AP1358c Update to reflect CFC


#82

Is that meaning the lawyers have rejected it due to spelling mistakes or they’re happy with it and it’s just spelling mistakes to fix? I wonder.


#83

It was away at the RAF lawyers for review to ensure the CFC changes included did not step on too many toes. I guess they have OK’d the legal buts and HQAC/ATF are now tidying it up prior to release.


#84

Or maybe the lawyers were making sure it wasn’t failing the equality act…


#85

Is CAC an adminer? How could she sign off a document with grammatical errors?
It sounds like a school essay being marked, not a document that deals with a new Queen’s Commission!!
Can it get any better?


#86

I believe that CAC has no role in approving the dress regs AP. It is delegated somewhat to ATF by the RAF dress committee.


#87

It amazes me that Dress Regs need to go via the RAF Legal Eagles at all. It’s a costume. Get over it.

Particularly when there are actual real legal issues which might need to be addressed - When to use TG21/22/23 forms?


#88

Normally no, but I think the commission changes led to twitchy sphincters…


#89

Stop stalking me on me on sharepoint! :wink: i thought id ask the question!


#90

interesting response from CACWO

follow the Ask the Team Link and it was due for release mid September without photos with the next version released soon after with photos.

now two months on, we’re still considering the wording, while it would seem the photos have been done - was it ever ready in September if the wording still needs looking at?


#91

That book has been missing a whole raft of photographs since the first issue. It isn’t worth delaying while waiting for photos, but we should be able to update it more easily.regularly as photos (and clarifications) become available.

On that note, if you see some photos that are notably missing and think that you could provide them, why not get in touch with RWO L&SE and offer assistance.


#92

How does it get sent to legal with grammatical errors, this is just amateurish


#93

That’s half of our job!


#94

Ain’t that the truth. Most of the comments I have to make on the policy documents I clear at work are spelling and grammar.


#95

I believe this following could be why things are not getting done.
All our ACPs and AP1358C are written refering to our legal enabling publication AP1919. The changes to 1919 have to be agreed by parliament. According to Ask the Team on SharePoint this has yet to be done. While the new CFC exists the legal enabling publication AP1919 doesn’t. Are the legal people in Whitehall getting twitchy without any legal backup? I don’t know but without 1919 and without any evidence of my VR Commission being removed we are in a limbo until 1919 gets approved.


#96

Here’s your evidence of the VR Commission being removed (found at https://sharepoint.bader.mod.uk/cfc/_layouts/15/mobile/mblwikia.aspx?Url=%2Fcfc%2FSitePages%2FHome.aspx)

Seems pretty clear to me.

Though it doesn’t alter the wider point that this change was done before all the relevant documents were ready for reissue.


#97

Well…

The decision may have been made, it doesn’t mean that the removal has happened.

I may decide to go to the shops, but on looking out of the window, and noting that the weather is inclement, may resolve to wait until the weather changes…


#98

I was thinking somthing more independent like entries in the London Gazette or a commissioning scroll.


#103

What this doesn’t say is exactly why, just the use of some words to do it.

I wonder if putting the exact reasoning down in words could create more problems than it would remove. All we have had is widely held conjecture.


#104

Doesn’t the time its taken and then need for use of spelling and grammar, just about sum up the state of the ATC, especially as it is 99% admin at HQAC.

Teachers comment would be could do better and easily distracted by things going on outside.


#106

I’m not sure you should’ve placed this document onto a public forum.

Note that this document uses an incorrect title for the formation that is the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve.

I noticed this puzzling (and not really excusable) error when the document was published internally. Or am I the only person in the world to see this?