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.