VR(T) Commission Change

Would the witless bungler be Vorders or CAC?

Another update, apparently still is going to be 01 Oct, and VRT will be getting letters shortly to explain the T&Cs etc

It’ll be in the High Court by new year - and I’ll laugh my tits off…

6 Likes

I am really interested from an academic legal view. Although the Queen has the power to make commissions she needs authorisation from parliament for the creation of military forces (the various armed forces acts mean they’ve taken that right). We’re told this will be a military commission in the cadet forces but I’m still not sure what this cadet forces is from a legal definition and where the power is to run it as a military force, which it must be if they are using military commissions in it - (I know we currently have military commissioned staff in the cadet organisations but they are commissioned into a different organisation) Again, surely to exempt a holder of a military commission from the remit of the Armed Forces Act would require parliamentary consent? I’m not joining in a JR in the High Court but I would follow it with fascination.

As if HQAC could mass mail the entire VRT in two weeks. They can’t find the staff to post out a few badges once a week. Be interested to know if they have exported personal data to another company to process it.

6 Likes

And if they still have not authorised anyone to produce the rank badges how are they going to get them approved, made and issued in a few weeks?

It’s strange that the update states that some 2FTS and 6FTS personnel will stay as VRT because they need a military commission. Am I wrong or is this new fangled thing supposed to be a military commission too?

4 Likes

That’s what the press releases say.
I’m sure they must exist but I’m trying to think of a civilian commission in the UK

Police Officers? I mean like Inspectors etc?
Do any of the emergency services have commissioned officers?

Tesco security guards?

4 Likes

That’s what I’ve been trying to find out, if they actually get commissions in the same way as the armed forces (gazetted, scroll etc.) but Google is drawing a blank.

EDIT. Thinking about it I guess not (the lack of anything on Google helps there) as members of the armed forces wouldn’t salute an inspector or the Metropolitan Police Commissioner would they? If they held a Queen’s commission, even a civilian one, then surely they would?

What type of commission do Lords-Lieutenant and Deputy Lieutenants hold? They’re gazetted and it’s stated it’s a commission in the statue books, but can’t Google any further.

OC Staffs Wing is a DL, maybe someone can ask! https://twitter.com/OCStaffsWing/status/909460820333142017

Police Officers no matter what their rank don’t hold Commissions, they hold The Office of Constable.

1 Like

In order to hold the Office of Constable, Police Officers swear an Oath to the reigning monarch, and in return they receive the Sovereign’s Warrant as an Agent of the Crown. They are warranted officers of the state, as are members of the UK Border Force &cetera

Royal Warrants, either to authorise agents acting on behalf of the Crown (for example, the most-senior non-commissioned members of the military) or in respect of “By Appointment” awards (for the direct provision of goods and services to the Royal Household) focus upon the maintenance of good order and the current stability of the state.

The Cadet Forces Commission is clearly-intended to be a military commission, and it will be exactly that (of which there should be no doubt). Like all military commissions, it’s purpose will focus upon authorised command and control over (and responsibility for) defined areas of function: in our case, specific elements of the Cadet Forces.

However, it will have a restated command precidence within the overall military structures of the UK. Importantly (and appropriately) it will ensure that holders of Cadet Forces Commissions are not directly-subject to the Armed Forces Act (the legislation which took over from the Air Force Act back in 2006).

Nobody should think that the Cadet Forces Commission will be in the least bit non-military.

Its entire purpose will be to ensure that Officers within the Cadet Forces are now legally seen to be members of the single-service forces they command and control but that they still possess the fundamental authority and respects due to (and from) them, within the respective military command structures of which they remain a fundamental part.

I will be very sorry to see the break with tradition, when the vast majority of the RAFVR is transferred into the RAFAC (for a whole range of valid reasons, both personal and practical) but, fundamentally, the intention behind what is being done is logical and sensible.

This has been a strange Battle of Britain Sunday… but time marches on. And we must march with it.

1 Like

If the CFC is a military rank in the RAFAC and the NCO cadre are being brought into the RAFAC. Will the NCO no longer civilians in uniform but in the military?

Thanks Wilf. That was my understanding, but I was confused by the fact that some Vgs will be staying VRT as they ‘need a military commission’. This suggests the CFC is not a military commission. I guess what they really meant was they needed a commission subject to the Armed Forces Act.

But I’m still concerned about the legality of a military commission within the armed forces which is not subject to the Armed Forces Act without explicit consent from Parliament. What the MOD are doing here is trying to get around legislation through a simple rebranding exercise. I think it is very much open to challenge and I just don’t want them to do this and then get challenged and have the courts throw the whole thing out for being ultra vires. Especially when the challenge will be heard next year during the RAF 100 celebrations.

I agree with the logic behind the move, it’s just the way they are doing it that concerns me. (especially, as mentioned above, the issue over the status of adult SNCOs)

I don’t feel the new commission is for the cadet forces, it is purely an admin exercise to detach the holders from a proper military position and remove proper redress/complaint procedures and devolve this to their respective organisation “leaders”, ie ATC to HQAC and I assume ACF to County. Don’t know about the ACF but the reason the problems have occurred in the ATC around redress etc is due solely to the inadequate/incompetent handling and the time taken to resolve issues. Putting them “in-house” will do nothing to improve this situation, all that will happen is that it will stop at HQAC and the outcome dependent on the take on the individuals involved.

The fact it will remain military will suit the walts and allow for petulant individuals to play the rank game, when we play the volunteer card. I think this is an opportunity missed to make us into a consensual organisation, as opposed to the play acting militaristic organisation. I would put money on having a more content adult staff if it was done in a consensual manner, as it’s the heavy-handed manner used by Wing Staff etc that gets people’s backs up. I’ve always used the consensual approach with staff and I have more respect compared to Wing Staff and some others in uniform. It takes others by surprise who expect you to act in some officious manner all the time, if it’s procedural and there is no other way, that’s how it is explained and accepted.

Ask on the SharePoint page

I have. It would appear that RC North is being treated like a mushroom also.
Or choose one of the following,

The HQAC are not telling.
The HQAC are not allowed to tell.
HQAC have not been told.
Nobody has made a decision.
They have found it is such a huge can of worms they havn’t a clue what to do about it.

I get the feeling that someone somewhere (Sir Humphrey Appleby) has made decision that if they unveil it all on 30th September it will be too late for anyone to challenge it before it is implemented.

2 Likes