Still waiting for an announcement…tick tock
But on the other side of the coin… Who cares?
Corps Chairman schmairman…
If it was massively important to anyone at all they’d have been told about it. As it is, it’s just some person who sits on the ACMB.
well - you.
you have berated someone for filling a FOI request when they could have been patient.
and, the removed title and position aside, it is right that a role is created and 18 months+ down the line no one knows what it is all about??
for those who fall under that new roles “command” and hierarchy it would be polite if nothing else to know the TOR for the role
there are arguments on both sides.
What is the role all about? > take a look in the book
but the book is 18months late in an update - with no sign of when it is released how else do we find out?
“Who cares?”
I think you misunderstand me… I don’t care about the Corps Chairman at all. I don’t know who he or she is and they have little to no effect on my life.
But I’ll happily berate lots of people for all these pointless FoI requests because I think that most of them are a colossal waste of public money. Things are tight enough as it is without needlessly wasting more on some rubbish just because “Disgruntled in Aylesbury” demands to know x,y,or z…
I rather thought that the crux of all this was that - because all these “committees” are apparently separate legal entities and trustee of their own funds with no right to influence any other committee, then nobody falls under this Chairman… They have no “command”.
They can’t issue orders to any lower formation’s committee.
I’ll grant that as their are supposed to be a voice for the committees then certainly the Regional committees should have been told (but they probably have). The Sqn and Wing committee don’t report to the Corps Chairman. If they have issues to raise to go to their next level up. So they have absolutely no requirement to be told about this post before the reissue of ACP 11 - which is demonstrably not an urgent release.
Everyone will receive the “polite” notification you mention - in a timescale which befits its lack of importance.
If people expect to be told about this sort of inconsequential BS immediately they’ve clearly misunderstood the sector in which they’ve volunteered.
no misunderstanding
but you care that other people care - that was the point i was making. I recognise that you don’t care about the topic in question, but you cared enough that other people waste time and money.
if you didn’t care then you wouldn’t have posted in the thread.
please note my use of “speach marks” at the implied “command” if only being higher up the food chain, rather than in direct command and control of those in the office below the Chairman.
i think that is true for a lot of people and examples people have grief with…
Right… But I never suggested that I didn’t. So I’m not quite sure why you brought it up?
OK, time to call it there I think. Maybe take it to PM if you want to continue.
Comforting to have someone rise up above the rherotic. I will admit that FOIs have a limited value, because if there is no desire to release information, one or other part of the Act can be named to withhold information.
However there was no restrictions on this one, and we get a bonus of Air Command telling us that ACP11 will be reviewed. That then joins the review of AP1919. So is it just a move to add in the existence of this position and also the ACMB together with the ToR or much more?
If you consider that AP1919 are the rules provided under the Royal Warrant, it appears that things might not have been quite consistent with the authority of the Warrant, for about 6 years now…
The previous review of ACP11 was supposedly about compliance, and started two years after new legislation. At ground level, without understanding obligations under Charity Law, no-one is any the wiser, because the basic function of the Civcom was not changed by the Law. And the only change since has been to fundraising in 2016, which again has no impact on the operation of the Civcom. .
So the reason for the FOI was to try and establish what might have changed that required a Chairman who has no relationship to any Civcom (other than where he is a Regional Chairman) but who exists as a member of the ACMB. One post does touch on what authority is held by this position, and the answer is quite significant to the scheme of things.
So, in summary, you’re complaining that they haven’t answered every question which was put to them?
I wonder how many other FoI requests we can dream up to establish what is going on with posts which have no relationship to what we’re doing?