I have been reading posts for many months and this thread really made my blood boil forcing me to join. Hi
You are clearly right or at least the existing chairman who from reading FOI is continuing the vendetta of the former chair of the committee.
Does it not beg the question of the original opening thread, why have all the officers left the squadron? If Veritas is part of the CWC, I can completely see why after this long the officers have walked out leaving the wing no option but to suspend the squadron. “There has been an ongoing dispute since 2011”
Taken from the bury free press, post 1 “She ‘Air Commodore Dawn McCafferty’ added that the resignation of several officers meant she could not assure ‘the safety of cadets….”
If the CWC where fulfilling their role of supporting the cadets and staff, why would several officers leave the squadron. Clearly the CWC need to look at themselves as a possible cause to the problem. ‘several’ officers do not just up and walk out.
Perry Mason and Operation Nimrod, I will leave my bet money next to you in this…
[quote=“Veritas” post=7620]"the squadron fund (and assets by the way) are held in perpetuity for the cadets. I agree its a bummer but this seems to be where it is at.
[/quote]
Just having an idle thought as I potter around - assume for the moment that the sqn’s non-public assets are owned/held by the civilian committee.
Under what authority would they hold firearms especially non-service weapons purchased from sqn funds? Would a police firearms certificate be required? But then what be the good reason as they aren’t HO approved?
Would any old style .303 DP rifles therefore be unlawfully held? (They’re not deactivated to correct/current standards and there’s no proof marks and they are above .22RF so the 11(4) FAA exemption wouldn’t apply).
Sorry if this opens a can of worms or diverts the topic but its one of the areas that would start to kick in if a sqn ceased to be a military unit, asqncdr raises the much more pertinent question.
No, I am not the sacked Chairman of that CWC but I do have knowledge of the situation and it is a big deal locally. My purpose in offering some comment was only to encourage wider thinking beyond that ‘the rules must be right’. I understand that you will look primarily to what you know in replying to my comments and I am not arguing the case for or against any party. I am certainly not interested in any vendetta but am just trying to suggest that you might want to put the brakes on and consider that all may not be as it appears. For those whose blood has boiled, have you considered for example that the uniformed officers might have been the cause of the problem? (I’m not saying they are). Because your information flow is understandably poor on this situation, some posters might be right, others might end up looking a bit silly in a few months time.
Clearly I have touched a nerve which I did not mean to do, just widen the discussion to consider other possibilities. I certainly didn’t mean to spark such animosity and I would wonder if squadrons and CWC’s could ever co-exist with such strength of feeling? It would seem that CWCs in general are regarded more for their problems than their positives. Maybe that is because there is too much greyness. But the written communication from the Charity Commission to the ACO that I have seen (to answer my own similar doubts as have been expressed here) states quite clearly that CWCs are independent charities aligned with each squadron, that their members are trustees with full responsibility for all charitable monies and assets of the squadron.
Before the barrage of critical messages comes back, let me say that I just opened my mind to consider both sides of the story going around and then checked things out. I understand that it may be a shock to the system but that is not my doing - don’t shoot the messenger! Before you ask, no I don’t think I can post the referenced communication because of the local legal position, but if I find out I can, I will because I can understand that posts with claims that are not referenced can be frustrating. But it is probably best to discuss principles in a forum such as this rather than specifics of one situation.
No wonder the staff left if they had to put up with this continuous drivel.
Veritas, what makes you sound quite frankly like a wide eyed loon, firstly is that you can provide no reference other than you’ve got a special note from the charities commission.
Secondly, everything you say seems to be an attempt to justify the syphoning off of circa £100k of money which is not the committees (Im pretty damn sure even the Charities Commission will agree with that one!) Looks dangerously close to theft to me. Actually, let me qualify that, as a Lawyer I am damn sure it IS theft.
You do realise Government departments can also be wrong. Often when presented with a single sided story. Trust me. Learn to understand this phrase, “based on new information supplied, our original advise has been reconsidered and withdrawn.” It’s often used in the Civil Service so don’t hang your hat on it. Government departments are not arbitrators of law. That what they all use the Treasurer Solicitors Office (TSol).
Yes they can and I agree that’s a fair comment. But I also understand that an official review of ACO policy is already in process for the Air Cadet Council to address matters,m so maybe things have got past that point?
I approached this with a relatively open mind when I read the FOIs myself. Well up until June 2012, when I too lost the will to live.
What really stood out for me were the letters sent from the CWC in exile to the parents and staff. The tone was so propagandist. They essentially sounded like invitations to join a cult.
And in reading the incident where the Police were called, I understood exactly why the current staff resigned. Having been through a dispute with one civilian committee member myself in the past I know how difficult it can be, and that is nothing to what those poor officers had t put up with. How would you like a group of people, who aren’t supposed to be anywhere near your squadron give professional powerpoint presentations alleging that your every action is illegal and not in your own cadets’ best interests? How would you like it if half your cadets had parents telling them that the chain of command is completely illegitimate? Their authority had been undermined left right and centre.
I think the officers in this unit were in fact extremely brave. Resignation was their only option to stop the committee in exile operating, by removing its raison d’etre. It was not what they joined the Corps to do, and they lost their unit in the process, and now have to face a barrage of criticism in the local press.
Baldrick you are correct in providing a view from the other side. For an officer of a squadron to be confronted by a parent who is inquiring about bullying or favouritism is hard, but for parents to confront officers with a view fuelled by the CWC who are meant to support the staff and officers is nion impossible and very demoralising. I speak this from past experience at my squadron.
VRT officers are trained by regular RAF officers to try and deal with these situations when they arise, but clearly the officers could not cope for this long… maybe the CWC should be sent on a similar training course to highlight the support they should be offering to the staff.
Veritas, I appreciate that you may have something to say, and maybe some of the opinions expressed here may be wrong in the case of 863, but they are largely based on the evidence as presentented in the FOI information, and personal experience.
To repeatedly say that we are wrong in what we say and comment ‘because you have something to say so’ is quite frankly rather annoying and frustrating.
Please present the evidence for the defence, otherwise the prosecution will have no other option but to convict.
So far based upon the evidence presented, I find the CWC guilty as charged and move that the maximum sentence be imposed.
No, no, no the regular Officers don’t train you, they couldn’t as they would have no experience of CWCs or anything vaguely similar. As is amply evident in how they’ve handled this situation. All you get is an hour or so on the role of the CWC, from people who know stuff all about them, other than a few paras somewhere.
I think that all new CWC should go on an induction course or similar about the role of the CWC and how THEY fit into the Corps.
I think how long you cope with a disruptive CWC is a personal thing. I achieved my aim of getting rid of the members causing problems, purely through being stubborn, obstinate and playing a straight bat. One of my older members of staff likened me to Geoff Boycott. When they stepped out of line as they did regularly I emailed the Chairman and if needed Wing Chairman and my SWSO.
My wife has since reflected that I thrived on the confrontation as it was something I believed in more than those I was confronting.
The single incisive question is probably why the Civcom decided to Form a Trust and transfer the money from the legitimate account to it? In all of this there is not one explanation of why it was done.
Perhaps Veritas can answer that for us as it just looks like it was done so the Civcom/Trustees could do what they like with it, hence the wide remit in the stated aims. I can think of no possible justification for this apart from Fraudulent intent. Not in the conduct of the new trust as it clearly working within it’s aims, but in the diversion of funds paid into and raised for the sole stated aim of the support of the Cadet unit into a trust to build a community centre. I would write to all major fundraisers/donators to inform them of the miss use of their funds.
It looks to me that the Civcom chair is a total c**k!
As I said, when I know I can I will. Probably not much point my trying to contribute here until that time I suppose.