Baseline Personnel Security Standard for MOD Staff


#61

In recent years I have seen it at Lossie and Leeming, but not Coningsby. It seems to be something that has come in quite recently.


#62

But there lies the underlying problem. Military establishments automatically think, as with all CFAVs, that they have been checked out.

As for cadets, they are covered by RAFAC policy in PI501 and OC Squadrons have issued with 3822, with photo.

As for staff, military assume that they have been cleared, but many haven’t; the reason for BPSS.


#63

That’s a nonsensical argument. We’re covered by policy in ACP20 as well, and other than CIs issued with a photo ID too. So why one and not the other?


#64

But this doesn’t explain why those who are cleared are having to re-do it.

And over the years, we’ve always done some identity confirmation paperwork of some form, which has been variously called the basic check, BPSS, BSVR and now back to BPSS again.

So until someone can genuinely explain why I need to do it again and why what I’ve provided in the past is inadequate (‘because it’s MOD policy’ is not a sufficient justification - we have been following this for years) then I’m not prepared to commit the time of chasing 3 years worth of employer references.


#65

But that’s only one. You need 3 and one has to be it seems an employer/line manager. We do not employ cadets nor line manage anyone, if someone says I do, give me the appropriate amounts of cash each month. Also can you get 3 from within the same organisation, I would have thought they would need to be 3 completely independent sources, or you could have squadron staff writing each others references. Getting two under the old scheme was difficult enough for some.
You can see this becoming a nonsensical farce with all sorts of caveats.


#66

My understanding is that we are accepting the risk and not requiring references for current CFAV, this will only be the case for new CFAVs.

I also understand that it’s not for the applicant to source the references but provide details and WHQs will request the reference, otherwise what stops you from writing it yourself?

If your not getting the answers you want, contact the RAFAC HQ Security Advisors, there contact details are available on SharePoint here under RAFP


#67

Unfortunately there will be no justification other than “we’ve said so do it”.
When have we ever had a proper justification for doing things? We didn’t get one for the “contract” last year.
HQAC / RAF / MOD say we have to and that’s it and if we don’t they’ll say the door’s over there.
We still don’t know the full extent of the contract (ooops ‘agreement’) in terms of numbers of staff lost and I doubt we ever will.
If we don’t do this will we be asked/told to leave?


#68

And if you are self-employed?


#69

That is not how it’s being managed here; references are required for current CFAV.


#70

Hw does someone who is self employed obtain an employers reference?


#71

Presumably you get the ‘person of standing in the community option’.


#72

And if you don’t know one or in the case of a GP who will charge you.


#73

I like the idea of new staff just putting names down and Wing chasing the references. I think I’d be putting Dr, Solicitor, Dentist etc who won’t do it for nothing and Wing getting an invoice. Our Dr charges £65 to sign a passport application.
If it does cost, HQAC should reimburse people.
Either way it’d put the cat among the pigeons.


#74

As I understand it, not by HQAC.

The BPSS forms will be checked at Wing Level, then the majority will be shredded. Only a small percentage will go onwards for further verification ie. contacting references. (I seem to recall my Wexo saying 2%).

Obviously, if any dramas are flagged up, that may change…


#75

The references ask pointed questions that people who write references won’t be used to as references have had to be neutral for a number of years.
All this for a couple of hour a week volunteering opportunity, overkill or what? Where you might see or be exposed to something a couple of times in your time as adult staff.

I think the bigger security risk is from cadets going on SM and or telling parents and others about what they see. Why aren’t we insisting cadets and parents do this?


#76

Slighty off topic - but at the moment DBS’s take 6-8 weeks to come through for new staff, putting some of them off volunteering if they don’t want to wait.
The MOD now accepts DBS’s from other organisations as long as they are less than 6 months old and to the same level.
So this got me thinking. There are online DBS checking companies that can turn around an enchanced volunteer application in around 48 hours, with a total cost of around £10.
Does anyone know if these DBS’s would be accepted if they were applied for by the squadron wanting to get a check completed quickly, as long as they were to the same level as the MoD checks?

Although it won’t stop the issues of the other things like BPSS being processed slowly, it could speed up the application process considerably.


#77

I’m seeing DBS’s take less than 4 weeks… are your WHQ sitting on it?


#78

They must be! :confused:


#79

Never forget. Whilst some WHQs are staffed by enthusiastic, motivated individuals. Others are staffed by those shuffling towards pension. Yet others still (and the worst type in my humble opinion) are staffed by those types who create extra admin for the sake of admin.


#80

Not really, they do it to justify their existance because if somene discovered howlittle they do then they’d be unemployed.