[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?[/quote]
Acqusition of firearms or ammunition without a FAC is authorised under FA 1968 section 54(2)(a):
[quote]a person in the service of Her Majesty duly authorised in
writing in that behalf may purchase or acquire firearms and
ammunition for the public service without holding a
certificate under this Act[/quote]
Its applicability to cadet corps is stated in the Home Office Guidance 18.28:
[quote]Furthermore, firearms
may be acquired for the corps by a
responsible officer duly authorised in writing
without the need for a firearm certificate
(section 54(2)(a) of the 1968 Act).[/quote]
Should a cadet unit opt to hold firerarms on a FAC they could do so by forming a “rifle club”. The club would not necessarily have to obtain Home Office Approval as membership could be restricted to those already granted exemption under the Armed Forces Act 1996 S28. However most Firearms Licensing Managers would probably advise applying for Home Office Approval.
So in terms of the CWC possessing firearms provisioned from other than public sources, the answer is that they don’t as there is no provsion under current law for them to do so.
But section FA 1968 section 54(2)(a) only applies to acquisition (not possession) by those in service of her majesty which in the ACO only applies to VR(T) officers. [hide](see why SNCOs & CIs cannot transport ammo)[/hide]
The CWC as a civilian body are not in the service of her majesty. Neither are the cadets, CIs or adult NCOs as there are only members of an approved cadet corps. Regarding the Armed Forces Act, this only amended slightly the firearms act 54/5 to state when cadets are deemed Crown servants
In this case the CWC are stating that they own all the assets, they are civilians ergo not crown servants. Regarding the FAC route then the police could only issue a firearms certificate is the individual has good reason which for target shooting means they must be have membership of a HO approved club (section 44 of the 1997 Act). Licensing Managers would insist that HO approval is sought as it would be unlawful otherwise. Military training is specifically not good reason
If the CWC owns all the non-public assets on a Sqn, including Non Service Weapons and .303 DPs that have been donated - wouldn’t they need an FAC (and ergo good reason). I agree that the CWC don’t own the sqn assets, but it seemed to be what was being claimed in this case (I have no idea whether this sqn has any NSW although their Facebook page shows DPs)
As I initially said idle musing, but a case of unintended consequences kicking in should the unit be regarded as a civilian body.
[quote=“asqncdr” post=7694]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!
Call the police and report a theft, I would[/quote]
Actually, there are quite a few squadrons who hold money in trusts. Because in many ways it is the safest way to hold money. The duties and responsibilities placed on trustees are much more onerous, and designed to ensure the security of the property.
It may work in 863 squadron’s favour, as a trustee has to account for reasonable expenditures, including legal expenses, which are relevant to the trust. If they lose an argument on that they may have to account for the money spent on legal fees personally.
“Actually, there are quite a few squadrons who hold money in trusts. Because in many ways it is the safest way to hold money. The duties and responsibilities placed on trustees are much more onerous, and designed to ensure the security of the property.”
Actually every squadron with a CWC is a trust. The CWC are the trustees.
I keep being asked for evidence and that is fine, but the specific position is that Mr Levey was invited to RAF High Command to receive apologies from AVM Lloyd and Commandant ATC for the treatment of himself and the CWC. It was also confirmed that the position of the ACO is as I wrote it earlier - namely that every CWC is a parallel charity to the squadron, responsible as trustees for the assets and monies of the squadron. The only thing that doesn’t seem to have happened is the passing of that information down the carious chains of command. From the reaction I have received to some of my points, I have great sympathy for the limited staff at ATCHQ who have to tell around 1,000 squadrons that they have it wrong!
Perry Mason asked me for the evidence in the Charity Act, but that is the wrong end - it is the organisations rules that are in breach of charity law as I understand it.
The discussion points around ‘evidence’ and ‘prove it’ therefore are something of a moot point. Not my place to say, but the real discussion should be about how you will deal with that in your own squadrons.
My understanding is that AP1919 contains clauses that allow the control of the organisation over the trustees of a charity. The organisation has confirmed it’s agreement that CWCs are charitable trusts and their members are trustees. Therefore the legal obligations of a CWC are in conflict with AP1919 and the latter has to be changed. I’m told that is happening now.
[quote=“Veritas” post=7703]I keep being asked for evidence and that is fine, but the specific position is that Mr Levey was invited to RAF High Command to receive apologies from AVM Lloyd and Commandant ATC for the treatment of himself and the CWC. It was also confirmed that the position of the ACO is as I wrote it earlier - namely that every CWC is a parallel charity to the squadron, responsible as trustees for the assets and monies of the squadron. The only thing that doesn’t seem to have happened is the passing of that information down the carious chains of command. From the reaction I have received to some of my points, I have great sympathy for the limited staff at ATCHQ who have to tell around 1,000 squadrons that they have it wrong![/quote]I don’t suppose any proof of any of that is forthcoming?
And for the last time, explain why you had to move part of the Squadron fund, the bulk of the capital, to a seperate trust? Knowing why you did this would make things clear.
And will you give the Squadron its cash back and ■■■■■■ off and ruin some other kids spare time fun!
This is what gets my goat, I can see no mention of any benefit for the cadets of any of this. A normal Sqn Fund would not have to waste the cadets money on legal fees etc, next thing you’ll be paying yourselves for your time!
I think you might find that the management of Civcom and funds is not as robust as the COC thought, but as they have not been listening to a succession of people having problems of this ilk I am not surprised it has bitten them on the ■■■■.
The assets belong to the organisation they were bought for, not to the CIVCOM.
It would be easier to bin Sqn funds and run a Wing level central fund with sub accounts for each unit, but this would likely need someone to administer full time…
Or…
let each Civcom form it’s own charity or trust, and then submit to audit to the Charity Commission and HMRC each year instead of the utterly pointless Accts 60. Removes a lot of hassle from the ACO and Squadron commanders- Job Jobbed, then you can do what you like with the money YOU raise for the Unit, as long as the Squadron commander wishes it, He can collect and pay the Subs, and you have no need to visit the unit or illegally attend Service camps at RAF Stations.
Despite the clear prejudice from so many, I have been given the attached to pass on which some of you will probably still pick holes in.
The second trust was created to comply with Charity Law and it was done with the agreement and recommendation of ATC HQ and the Charity Commission. Some of you might recall that the mission statement of former Commandants was for the ACO to move to greater self-sufficiency. A group of visionary parents believed in their cadets so much that they rose to this challenge and begun to raise funds in parallel to additional fundraising for the squadron’s regular activities.
This fund was held in trust by the CWC until it rose to size that required independent registration under Charity Law.
The aim was to provide a second facility to the HQ that could be available to other organisations in the area in order to swell the squadron funds and move towards the self-sufficiency aim. This remains relevant as the organisation moves toward seeking commercial sponsorship deals by 2020.
This activity was in addition to the £50-60k of squadron equipment plus two squadron vehicles. At the time there were 100+ cadets and the CO had funds circa £20k per annum for his program. Some raised by cadets, but the majority raised by the parents/CWC.
The benefit of the cadets was at the heart of everything and I will not report some of the prejudiced comments here back because it would break hearts and draw tears for some of the ignorant views expressed here to be told.
Will the trust give the cash back and ■■■■■■ off? Ignorant comment really because that would place the squadron in the position of having to create another trust as it breaches the trigger points by which this must be done. And this cannot be held by the uniformed staff so who? Oh yes the CWC. I have already written that each CWC is its own trust - check out the start of ACP10 which states that CivCom members are trustees of an Excepted Charity. Maybe if your squadron reached such financial heights you would understand.
I started contributing to this forum as an individual because I thought there may be interest. All I have received is attacks from people who seem blind to anything. Bin squadron funds and run a Wing level central fund … but Wing is another independent charity already constituted of squadron chairpersons. Does this mean that CWC members are personally liable and take on the full responsibility of trusteeship? Yes.
Discussion forums are not my thing and I have clearly misjudged this one. I do not have to contribute and against such immovable desire not to listen, I can only suggest you wait for the revised ACP that will be coming. Then you can look back and reflect. In the meantime, perhaps ponder that it is not the CWC being investigated for fraud, or the CWC who have undergone three investigations into child-safeguarding during the period under consideration. There is also a missing Regional Commandant, Regional Chair and a change of Commandant.
Members of the cadet corps (i.e. the cadets themselves) are exempt;
Every cadet and instructor taking L98s to Bisley is committing a criminal offence (Bisley Camp is not service premises!)
Officers, WOs, SNCOs and CIs are exempt because they are CFAVs;
CWC members are NOT exempt the provisions of the Firearms Acts as they are not instructors.
In itself, I’d say that’s not a problem. Ownership and possession are two different things - I own a .22 rifle which is at Fulton’s at the moment (yes I know, but someone else is paying to fix it!) but I am not in possession of it.
I’d agree with that. No HO approval, no FAC, no lawful possession of NSWs. The CWC could in theory be facing a 5 year prison sentence if they, for example, seized the keys to the Sqn HQ and the NSWs/DPs were held on the unit, as they are then in constructive possession of the firearms without lawful authority to do so.
Certainly a member of adult staff, or even a cadet, would have to be present to remove NSWs from the Sqn if/when it’s wound up.
The CWC moved £100,000 from Sqn funds into the Salmon Trust.
The Salmon Trust’s latest/only publicly available accounts state they hold £75,000.
What happened to the £25,000 that has gone missing? Surely it is the duty of the trustees to account for monies appropriated from the unit, and therefore to replace any monies that go AWOL on their watch?
Yeah, I’m gonna have to be the first to say this…you’re up your own ■■■■ mate. A Civilian Committee should be there to help the OC maximise the potential of the Squadron by fundraising - that’s it. I think you have delusions of grandeur by being part of this massive Squadron with gazillions of pounds. Your old Squadron is no better than any other Squadron, you clearly seem to think that money makes a Squadron the best - everyone here knows (apart from you) that that’s total rubbish.
What really gets me is the complete lack of empathy for the actual Squadron itself (you know, the Cadets and Staff). Through various actions across the staff and cwc (but from the looks of it more the cwc) the Squadron has suffered to the point of non-existence. Where, in any of your posts, is any form of regret, concern, or anger at the loss of the Squadron that you “visionaries” put so much time in to? I think you are just happy to sit back and score points with your foreshadowing posts about legislation and all that malarkey. At the crux of it there are a large amount of young people who, for some, have lost their second home. Through pathetic disputes and furious letter-writing this nut-sack of a Chairman (who I’m guessing is you) has forced the hands of the Officers, and the place has shut. Well done, you’ve won the big fight!
Let’s hope that the Squadron gets back on its feet without any intrusion, and work its way back to healthiness without greed and arrogance at the forefront.
I would suggest with many years experience in the ATC that the revised ACP will not give anyone more freedom. My guess is it will bring CWCs into the CoC and make them more accountable to the Corps and potentially give the CoC more control over individuals on CWCs.
CWCs have enjoyed far too much freedom IMO and it seems completely they’re unaccountable to anyone :
financially due to excepted status and
operationally hiding behind the democratiic process.
The latter means that a destructive individual or individuals with plenty of mates to keep them in post, are unmovable. This is the bit where I can see more control coming in.
This is why the belief/expectation a rewrite/issue of an ACP will bring greater freedom from the ACO CoC, is wrong. Also, according to the current ACP and CC, there is an expected change (next couple of years) to the annual income levels requiring excepted charities to produce full accounts/reports, to one which I would suggest affects all squadrons.
I would suggest with many years experience in the ATC that the revised ACP will not give anyone more freedom. My guess is it will bring CWCs into the CoC and make them more accountable to the Corps and potentially give the CoC more control over individuals on CWCs.
CWCs have enjoyed far too much freedom IMO and it seems completely they’re unaccountable to anyone :
financially due to excepted status and
operationally hiding behind the democratiic process.
The latter means that a destructive individual or individuals with plenty of mates to keep them in post, are unmovable. This is the bit where I can see more control coming in.
This is why the belief/expectation a rewrite/issue of an ACP will bring greater freedom from the ACO CoC, is wrong. Also, according to the current ACP and CC, there is an expected change (next couple of years) to the annual income levels requiring excepted charities to produce full accounts/reports, to one which I would suggest affects all squadrons.[/quote]
Foley I totally agree. I am a new parent and it is very sad to experience the hostility in the cwc. Step aside Veritas and deal with issues away from the cwc ALONE. Let someone else try picking up the pieces you have scattered everywhere. It should be all about the cadets. I find it very selfish.
fabulousdarling74 (great name by the way!), welcome to the forums. Are you actually a parent of a Cadet at the Squadron in question, and know this Veritas fellow?
