Looking at sharepoint yesterday I saw the Commander’s Intent: The RAF Air Cadets - An Inclusive Organisation in announcements.
Hmm not so sure we are anywhere near that, although it is a good ideal to work towards. Some policies and suggested policies do seem to be very divisive or potentially so and do not fit the general theme of tolerance espoused. As soon as you introduce a policy that means someone loses out (more so) through things that they have no control over, then could it be truly described as diverse, inclusive, welcoming and tolerant, embracing the many different individuals who make us what we are? Maybe it should be inclusive as long as you meet with our approval. I think as an organisation we are a lot more tolerant and accomodating of cadets than we are tending to be towards adults. We were on ATC Sunday parade last weekend and there were a lot more cadets, male and female, in uniform (% terms) who if adults would fall foul of the proposed uniform witch hunt for staff.
I think there needs to be more emphasis on the internal negative perspective as they lead to people leaving of their own accord, rather than being ‘asked to leave’ due to something they’ve done. We got an email (or OCs did) about cadets leaving getting a link to a survey when they leave asking why, do they do one for staff? I’ve lost more staff as they’ve become frustrated by policy and general poor attitude of the organisation towards adults, than through “being naughty”. I’ve lost none for the latter. The internal negative perspective while not in the public eye per se, can produce a more negative effect than any news story etc. I’ve heard a few former staff who left because they felt it was being run by idiots, give the organisation a right slagging, which isn’t a good thing. When you are a squadron commander you feel for them, but have no say or control. You can make as much noise as you like but just run into people quoting policy or just being plain unhelpful. As much as I think there are poor things in the organisation, such as squadron commanders not being able to decide how and what they do and policies / ideas that make me think which halfwit or collective of halfwits came up with this pile of dung, outside I promote a positive view as I want people to join and organisations give us money. Although with no gliding since last May and not likely to be fully up and running for at least another 18 months (if my chat to someone ‘in the trade’ is right) and flying beset with problems in the last 2-3 years, it’s bloody hard to be a smiling, gushing advocate.
As a letter of intent yes it’s probably something required but the real world practical application is another kettle of fish. As my nan used to say … fine words butter no parsnips.
When I left a particular wing after 7 years and as a squadron commander for 6 of those, I didn’t even get a leaving interview or even a call from the wing commander so it’s not surprising that folk get frustrated.
Fortunately I am still with a uniformed post but working in a different part of it.
I must admit I do miss running a squadron and going away with the cadets on camps etc.
As an organisation we have rules which discriminate between male and female cadets eg hair, Male cadet; you will get your hear cut. Female cadet; you will put your hear up.
We are not tolerant on body modification.
we are proscriptive on what we wear and how we wear it.
We have to purchase our own No 3 uniform which can exclude sections of the cadets from lower socioeconomic back grounds.
Subs can be a barrier for the same cadets.
As a uniformed and disciplined organisation we have rules which demand conformity which is by its nature intolerant.
It can be a very thin line between imposing discipline and bullying. Some people would say the imposition of ridged discipline is a form of bullying.
Remember bullying is what perceived. definition - use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force them to do something.
We are a [I]voluntary[/I] organisation where members have the choice whether they join and submit themselves to the rules, or not join. If one joins such an organisation knowing that there will be discipline and structure, then they would have a hard time proving that they were bullied unless they were singled out for harsher treatment than others.
As for discrimination, there are only a finite number of protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. The length of hair or how it’s proscribed to be worn, is not one of them.
But having different rules for male and female could be.
All rules have to have a basis in law, they cannot be illegal rules.
EG and this is an extreme example and nothing to do with the ATC. The BNP had to change its constitution because it was proved to be illegal in relation to banning non-whites.
The ATC had to change its maturity rules for staff because they were illegal.
Most armed forces in Europe have soldiers with long hair because they took the cases to the European court. it has just never happened in the UK yet.
Qué? :? :?[/quote]
Presumably the Age Discrimination Act of 2006. Although it’s intended to discourage ageism in the workplace; in other words, the discrimination against persons on the basis of their age, there is not an exact fit, in that the vast majority of staff in the ACO are volunteers, and either commissioned for service with, or appointed to serve in, the organisation (with only MSF and Admin civil servants being actually employed within the org).
I believe all employment, commissioning and appointing decisions must now be getting made upon competencies and skills, without age as a preselection or prohibiting factor. I think this is pretty much what is mentioned briefly, for shared awareness, at ATF courses.
I wonder if it would be able to withstand the fullest scrutiny? I don’t really feel that the ACO has fully embaced the notion of age not being a prohibitng factor. It may not be written, but is very much the elephant in the room.
It does seem odd in a time when the national pension age (which for many marks retirement) for a huge proportion of CFAV wll be 68 and possibly older, anyone applying for a uniform post over the age of 50 requires a justification for their application, when at 50 they still have 16+ years of working life in front of them. Plus at a time when their kids while probably not flown the nest (as I can vouch for :mad: ) are grown up, mortgage paid (or getting there) and as result have more time to devote Corps activities than a 20/30 something finding their feet in the big world or with all the fun of young children ;), on top of which the over 50s have life experience offering a more stable perspective which scores massively over youthful exuberance. I find that some of my younger staff are less tolerant than I am of teenagers, despite being a lot closer to them in terms of age and at time struggle with wobbly balls that life throws your way.
Inclusive? Tolerant?
Ironically the majority of the Corps SLT don’t get into the job until they’re into their 50s,
Not very in line with the update is it? And for what it’s worth I’ve tried contacting someone about it but heard nothing.
So if anyone from the media team reads this, maybe you could advise the Cmdt how idiotic that sounds and counter productive it is (some might say hypocritical).
[quote=“MikeJenvey” post=23377]Nah, with the whole conversation chain, as one of those who wore a green oncie for quite a few years, no insult taken, it’s just banter.
However, if the last comment were to be taken out of context, maybe some delicate soul will take umbrage.[/quote]
Indeed - I am offended in advance of those who would want to take offence on behalf of those who may (or may not) be offended and who haven’t realised it yet, thus missing the attention they crave.
It’s a brilliant badwagon to get on and involves little or no work - a clicktivists dream!
Unfortunately, there is no direct correlation between the “darker” side of military humour & the very PC-orientated “delicate” world that many live in…
As we all know - what is the difference between aircrew & a jet engine? A jet engine stops whining when it is shut down…
Replace the group “special needs” with another minority group. Would it be ok for her to say “that makes them look a bit gay”? “Wearing coveralls makes them look like gypsies”? The answer is no, it damn well isn’t alright, ESPECIALLY when the person making the comments has just released quite a lengthy memo about diversity and inclusion. Did you not see the fuss over halloween costumes stigmatising mental health?
What would any cadet, or parent, of a child with SEN think seeing that comment from the head of the organisation? I certainly wouldn’t think “this is the organisation for my child/me”
Look at the second paragraph for god’s sake!
What is Twitter if not in the public eye?
The final 2 paragraphs are key:
[quote]I genuinely want everyone in this Organisation to feel valued, respected and welcome but I know that, with over 60,000 individuals involved, there are going to be times when human nature, personality clashes or external stresses will make people act in a way that could make others distressed. Please do not let it be you who is called to account for letting the side down.
And finally. If you see others behaving in a way you think is likely to impact adversely on our hard-won reputation, do not walk on by. Either challenge it yourself or report it to others in authority. You are my eyes and ears on the ground and I am relying on you all to do the right thing.[/quote]
I work hard day-to-day for the rights of people with SEN. I do not expect to see the leader of a “tolerant” and “inclusive” organisation writing comments on a public network implying that having SEN is somehow wrong or not cool, and further enhances the stigma people with SEN face.
We have had any number of emails about using social media and there are documented examples of squadrons and individuals being told to remove things and shut down sqn websites as they can potentially bring the Corps into disrepute. Don’t know if its got so far as to have someone get asked to leave or take leave, but I imagine stern words were had.
Unlike a bit of bar or office banter, you have to physically type something, look at and hit send for emails, texts etc etc. Unlke bar or office banter there is no context to a line of type and in the social media world once it’s out there it’s out there and damned hard to retrieve.
