As a regular, in the 60s and 70s we had several gay men in the station, we kept quiet, these guys were good airmen, and would have been a tremendous loss to the service.
I served in the Canadian Forces, there was a gay guy on base, nicest fellow you'd ever want to meet. He was passing by my open door one day, stopped and complimented me about the couch (settee, chesterfield) I was sitting on. He was booted out several days later. Because the armed services at that time looked down on alternate sexual alignment, a LGBQ person had to keep that secret, by doing so, you became a security risk, in the upper echelon's opinion. I have always thought that if one is open about one's sexual orientation, you are no longer a security risk therefore you can get on with serving your country or whatever. Glad times have changed and continue to do so.
I served in the RAF 1974 - 87 and remember the same interview regarding Gays. I thought at the time it strange as I had been taught at school that some half million gays had fought for Britain in W.W.II.... Nothing was said then. This is a real loss for the RAF and the British military as a whole.
It was unfortunately the way things where chances are if you where outted back in those days you where in for a hard time of it best things was to discharge the person but fortunately society has change
And women. I was OCWRAF back in the 80's and had to dismiss an exceptional airwoman for being gay. She went on to have a distinguished career in the Police
Man that is just disgusting but the gentleman is in good company with others that were savagely dealt with despite what they did for their country during wartime and were treated like lepers afterwards. Alan Turing is one who stands out in my mind and there would have been tens if not hundreds of thousands of others. I worked with a guy for two years when someone said he was gay and I hadn't noticed because it *wasn't* relevant and it *wasn't* important. He was just a really good bloke.
these rules along with so many social norms existed and to some extent still exist specifically to justify the prejudice. i.e. "gay men are no use to society" also "we will actively prevent gay men from being of use to society" the man is a decorated hero, show some respect.
Thanks for this article. I left the Air Force because of the gay ban which at the time was brutal, discriminatory and very nasty. Hopefully LGBTQ service people are now treated inclusively with respect.
Sexual fraternization in the forces, was always discriminated against , according to rank. It and societies 'progress' will depend upon social factors ,so acceptance through legislation always takes longer than upbringing in environment. The shifting of tolerances and behaviour takes time , if they have been forced by elected party means ,it is generally not always for the better. Injustice and tolerating the intolerable, is down to who we vote to make those calls in setting up legislation, you cannot please all of the people all of the time ,and Governments elected by 1/3rd of the electorate often have strong minority views in the party, not reflected in the whole society. As a socialist liberal, this in discrimination seemed wrong by instinct , but upheld by laws from minds more nationalist and conservative. Our liberal freedoms are hard won , so be sure to understand when tolerating the intolerable your views may be the problem, but by not voting for what you are willing to tolerate, then change becomes harder, as acceptance of law becomes ingrained through political policy and media bias exposure is a very powerful weapon ,when closed minds wield the financial clout to brick by brick alter peoples perceptions . It is why now people should seriously consider political could news as political bias and maybe legislation should be toughened on the 'freedom' of a press run by plutocrats, the old Citizen Kane film still relevant. Woke and MAGA are imported attitudes from a society that we should still resist becoming dominated by. 80 years since losing our own dominance in setting views , by Soviet and U.S post WW2 power, that frankly are unacceptable today ,still does not mean ALL those views and identity are wrong. Nationalism, Capitalism ,Liberalism and Socialism are what makes us politically aware. That Race, Religion and Sexual orientation are still as issue ,speaks of misuse of power in shaping our society by people not living within it.
I agree Carl, no one should be defined by their sexuality. People should be defined by the content of their character. Your story demonstrates you are of good strong character. Well done and good luck for the future.
This is one of the reasons that I decided to leave after 30 years. The military is more interested in appeasing minorities than the majority. They knew the rules when they joined, and it would have been referenced many times during their career before the rules changed. So what is next? Apologies to females who were not allowed to go to sea before 1992! If you didn't like the rule, don't join or leave. Do blame everyone else.
A WREN officer got pregnant back in the 1980s. The Navy didn't run a creche so she was told it was either a child or her career, your choice. She chose the career. She sued the Navy years later for a fortune.
@robhartley3930 If you don't like the rule, don't join or leave. Don't blame everyone else.... Your words...The point is, gay or pregnant, there was no place for you in the Royal Navy. Unless you could have someone else raise your child.
@stephennelmes4557 And! That was no different than normal society at that time. If you got pregnant, most companies would make the same decision. You also forget that as an officer in the RN, the job comes first. Everything else is second.
@@robhartley3930Rob, I completely agree. I'm for the rules not against them. I think we have a blue on blue. On the same side but talking at cross purposes. The WREN was given a choice. She made her choice and decided to plunder the public purse to see what she could get years after. It should not have been allowed.
Sorry but no, I disagree with compensation for that period. He knew when he joined up what the law (not rules as Queens/Kings regulations are legally binding) was and what the penalties were. We ALL did. It was drummed into us all through Swinderby and our later career. He even said it himself that he was living a double life. So he didn’t properly read what he was signing? Let’s hope he took more care reading the documents when he was Mayor later on! The law has changed, for the better in my and most other people’s opinions but so has moral and ethical judgement across the board in that time. We cannot rewrite history and we shouldn’t compensate it when it was clearly indicated to be the conditions of service. There were many, many opportunities to resign or PVR, he had the warning and the choice, he chose to take his chances and lost. Interesting in my service career I never heard of this happening to lesbian troops (although I’m not saying it didn’t happen) yet many were in very open relationships on camp. The thinking was very different then.
I'm sure he's a great fella but he lied to get in so he can't complain when he got kicked out. I had friends in the Navy that were gay back in the 80s and 90s. They never admitted to it, kept it low key off the ship and under went under the radar. Strange times. They're out now in more ways than one. 😂
@@davidkavanagh189Yes I agree, but, in the forces there's very little privacy especially on a warship. It's all about potential sexual partners. Where does a gay man go ? Into a crowded messdeck with 50 straight men ? Into a mess with other gay men? Or Into the female mess which would never happen. Having gays in a messdeck has the potential to cause problems relating to power dynamics, hierarchical issues and discipline. It's the same as placing men in female sleeping quarters. If a man gay or straight wants to go to sea my recommendation is to join the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. You get your own private cabin and all the aforementioned issues disappear. I did Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary and the RFA is far better.
Hang on a moment, 🤔 he said he knew he was gay at the age of seven, and joined the military anyway knowing full well what the conditions were. Then after allowing his private life to become public knowledge, he's surprised when he's kicked out 🤔.
Now of course it's an entry requirement I believe and certainly enhances promotion prospects. Indeed I understand the RAF positively discriminates against White males of any persuasion.
He knew, as I did at the start of my 28 year career, that being gay was not allowed in the armed forces. That is how it was. It was accepted by all of us hetro members of the RAF. If you use drugs the situation is exactly the same.
As much as I think the military policy about homosexuality has now come to be as inclusive as possible as a good thing, those people who joined the military when it was still an offence to be a gay person knew what they were doing was against military law, therefore their dismissal was perfectly legal and justified, others might see my opinion as homophobic but in reality that was the military law at the time and had to be upheld, and if you decide to not enforce a law then what other laws, rules and regulations would commanders be willing to not follow, the law was the law at that time, and now it has been changed the homosexual personnel don’t have to watch over their shoulders because they are no longer committing any offence, good luck to them all.
You are correct, however the point is that it was a mistake to have such a law. We should learn not to institute laws on prejudice. LGTBT people want and can serve their country too. Their sexuality has got nothing to do with that. Imagine being capable, able and willing but being told you can’t. I don’t think many people outside of this community would have experienced this or would rightly have thought that it made any sense.
@@chanon_z8063 As an older veteran I don’t understand why people think it was a mistake to have the law at THE TIME 🕰️, when the manual of military law and the manual of Airforce Law were written it was a completely different era in time when, rightly or wrongly, attitudes to both LGBTQ people and sexuality was completely different, and the fact that, again at the time, people who were part of the LGBTQ community were a security risk, which they were, being open to being coerced into spying and other activities that would jeopardise the security of the United Kingdom and beyond, and because they were vulnerable to coercion they could not serve, it was not about the calibre of the people or their personal feelings towards duty, honour and patriotism, it was about security, and, more importantly they knew what the law was at the time and it was an offence to lie on their application forms for service, rightly or wrongly we can’t judge a law based on today’s standards or openness towards the LGBTQ community, and tbh I think it was the correct policy at the time. For context, if a person that was or is a drugs user and were successful in an application to join up and later on they either were caught out, or they fell off the wagon then they would be immediately dismissed from the service in the same way as a LGBTQ person would have been, so would you say that was wrong, and even though the Soviet Union has collapsed that doesn’t mean that the security of the country is not vulnerable, the same doesn’t apply to alcoholism in that it is not strictly against the law, either civil or military, but it would be taken very seriously and depending on circumstances could lead to a person being dismissed from the service. It really was not about someone’s gender or sexuality, although it was not generally acceptable at the time, it was about the fact they could be open to coercion and they broke military law.
I agree that we can’t judge the law of years gone by today’s standards. I am saying that stories like these are important to ensure we don’t have laws like this anymore. LGBTQ people were security risk only because there were civil or military laws that made homosexuality illegal. If there were no laws they couldn’t be coerced by foreign intelligence services and were therefore not risks. Also I’d like to point out that comparing homosexuality with drug and alcohol addiction was where the problem was. Your sexuality does not make you an operational liability, unlike drugs and alcohol. Plus what occurs between two or more 😊 adults is not the government’s business and should never have been.
⚠️ All that matters is that they can do the job, and doing it exceptionally well is a bonus, which he clearly achieved!🥇 I'm very surprised and disappointed by the RAF in this day and age. ⬇️ Can you imagine if Alan Turing was thrown out of Bletchley in 1940? This would have likely resulted in a further two years of war, with millions more dying... ⬇️ The ignorance of the person who sacked him is one thing, but the irony that he may of highly likely not even been alive today, if it hadn't been for good people, like Alan Turing and others, who helped prevent his forefathers from getting killed, hasn't even entered their small-minded head!
What rubbish you spout, it was against the rules, stop using today's woke outlook on what happened before. Next, you will want forgiveness for people who were press ganged!
There were reasons why it was illegal to be gay in the Army etc, and not particularly sinister reasons either. A young soldier in my battalion was bullied by a secretly gay, older soldier which led the younger man to attempt suicide.
@@jimmyjohnson7027 ‘gay people are bullies and will make you kill yourself’ was not one of the reasons, the reasons were pretty homophobic but just saying every single gay person is a bully is pretty extreme even for the 80’s
@@lachlanchester8142 That gay soldier was definitely a bully. Gay soldiers were also blackmailed into handing over 'sensitive' information to governments that were not necessarily friendly to Britain. What is your military experience?
@@jimmyjohnson7027 they were blackmailed because it was against the rules and would have negative consequences if released. You can't blackmail someone for being gay when they are openly gay.
"Do you have Homosexual tendencies?" The correct, and honest answer is "No." Why is this the correct and honest answer? Because he IS Gay, NOT "having a Tendency towards being Homosexual." That makes it sound that it is something one "contemplates" doing, not "Is Gay." The question itself, as asked, is ludicrous.
Rightly or wrongly it was a term and condition of Service at that time. I was asked at the Army Career Office bluntly “are you a poof” before I was allowed to sign anything. He knew he was stating a falsehood upon application and it is still the same today if you lie on most job applications about anything (ie you lose your job). As such compensation should not be considered.
@@DanBeech-ht7sw You raise a good point but I think back in the day it didn’t matter. They just needed the numbers. Probably a bit of don’t ask don’t tell.
There are a number of people in these comments who do not recognise the wrong of being kicked out of the armed forces for their sexuality, stating that they signed up for it and therefore should have known. Imagine the bravery of being a queer person and deciding to serve their country despite that, and live in fear, knowing that a colleague could dob them in at any moment and that they could be randomly investigated? And then imagine being the queer person, serving their country with honour - as this man did - and then being rejected by the very branch they have pledged their life - literally - to? So many of the comments here just reveal people who were obviously part of the problem, and are part of why this process has taken so long - something they have the audacity to critique. Were you an ally, back then, or did you hurt these people too?
What complete rubbish you spout. They knew the rules and deliberately broke them. I don't care what the rules are today, then they were different and you abide by them or leave. If you don't, expect the consequences. I bet you never served a day in your life, so but out.
This is sad however, it was an offense at the time which he would have known. Asking for compensation is, in my opinion, ridiculous. I wish that people would have fought this far far sooner, at the time when homosexuality was decriminalised in the UK. I'm so glad that he went on to achieve great things, and have a beautiful family xxx
I served in the RAF from 1970 to 1980. We all knew the rules, one being that it was illegal to be a homosexual in the armed forces. It was common knowledge that if you were identified as a proven homosexual you would be dismissed. They were the rules. So why do these people come out of their holes decades later and shout foul. Sadly, it may be OK to be a homosexual in the armed forces nowadays but that’s because some misguided fools have changed the rules. I salute this mans service but not his morals.
