vrt memes going in hard on this one
4 Likes
They say that banning u18s was the only way to reduce the risk. That means they considered that it would still not be safe with CFAVs there as that surely was considered first
Not the day thatās the issue theyād have to live there
ā¦out of the options considered.
You would hope so, but there seems to be a disconnect with the logic applied to just about everything else we do, if that was considered and discounted.
2 Likes
To be fair to HQAC, it wasnāt their decision to put up refugees in the hotel!
The risk would be removed if the refugees were removed, but thatās never going to happen.
The obvious answer is to rewrite the tender for the new contract to include the clause that cadets have exclusive use of any accommodation provided by the scholarship provider, but again, thatās never going to happen!
1 Like
Then do not annual camps, courses etc not fall into the same category?
Hold upā¦ Is this whatās caused the safeguarding issue? As Iāve not heard this beforeā¦
1 Like
Hang on, thereās another issue here. Its okay to send over 18 cadets into a location where āsomethingā might or has happened, but we canāt for under 18s.
What happened to duty of care for the over 18 cadets, we keep being told that even over 18 are still cadets!!!
1 Like
Can we confirm that this is the reason? Itās news to me. Have I missed something? Iāve only heard itās a safeguarding issue, no more details.
If it is true I have many questionsā¦
1 Like
Iām sure it isnāt the reason. But if it turns out that the only reason is that refugees were being hosted there but previously other members of the public were staying there then Iām out.
There is absolutely nothing about refugee status that makes you more of a risk to children than any other adult who may stay there. And to suggest otherwise is Daily Heil dog whistle racism pure and simple.
Surely we should be more concerned about the Met police officers who are CFAVs?
Iām being facetious, I know itās a very small number giving you a bad name, but itās the same type of generalisation
7 Likes
If what @Turbo said is true then Iām dumbfounded.
However I really canāt believe that is the reason. HQAC have made some bad decisions recently, but I canāt see that being one of them.
If itās a statement without basis, as I suspect it is, itās one dangerous accusation to be making on a forum like this in terms of the public perception of our organisation.
One other thought. Whatās going to happen to the places that have just been vacated by u18s? Will they be awarded to the unsuccessful O18s or will they be left vacant whilst Tayside continues to get paid?
From what I have heard about the situation that is fundamentally untrue
1 Like
I was thinking this.
Imagine being a 17 year old, āwinningā your place on the course and now seeing a- you being taken off it, and b- the 18 year old you beat in selection getting your place instead.
I really hope some parents will give CRAFAC a severe sh**storm over this.
1 Like
Unleash the rage!
2 Likes
Oh I agree it would be horrible. But now itās been done Iād rather the space was used rather than the money being spaffed up against the wall
Itās not that bad.
Stay on and reapply.
1 Like
Good point well madeā¦
Further evidence that the CFAV cannot be trusted to reduce risk
What is wrong with accommodating them at Leuchers with CFAVs, 16 minutes by road if a minibus is organised and on a military base?
Can you imagine the VA bill for asking a CFAV to supervise ACPS? 
That;s absolutely too much money!