True as they had right to courts martial & service complaints. It also require approval from the Air Force board to dismiss.
Not true, - even when we had the VRT it was clear if you acted out of policy you would be exposed to legal risk but regardless the MoD would have been liably then as they are now. A long time before the commission change you had SNCOs & CIs exposed to the same risks.
You could argue that the VRT commission made officers have greater liability as there were bound by the greater obligations.
Nope because then you would have been paid regardless rather than have to claim hence why it’s a taxable allowance. Zero hour contract would be a better analogy.
Not true & from the case you’ve quoted & as used in the the Employment Tribunal listed as the most recent air cadet one linked above, the tribunal concurred it didn’t apply.
There is no Mutuality of obligation & never has been - only what volunteers have created in their mind which has then crashed when it met reality’s
& this is the bit that brings you back to topic….kinda
If you were talking about the paid staff well they were paid & took pride in doing their job well as long as they were paid for it. Very few volunteered for the organisation in their own right.
If you talking about the volunteer senior officers, well there were a few so dedicated they turned it into a cult & responsible for some of the legacy stagnation we have today.
My experience (which is pretty wide ranging) is that it’s not the majority. I’ve heard a lot of horror stories, but it’s often along the lines of things being bungled & people not being supported through for the stupid discipline things.
I’ve bumped into & chatted to the person who submitted that ET claim & whilst the situation was handled poorly with them being accused of things that weren’t true based on speculative evidence (& they went to the then AOC22 group to dismiss) at the centre was a kernel of truth, which was they had did an action (or more accurately failed to do an action) that resulted in their dismissal.
The ATC needs to reform its discipline processes because they aren’t proportionate or transparent enough for people to understand (which results in some of the toxicity).
Just because you don’t want to hear the truth or are at the bottom of the food chain so have no knowledge of these matters, does not mean they are not true or correct!
I’ve given you the ways in which to confirm the assertions I have made. If you choose to dismiss them, that is a matter for you!
I literally showed you the answer, with reference to an easy to find judgment on a publicly available judicial resource.
You are utterly, completely and demonstrably wrong.
So, let’s try a new tactic. Unless you can provide positive proof of your nonsense assertions, which, as you have repeatedly told us, is apparently so easy to do, I will treat all of your posts as arguing in bad faith and misinformation. And I will delete them.
No, you’ve posted lies and misinformation and claimed they’re fact then when shown to be wrong doubled down on it, made some vacuous attempt to claim you can get the information via an FOI (you can’t and that’s not what they’re for) and then ironically accused me of being ignorant. You are now trolling and as Baldrick says we’ll just delete your posts and ban you if you continue.
Who are you to decide who the majority are, have you emailed every member of the organisation and asked their opinion, if you have please resend to me as i didnt recieve it.
Yes the organisation is at a crossroads at the moment but believe it or not there is still stuff going and most of cadets i have spoken to are having a good time
I suggest you either stop generalising, if you are feeling hacked off, fine thats your perogative. However you cannot speak for others.
We all get drawn into discussions / arguements on here and ot does get emotional of which the moderators do their best to referee. But making sweeping statements without a single example makes you sound bitter.
If you want people to take your opinion seriously then maybe have courtesy of listening to others without throwing it back in their faces. You never know you may then get an audience.
When are they going to make the onboarding process less of a hassle…CFAVs now have more touch points along the way and (in my experiece) have little - or no - ability to chase when systems are taking an annoyingly long time. One CI applicant is still waiting for a DBS certificate after 8 months.
Why can’t applicants do certain duties ‘escorted’ until the system catches up? I’d be interested to know how many applicants have been waiting, say 6 months or more, for the system to approve them for service…
Because they won’t have done things like safeguarding training etc. yes we know they haven’t been caught as a nonce in the past but we haven’t taught them what to do yet.
I thought that HQAC would only accept a DBS that was less that 6 month from date of issue!! If not, start the process again. Bet its been ‘lost in the post, guv’.
All of our recent DBS via ucheck have been very quick (couple of weeks max). Although lessons learnt from the past, try not to use firearms license as this goes to police constabulary and adds extra time as DBS checks are not high on their priority.l, any how thread drift is creeping in.
