I can’t really see how “hub and spoke” Sqn and Flights are going to be any different to the existing format of Sector and Sqns. All that’s different are the names.
No matter how it looks on paper, it is still going to require staff on each of the units working to keep their house in order, and one commander working to ensure that not only is their own house in order but that the Flight Commanders are doing their jobs too.
Most of us already share events and staff for events. How much duplicate paperwork is there which will be removed by renaming “Sqns” to “Flts”?
They’ll still need the same RAs as they currently do… They’ll still need to put together an SMS events for off unit activities…
Shared kit? Between units who are geographically separate? That’s not going to improve the average parade night any more than units loaning kit to each other as they do now.
I’m sorry… I just cant see it.
How on earth is wearing MTP more regularly going to “solve” some “inappropriate behaviour”?
If there are bullies out there on a power trip the solution is administrative/disciplinary action.
I’ve known a couple… in 26 years.
Using words like “growing concern”, “culture”, and “ethos” carries a heavy implication that this is a widespread, deeply rooted problem and that people are turning a blind eye to unacceptable behaviour.
Frankly, that doesn’t tie in with my own experiences and I’ll go out on a limb and say that I suspect it doesn’t tie in with a lot of other people’s either.
I reckon that someone has either found a small, nasty, exception to the norm or they’ve chosen their words very poorly indeed.
Well it’s the inevitable fall out from the wider atmospherics of a particular case. There are those on here who can guess which one. The investigation outcome post suspension etc has been delayed because of COVID.
Well that’s really gotten worse in my opinion since we got a cacwo…
with WWOs wandering around looking to put people off parades or events if their uniform wasn’t good enough
As said previously most and I mean the vast
Majority won’t be involved but the small number of SNCOs who think they are above the normal
chain or rank system and only report to the cacwo seems to be a starting point for this.
I think we are starting to find out what draining the swamps axe is that they want to grind.
Most of the posts from the user seem to know intricate knowledge of high level discussions and new policy at AEF/VGS regarding future use and where the organisation is going with it. In the same posts seem to lack any real understanding of how squadrons work.
Now they seem to know of some massive issue that is at this moment at command level within the ATC that is going to change how the whole organisation fundamentally is going to work.
I would bet 50p that the person behind the persona left under a cloud whilst putting an official complaint in and seems to think that anyone will take any real notice of it. Or the poster is our commandant.
This is an interesting proposal but, I suggest, will need a lot of thinking through. The school based units that have been opened as part of the govt expansion initiative are not, as far as I am aware, equally geographically spread. In addition they only come with start up funding and are part of the CCF network with the Headteachers nominally the responsible adult ( unless things have changed) . Is the suggestion that a volunteer from the community based element of the RAFAC should have some command authority/ responsibility over an organisation that operates on school premises some of which are in the public sector but many within independent schools? (remembering that the RAF section may only be one of four).
Lastly, for now, when things go wrong within the school units I assume the Headteachers will retain primacy?
If this is a serious suggestion let’s hope it has been fully thought through
To be fair, I don’t think any Wg WOs are out looking to put staff off parades… In fact, they want as many people on parade as they can muster - otherwise it ends up being a pretty poor parade.
But certainly, if individuals look like a sack of potatoes in their uniform then they need to get themselves squared away. Not only before they go out in the public eye, but also to set a proper example to cadets and junior staff.
Having someone responsible to the CoC for making sure that improvements are made where necessary is not a bad thing.
The Wg WO’s job is not to dish out judgement and pull people off parade willy-nilly - it’s to highlight where improvements are needed and assist if required… But if J Bloggs can’t/won’t fix their appearance to an acceptable level then nobody should be surprised if that person isn’t put out as an example to others.
I’m sorry, that really doesn’t answer the question.
I’m having to make some assumptions because, like Baldrick, I have no idea of the details of this case you’re talking about.
I’m going to assume that some SNCO was bullying cadets, perhaps playing a bit too much ‘Bad Lads Army’, and that they’ve been dealt with through the disciplinary system.
If that assumption is wrong do please let me know.
If it’s possible to be a little less generic and vague in your explanations please that would be greatly appreciated. “This will solve the thing, which happened in the case that we can all guess about, because of behaviours…” when the rest of us have no idea what the thing or the case or the specific behaviour is makes reasoned discussion particularly difficult.
If I may ask again - how is wearing MTP more often than blues (or whatever a “hybrid” uniform would look like) going to “solve” the very few instances of such bullying?
I would suggest that speculating about what the issue DTS is alluding to based on the scant information they wish to reveal is going to cause more issues than it will solve. We risk causing a fall out while we hunt for a problem.
Either DTS can explain what the issue they’re on about specifically, (without reference to names or locations) or we can ignore the point.
Anywho, none of this has anything to do with the defence review.
I suppose the second question in my mind to come out of DTS earlier comment is to wonder what the heck a ‘hybrid uniform’ is, and why a defence review would be recommending one for us.
The culture simply isn’t there, certainly as a dep seeing 400 or 500 kids on parade who have made an effort to be there looking the part, makes me happy
I’ve not been in uniform that long, but I have been around for a while now, and I don’t really recognise the uniform complaints/bullying complaint.
There is a very fine line, and someone being matter of fact about why your uniform isn’t being worn correctly could be taken personally if you have done your best - so it could be very easy to accuse an enthusiastic NCO of being a uniform bully when they really are just trying to maintain standards (and ultimately stop you from embarrassing yourself if you are wearing it wrong).
Also, I can’t see how a “hub” that then has satellites is any different to having a sector HQ with squadrons dotted around. Although, if “sector HQ” is responsible for all RA’s etc etc then great stuff. Anything that takes pressure off of squadron… But if not then what’s the difference to now anyway, whatever you want to call it?
Just have one sqn. Sod the smaller units in all but the most rural areas.
If you really are someone “in the know” like you try your hardest to pretend, then you know the real problem. And the solution to that is not create more units, but to consolidate the existing ones.
Having numerous units doesn’t solve the real problem; not enough volunteers.
Let’s be realistic though, this is never going to happen.
Too much ■■■■ covering has to go on. Unless we no longer deliver any activities, in which case, yes, we can reduce the admin.
I know we all bang on about wanting an admin burden reduction, but it only ever gets worse. I’ve given up even thinking about asking for it. It’s simply not realistic given the culture.
Not feasible in the short to medium term. We recruit new people, send them off to their own units and then… Burn them out, they leave, and we’re back to square one.
Nope, let’s make fewer bigger units with lots of staff. Serve more cadets and deliver more of a cadet experience to each of them.
What’s going to be better, 1000 sqns of 20 cadets, or 500 sqns of 40?