[quote=“tango_lima” post=9638]So, to confuse matters:
CI is an appointment, not a rank.
But that doesn’t mean it can’t also be a title.
For example, the Regimental Sergeant Major of an infantry battalion will hold the rank of Warrant Officer Class 1 and the appointment of RSM. However, he would be ‘RSM Smith’ and officers would refer to him as ‘RSM’ or ‘Regimental Sergeant Major’ (or similar depending on Regimental tradition/custom).
As for the police stuff, if you’re no longer a warranted constable, you can’t represent yourself as one. So if you retire from the police as an Inspector you cease to be an Inspector and referring to yourself as ‘Inspector Smith’ would be impersonating a Police officer.
SNCOs(ATC) are appointed to a rank, rather than appointed to an appointment.
:)[/quote]
No he would be WO1 Smith, Sir, RSM or Sgt Major. They would sig block
WO1 Smith
RSM
1st Bn Blankshires
as for the police question I guess they would only use that rank on letters/emails if it was police related
[quote=“duty_pongo” post=9710][quote=“tango_lima” post=9638]So, to confuse matters:
CI is an appointment, not a rank.
But that doesn’t mean it can’t also be a title.
For example, the Regimental Sergeant Major of an infantry battalion will hold the rank of Warrant Officer Class 1 and the appointment of RSM. However, he would be ‘RSM Smith’ and officers would refer to him as ‘RSM’ or ‘Regimental Sergeant Major’ (or similar depending on Regimental tradition/custom).
As for the police stuff, if you’re no longer a warranted constable, you can’t represent yourself as one. So if you retire from the police as an Inspector you cease to be an Inspector and referring to yourself as ‘Inspector Smith’ would be impersonating a Police officer.
SNCOs(ATC) are appointed to a rank, rather than appointed to an appointment.
:)[/quote]
No he would be WO1 Smith, Sir, RSM or Sgt Major. They would sig block
WO1 Smith
RSM
1st Bn Blankshires
as for the police question I guess they would only use that rank on letters/emails if it was police related[/quote]
I’ve never seen a Sergeant Major’s title given as WO.
I’ve been trying to keep out of this, but for what it’s worth!!
Mr is simply a term of address for someone who doesn’t have a higher or professional title, it’s not an honorific; ‘sir’ is an honorific as it is a form of address showing respect - it’s also a higher title, but more later! So, in the case of someone being a Doctor, their higher professional title is Doctor and that should be used. Equally, if someone has a Knighthood, they are Sir X. So if he is Sir John Smith or Doctor John Smith then absolutely, the cadet should ask for Sir John or Doctor Smith, never Mr Smith (which he isn’t). In general conversation with them you would use the honorific ‘sir’ and say, ‘of course, sir’, but you could also be correct in saying ‘of course Doctor’ - confusing isn’t it!
I think the real fun comes when someone has two higher or professional titles. For example, if they are a Knight of the Realm AND a serving officer, or a Knight AND a Professor. In those cases, it’s up to them what they prefer to be called; some prefer using their military rank or professional title; ie ‘I’m here to see the Air-Marshal’ others prefer to use their titles ‘will Sir John be free that day?’ The same would apply if you were, for example, addressing them in a speech.
Baldrick is also absolutely right that you refer to someone as Mister Smith not straight Mister (which when used on its own can be seen as slightly rude - as in ‘ok Mister’). There’s there’s nothing wrong with cadets asking ‘have you seen Mister Smith’ when referring to Civilian Instructors - or Junior Officers for that matter.
As for using CI as a form of address, I’m in the definite NO camp on that one. CI is an appointment, not a rank or title. I think where things have got confused is that on nominal rolls and application forms etc, where it says ‘Rank’, uniformed staff quite correctly put ‘Flt Lt’ or ‘WO’ or whatever; our CI colleagues have entered (or had entered for them) the ‘rank’ of CI. They should simply put ‘Mr’ or ‘Miss’ as it’s then obvious that the absence of a rank means Civilian.
I’m with you there. I had to “politely” inform our Training Officer (a VRT) that I am Mr X not CI X. I’ve also had to make some of my cadets aware of this after they had seen it used by personnel from other squadrons. It also doesn’t help matters that BADER lists our rank as “CI”, and that has made some staff believe that it is therefore acceptable to refer to us as CI X.
As for email signatures, I use the following:
J Smith
Civilian Instructor
123 (Anytown) Squadron ATC
And, if the message is in relation to my squadron role:
J Smith
Civilian Instructor
Media & Communications Officer
123 (Anytown) Squadron ATC
Convention (and JSP101) dictates that postnominals should not be included in signatures, so mine (LLB (Hons)) are omitted - although I have seen others use theirs in signature blocks.
[quote=“tango_lima”]
What, in your opinion, makes it ‘unacceptable’?[/quote]
Not wishing to answer on RightOn’s behalf, but from my perspective, CI is an appointment, not a rank. You could therefore refer to someone as Adjutant Brown or Committee Member Bloggs.
[quote=“cygnus maximus” post=10256][quote=“tango_lima”]
What, in your opinion, makes it ‘unacceptable’?[/quote]
Not wishing to answer on RightOn’s behalf, but from my perspective, CI is an appointment, not a rank. You could therefore refer to someone as Adjutant Brown or Committee Member Bloggs.[/quote]
Don’t you think ‘unacceptable’ is a bit strong?
RightOn himself says that ‘CI’ is used under ‘rank’ on Bader. I would say that that, and widespread usage as such, makes its use as a title de facto correct. Or at least not incorrect.
One is appointed to a commission in the rank of x, y or z and this is borne out on the commissioning scroll. A Civilian Instructor is simply appointed as such and the appointment does not carry a rank. If it did, it would specify this on the Certificate of Appointment.
The fields on Bader are irrelevant. The use of CI in the ‘rank’ field doesn’t necessarily make it a rank when the individual knows he doesn’t have one! It is simply for administrative purposes.
An officer who relinquishes their commission may be granted the privilege of retaining their rank in retirement, but one no longer retains their commission. My understanding is that they have to have served a minimum period of time in the rank in order to be permitted to retain it (IIRC, it was something like 6 years?). However, not everyone who relinquishes their rank are permitted to retain it in retirement and I feel it would be unusual if the individual were granted permission after only a couple of years in the rank.
While I’m on the subject (and maybe this would be better off in the GMG thread), it really irritates me when I see people who put RAF VR(T) in their signature block(with a space between ‘RAF’ and ‘VRT’. We are commissioned into the 'Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve (Training) branch and I can’t see any spaces on my commissioning scroll between ‘Force’ and ‘Volunteer’.
Not really. If it’s not acceptable, which I personally don’t think it is, it therefore becomes unacceptable.
Just because something has become common practice doesn’t make it right. I wouldn’t take the BADER list as being a shining example of correctness either. If you have a look it does indeed have CI on there as a rank, but there is also Mr, Mrs, Ms and Miss. To further muddy the water, there are also many other specific appointments in there too ranging from President (of the Sqn one assumes), Chairperson and a generic Civ Com to SWO and even CASWO. There is also the confusion of having not only Padre, but also Chaplain and Rev. Whoever populated this bit of BADER has just come up with as many ranks/titles/appointments they could think of and they are the one, in my view in the wrong. We shouldn’t therefore take the BADER rank dropdown as gospel.
[quote=“tango_lima” post=10260][quote=“cygnus maximus” post=10256][quote=“tango_lima”]
What, in your opinion, makes it ‘unacceptable’?[/quote]
Not wishing to answer on RightOn’s behalf, but from my perspective, CI is an appointment, not a rank. You could therefore refer to someone as Adjutant Brown or Committee Member Bloggs.[/quote]
Don’t you think ‘unacceptable’ is a bit strong?
RightOn himself says that ‘CI’ is used under ‘rank’ on Bader. I would say that that, and widespread usage as such, makes its use as a title de facto correct. Or at least not incorrect.[/quote]
From a personal perspective, I do consider it unacceptable. At the risk of repeating cygnus maximus, CI is an appointment, not a rank. My Certificate of Appointment clearly states “I hereby appoint you X to be an Honorary Civilian Instructor…”. There is no rank stated or implied.
I appreciate that the use of CI as a “rank” is becoming more common but repeated use does not imply correctness. Unless and until there is a rule change specifically confirming CI as a rank, I will continue to be Mr X, CI, and consider the use of CI as a “rank” as being unacceptable.
[quote=“RightOn” post=10265][quote=“tango_lima” post=10260][quote=“cygnus maximus” post=10256][quote=“tango_lima”]
What, in your opinion, makes it ‘unacceptable’?[/quote]
Not wishing to answer on RightOn’s behalf, but from my perspective, CI is an appointment, not a rank. You could therefore refer to someone as Adjutant Brown or Committee Member Bloggs.[/quote]
Don’t you think ‘unacceptable’ is a bit strong?
RightOn himself says that ‘CI’ is used under ‘rank’ on Bader. I would say that that, and widespread usage as such, makes its use as a title de facto correct. Or at least not incorrect.[/quote]
From a personal perspective, I do consider it unacceptable. At the risk of repeating cygnus maximus, CI is an appointment, not a rank. My Certificate of Appointment clearly states “I hereby appoint you X to be an Honorary Civilian Instructor…”. There is no rank stated or implied.
I appreciate that the use of CI as a “rank” is becoming more common but repeated use does not imply correctness. Unless and until there is a rule change specifically confirming CI as a rank, I will continue to be Mr X, CI, and consider the use of CI as a “rank” as being unacceptable.[/quote]
I think I’m with Tango Lima on this one. We have waaaaaay more important things to be arguing about. Hell, if I refused to answer everytime some pronounced my first name wrong I wouldn’t have many people left to talk to.
[quote=“Gunner” post=10261]While I’m on the subject (and maybe this would be better off in the GMG thread), it really irritates me when I see people who put RAF VR(T) in their signature block(with a space between ‘RAF’ and ‘VRT’. We are commissioned into the 'Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve (Training) branch and I can’t see any spaces on my commissioning scroll between ‘Force’ and ‘Volunteer’.[/quote]There’s a space on mine, otherwise it’d say Royal Air ForceVolunteer Reserve!
But you’re quite correct - it should be RAFVR(T), not RAF VR(T).
I really cannot see people’s issue. Why does it bother people so much to be referred to as CI X?
If people spent half the time they spent on here moaning about something as trivial as this, the ACO would be overflowing with cadets, running fantastic activities every week and we’d never have any other issues!
