A very good point there!! the only differnce between under 18’s and over in the Forces is you cant be deployed until you are 18. They share the same rooms and no CRB is ever carried out
However 16 year olds are sort of adults anyway.
A 19YO soldier wouldn’t be billeted with a 13YO.
[quote=“steve679” post=15328]…how well a Cdt FS would accept being FS one parade night and then Cpl the next however would be telling![/quote]No different from being a CWO one night and a Sgt (ATC) the next…
The Abuse of a Position of Trust offences under sections 16-20 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 DO NOT apply to the ATC. So don’t fret.
Defined here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/21
We are not looking after children under the Children Act 1989, we are not an educational institution, we are not a hospital (To name but a few of the examples.)[/quote]
I’m pretty sure they have done for a few years now. The law was extended to cover adult’s involved in ‘voluntary youth organisations’. I remember being briefed to that effect.[/quote]
You were briefed wrongly! My learned friend Baldrick is entirely correct.
Believe it or not the ACO have tried to have the Courts enforce this as if applicable, but have failed in having this done. The point they were trying to address was over 16 cadet relationships with staff, which whilst against the rules of the club are not illegal - therefore no criminal action can be taken. However in organisations to which the Act applies (schools, colleges, hospitals etc) it IS illegal.
Now, for the case in hand, personally I wouldnt have put them in that position. Would there have been a more suitable alternative? Perhaps accomodation with male CIs a year or so this chaps senior? Perhaps a DofE tent in a field? Who knows?
Only other option may have been to send the chap home.
Without knowing the full details its difficult to judge, but I think most will agree that in an ideal world no one should be put in that position, BUT the world is far from ideal.
Thanks for clarifying the Position Of Trust situation Perry (and Baldrick originally). Having been involved (not personally of course) in an issue of an illegal relationship between an adult staff member and cadet (cadet was under 16), I was told by the Police Child Protection Officer that if the cadet was over 16, the Position Of Trust would have applied. Moreover, this is also briefed as the case to our staff and cadets during our Wg BASICs.
This particular issue was discussed on my OSC at ATF a couple of years ago.
It is a pecularity, and if you think about it, its patently wrong (whats the difference between a school and a youth organisation - not a lot) but thats the law for you.
There’s some good points been raised in this thread, so thank you for participating. I’ll admit I picked a bit of an inflammatory title in the hope of shaking things up.
Perry Mason, you’ve given me something else I now need to go and (politely) chest poke some people over…
In the example I gave, which I did flesh out a bit at the bottom of page 1, I did leave out two particular facts. I didn’t mention that there was, in my eyes, a way of separating the staff cadet from the cadet overnight, but that would have meant a couple of the CFAVs sharing, which they didn’t want to.
I also didn’t mention the sex of the staff cadet, but I’m intrigued by the general assumption that they were male. I didn’t mention it because, frankly, it’s not relevant.
I’d suggest this scenario is more likely to arise with females, because 1)There are likely to be less of them present, so once you’ve separated your fourteen male cadets from your six male staff cadets, you’re starting to run out of space for your one or two female cadets and your female staff cadet, along with all your staff; and 2)some middle aged VRT officers just can’t see how there could be a problem because ‘they’re both girls’.
I’d add that if I had a fourteen year old daughter and someone put her overnight in a room alone with an eighteen year old woman/girl I didn’t know, I would throw a track. I’d be less bothered if there were several girls in the room or my daughter was going on seventeen.
As a 17yr old cadet that is intending to continue as a staff cadet i thought i’d just throw my opinion in here.
The idea that at 18 i could no long be a cadet is to me terrible, mostly because once over 16/17 most of the good stuff becomes available, e.g flying/gliding scholarships, so that only leaves 1-2 years to really enjoy what most people join cadets for. Also there are times when having an 18+ cadet can be a good thing and act as a good role model to the younger cadets.
now on to the main problem of accommodation, as a FSC i stay in cadet accomodation most weekends so i have seen a variety of different approaches by other camps and courses. Sometimes age is just disregard and its a simple male/female divide, other time there is just a couple of office cublical dividers drawn across the room but one of the age groups still have to walk through the other to get in/out of the room, another time the 18+ males were put up in to a small room that was next to the female room and between there dorm and the bathroom. in all cases non are really what people would call “legally safe” but you have to remember that this is a organization for a wide age of people and unless everyone is put into separate room there is always the chance of little jimmy saying he wasnt happy to have a 17 year old in the same room as him.
so in short, in my opinion the advice should be, separate if possible but if not share and be sensible about it, if theres enough beds leave a couple of empty beds between them or whatever to show that it was thought about.
I would lay money that people with children wouldn’t be that bothered. I’m a parent with daughters and a son and I wouldn’t be. There are many things we think that we’ll do when we have our own children … then we have children.
The biggest problem with this instance is more around personal space and the potential for embarassment than age.
Again, I don’t recall ever coming across this problem. Tricky ha touched on a point that I had already considered: there is just too much to do to in terms of activities to end am ATC career at 18. It also puts a huge strain on the rank structure and we would not produce the calibre of young adults that we do.
Perhaps my wing have always more “on the ball” when it comes to planning, but there has always been somewhere for staff cadets (or old Instructor Cadets) to sleep separate from the main lot.
…how well a Cdt FS would accept being FS one parade night and then Cpl the next however would be telling![/quote]
It’s called maturity and “growing up”, and if they couldn’t deal with it, they may have been in the wrong place to start with.
[quote=“chaz” post=15386][quote=“steve679” post=15328]
…how well a Cdt FS would accept being FS one parade night and then Cpl the next however would be telling![/quote]
It’s called maturity and “growing up”, and if they couldn’t deal with it, they may have been in the wrong place to start with. :)[/quote]
Quite right. The more difficult transition is of mindset, not rank. The change of rank makes no real difference - you are no lower in the hierarchy and, despite initial appearances, have actually climbed a step. The difference between being a cadet and being a staff member is where the minefield lay.
So, “Staff Cadet”, it is. If units utilise their Staff Cadets and SNCOs as they should, that transition should be eased.
I’m sure that Perry will know what the actual law is in this situation. Is it illegal for an 18 year old to be accommodated with a 14 year old? What ‘separation’ is legally required between cadets and staff, different ages of cadets?
[quote=“Tricky” post=15362]As a 17yr old cadet that is intending to continue as a staff cadet i thought i’d just throw my opinion in here.
The idea that at 18 i could no long be a cadet is to me terrible, mostly because once over 16/17 most of the good stuff becomes available, e.g flying/gliding scholarships, so that only leaves 1-2 years to really enjoy what most people join cadets for. Also there are times when having an 18+ cadet can be a good thing and act as a good role model to the younger cadets.[/quote]
Tricky, many 18+ aren’t around the sqn enough to be a role model to anyone. The large majority I come across (and talking to fellow sqn cdrs they find similar) start off with all good intention, BUT their academic and part-time work or full-time jobs prevent them actually being much more than occassional attendee. If you add in staff cadet at a VGS with a need to attend every other weekend this reduces their involvement at the sqn and therefore potential to be a role model. As a sqn cdr you expect some ‘pay back’ and for any number of reasons it doesn’t come, but you aren’t really in a positon to demand anything, pretty much as with adult staff.
You could say they are starting their lives in the real world (outside the school life bubble) and struggling to do things. To this end should this organisation not respect that the world for 17-20 year olds is a much different place to that of my time and even that of up to say the mid 90s. I have often thought the ATC operates in a time warp of something like a Famous Five world and only when it has to via legislation dips into the modern world. As I said up until mid 2009 there wasn’t really a distinction between over 18s and under 18s, other than the banality put in place by the ACMB in 2003, since 2009 we have had a division created due to the need to have CRBs and it has created more problems than it has solved.
To this end I have become to believe over the last 10 years (since the LASER review) that endng cadet service at 18 would mean that limited/diminishing resources could be better targetted at youngsters in the Corps and given that the average life of a cadet is 1½ - 2 years, the focus should be at the lower age groups and greater emphasis placed on their cadet experience.
This would in one go remove the problems of which separating under 18s and over 18s that have been created in the modern era of the over 18 cadet, because no matter how you dress it up they are still regarded by the Corps as cadets just look at the Standing Orders for camps. This would then allow them to focus on what they want to do in the Corps as proper adult staff, without the cadet tag hanging over them. Let’s be honest there is and has been very little for the averge cadet over the age of 18 for years, if at all, with the exception of a very few cherries that only a few are able to aspire to let alone achieve.
What happens at the AEF seems quite sensible, BUT it only takes one person to ‘cross the line’ and it becomes a world of pain.
I should point out that in my ‘half-way house’ suggestion, that there would be plenty of ongoing development for the new CFAVs.
And the older ones, for that matter… but that’s yet another topic!
If we had a halfway house it should not be a uniform one.
For me I want young staff who are prepared to volunteer as ‘helpers’ in a youth organisation, not just carry on, but only if they can wear a different badge on their cap. What I would say to those who think like this, you’re a long time dead … live a little. There is no glamour as uniformed CFAV and whatever sheen is percieved soon wears off, by which time it’s too late.
There can be access as now to various courses and development opportunities, which I don’t see much interest/uptake of at the best of times from younger staff. Because many work in retail and retail employers are not and never have been known for being agreeable to time off.
The way I’ve heard a number of 19 yo cadets talk about being a CI, it’s like listening to someone who’s done 30+ years in the forces and is facing not being in a uniform anymore and the general sense of belonging they feel. For Christ’s sake the most cadets will have done in a cadet uniform would be just under 6 years 11 months IF they joined bang on their 13th birthday. A sense of perspective is required. Hardly a length of time to lament its loss, IMO.
Whilst I agree with the rest of your post (and I’m glad to have spent some time as a CI rather than going straight into uniform), you’ve got to remember that the time period you’re talking about represents nearly a third of the young person’s life, and probably over half of what they can remember.
But this is where staff need to sit down and go through it properly and explain they have another potentially 35-40 years in uniform with little or no thanks for everything you do/sacrifice. In uniform the expectations for you to do things or go to things are much more than for CIs. Plus as a CI you can say things and be untouchable. I know a few old officers who are now CIs and have a whale of a time.
As I have said previously I’ve witnessed too many very good cadets go into uniform straight from cadet service who are no longer in the Corps and many who will not have anything to do with the Corps, purely down to the way they were treated.
[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=15412]But this is where staff need to sit down and go through it properly and explain they have another potentially 35-40 years in uniform with little or no thanks for everything you do/sacrifice. In uniform the expectations for you to do things or go to things are much more than for CIs. Plus as a CI you can say things and be untouchable. I know a few old officers who are now CIs and have a whale of a time.
As I have said previously I’ve witnessed too many very good cadets go into uniform straight from cadet service who are no longer in the Corps and many who will not have anything to do with the Corps, purely down to the way they were treated.[/quote]
But, the little or no thanks that Uniformed staff get is still massively more than most CIs get from this organisation.
I really don’t get this whole “it’s important to be a CI” thing.
Why shouldn’t it be a uniformed role? We are a uniformed youth group after all.
Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with the existence of CIs, but I really don’t see any reason why it is felt to be a necessary step for everyone.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I agree with you MattB (but I am speaking as a very new CI, so probably don’t know enough to really comment).
It may be more appropriate that they are uniformed. As a CI I would expect them to have or want to obtain (fairly quickly) a specialism that they want to pass on, whereas I would expect the uniformed staff to have more general knowledge and more interest in the organizational aspects more appropriate to the uniform.