Submitted by MisterMovie50 t3_ygsgra in worldnews
Comments
tengo_harambe t1_iuaksji wrote
those damn rapey dolphins
Oddity46 t1_iuawtso wrote
Fucka you, doruphin!
valeyard89 t1_iub1p54 wrote
Fuck you whare!
SureUnderstanding358 t1_iub3l32 wrote
Fuck you cow!
BlackStrike7 t1_iubr2y3 wrote
Ikura!!!
VileTouch t1_iuc1q4v wrote
>Your sex offender locator app
Wait. Is that a thing?
Wigu90 t1_iuc8hbj wrote
Kind of, but the way I described them was just artistic license for the sake of the joke 😀
EDIT: also, your username seems to imply that there’s more at stake here😀
[deleted] t1_iuaf103 wrote
[removed]
MisterMovie50 OP t1_iua73fg wrote
>The head of the Royal Navy has ordered an investigation into allegations of bullying and sexual harassment against women in the Submarine Service.
>Several whistleblowers who served in the fleet told the Daily Mail they faced mistreatment from all ranks.
>Adm Sir Ben Key, the First Sea Lord, called the claims "abhorrent", adding "sexual harassment has no place in the Royal Navy and will not be tolerated".
>"Anyone who is found culpable will be held accountable," he said.
>The allegations, revealed in detail by the Mail, include male crew members compiling a list setting out the order in which women would be assaulted in the event of a catastrophic event.
>One woman told the Mail she was sexually assaulted by a man of a higher rank as she slept. She claimed one senior officer punched her in the kidney.
>She alleged that another left naked pictures of models for her and posted 50p coins into her cabin, suggesting she would perform a sexual act in return.
>Other women alleged they were frequently asked to perform sex acts and were often screamed at and hit with clipboards and pens.
>It is claimed the abuse has been happening for more than a decade, after a ban on female recruits was lifted in 2011.
>'Living in a parallel universe'
>Louise - not her real name - spent several months at sea on board Royal Navy warships and says sexual harassment is rife in the navy because it is "normalised".
>"It's like they're all living in a parallel universe out there," she tells the BBC.
>"The night before they hit shore - unless they are on duty - they drink ridiculous amounts."
>Louise, who is in her 40s, sees alcohol as a key trigger to the unacceptable behaviour she experienced during her stints on board two ships in 2019 and 2020.
>She told the BBC about one occasion, in 2019, when an officer stuck his hand up her skirt while they were drinking in the Officer's Mess.
>When she protested and put a stop to things by announcing she was returning to her cabin, the officer followed her to her room.
>"He thought me going to bed was an invitation," she says.
>"He hammered on my door, condom in hand. He wouldn't take no for an answer."
>Even the morning after - having eventually given up his pursuit - there was no apology forthcoming: "He thought it was totally normal behaviour."
>The Ministry of Defence has been contacted about Louise's allegations, but is yet to respond. The incident was not reported at the time.
>"I worry about these boys," says Louise. "It's not their fault if they are told this is normal. It's a culture. No one above them is setting an example."
>"The Navy needs to wake up and realise this is not the way the world operates."
>Former Navy Rear Adm Chris Parry told the BBC's Today programme he believed the issue was also a reflection of wider society.
>"I'm afraid some of the sexualised behaviour that we see in the normal working place is transferred to submarines, as you would expect, and of course in a compressed environment everything becomes exaggerated," he said.
>He said the issue requires leadership, including "zero tolerance from the top down and the bottom up" when it comes to accusations of sexual harassment.
>He added that when he commanded ships with a mix of genders he took "very seriously" accusations of assault.
>Emma Norton, from charity the Centre for Military Justice, said any investigation would still involve "the Royal Navy investigating the Royal Navy".
>"What a lot of campaigners and service women have been calling for many, many years, is for those responsible for investigating serious complaints like this to be taken away from the single services and handed to an independent body," she said.
>'Totally unacceptable'
>The Submarine Service is "unseen and unhindered," according to the Ministry of Defence (MoD) website, which says it has "built an enduring reputation for professionalism and courage".
>The service includes the Vanguard Class submarines that provide the UK's nuclear deterrent.
>Figures revealed in a Freedom of Information (FOI) request showed that, as of 2019, just 1% of Submarine Service personnel was female.
>Responding to the allegations, Adm Sir Ben said: "I want to reassure our people, and anyone who is reading this, that any activity which falls short of the highest of standards the Royal Navy sets itself is totally unacceptable and not a true reflection of what service life should be.
>"These allegations are abhorrent. Sexual assault and harassment has no place in the Royal Navy and will not be tolerated."
>The MoD said that while most navy staff enjoy rewarding careers, some personnel, predominantly women, have been affected by inappropriate sexualised behaviour.
>It said it accepted more needs to be done to improve the experience of all personnel and mechanisms for reporting sexual offences were being improved.
>The whistleblower who told the Mail she was sexually assaulted by a man of a higher rank as she slept no longer serves in the navy. She was dismissed from service over a separate incident and given a suspended prison sentence for disclosing classified information that compromised security.
>In 2019, the Ministry of Defence published a detailed report on inappropriate behaviour that included dozens of recommendations on how to tackle the issue. This included improving the complaints system and processes, encouraging more complaints, and dealing with them better when they occur.
>"Ultimately, however, the challenge of inappropriate behaviour can only be addressed through a determined effort across the whole force to change the culture, driven persistently from the top," the report said.
>Earlier this year, media reports emerged detailing allegations of bullying, drinking, misogyny and sexual harassment in the Red Arrows.
>A series of incidents within the flagship aerial display team prompted the Chief of the Air Staff to order an inquiry, which has yet to report.
>Last year, Diane Allen, a retired lieutenant colonel from the British Army, said the military needed its own Me Too moment, referring to the movement which saw people share their experiences of sexual harassment.
Edit: I'm too dumb to copy the text..
wurrukatte t1_iubusef wrote
> The Navy needs to wake up and realise this is not the way the world operates.
I mean, it is. But that's what we're trying to change.
FuckitThrowaway02 t1_iuc6i0p wrote
Once I saw "it's not their fault." I stopped reading.
TROPtastic t1_iucmlxl wrote
You should have kept reading, because the rest of the sentence says "It's a culture." Obviously she is being (too) charitable towards people she works with, but the fact that she chooses to think that her aggressors are not at fault doesn't change the fact that the RN is institutionally responsible for fixing this garbage.
Capable_Golf9991 t1_iudcx9o wrote
Exactly what I did mate 🤷😞
EphraimJenkins t1_iuadzk0 wrote
There’s a simple solution to this problem.
bird_equals_word t1_iub9lp3 wrote
Yeah, train people to behave as they're supposed to in every other workplace. Simple.
Anastazia_Beaverhau t1_iuca40i wrote
Women only submarines?
EphraimJenkins t1_iubnh29 wrote
No it doesn’t.
TROPtastic t1_iucmnwj wrote
No what doesn't? Nothing in the comment above could be responded to in the way that you did.
atttrae t1_iuauuql wrote
Cut off pipi?
asupify t1_iub6m7i wrote
Yeah, ban men from the navy.
EphraimJenkins t1_iubnip4 wrote
So close
TripplerX t1_iuc55c0 wrote
Ban Navy from men?
TROPtastic t1_iucmqa1 wrote
Why don't you say what you're thinking? Surely only a coward would be afraid to defend their own views.
rexo12 t1_iubfi8o wrote
Firing squad?
verregnet t1_iuascpu wrote
I can think of a similar one, too
Chance_Bluebird_5788 t1_iua9l7m wrote
The implication is even stronger on a submarine
EphraimJenkins t1_iuadx1x wrote
She’s out in the middle of the ocean, surrounded by water….
KiwiEV t1_iubm1lk wrote
And seamen.
rusticheerios t1_iuafbb2 wrote
What are sailors also called again?
freightgod1 t1_iuam3n5 wrote
But, but...mine is first class!!
not-a_fed t1_iub2nxu wrote
I served for years and I couldn't imagine being a female on a sub surrounded by weirdos and society's rejects. It's bad enough for women in the land forces.
Edit: words ar hard
itsallcrazysailing t1_iubjktp wrote
As someone who used to serve on subs I want to contest your comment, however I have nothing, so I’m just going to go and cry silently in the corner as I try to figure out if I’m a weirdo or a reject.
Phytanic t1_iuc68jj wrote
I have a friend who was a submariner, and he explained it this way to me:
imagine being stuck in a super cramped boat, having to share the same tiny, cramped bunk bed with other crew mates (they sleep in it on their sleep time and so a bed isn't empty and wasting space), and you do it for months at a time.
and you do this all with the same group of guys, so you better hope that yall at least pretend to get along, because it's a long ass time trapped in there.
(I think he had mentioned its one of those "no girls allowed yet" jobs still because their mission parameters basically put them needing to be submerged for literally months and no access to offshore medical)
nick1812216 t1_iudt8aj wrote
Maybe i’ve been brainwashed by propaganda, but i thought the submarines were like the elites. You had to be like pretty intelligent and mentally strong to get assigned to one of them?
not-a_fed t1_iuecyvd wrote
I was speaking of the military as a whole.
Mob1lis_in_mobil1 t1_iuenoh2 wrote
In the US they just started having women on subs in the last 10 years or so I think….
Either the punishment for fraternization needs to be harsher, or they need to do a better job of weeding out predators.
Although it also needs to be a two way street: women on submarines should be discouraged from fraternization as well, it causes morale issues (and can spread STDs), and “unintended pregnancies” among enlisted servicewomen is higher than for civilians.
The navy shouldn’t short-change itself by not allowing trained women to serve on ships, but at the same turn both parties (servicemen and women) shouldn’t be fraternizing when the consequences means losing a trained crew member (pregnant women are not allowed aboard service vessels).
Shanghst t1_iuc8b79 wrote
Weirdos and rejects on every platform honestly. Still, at most there could be 150+ on a sub with only 10 of them women? Maybe? Fuck that.
MacksImp t1_iubl4hq wrote
Saying more about yourself with that
Metamorphosislife t1_iuercq9 wrote
For real. He sounds like a certified loser as opposed to guys who go and something for themselves and their country.
chockedup t1_iuaa3k8 wrote
I'm reversing the order of two paragraphs,
>Last year, Diane Allen, a retired lieutenant colonel from the British Army, said the military needed its own Me Too moment, referring to the movement which saw people share their experiences of sexual harassment.
>...
>The whistleblower who told the Mail she was sexually assaulted by a man of a higher rank as she slept no longer serves in the navy. She was dismissed from service over a separate incident and given a suspended prison sentence for disclosing classified information that compromised security.
Sheppex t1_iubgcvf wrote
I am embarrassed to admit I don't understand the reasoning behind reversing the order of these 2 paragraphs, please could you expand further?
(General question) Is the second paragraph's second sentence meant to throw shade on the whistle-blower, infer that she was punished by the navy for whistle-blowing / rejecting the higher rank officer, or other reason for including?
chockedup t1_iubhl0v wrote
Reversing the sequential order made more sense to my mind as a reader, that's all. Regarding your other questions and/or observations, I don't know.
Tech_Itch t1_iuctb5k wrote
Those are completely separate paragraphs from different parts of the article. Combining them that way only makes sense if you're trying to falsely imply that Diane Allen is the "whistleblower" being talked about in the second paragraph and is therefore supposedly being dishonest for selfish reasons. That whistleblower is a different person.
Since most people won't read the article and might fall for your bullshit: There are multiple allegations of sexual misconduct from multiple people.
chockedup t1_iudjp53 wrote
>Since most people won't read the article and might fall for your bullshit:
My bullshit?
>Combining them that way only makes sense if you're trying to falsely imply that Diane Allen is the "whistleblower" being talked about in the second paragraph and is therefore supposedly being dishonest for selfish reasons.
That was not my thought at all, and I disagree with your interpretation. I've tagged you as a liar.
Tech_Itch t1_iudlreu wrote
>That was not my thought at all, and I disagree with your interpretation.
So what was your thought? How do you disagree? What other purpose could cherrypicking two unrelated paragraphs from a long article and arranging them in a misleading way possibly serve?
> I've tagged you as a liar.
chockedup t1_iudpet1 wrote
> What other purpose could cherrypicking two unrelated paragraphs from a long article and arranging them in a misleading way possibly serve?
If I was trying to mislead, then I would not have openly disclosed that I reversed their order! Among your other personal shortcomings, it seems you have flawed reasoning.
Tech_Itch t1_iudtf3a wrote
So what were you trying to say if you weren't trying to mislead? I suppose you're hoping that nobody reading your replies notices the fact that you keep avoiding saying what your point was in picking those specific paragraphs out of their context and reversing their order. How about instead of coming up with imagined flaws in me, you do that?
chockedup t1_iudxijh wrote
>So what were you trying to say if you weren't trying to mislead? I suppose you're hoping that nobody reading your replies notices the fact that you keep avoiding saying what your point was in picking those specific paragraphs out of their context and reversing their order. How about instead of coming up with imagined flaws in me, you do that?
I wrote that answer to another poster (Sheppex) in the same subthread.
On the subject of "imagined" flaws, upthread you said,
>Combining them that way only makes sense if you're trying to falsely imply that Diane Allen is the "whistleblower"
The two paragraphs in question clearly say they're two different people, "Diane Allen, a retired lieutenant colonel" and in regard to the whistleblower, "dismissed from service". "Dismissed" does not equal "retired"!
At best, your charge that I was falsely implying they were the same person was flawed reasoning on your part, at worst it was an intentional lie.
Tech_Itch t1_iudyut4 wrote
I'll quote your reply to the other commenter:
>Reversing the sequential order made more sense to my mind as a reader, that's all.
That's just a dodge, and it's obvious to everyone, which is why that comment is sitting at -7 when I'm typing this. What's the "sense" it's making to you?
I'm done with this discussion. It's already obvious to everyone with eyes that you're commenting in bad faith, and I'm tired of this.
chockedup t1_iue16b0 wrote
>I'll quote your reply to the other commenter:
>>Reversing the sequential order made more sense to my mind as a reader, that's all.
>That's just a dodge, and it's obvious to everyone, which is why that comment is sitting at -7 when I'm typing this. What's the "sense" it's making to you?
>I'm done with this discussion. It's already obvious to everyone with eyes that you're commenting in bad faith, and I'm tired of this.
I'm not commenting in bad faith, I've been abused by you.
DirkBabypunch t1_iucfegt wrote
Seems kind of dangerous to go pissing off people you're trapped with in one of the most hostile environments we have access to. Especially the ones who are trained to handle all the equipment that keeps you alive, and can just as easily use that knowledge to sabotage the boat.
Maybe, just maybe, we give them what they want and stop trying to assault the other sailors? Sure would hate to hear about one of the ladies snapping and an Astute or Vanguard just disappearing at sea.
lynxreader t1_iub54k6 wrote
"what shall we do with the rapist sailor..."
^(not nearly as sorry as i should be)
HaViNgT t1_iucvfxf wrote
The title made it sound like the submarine was the sexual harasser.
Cynical_Cabinet t1_iudj6ti wrote
I can't let you do that, Dave.
cellshady t1_iud6ss2 wrote
That's what I imagined as well.
handfight t1_iucompm wrote
Disem(cough)bark.
bombombay123 t1_iucj6dj wrote
Royal bullying.. that too in Navy..
Deez_nuts89 t1_iucn9xc wrote
The navy has some weird ass traditions and submarines even more so. All based in an outdated culture that has no place in society. My dad was a submariner and when I was a kid I found a duffel bag in a closet with Polaroids of him in drag. I’ve talked to a few other people who had dads in the navy around a similar time frame who said they heard or saw similar things with their dads. I guess it was their type of hazing at the time.
FuzzVR t1_iudy65o wrote
"What's long hard and full of seamen?"
autotldr t1_iuaf70l wrote
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 93%. (I'm a bot)
> The head of the Royal Navy has ordered an investigation into allegations of bullying and sexual harassment against women in the Submarine Service.
> Louise - not her real name - spent several months at sea on board Royal Navy warships and says sexual harassment is rife in the navy because it is "Normalised".
> Emma Norton, from charity the Centre for Military Justice, said any investigation would still involve "The Royal Navy investigating the Royal Navy".
Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Navy^#1 sexual^#2 Service^#3 Royal^#4 harassment^#5
[deleted] t1_iuauf9n wrote
[deleted]
Deep_Blue77 t1_iuavr2c wrote
God, really? Hardly original
Oddity46 t1_iuawwwe wrote
If you're gonna make a shitty joke, at least spell it right, so it makes sense.
Seamen.
Monkey_tr33 t1_iucvig7 wrote
Whats long and hard and full of seamen?
[deleted] t1_iua7nxe wrote
[deleted]
jakaboox t1_iuamilg wrote
What has the world come to
NeedMoreBlackCoffee t1_iub6jk3 wrote
It hasn't come to anything, this shite has been a thing for a long time I'm sure, as bad as that is.
isawagoose t1_iubp5e6 wrote
Where have you been? It's always been like this. Worse, actually.
No-Design-8551 t1_iucfp4f wrote
i wonder what gay stuff is going on down there
annadpk t1_iublbhq wrote
As the article says, it's connected to booze.
patrick66 t1_iubp5i5 wrote
booze makes it worse but women in the american navy are harassed too and American ships and subs ban most alcohol consumption. mostly the problem is just shitty men
annadpk t1_iubqnxc wrote
Booze makes it much worse
>Louise - not her real name - spent several months at sea on board Royal Navy warships and says sexual harassment is rife in the navy because it is "normalised".
"It's like they're all living in a parallel universe out there," she tells the BBC.
"The night before they hit shore - unless they are on duty - they drink ridiculous amounts."
Louise, who is in her 40s, sees alcohol as a key trigger to the unacceptable behaviour she experienced during her stints on board two ships in 2019 and 2020.
The first step the Royal Navy needs to do is to ban booze. Unfortunately, it's not going to be easy. First, they have difficulty recruiting people, especially for the submarine service. Banning booze is only going to make it more difficult.
Trying to solve the problem while you don't ban booze, is like trying to push a car uphill.
bumbumofdoomdoom t1_iuaejqv wrote
Was the submarine the victim or perpetrator?
[deleted] t1_iualth0 wrote
[deleted]
Heres_your_sign t1_iuappf5 wrote
Not to make light of what these women went through, but the difference in perspectives is striking. I would pay a princely sum of money to be sexually harassed by female submariners for months at a time with no escape.
alt_for_guns t1_iuaqw4i wrote
What the fuck
The_MorningStar t1_iuautn3 wrote
This whole comment section is trash.
Sleipnirs t1_iuas7x5 wrote
The only difference here is that you seem desperate while those women aren't. Didn't even came to your mind that they could have someone in their lives already.
atttrae t1_iuavanq wrote
No you wouldn't want to be harassed. Sexually or otherwise. Having sexual things happen to you that you don't want is kind of the definition.
Deep_Blue77 t1_iuavn9i wrote
You are brain dead, it’s not harassment if it’s consensual
worriedrenterTW t1_iub1p56 wrote
How about being sexually threatened and assaulted by big burly male navy officers? Because that's the equivalent, not women.
[deleted] t1_iub33lo wrote
[deleted]
Piotrof t1_iudxefo wrote
The difference is that you are sick in the head.
Wigu90 t1_iua7qfc wrote
Imagine you're on a cruise ship.
You step outside at night to get some fresh air and suddenly you get an alert on your iPhone.
Your sex offender locator app shows a single blip 1,5 km away, in the open sea.