I was going to react and rant further, but that would dignify your juvenile attitude towards something quite important!
If you think that asking what rules we are governed by are not sensible things to say, enjoy your naivety!
1 Like
ATC is correct, as all the civcom stuff is ATC-centric and not relevant to the CCF.
Indeed, there is no such change. The ATC has NOT become the RAFAC; except for in the specific case of what SNCOs/WOs wear on their rank slides.
1 Like
Actually it was specific to Teflon’s bilge water that he continually spouts regardless of fact or reason.
I’m happy for people to discuss sensible things.
Actually the Charity Commission have stated that after consultation between the CC and the ACO, they consider, the Governance document fit for purpose. The only problem then is that it seems they are simply relating what the ACO tell them, (free of ministerial control and therefore impartial?) The bit missing is where they say we have consulted our legal team and that is what we have been advised. But HQAC does not have a legal team because there is no funding for one.
So nothing is crystal clear, and then when the going gets a bit tough, and they have used up all their ‘get out of jail free’ cards, they refuse to enter further discussion, which is exactly what the MOD has done previously.
When I worked for the NHS, one developed a skill at writing letters without actually saying anything useful, and the people I have had to deal with lately, excel at it.
Aries
The suggestion seems to be that HQAC can remove CWC members, of whom they have no jurisdiction over, is a bit rich.
Where are we a squadrons without a CWC, trustees etc and what sort of message would it send out to people doing a stirling job? We struggle to get people as staff or committee members (disregarding the every parents a member line) who are active. We have people who are trustees not because they want to, but because the rules were changed a couple of years ago. As soon at the AGM the Chairman speaks about this you see an immediate sitting on of hands and looking at the ceiling, as people run scared.
Every year at our RBL AGM getting people to take on branch exec or just branch committee roles is a nightmare, as people see what they could be signing up for and decline the offer. Hence a lot of RBL branches go, as people don’t want what they reagrdthat aggro, so can’t fill the posts. You can see this happening if my understanding of what the CWC Chairman has said is correct, on ATC squadrons.
It’s bad enough being a sqn cdr at the best of times, but with the potential you could lose your Civ Comm, because of rules put in place and not just the silliness that I’ve seen over the years between committee members, is a worry. As I say would affect getting new committee members. Would anyone do it? Committees worked well for years, and while there is always going to be occasions when things happen and people think they can get away with things, this can be controlled by regular meetings (min once every two months) and the treasurer presenting bank statements and accounts.
So to suggest that I’m looking at this naively is a nonsense. Anything that has the potential to destabilise squadrons has to be taken seriously.
may I offer the right honourable gentleman the following
863 (Thurston) Sqn - a whole heap of mess.
See the ACC thread (my post - #4 summarises the situation) which includes FOI requests on the drama
HQAC have tried in the past to suspend/remove a CWC Chairman but he refused to go and went rogue…
I can’t see any reason that HQAC would remove a Civ Com against the wishes of the OC - the rule really exists so that the sqn can get rid of the Civ Com (with oversight).
see we have a new IBN no 11 in which we all have to sign the new Vol agreement by may 18 https://sharepoint.bader.mod.uk/QM/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=/QM/Controlled%20Documents/IBN%20011%20-%202017.docx&action=default1
I see we have a new IBN no 11 in which we all have to sign the new Vol agreement by may 18 https://sharepoint.bader.mod.uk/QM/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=/QM/Controlled%20Documents/IBN%20011%20-%202017.docx&action=default
Yes, with a copy to be held personally, and another copy to be held shrug somewhere else up the CoC
Oh and don’t forget the STICK “. A list of individuals, who have failed to comply with the
request by end May 18, should be sent to HQ RAFAC (Pers) by end Jun 18 for further action.”"""
1 Like
You can see an exodus in 6 months or so.
My union has a free legal advice line.I ll be submitting this problem to them. Im not after binning this agreement just get it reworded so that its professional and not an insult to every member of staff.If of course I get nowhere(and thats a distinct possibility with the people who run this organisation),I ll be refusing to sign this document in its current form.I ll then no doubt be placed on some sort of naughty list and when I get notification of that no doubt with attached threats I shall resign and let them find another puppet to run the sqn. It ll be a big wrench after 25 years but im not going to sign anything that betrays my beliefs in fair play and justice.
1 Like
Well that’s a grown up response for people who aren’t employed isn’t it.
What’s been happening on those units affected.
The unfortunate thing is the reprehensible groups who have drawn this up, know that people will sign because to not do so would adversely affect cadets. If they can afford to lose people who don’t, I would be surprised.
In the workplace this would have gone through unions or at least a work council and be agreed prior to anyone being required to sign it. In our case people with no experience of the volunteer experience in the Corps or ACF, telling us how we are going to volunteer.
1 Like
I’m not going to sign it out of a mix of spite and curiosity…
My time in the ATC is very much in its twilight, I’m thoroughly disenchanted with it at pretty much every level above sector, and some - to me - unwelcome changes in my local (and only local) Sqn look like completing the pack.
It’s everything - flying, gliding, shooting, camps, the VR(T) debacle, and the general issue that I feel like I have to jump more and higher hurdles to achieve less and less every year (at the instigation of an HQ who prove their rampant incompetence, dishonesty and venality in everything they touch) which unsurprisingly I find somewhat gauling.
I’ve found something else to do, so I’m going to break a relationship that has lasted, one one form or another, since 1988.
What will actually happen will be interesting to see, but I’m afraid I don’t really care…
3 Likes
I feel that this is the crux of the matter. The MoD is broke, there is no money for anything. CFAVs signing away rights they may but probably don’t have seems like a really good idea the bean counters.
What will happen people will have their conscience played on and they will sign. Not because they think the terms are wonderful, but because they will have invested a lot of time and effort.
I just wish that we would have someone at the top in the Senior Command levels (not the monkey’s in the ATC and ACF) who is brutally honest about the future of the cadet forces over the next 10 years and what the plans for a joint community cadet force are, because if to mitigate costs, this isn’t part if of the discussion, then they are idiots and not be getting paid what they are. If it means people leave because they don’t like the sound of it, then so be it.
Far too regularly there are stories about the MOD failing to make cuts etc and how this is affecting our defence capabilities nationally and internationally.
The written statement says that the flying experience we can expect is at best limited and won’t be anything like we had before. So in the face of that and needing more people at the coalface to deliver a less flying based experience, a T&C is dreamed up, which is all about give on the CFAVs part and take on the part of HQAC.
The only concerns I have about Pers Form 1-19 is the layout and formatting (another shoddy, rushed job), not with the wording. I’ll have no problems signing it, but I’m not rushing to do so in the hope that someone at Wing decides to manage the process professionally (and maybe HQ revises the form),
I like para m.
Has anything gone out officially, down through the CoC, giving details on signing; deadlines, consequences of not signing??
I haven’t seen anything, except that we have seen on Sharepoint.