First woman commander of Navy warship is sent home over 'affair with male officer' on board - Polidicks

[url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2706260/First-woman-commander-Navy-warship-sent-home-affair-male-officer-board.html[/url] [QUOTE]The first female commander of a Royal Navy warship has been sent home after allegedly having an affair with another officer. Commander Sarah West, 42, took charge of the frigate HMS Portland in May 2012, but has been sent home from duty after claims she was having a relationship with a male officer on the same ship. This would breach the Armed Forces’ Code of Social Conduct, which prohibits personnel from having relationships with subordinates if they compromise ‘operational effectiveness’. While the Royal Navy is investigating the affair, Cdr West, from Grimsby, Lincolnshire, retains her position as commander of HMS Portland. It is not known whether the male officer is married. Cdr West recently described herself as ‘single’, having been married to a former Royal Navy pilot in 1998. The pair later separated. A Royal Navy spokesman said last night: ‘We are aware of an allegation of a breach of the Code of Social Conduct on board HMS Portland, which we are treating seriously. [/QUOTE]

Wow. At least fuck someone the same rank as you, that shit is common knowledge.

Good, the military is no place for having sex

[I]scandelous[/I]

is this not the entire reason why women/men soldiers used to be split? so there would never be any sexual tension

Don't see a problem with this, relationships in the military would be a disaster because if the couple split or broke up it would affect them in their line of duty

Make love not war. Unless you wanna keep your job, then don't make love.

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;45504814]Good, the military is no place for having sex[/QUOTE] hahahahhahahahhahahha you have no clue do you? lmao I bet you figure were all celibate monks.

[QUOTE=endorphinsam;45504947]is this not the entire reason why women/men soldiers used to be split? so there would never be any sexual tension[/QUOTE] The reasons are because it may be harder to see a woman all mangled up in a blast than a guy, or that first aid may be given to a woman over a man, ignoring severity of their wounds. I think we're over the second and any physical fitness concerns these days, so it's all up to determining if the psychological aspect of seeing a female soldier getting mangled in a mine blast is that much worse than seeing it happen to male. This is for combat roles, though, and usually Men and Women serve along side each other in non combat roles all the time, and have for a long time

Actually I reckon the man should of been sent off to because he also breached those rules If they get back together outside of the military, there's not much they can do

The way this was reported on TV it came across as gossip more so than news, made me feel quite bad for her

I'm curious if the captain was male and he was fucking a female subordinate of the same rank if he would be sent home.

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;45505030]hahahahhahahahhahahha you have no clue do you? lmao I bet you figure were all celibate monks.[/QUOTE] He means it is no place for straight sex. We all know about your manly parties don't worry ;)

[QUOTE=download;45505133]I'm curious if the captain was male and he was fucking a female subordinate of the same rank if he would be sent home.[/QUOTE] Yes. There is Code of Social Conduct set in place that applies to everyone regardless of gender - and HM Forces are pretty strict on equality.

[QUOTE=David29;45505186]Yes. There is Code of Social Conduct set in place that applies to everyone regardless of gender - and HM Forces are pretty strict on equality.[/QUOTE] Well why hasn't the Royal Army sent both home but not kept one on board, too me that's indifferent and fails to live up to the strict policies put in place for equality

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;45505206]Well why hasn't the Royal Army sent both home but not kept one on board, too me that's indifferent and fails to live up to the strict policies put in place for equality[/QUOTE] "This would breach the Armed Forces’ Code of Social Conduct, which prohibits personnel from having relationships with [B]subordinates[/B] if they compromise ‘operational effectiveness’." I would imagine because of this.

If this leads to a reversal on the equality laws, I'm going to be furious. Couldn't one of them have kept it in their pants for at least a minute?

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;45505206]Well why hasn't the Royal Army sent both home but not kept one on board, too me that's indifferent and fails to live up to the strict policies put in place for equality[/QUOTE] Royal Army? There are multiple things wrong with that. Because perhaps there is no point sending them both home? This isn't a murder - it's a minor scandal that doesn't require two persons being removed from the ship's manpower (bearing in mind that it is still under investigation and therefore no-one is explicitly guilty yet). The important part is that the two be separated from each other - and that doesn't require both of them going home. As the senior rank/position, she holds the responsibility for what has happened and that is why it is her that is going home.

Wait, I'm a little less upset after looking at the article more closely. She's literally just been sent home, I thought that was a simple way of saying discharged. I hope she's reprimanded but allowed to stay, if this is the first time she's done something wrong. [editline]26th July 2014[/editline] Sorry about the automerge failure.

Sex and the Destroyer?

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;45505206]Well why hasn't the Royal Army sent both home but not kept one on board, too me that's indifferent and fails to live up to the strict policies put in place for equality[/QUOTE] Why would they take away TWO people, which is TWO billets (this word essentially means a body) that they needed filled? This isn't about punishment, it's about separating the two because of their unprofessional relationship. It has nothing to do with gender equality.

Beep boop, no relationships allowed beep boop

[QUOTE=Rocâ„¢;45505287]Sex and the Destroyer?[/QUOTE] Technically it's Sex and the Frigate. [QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;45505305]Beep boop, no relationships allowed beep boop[/QUOTE] Relationships are allowed in all branches of the forces. However, let me throw a scenario at you: HMS Portland is out at sea. The ship's Commander is having a relationship with a member of the crew - the pilot of the ship's Lynx helicopter - and gets very attached to him. Then one day the Lynx goes down in a severe storm during a patrol away from the ship: two things then could potentially happen: 1. In desperation, the Commander, despite knowing that it would be senseless - and even dangerous - to order a search and rescue mission, sends out another helicopter to look for it. This then results in another helicopter being lost. 2. The Commander does nothing, knowing it would unprofessional to make a reckless decision based on feelings. The pilot is never found. Overwhelmed with grief, the Commander is unable to operate effectively and makes a number of poor decision that leads to a member of the ships crew being injured. So, to refine my original point: relationships are allowed in situations where they will not have an impact on the ability of one or both members to carry out their duties effectively and without emotional interference.

[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;45505305]Beep boop, no relationships allowed beep boop[/QUOTE] No relationships allowed between seniors and subordinates...

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;45505206]Well why hasn't the Royal Army sent both home but not kept one on board, too me that's indifferent and fails to live up to the strict policies put in place for equality[/QUOTE] Because she was having an affair with a subordinate, but he didn't.

Nothing wrong here. That rule should be followed anywhere to be honest. Don't have sex at your workplace.

[QUOTE=Coyoteze;45505382]Nothing wrong here. That rule should be followed anywhere to be honest. Don't have sex at your workplace.[/QUOTE] except this is the navy, where you can sometimes be living at your workplace for up to six months on end i feel they should be a little more lenient as long as it's not a big fuck-up like this [editline]26th July 2014[/editline] i mean everything turned out fine in starship troopers right??

[QUOTE=David29;45505258]Royal Army? There are multiple things wrong with that. Because perhaps there is no point sending them both home? This isn't a murder - it's a minor scandal that doesn't require two persons being removed from the ship's manpower (bearing in mind that it is still under investigation and therefore no-one is explicitly guilty yet). The important part is that the two be separated from each other - and that doesn't require both of them going home. As the senior rank/position, she holds the responsibility for what has happened and that is why it is her that is going home.[/QUOTE] This makes sense now. I understand, thanks for explaining it I wasn't quite up to speed on military issues and shit

The article kind of suggests that she brought the affair to the Navy's attention herself. Sometimes things happen between people and you can't really control it. Unless I'm missing something, it sounds like she did exactly what she was supposed to do in that situation. It's not like the affair was outed in some huge scandal.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;45505687]Sometimes things happen between people and you can't really control it.[/QUOTE] um yes you very well can control it???