Do others agree that for C.I they should be able to wear MTP at a course or camp when all cadets and staff are in them. I know they can be worn for Fieldcraft and some shooting wearing c.i rank slide.
Ive always felt you feel kind of left out and makes you stand out if say you are only not in MTP for a course even on camps. Whole camp could be wearing MTP apart from a small handfull of C.I’s , i dont think its very inclusive when they do this and i can’t see why it would be an issue especially if they are wearing C.I rank slide so arent pretending to be aomeone they are not. Its a question comes up alot with cadets even and them thinking it should change.
The short answer is no. I understand the reasons behind what you ask but the organisation does provide a route and that is to go into uniform. There are so many reasons for this rule and the debate goes back decades.
Have a search back in the forum and you will find many threads on this one.
I use to take great pleasure as a CI in not wearing DPM on camps as otherwise you tended to get forgotten about & treated as if you wear a SGT without rank.
This included the camp photo were the Wing WO asked me why I wasn’t wearing DPMs for the camp photo. Having responded as a CI I didn’t have a uniform he just went very confused and said it was just “odd”
Notwithstanding the fact CIs do wear them for road marching in order to take part with the military contingent, they are of course “civilians” and have chosen not to wear uniform. They are no more excluded than they are every single parade night.
If they wish to wear uniform when it suits, the answer is to reconsider the question of becoming a uniformed CFAV.
For courses where MTP may be useful, they should consider getting appropriate outdoor kit from the local walking shop etc.
Edit: I would go as far as to say it is inappropriate for CIs to wear MTP for road marching, especially in a foreign country where there can be very strict rules on the wearing of any military clothing. If that means they are prevented from taking part, so be it.
If anything, that may provide a very strong reason for them to consider going into uniform.
I’m not sure I understand the rationale though, beyond that isolated argument.
What’s the point in having two options, particularly when so often the reason to not go into uniform is precisely because they’d have to go into uniform, march about etc?
After all, I think we’d accept that there isn’t really a greater commitment involved when being in uniform — there are CIs grafting like they run a unit and there are uniformed staff with life commitments that prevent them meeting the “minimum commitment” so to speak, so if you let civilian staff wear uniform, why have the “civilian” staff at all?
We’re just volunteers doing what we can and some happen to be in uniform and others aren’t. If you let those who aren’t wear the uniform, you remove the last incentive to nudge people to go into uniform (ie because they want to help play that role in the organisation and immerse the cadets in the military world).
Or you’ve played 4D chess and removed any perceived barriers to taking that step?
Do we really, really need another debate about CIs wearing uniform. I suspect the reason @Giminion can’t find the best thread to move this to is there have been so many the system can’t cope and find the best one.
Personally, I think we should have fewer but genuinely ‘civilian’ instructors — as subject specialists, AT instructors, etc. — and that people who want to get involved in field craft, marksmanship, road marching, drill, etc. should go into uniform.
Not for the first time, we appear to be in complete agreement.
In a way we’ve made it too easy to become (and stay) a CI and too hard to go into uniform.
And I’ve come to the view, looking at how the process works in practice, that we actually deter people from going into uniform by making everyone start as a CI.
