The point I was making, maybe not very well, is that CIs are recruited to Squadrons. So they end up doing Squadron things. These things might or might not fit their interests and skills.
Instead, why not let wings have CIs on strength as well, so they can support the activities that interest them. Otherwise wings have to find Squadrons to ‘home’ CIs who are, in reality, part of the Wing.
I realise this could create a 2 tier system where CIs from those teams could become Wing SMEs without having spent time on a Squadron. But I see it as a way of bringing in extra people who we probably woudn’t otherwise be able to recruit.
Sorry - I didn’t address that point. Again, this “can” be done, just not as cleanly - the CI is appointed to a Sqn - and in theory os under the command of that OC, but for the sake of delivering content, would presumably answer to that Wing Staff Officer - ie WRMO.
I was in discussions with a Sector Commander at the other end of my Wing, to do exactly this…
As far as I could work out, there simply isn’t the organisational capacity to have CIs at Wing from the point of view of how they’re recorded on Bader - but that’s about it…
I suspect also from the POV of making expense claims possibly - but again, these are system issues that aren’t exactly insurmountable!
Classic code for “I’ve made an assertion, but have no evidence to back it up, so I’ll pretend that those who disagree with me have rubbish research skills”.
You’ve made the claim that we used to be employees, anyone with a basic knowledge of logic knows that the burden rests on the person making the claim. Despite that, @Baldrick had produced evidence to refute your claim and you still show us utter disrespect by simply repeating your claim and telling us to Google it. Either provide the evidence or go away.
Just ignore those points, I don’t actually think we’ve even heard from Sting since we made it clear that they needed to provide some form of evidence to support their assertions.
I can’t produce any evidence either, as I’m not a hoarder, but I distinctly remember signing a contract of employment with the Secretary of State for Defence (it stuck in my mind because it was different to my Reserve Forces engagement as a Crown servant rather than an employee of the SofS) and VA was not a term I ever encountered in the 1990s ACF, but something I only heard about when getting involved with the ATC again in the 2000s.
I’m not that concerned about the historical position. The current and recent legal position is abundantly clear, we’re not employees, and doesn’t appear that we ever were. I’ve provided a case law example to demonstrate that, and despite it apparently being very easy to google the evidence to the contrary, Sting is unable to do exactly that.
So is now insulting those who refuse to blindly agree with them, because that’s easier than proving their point with evidence.
I was just coming on to say a farewell to everyone on here as I’ve left RAFAC and don’t think I’ll be on here anywhere near as often as before.
But as an Employment Judge I have to tell you that you are entirely wrong. Case law from the VR(T) days shows officers have never been employees. Maybe office holders at one point, but certainly not employees.
/Out
I don’t know if you were judicial appointment or lay member of the ET but it’s pretty basic and established law going back to MOP v RMC 1953! The test has been revised but the principle remains true to today!
You will also have access to the Lexus etc. and be able to search the authorities.