Just out of curiosity. If on an RAF station on a blues camp can cadets of uniformed CFAVs get picked up by the snowdrops?
I recall that you can at least get a telling of from the snowdrops (if you’re a cadet) if your sunburnt.
Also bonus question as a CI is not in uniform, with the exception of limited circumstances where do they stand in this scenario?
RAF Police only have authority over serving members of the RAF, everyone else is the responsibility of the MOD Police. (This varies somewhat overseas such as Gibraltar).
Very HQAC to float the idea of an offence that doesn’t even exist in Scotland - though I suppose that goes back to the “they’ll just prosecute you for something you’ve actually clearly done” idea.
Don’t forget, all I see is stuff post-charging decision.
So it’s already been mucked up by CPS direct by then.
Well if we start publishing then the system will start to sort itself out to a fairer one as those involved will be aware of the scrutiny that will be applied. If you do it the other way around you would be waiting for Godot before things changed.
I think you could tailor this & I certainly wouldn’t agree with the publishing being applied to under 18s. The amount of redaction would be in proportion to the incident so “in the last quarter three CFAVs have been required to resign following safeguarding investigations”
“On the last quarter Following safe guarding investigations five CFAVs have been returned to duty, one with a formal action, one informal action, two with counselling and one with no action due to no case to answer”
I think this is the tricky bit & where HQAC would need to do the balancing of disclosure just enough but not too much. So in your example I would reword it to “A CFAV was dismissed for refusing to end a pre-existing personal relationship with a staff cadet, said relationship being a conflict of interest with the role of a CFAV”.
I think that if HQAC starts publishing results then it will start to build confidence & feel less unfair.
The other but that they need to do regarding misconduct is the aftermath or helping someone reintegrate after the whole incident & build their confidence back up. It would help if they include a bit on the staff courses of , “This is the process for when you are suspended” this how an investigation works, this is what you will feel going through it, this is what you feel afterwards.
I think if HQAC get the discipline process transparent & results more open then they will have less issues going forward.
The other issue I see with publishing is that many of us have very little faith in the system as it stands to deliver a fair and impartial result, so wouldn’t be overly happy with information being shared by the organisation.
I think building faith in the system should be the priority.
Cadet version of S69