One to look out for…??
One to look out for…??
Those Sea Cadet figures are either really good or really bad…
What is worrying is that 78% of army cases are referred to policy & 30% result in dismissal, while in our case its 71% referred (close enough to be similar) but only 6% dismissal.
That would suggest to me that a lot more volunteers are allowed to resign rather than be dismissed… or our allegations are not made against volunteers.
Doesn’t surprise me that the SCC report all cases to the police as they don’t have the full time staff we have or parent service support to conduct an investigation. Their 100% dismissal shows how they deal with such allegations, although I would question the probability of allegations being true.
I would say they look better as at least it shows positive action against those caught. If that table as suggested refers to things in the last 5 years, why haven’t we been told. Also I’m pretty certain there hasn’t been a direct reference in anything in the media, which suggests covering things up, while being completely open, would show the public that these things get dealt with which would improve confidence.
The problem with this programme like all others it’s long, long past and those making the complaints have lived with these things for years. If it shows, like the BBC with some of it’s past employees, the various cadet forces knew about it at or just after the time and took no action, that’s different.
But we wouldn’t be allowed to refer or publicise ongoing investigations as there would be reporting restrictions in place for current investigations involving children.
The Sea Cadet figures either show zero tolerance, or more worryingly that all of their allegations were substantiated. I would be surprised if all of our 134 allegations were substantiated, I know myself of false/unsubstantiated allegations having been made against cadets in the past.
Which backs up the Major’s point about not all allegations being made against volunteers. The narrow way FOIs are responded to would mean that unless they asked how many allegations had been made against cadets they wouldn’t be told. I think we remain the only organisation which allows over 18 cadets in the last 5 years, so a number of our 134 allegations may not have been against dismissable volunteers.
I think there is a lot of truth in that given rumours I have heard within the Wing - what we might see as “cadet to cadet” abuse/bullying is legally “adult to cadet”…
But this contributes to continuation of these sort of things. You don’t need details just a topline reference along the lines of we are investigating x incidents of … which demonstrates to anyone currently engaged in these behaviours how they will be dealt with.
The only thing that concerns me is allegations against staff that are unsubstantiated or false, in which case I am all in favour of publishing the name of the person making the allegations, regardless of age. Some I know who work in schools have said teachers have been suspended following allegations that have been found to be false, but their job at the school is ruined and given that with the wonder of FB etc it can follow them around as there is all sorts of speculation, making it almost impossible to continue in their career, and the one making the allegations goes unnamed to repeat if they should so desire.
But the legal definition is what matters. The organisation is trying to play down claims saying it was actually ‘cadet to cadet’; if those very same two individuals were in the ACF, with their ages, they would be Instructor to cadet.
The only mitigating factor is that if it’s cadet-to-cadet, the offender probably hasn’t had the same degree of safeguarding training as a member of staff. That said, those that wish to offend will do so regardless of the training given to them. That and in the case of cadet-to-cadet, you can’t claim a position of trust was involved. However, the older cadet was probably senior in rank, and we all know that those senior ranked cadets are empowered in the eyes of younger cadets, in much the same way as instructors.
I too am troubled by the low percentage of dismissals when compared to others.
oh I am not defending it
Not at all.
Nor am i saying it is “ok”
i am simply agreeing that the CFAVs numbers could well look worse than is truly reflection of the Staff because 18+ cadets are not CFAVs yet legally are adults and so counted in these numbers.
Ah Roger, misunderstood, I thought you were implying the figures for CFAVs would look better if you took the cadets out.
I’ll remove the hook from my mouth now
Keep in mind though, in the event of an investigation
It could take a good while before it goes to court and a verdict is found in that time their extension of service may of been rejected so would look as if they just left.
That doesn’t account for a 24% swing compared to the ACF. Unlikely that allegations are only made close to Extension of Service.
I suspect that we either allow those accused to resign - No longer our problem if not a member of RAFAC as fall out of jurisdiction - or people are encouraged to walk away.
You cannot reject an extension of service during an investigation, it would not be seen as without prejudice. If the person requests an extension during the process it must be granted. If they do not request an extension, that is another matter.
Whilst concerning, I read around 0.003% reports of adults (assuming it was against adults) per year.
I doubt it would work like that. Just because some of the celebs no longer worked for whoever didn’t mean whoever weren’t put under scrutiny.
Let’s be honest the MoD hasn’t exactly covered itself in glory when it has come to dealing with accusations in the past.
i wonder where this sits against the national population %…?
There is absolutely no point calculating a dismissal percentage compared to allegations. it’s far too nebulous.
How many complaints were false? How many unsubstantiated? How many resigned? How many were not renewed? How many legitimate complaints did HQAC sit on for too long to deal with officially and have to fudge their way out of? (That one is a personal example I know of).
Perhaps the complaints in the ACF were more serious? I personally find the SCC figures startling. I struggle to comprehend how 100% of the allegations made in the SCC result in dismissals, no court has that sort of conviction rate.
that would be my, limited, ground floor view, experience.
of the three cases i know of where the OC was unhappy with someones conduct/attitudes/whatever but there was no actual complaint - i’ve only been aware of one actual investigation into someone - all either left of their own violition after getting the vibe or they had a difficult chat with the OC and pretty much immediately resigned.
the one actual investigation i’m aware of did involve the Police, but there were no charges, the bloke left (even if he was innocent, wouldn’t you?), and i don’t think anyone was very satisfied.
This is pretty much what I was told was the ‘ideal solution’ by my WExO to a complaint I made about a CI who started seeing a 16 year old cadet.
When faced with a situation you have to deal with it as you see fit. I’ve dealt with a number of things in-house that I have felt comfortable with and people have either heeded the tone of the chat or decided it’s endex.
Many things are he/she said with no corroborating evidence or so much that you sense something a bit strange going on.
I’ve seen simple things go to Wing and take 6-9 months to sort out by which time people have lost interest and are just getting on with it.
I’ve also know of a couple of Wing visits which have resulted in “escorting off the premises”.