I have removed your most recent post questioning your Karma, as it was off topic (along with GHE’s after you).
You’ll note that you can only change Karma once every so often, so if what you’re suggesting is that a moderator has removed your post and then lowered your Karma you’d be mistaken.
The post you were referring to was removed by another moderator because it was off topic also. If you have an issue with a moderator please report the post or take it to one of the site admins, don’t post about it in the thread.
Please remember - Op Nimrod, you need to remember that as a moderator you can’t be posting things with an attitude. You’ve got to remain squeaky clean and I’m getting frustrated at having to defend other moderators from the masses!
Whoever deleted the post in the original billing thread - did you send a PM to explain why you’d moved it?
Can we. That’s handy to note for future. I may just adjust some people’s for kicks. How do we do it, is there an app where we dial in what number we want?
I’m sorry but it doesn’t matter how you look at it, is not allowed and you make a good point about references. Lets look at this another way, where in our extensive set of rules and financial controls does it say YOU CAN do it? How about a test? You write via the CoC to HQAC and ask Wg Cdr logs for his take on it. Or perhaps your parent station? If alla squeaky clean they won’t have a problem in agreeing with it.
Op Nimrod - can you clarify what you think should be refered to Wg Commander Logs? Uniform deposits or subscription deposits?
Deposits for the uniform, which you correctly state is a crown property is a no-no as is charging individuals for loss of uniform (you can’t charge someone for losing something unless you’re the one paying for it - either as a purchase of replacement or transfer of a fee to a third party).
However taking a subscription deposit of three months subs when a cadet joins and only refunding when all items loaned from the sqn (both public and private property) would be a CWC decision as they deal with the finance side.
[quote]
ACP300 Inst 301 - Para 6b
In addition to the ATC GP Fund proportion Wing and Squadron committees set their own level of subscription depending on planned activities and collect during the year at their discretion[/quote]
So the CWC can charge what they like for subs on top of the minimum - if they insist that cadets pay £100 a month subs then they are entitled to do so. They have the right to insist that a cadet pay a deposit when joining and the circumstances when they will authorise its return. If they deem a cadet has not left until all service and non-service items have been returned then that cadet will still owe subs, even if they’re not attending as they will accrue subs owed like interest on a credit card. The deposit is then used to off set the balance in unpaid subs when that cadet leaves (Not to pay for replacement service uniform). If this is the bit that you mean to refer to CoC wouldn’t this go to the F&GP Committee not Wg Cdr Logs as they are the ones responsible for finance.
Deposits for sqn owned items (e.g. Adventure Training kit) would be suitable as that is for privately purchased kit and the deposit would offset cost of replacement items.
What is unacceptable is a nod & wink culture of milking cadets to support sqn funds when the squadron hasn’t paid the money out initially. There should not be sqns putting their own price lists together and skimming some of the proceeds. A small set admin fee MIGHT (I am postulating here) be acceptable as the CWC could argue that the time spent dealing with the matter prevents the volunteer spending more time on the activities the CWC are paying for. However no cadet should be charged anything without a written out and signed off policy in place at the sqn first.
At the end of the day i think it comes down to the terminology used and the intent rather than what it actually is referred to.
Can anyone tell me - do we (on the Sqn) actually bill cadets for uniform that they haven’t returned when they decide they no longer wish to be a member of the ATC? You hear of it going on but is there actually a policy in place? Looked in 20 and 300 but nothing there.[/quote]
Okay what do call the situation when instead of giving a fact, people including myself, give their opinion rather than going away and actually reading the manuals. Was researching the matter a bit further and found the information originally requested on bader :ohmy:
bdamage - the answer to your original question lies here: -
[quote]AP1919 Chapter 8 Action to Recover Uniform from Ex-Cadets
Prevention of Loss by Recovery of Loaned Uniform. It is the responsibility of unit COs to prevent unnecessary loss by making every effort to recover all Government property, including clothing, from personnel who have terminated their service or who have been dismissed.
Recovery Action. The following action is to be taken regarding cadets who have not returned uniform on loan, when they have ceased to attend their squadrons, and have failed to inform their COs of any good reason for their absence:
a. Six weeks after the last attendance of a particular cadet, the Squadron CO is to arrange for a visit to be made to the cadet’s home by a suitable member of squadron staff when, in the CO’s judgement, it is thought that such a visit would encourage the cadet to return to his squadron, or assist in the recovery of uniform on loan. Otherwise, a letter is to be sent to the cadet’s parents requesting either the return of the loaned items or [u][i]payment (at 50% of basic prices)[/i][/u]; payments is to be made to the Public Account of the parent RAF station, but forwarded to the Squadron Commander for onward transmission.
b. If the visit or letter initiated by the Squadron Commander secures neither the return of the items nor payment within one month, the Wing HQ is to send (by Recorded Delivery) an identical letter to the cadet’s parents. If this does not result in payment or in the return of loaned items within one month, the Wing HQ is to apply to the parent RAF stations for write-off action (write-off is not necessary for ‘C’ stores). The request is to be accompanied by the relevant loan records, and a statement to the effect that all reasonable steps to effect recovery have been taken.
Losses of Uniform. Reports on losses of uniform are to show whether the uniform was new or part-worn at the time of issue.
Items not Requiring Write-Off Action. Where recovery action proves unsuccessful, write-off action is not required in respect of:
a. Items classed as ‘C’ stores (eg badges, lanyards, chevrons).
b. Shirts and berets.
c. Blue/grey jerseys and trousers on personal loan for 2 years or more.
[quote=“Chief Tech” post=9422]Op Nimrod - can you clarify what you think should be refered to Wg Commander Logs? Uniform deposits or subscription deposits?
Can anyone tell me - do we (on the Sqn) actually bill cadets for uniform that they haven’t returned when they decide they no longer wish to be a member of the ATC? You hear of it going on but is there actually a policy in place? Looked in 20 and 300 but nothing there.[/quote]
Okay what do call the situation when instead of giving a fact, people including myself, give their opinion rather than going away and actually reading the manuals. Was researching the matter a bit further and found the information originally requested on bader :ohmy:
bdamage - the answer to your original question lies here: -
[quote]AP1919 Chapter 8 Action to Recover Uniform from Ex-Cadets
Prevention of Loss by Recovery of Loaned Uniform. It is the responsibility of unit COs to prevent unnecessary loss by making every effort to recover all Government property, including clothing, from personnel who have terminated their service or who have been dismissed.
Recovery Action. The following action is to be taken regarding cadets who have not returned uniform on loan, when they have ceased to attend their squadrons, and have failed to inform their COs of any good reason for their absence:
a. Six weeks after the last attendance of a particular cadet, the Squadron CO is to arrange for a visit to be made to the cadet’s home by a suitable member of squadron staff when, in the CO’s judgement, it is thought that such a visit would encourage the cadet to return to his squadron, or assist in the recovery of uniform on loan. Otherwise, a letter is to be sent to the cadet’s parents requesting either the return of the loaned items or [u][i]payment (at 50% of basic prices)[/i][/u]; payments is to be made to the Public Account of the parent RAF station, but forwarded to the Squadron Commander for onward transmission.
b. If the visit or letter initiated by the Squadron Commander secures neither the return of the items nor payment within one month, the Wing HQ is to send (by Recorded Delivery) an identical letter to the cadet’s parents. If this does not result in payment or in the return of loaned items within one month, the Wing HQ is to apply to the parent RAF stations for write-off action (write-off is not necessary for ‘C’ stores). The request is to be accompanied by the relevant loan records, and a statement to the effect that all reasonable steps to effect recovery have been taken.
Losses of Uniform. Reports on losses of uniform are to show whether the uniform was new or part-worn at the time of issue.
Items not Requiring Write-Off Action. Where recovery action proves unsuccessful, write-off action is not required in respect of:
a. Items classed as ‘C’ stores (eg badges, lanyards, chevrons).
b. Shirts and berets.
c. Blue/grey jerseys and trousers on personal loan for 2 years or more.
[/quote]
time for a lie down :ohmy:[/quote]
There’s a few people now reading this thread who should be thinking, “oh cripes, i can’t believe i’ve been committing fraud against the crown all these years.”
[quote=“Operation Nimrod” post=9427]
There’s a few people now reading this thread who should be thinking, “oh cripes, i can’t believe i’ve been committing fraud against the crown all these years.”[/quote]
Doubt it. AP1919 doesn’t say anything about deposits at all. But . . .
Would anyone consider asking for a deposit (be it for uniform, subs or whatever we would wish to call it) to be ‘making every effort to recover all Government property, including clothing, from personnel who have terminated their service or who have been dismissed’? As stated in AP1919 Chapter 8, Para 826.
[quote=“cygnus maximus” post=9471][quote=“Operation Nimrod” post=9427]
There’s a few people now reading this thread who should be thinking, “oh cripes, i can’t believe i’ve been committing fraud against the crown all these years.”[/quote]
Doubt it. AP1919 doesn’t say anything about deposits at all. But . . .
Would anyone consider asking for a deposit (be it for uniform, subs or whatever we would wish to call it) to be ‘making every effort to recover all Government property, including clothing, from personnel who have terminated their service or who have been dismissed’? As stated in AP1919 Chapter 8, Para 826.[/quote]
You’re using the link tutu argument there. It does tell you what you should do. Doing something else would be against the rules and regs or not endorsed. If HQAC thought it would be Ok we would have been doing this 30 years ago. Asking for a deposit is not “recovery”, its premptive and not sanctioned. Theft is theft no matter how you slice it and no matter how much you don’t like it. Air Command statement on fraud prevention is pretty clear. My advice to you is either stop it or make sure you don’t get caught.
There is no permanent intention to deprive, there is no deception and I’d guess that I’m not the only one across our fine organisation who does it. I’d also guess that people have been taking deposits for years.
There is no permanent intention to deprive, there is no deception and I’d guess that I’m not the only one across our fine organisation who does it. I’d also guess that people have been taking deposits for years.
I think I’ll take my chances.[/quote]
Sorry, yes - phone spelling fail.
I’m aware what the law states. My question is that you don’t give the money back to the Crown or the Tax payer, therefore it DOES mean you intend to deprive permnantly. The old saying, “i would have given it back if they asked” would be too late and frowned upon by the bench.