British Military Current Events

[daftandbarmy]

Good career move there LGen...

EXC: British Army Demands Corps and Regiments Cut Ties With ‘Non-Inclusive’ Private Members’ Clubs​

The British Army has opened a new front – this time against the country’s private members’ clubs. Deputy Chief of the General Staff, Lieutenant General David Eastman, has issued marching orders to all Corps and Regimental Colonels, saying that he’s “concerned” about historic ties to clubs “whose rules, policies, or cultural practices may not align with the Army’s commitment to inclusivity.” No safe space left in St James…

He’s instructed every unit to conduct a full review of club links, “engage” with them, and “disassociate where necessary.” In his own words:

“It has come to my attention that some Corps and Regiments maintain historical associations with private members’ clubs whose rules, policies, or cultural practices may not align with the Army’s commitment to inclusivity. This concern extends beyond clubs that exclude women entirely, to include those where membership rights, access, or participation differ on the basis of gender, for example, restrictions on the rooms that can be accessed, the events that can be attended, or whether members may make purchases on equal terms.

Where access or treatment is unequal, the effect is to diminish the agency of some members, restrict their participation in opportunities that may be professionally advantageous, and risk sending a mixed signal about the Army’s stated commitment to inclusion.”

EXC: British Army Demands Corps and Regiments Cut Ties With 'Non-Inclusive' Private Members' Clubs

The British Army has opened a new front - this time against the country's private members’ clubs. Deputy Chief of the General Staff, Lieutenant General

order-order.com

 

[daftandbarmy]

And the response

Response to Private Members Clubs:

Letter to the Deputy Chief of the General Staff

Dear General Eastman,

Thank you for your recent circular on inclusivity and private members’ clubs,

a document so consumed by moral purpose that one almost forgets we’re supposed to be an army, not an HR department.

You’ll forgive me for saying that, to many of us, it reads less like a directive from a fighting force and more like an email from a diversity consultant on her third soy latte. I’m sure the enemy will be delighted to know that, before we shoot at them, we’ll first review whether their club rules align with our “values of equality and respect”.

The men and women of this and most other regiments have spent years learning to fight, fix, and, where necessary, fall. They did not enlist to be lectured on gender access to the billiards room. It’s hard enough to get recruits to march in step these days without demanding they complete an inclusivity audit of White’s.

We’ve taken the liberty of conducting your proposed “review of affiliations.” The findings are as follows:

1. We are a regiment.

2. We fight wars.

3. We occasionally drink.

4. Our “policies” extend to saluting the flag, cleaning the kit, and making sure no one dies unnecessarily.

As for “engagement with clubs”, we’ll leave that to those who enjoy committees. Most of us prefer a pint.

If it’s all the same to you, General, we’ll continue to measure inclusivity by whether a comrade will pull you out of a ditch under fire, not whether they’ve read the Equality Act.

We remain, as ever, devoted to King, Country, and the faint hope that one day our generals will remember what an army is for.

Yours, with enduring respect and mild despair,

 

[dapaterson]

If a regiment remains associated with a club that refuses admission to members of that regiment, then you disband the regiment and burn the colours.

I remember that the Camerons in Winnipeg would hold mess dinners where female officers were refused admission (1990s). Fuck that.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Translation: you've just made yourself look like a whack job and emboldened the King's enemies...

Why is the army’s top brass waging war on private members’ clubs?​

The British Army – at its smallest size since we lost our American colonies in the 1770s – is facing the most challenging period in its history. More soldiers are leaving than joining. Why are they walking away? A sternly-worded letter from the Deputy Chief of the General Staff (DCGS), Lieutenant General David Eastman, rebuking colonels for their dealings with private members’ clubs, shows one reason why many are fed up with the Army.

Eastman is concerned that the Army’s intended status as a ‘modern, inclusive, and forward-thinking organisation’ may be undermined by ‘associations with private members’ clubs whose rules, policies, or cultural practices may not align with the Army’s commitment to inclusivity’. He is not, as you might initially imagine, thinking solely of clubs which do not admit women as members, but also ‘those where membership rights, access, or participation differ on the basis of gender’.

If corps or regiments do have associations with clubs like these, Eastman provides a stark binary choice: ‘engage with the relevant clubs to discuss their policies and advocate for change’, or else ‘take steps to disassociate from the organisation’.

At a time of crisis for the British Army – and given the dangerous world we live in – is this really a priority? Russia’s president Vladimir Putin will be laughing, rather than quaking in his boots.

Sceptics should not imagine that associations with private members’ clubs are private or informal matters, Eastman suggests. Tacit endorsement by corps and regiments ‘carries weight’, and association with any club which restricts access or membership ‘risk sending a mixed signal about the Army’s stated commitment to inclusion’. In effect, the Army is always on duty and always being judged.

The Deputy Chief of the General Staff has a wide range of responsibilities: his portfolio includes the Army Legal Services Branch, basing and infrastructure, resource issues and the Royal Army Chaplains’ Department. But it’s not clear that Eastman’s remit should include soldiers’ associations with private clubs.

Even if the army’s top brass don’t like exclusive members’ clubs, it is worth remembering that there is no law proscribing all-male clubs: schedule 16 of the Equality Act 2010 contains a specific exemption from its provisions in terms of organisations ‘restricting membership to persons who share a protected characteristic’, of which sex is one.

Yet this doesn’t stop Eastman going on the warpath. He says that these associations risk ‘undermining the inclusivity and cohesion we strive to foster within our ranks’. That inclusivity and cohesion, Eastman argues, is ‘a central component of our operational effectiveness’. Really?

The message to soldiers appears to be that any association with any organisation which has any restrictions on membership or access is a threat to the fighting capability of the British Army. It is not wholly specious but it is highly contentious. The Ministry of Defence should prepare itself for accusations of allowing ‘wokeness’ to dominate its priorities.

There is another simple but profound issue that Eastman has not grasped or is choosing to ignore. Members’ clubs of any kind cannot, by definition, be ‘inclusive’. We choose not to frame it this way but a club exists at least in part because some people are excluded. Otherwise it is not a club. The Cavalry and Guards Club on Piccadilly, for example, admits current and retired officers from Guards and cavalry regiments, and its membership policy is discriminatory on that basis. More generally, members; clubs discriminate because membership is at their discretion, and no-one is entitled to join.

Women have been able to serve in any role in the armed forces since 2018, and the Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff, the second most senior officer, is a woman, General Dame Sharon Nesmith. They remain only 12 per cent of the regular forces but the government has set a target of 30 per cent by 2030. I say this as a male civilian (although in full disclosure a former member of the Army and Navy Club): structural challenges remain, particularly in relation to childcare provision, flexibility and bullying, harassment and abuse, but I am deeply sceptical that low-key relationships with private members’ clubs loom large.

General Eastman is right to worry about the reputation and perception of the British Army. But his recent letter may well do harm rather than good: it reinforces an image of the UK’s military leadership as lacking in perspective, sense and serious commitment to a fighting force that is capable of undertaking the tasks the government demands of it.

​

Why is the army's top brass waging war on private members' clubs?

The Deputy Chief of the General Staff (DCGS), Lieutenant General David Eastman, warned soldiers about their association with clubs

www.spectator.co.uk

 

[FJAG]

If a regiment remains associated with a club that refuses admission to members of that regiment, then you disband the regiment and burn the colours.

I remember that the Camerons in Winnipeg would hold mess dinners where female officers were refused admission (1990s). Fuck that.

I was with the Camerons in Winnipeg from 81 to 85. There were really less than a dozen officers in the regiment then and none were female.

That's nothing unusual since they didn't allow women into the combat arms until 1989. I do recall, however, women from other branches attend the occasional mess dinner, dining in or other function like the new years levy.

The officers that I knew from the 1980s, who would have risen to more senior ranks in the 1990s, would not have had any problem with women at mess dinners or elsewhere.

I'd be interested in knowing the source of that story.

 

[dapaterson]

I was with the Camerons in Winnipeg from 81 to 85. There were really less than a dozen officers in the regiment then and none were female.

That's nothing unusual since they didn't allow women into the combat arms until 1989. I do recall, however, women from other branches attend the occasional mess dinner, dining in or other function like the new years levy.

The officers that I knew from the 1980s, who would have risen to more senior ranks in the 1990s, would not have had any problem with women at mess dinners or elsewhere.

I'd be interested in knowing the source of that story.

A female officer in the Cameron's in the mid 1990s, told in the mid 1990s.

 

[FJAG]

A female officer in the Cameron's in the mid 1990s, told in the mid 1990s.

By then I was the DJA for ManMilDist and subsequently DAJAG MilAreaPrairie - and there was a pretty sharp DJA that took over for me in Manitoba after I was promoted. If it would have happened it would have gotten to us. That kind of bullshit doesn't stay quiet or hidden. My guess is that there is more to the story.

 

[Rifleman62]

I only remember one Female QOCH of C Officer from around that time. She wore a Kilt (which the old boys didn't forbid). Went on to be a Calgary Police Officer. Never heard a complaint.
The Camerons would hold annual Robbie Burns Dinners. Ladies always attended.