No, the Army is not banning Officers from being called 'Sir'.

The Daily Telegraph has printed a story today suggesting that the Army is banning its soldiers from calling Officers ‘sir’ on the phone. It is a story that is enormously twisted from the truth in order to generate click bait outrage, and is, frankly, a fairly damning indictment on just how weak Defence reporting is at the Telegraph now, that on a day when other papers were getting great scoops on how the SDSR is possibly going to be heavily delayed, all the Telegraph could was regurgitate a letter published in ‘Soldier’ magazine. (Link)

What actually happened is simple; the British Army publishes a monthly magazine called ‘Soldier’ which has a letters page in it where serving personnel can write in with queries, and comments about Army life. Some letters get advice from a serving expert in the relevant area, providing an unofficial but useful steer on the issue and what can be done to resolve it.

In this case someone wrote in querying whether Soldiers should still call Officers ‘Sir’  or ‘Ma’am’ on barracks and also during the traditional response when answering the phone (which is “Pte Bloggs Speaking Sir”).  

The Army provided a short reply from a Colonel in Employment Policy, who quickly and rightly dismissed the first suggestion by pointing out that it was entirely appropriate to call Officers ‘Sir’ or ‘Ma’am’, while proposing that an alternative method of answering the phone would be to use your rank and name and ‘how may I help you’?  This reply did not reflect official MOD policy, did not represent a change in what should be done, but was a pragmatic view that reflected how the Army could respect that not everyone in the Army is male.

There was no suggestion that the Officer would not then be called ‘Sir’ or’Ma’am’, merely that until you’ve spoken to the person, don’t leap to conclusions that it is automatically a Sir. There is no policy change, merely informal advice from one person who was replying to a perfectly legitimate question.

The challenge with stories like this is the pervasive effect that they have in trying to convince people that everything is changing for the worse. What is a simple suggestion, and one that has been welcomed on social media by some female members of the military has been turned into some sinister suggestion that the Army is abolishing the phrase ‘Sir’ due to political correctness.

People remember this rubbish and it sticks in their mind – one only has to look at the way the public seem to think that so many of the half truths on defence (more Admirals than ships, we don’t have navy anymore etc) quickly sinks in to their awareness. The chances are people will think that this is true, and it will damage their confidence in the armed forces.

Image by Ministry of Defence; © Crown copyright

Humphrey has lost count of the number of stories that he’s heard people trot out citing urban myths or half truths – these things sink into the consciousness and never quite leave it. Its going to make it ever harder for the Army in its battle to recruit people when it has to deal with nonsense like this.

The story also implicitly seeks to suggest that gender equality and taking people into account is somehow a bad thing. One of the brilliant things about the MOD and British Armed Forces is the manner in which as a culture they have become truly inclusive of modern society and led the way in making people feel that they can work for the armed forces in whatever gender they feel they identify with.

The manner in which in less than 20 years the MOD has gone from making it a dismissable offence to be homosexual to now being some of the top employers in the eyes of Stonewall shows how much progress has been made. Similarly, the adoption of sensible, pragmatic policy on supporting people who change gender is also to be welcomed – there should be no artificial barriers put in the way of people who want to serve their country. The single greatest asset of the Military is their people, and anything that helps recruit and retain people with the skills and abilities needed is vital in an era when there is a real battle for talent.

It is incredibly disappointing that rather than recognise that the Army is an employer with an increasing number of women in the workforce, and that you shouldn’t assume the person ringing you is a male, the Telegraph has seen fit to attack this as a bad thing using the hoary old chestnut of ‘causing offence’.  There should be no cause for outrage or alarm at simply suggesting ‘don’t answer the phone and call someone Sir until you know that they are a male officer’.

It helps demonstrate how difficult it is to recruit and attract talent too for the Army when this is the sort of coverage it gets. Presentationally why would someone want to join an employer that has such an odd manner of answering the phone – what does this say about its other activities and practises? It helps reinforce the suggestion that the Army is slightly out of touch with modern society, but that to some any effort to change is a bad thing .

Again this screams of a media narrative that has been lost – the Army is an amazing organisation that excels at taking people in, shaping them, training them and giving them hope and a bright future, yet instead of being able to push these great examples of people who have come so far in life thanks to what the Army has given them, the media coverage is on why not calling someone Sir when you answer the phone is a bad thing, partly because there doesn’t seem to be much else worth covering at the moment.

The Army isn’t changing its policy on calling Officers ‘Sir’, it isn’t pushing out some crazy new diversity policy, its simply the case that one officer has suggested in reply to a question as to how to answer the phone a more pragmatic way of answering the phone. The prize for ‘most stupid story of 2018’ has a strong contender already!