Any chance we can all try and be grown up’s?
How the ATC works at the top levels should be of some (even vague passing) interest to all of us since its the decisions made at those lofty levels that effect us at the ground.
Of course those on the delivery side of the organisation are going to be less interested, but that’s not to say that looking for more information about how/who/why things are as they are is a bad thing.
so have you…yet based on the below - no answer received
a simple question no??? yet left unanswered
if that is the case, show us your research and answer the question
Simply the way you engage with many here demonstrates a clear disdain for people who don’t share your enthusiasm for the topics you pursue.
pEp asked you a multitude of questions, please answer them and continue the debate.
Really?
You routinely treat us as though we’re idiots - unthinking fools in uniform who haven’t seen the light.
There’s talk of disdain and of one side having litter tolerance for the other… Well, that’s possibly true, because that’s all we seem to get from you towards those of use in uniform.
We may not all be CivCom (though some uniformed staff will have started that way) but many of us have been in this game long enough to know how it works on all sides.
Frankly, given the regularity with which you claim to know the law - only to then talk what is demonstrably absolute nonsense - I find that hard to believe.
As it stands nobody here appears to have any information regarding this mythical “Corps Chairman” role. We know that the supposed incumbent is a Regional Chairman, but beyond that we don’t even know if the post is real or just someone who got the wrong end of the stick and created an entry on wikipedia.
Clearly you know nothing about it because it was you who opened the whole question - yet you’re already laying blame on the man for not acting accordingly in a post which may not even exist.
Yep… not insulting at all…
So you’re saying that we don’t? The original context of your comment was far too ambiguous for us to have read this; however…
…doesn’t sound good in any context.
But let’s broaden the perspective on that, since you’re now claiming a link to Charity Law - that is not our responsibility, and is a topic that you regularly raise. Except, you don’t really give us any tangible information which we could take to those who are responsible or is anything that is within our control - you bring us a call to arms against HQAC over points of law and policy, yet this isn’t a fight that we can take part in, because it’s related to a different arm of the organisation than many of us and many don’t have the same purported level of inside knowledge about that which you wish to rally against… yet you remain willing to continue your attempts here without taking any action yourself.
Is it any wonder we feel that you have a chip on your shoulder and are no longer involved in the organisation? If you still have any ties to the organisation and/or a network of people within it that would afford you their time and attention then you would know how to raise your concerns or find the answers to your questions. Perhaps then you could come back to us with the answers.
Because here’s something you don’t seem to understand about CFAV: we react far more favourably to those who bring solutions, not problems.
We’re not being constructive? You poke holes, proffer guesswork, make accusations, and back very little of it up. You poke holes in plans and ideas without offering solutions. It is YOU who is one of the most destructive commentators here.
As has been covered, you will find that the truth is that on the majority of units that teamwork and mutual respect in support of the mission exists between the CivCom and CFAV.
So, with all that said, I bring you back to these points of order:
Can’t you see how you trying to find information out about someone you don’t seem to know in a role you don’t understand and then directing accusations to that same person, and then not properly answering our questions would cause people to stop taking your comments seriously?
And one for @Rumpole: you said that you could find out the info and then let us know - have you? We pretty much covered off that we don’t and you admitted that was your other option.
You could be right, and this alone would be a valid point. But you wrapped it in conspiracy while not knowing even the basic truths of the situation, then refused to answer questions on the matter which would help us understand your POV.
In your initial post I think you actually raised some good questions. There was some minor derailment over spelling, but there was some good discussion with wdi2b, Cramer, and steve. Your next remark then suggested a “tactical manoeuvre”, which set off everyone’s tin foil hat alarms.
Things had calmed right down and were sensible until Rumpole weighed in with the “grumpy uniforms” post, which is probably what actually lit everyone’s fuses. You were then caught up in the subsequent whirlwind, but didn’t help yourself once there.
Perhaps, and I say this constructively, neither you nor Rumpole have ever managed to cover yourselves in glory which has created a degree of scepticism among the rest of us - then creating a knife-edge discussion where both sides risk easily annoying the other. Likewise you probably believe the same of us, but generally I think we were pretty patient to begin with (historically) but gradually became switched off to long rants which contained more accusation with a definite skew towards contempt for the organisation than genuinely beneficial points. Then deflection and moving of goalposts when we enquired further snowballed our frustrations.
In short:
Let’s all try to stick to the point, respond directly to direct questions, and make only constructive comments from now on, eh?
FOI Request made yesterday - Corps Chairman
Can you provide the following clarification:
- When the position of Corps Chairman was created
- Whether it is a voluntary or salaried appointment
- whether the appointee is a member of the ACMB, and in what capacity
- whether the position is directly controlled by the ACMB, the Commandant Air Cadets, AOC 22 Group, or the Air Cadet Council
- Whether this appointment fits within the prescribed Civilian support pillar, and what level of executive power is aligned to that position.
- Why the position is not identified in ACP11
- What authority the position holds in relation to implementation of, and compliance with, Charity Law.
Not sure any of these will be answered via an FoI, sounds like the sort of query that should be raised via the Civilian Pillar Chain.
Perhaps one of our two resident committee fanatics submitted this?
They don’t seem to be responding on here anymore, despite @Giminion’s very reasoned request.
The language is, I think, the same as Aries.
Who submitted it, and do they live near a place with a really fancy rugby clubhouse?
Unfortunately I feel I’ve merely been lumped in with the rest of you uniformed anti-civcom conspiracy cohorts.
Woah woah woah…
I’m very pro civ com.
As long as they shut up, and do as I say.
I’m very pro civcom - as long as they raise money, stick to their own trainset, and don’t steal.
You’d think that wouldn’t be too much to ask…
… really.
That is dredging the barrel of depravity if they are doing that.
It indeed another FOI request by Aries, his FOI history highlights where he’s from as well 
Reading it just makes gives me a feeling that some of those questions are approaching at the wrong angle. I don’t know what the right angle is, but it just feels off.
It feels like they’ve got an axe to grind.
But are starting on the handle.
Another moron wasting public money with another totally unnecessary FOI request…
oh contraire: while the MOD is spending money and time running around looking for answers to this rubbish, they’re not running around looking at how to recover large wedges of cash from rugby clubs…
No moron he…
Behold! Answers:
It’s a new post, (who knew! (Who cared?))
It’s not in ACP11 because yet again we’re releasing and doing stuff based on books which haven’t been released yet…
It’s an independent role to chair the civilian pillar. Which I think was guessed by some.
So now we know.
You mean that if someone had just exercised a bit of patience then the answer to a question (which really matters very little) would have been published in due course and could simply have been read in the ACP, rather than wasting time and public money on a pointless FoI request?
Good god!
Well, considering the appointment was in 2018, it’s hardly worth singing the praises of that system is it?