This the bit I don’t get. If you don’t enjoy it because you are feeling oppressed, bulled etc there is always somewhere else to ply your volunteering, which aren’t so tied up in paperwork and administrative duties and hierarchical rubbish as the ATC/RAFAC embroils itself in. Putting yourself through the meat grinder of a complaints process in this organisation, that is, has and never will work in an expedient manner, seems pointless. The world of work is aggro enough, without having your spare time activity becoming the same.
Yes but we are led to believe that the Organisation is top notch, with one of the stated aims being to promote citizenship -teaching young people how to behave in future life. So it is a reasonable assumption that everything on paper is pukka and that if one is oppressed there are procedures to address it.
One is committed to delivering, buoyed by a faith in the organisation and the system, but it is not until you put that to the test, that things appear to be different. If you have become a victim, the reading of the procedures will identify with the way you have been affronted, that you are convinced that you should go for re- dress. After all it is nothing less than personal dignity if you have done nothing wrong.
I dont think anyone would intentionally put themselves through the grinder, after all RESPECT is also very much part of the ethos.
It seems we have a CAC who states that she could not comment or get involved in a situation, because she has to be prepared to give an impartial judgement. This same CAC then delivers an impartial judgement which is so heavily weighted in favour of the perpetrators.
So why are there procedures if there is never a chance of re-dress. This can be said equally of the workplace, but now of course, with the loss of VRT Commission, you cannot even rely on Service Complaints Procedure. Unfortunately it seems impartiality went of the window with respect.
Something akin to SCP was available to Civcom members, which was also withdrawn, actually leaving members vulnerable to interference by OC Wing or anyone else in uniform.
Unfortunately the human element suggests you do these things because you believe in what is right and what is wrong, and that by making a stand, you might just improve the lot of your fellow volunteers.
Otherwise everything just begins to slide into the abyss, which is apparently not an organisation for air-minded youth.
The CAC’s missive on mutual respect was well timed - maybe she ought to put some of that into practice, starting with the ACMB.
A previous poster here, on this subject and a friend and colleague of mine whose child was they subject of severe bullying both by cadet/adult SNCOs and officers has had an interesting resolution, the persons involved have been either moved or sacked from the Corps from senior officers downwards. The parent has heard from ACO senior management involved, and that the parent involved hs stated that they will, if neccesary, put his evdience at the disposal of any other parent in the same situation or even the media.
1 Like
With Dawn McCafferty’s predecessor, Barbara Cooper, I was had a very serious situation where she was declared as the impartial arbitrator in exactly the same manner.
Only trouble was, that after the event an FOI revealed that she had been fully orchestrating and controlling the actions of the CO, Regional Commandant, Regional Chair, Wing Commander, Wing ExO and Wing Chair (whom she was ‘impartially’ judging) before, during and after the process.
Her ‘impartial’ consideration was shown to be farcical and there was much embarassment all round. It was a matter of months before Regional Commandant and Chair retired early - as did Barbara Cooper.
Other perpetrators confirmed to have been involved remained unchallenged and continue to serve in office today. The overriding principle being not to incur negative publicity and to retain staff at all costs regardless of the victims. Eventually the police were involved in one aspect and their disbelief centred around how three internal ACO investigations, right up to ATCHQ failed to actually interview or meet any one of the alleged victims (cadets) or their parents!!!
My point being simply to ask how anyone can have absolute confidence in the processes that protect against bullying, cadet and staff welfare (and trustees for the full set) when such shams are publicly exposed, right to the top of the organisation, against the published standards of excellence?
Oy vey
We dont. But then it doesnt take a long google search to find organisations all over the world that get it much much worse than the ATC.
I dont know a single organisation that doesnt have issues like this. Pretending its a suprise or that it shouldnt be possible is totally naive. The majority of us do the best we can by the cadets/other staff, but stamping out bullying at any level is simply never ever going to happen. The real world is not a nice place.
That set of protagonists seems to encompass all that is the ACMB and HQAC.
The fit of the ACMB has not been made public, but can we then assume that the Civilian voice is no longer heard at the Air Cadet Council.
It also does not fit with the stated policy on bullying recently promoted by the Charity Commission or does that conflict with the fact that the ACO seems to want protect staff bullies etc at all costs.
I am not naively thinking it won’t happen - and I readily take your points. I actually think that there may be greater risk in organisations such as the ACO that it will happen. I accept that reality.
But don’t you think that - given it will happen - victims of bullying or any other misdemeanours are at least entitled to expect integrity in whatever remedial process and standards are in place? And that this should be paramount rather than a pretence?
1 Like
You just look at what happened at Oxfam and Save the Children when that all broke out in the media. People knew what was happening and did nothing about it and even became enablers to those who were under investigation.
I would never expect a zero tolerance policy to mean what I might expect it to, in all cases. I’ve lived too long and seen too many of these publicised and not been “Ronseal”. Zero tolerance is an idealistic proposition.
I would proffer that the lower down the food chain someone is would increase their chance to have it applied verbatim and only those higher up the chain would go if they were scapegoated or an example was needed to prove the system, and even then not really they’d disappear from ‘public’ view and that’s about it.
Thoroughly interesting read.
I particularly enjoyed the many sections slatting Middleton.
Sounds like you were put through the ringer. But the old adage in this organisation of ‘dont put in more than you can reasonably afford to lose’ has never sounded more true!
2 Likes
Thank you for sharing that.
Congratulations on the outcome - well done for having the moral courage to follow it through.
Incompetence, high handed, bullying, unprofessional, malicious were all words used to describe HQAC and RHQ - no wonder Dawn was so keen to remove the ability for officers to launch an SC…
Edited to add: I may have accidentally flagged your post as inappropriate - Sorry. If a Mod could unflag it, I would be grateful! Sorry all!
5 Likes
And yet JM retains a role with cadets through this new college
1 Like
Why the surprise or even query it. This bloke has been at the centre of more wrong than right things, I imagine he has an album full of photos and other things to hold over those higher up. He would have been gone in most companies a long time ago.
“All the animals were equal, but some are more equal than the others”
Post removed - it is definitely not appropriate to post material that is protectively marked here (or indeed anywhere else) regardless of whether you feel wronged. As the letter makes clear, it’s a private matter between the complainant and respondent.
And if a complainant wishes to make that public, then that is for the complainant to do. The complainant is now a ‘civilian’ so therefore under no constraint not to publish the finding of the panel if they so wish. I’m sure the ACC would allow any of those invovled a ‘right of reply’.
What the letter does expose for all to see is the machinations and thought processes at all levels in the system. The removal of recourse to the SC procedure allows things such as this to be awept under a very large carpet.
1 Like
- No longer being a member of the organisation does not mean that there is no recourse to some sort of legal action in the case of releasing privileged information
- What the complainant wishes to do and what ACC is willing to host may well be two different things, as they are in this case
- Please do not question moderation in public - if you’re still not happy then feel free to continue this in private.
2 Likes