and could become too costly. Policy dictates that uniform cannot be worn to public events such as Pride. 11. Decisions. Current policy was to be adhered to strictly. The suggestion that LGB volunteers could man recruiting stands bore further scrutiny, and would be considered as a possibility. MONITORING OF LGB POPULATION 12. Background. There are no statistics recording the number of LGB personnel in the Armed Forces. 13. Current Position. SO is considered a private-life issue, and recording recruits’ sexualities poses problems due to the perceived invasion of privacy that this would entail. Additionally, there are no accurate statistics for the size of the UK’s LGB population as no census has asked questions about sexuality. 14. Proposal. The RAF could ask recruits about their SO on entry, or ask personnel in CGASs. Any survey would include an ‘unwilling to disclose’ option and would be anonymous. A better appreciation of the size of the RAF’s LGB population would enable E&D staff to compare it with the wider UK population, identifying areas where recruiting strategy might need to be reconsidered. 15. Potential Difficulties. Asking personnel about their sexuality could be perceived as an invasion of privacy. Although polling recruits might start to generate clearer statistics, a poll of the whole Service would be necessary for any stats to be truly representative; this would be costly and would require extensive staff work. As there are no reliable statistics concerning the size of the UK’s LGB community it would be impossible for E&D staff to compare the RAF’s LGB population with the UK’s. 16. Decision. It was unlikely that personnel would be asked about their sexuality due to the inherent difficulties involved in such a survey, as well as its limited application. STONEWALL 17. Background. Membership of Stonewall’s Diversity Champions scheme would help the RAF to identify areas where it needs to improve its policies and practices in order to maintain equality for LGB personnel. 18. Current Position. The RAF intends to join the Diversity Champions scheme. Although not all of the areas in Stonewall’s questionnaire for applicants are relevant to the Service, it is considering how best to respond. HQ PTC sees advantages to joining in terms of networking opportunities and benchmarking to help refine and test policy. 19. Decision. The Service would continue to aim for membership of the Diversity Champions scheme. SO1 E&D would examine the Stonewall questionnaire to help ensure an accurate response. RN LGB CONFERENCE – JAN 07 20. Background. The RN held an LGB Conference on 26-27 Jan 06. Personnel from all 3 services were invited to attend. RN personnel attended on duty and were permitted to draw on T&S budgets. The conference was attended by a RN 1* officer representing 2SL, and there was unanimously positive feedback from those who attended. A copy of the minutes is at Flag A. 21. Current Position. The RN is planning to hold a second LGB Conference in Jan 07. The RAF does not currently have plans to support the event in an official capacity. 22. Proposal. It was proposed that AMP, as the RAF’s Diversity Champion, write a statement of support to be read out at the conference, or for someone to attend on his behalf. Ideally, future conferences would either be joint RN/RAF or tri-service. 23. Decisions. SO1 E&D would investigate the possibility of the RAF lending full support to the event, and would ask whether AMP would write a statement of support. SUMMARY 24. There is a proposal to establish a SOWG that would represent the RAF’s LGB personnel. The SOWG would not be a ‘pressure group’, but would support HQ PTC by reporting feedback concerning policy. Although HQ PTC could not currently commit to the creation of a SOWG, it would continue to welcome feedback from LGB personnel through its current POC, Sqn Ldr Abrahams. (Paragraphs 2-6) 25. Due to the differences between the 3 Services’ stances on uniform at Europride, there is concern that the Army and RAF might be perceived as having neglected LGB personnel’s rights. AMP’s ruling is that it would be a breach of RAF uniform policy to march in pride events. Recruiting in uniform is permissible, and there are several LGB personnel who would volunteer to support recruiting stands. Personnel are to adhere to the decision concerning uniform at pride events unless policy changes, but HQ PTC would consider allowing LGB volunteers to support recruiting stands. (Paragraphs 7-11) 26. There are no statistics about the number of LGB personnel serving in the RAF. This reflects the fact that there is no census data about sexual orientation within the UK’s population. It is unlikely that personnel will be asked about their SO on entry due to privacy issues and the lack of a definite need for such statistics. (Paragraphs 12-16) 27. The RAF intends to join Stonewall, and is currently considering the questionnaire required for membership. (Paragraphs 17-19) 28. Although RAF personnel have been invited to the RN LGB Conference in Jan 07 there is no official support for the event. SO1 E&D would ask AMP whether he could write a statement of support for the event. (Paragraphs 20-23) A J WASLEY Flag: Authority Consulted: AP1358 (6th Edition you can contact the author of this report via the proud2serve.net public forum as wazzer for details of previous meetings which discussed matters of interest to the LGBT community within the RAF, go to the RAF community consultation page. discuss this subject in the proud2serve.net public forum
page: Royal Air Force ::
20061017-RAF_LGBT_community_consultation |
|||
|
|||
Proud2Serve.net - serving Britain's armed forces |
|||
