Optimistically fixed that for you 
1 Like
I feel like the protection of military-related data alone should be enough to pique @Cab 's interest, let alone the not making any attempt to retain CFAVs - as far as I’m concerned, that is a breach of core Corps duties.
It was well over a month, IIRC, after my formal resignation before my systems access was revoked. As I said at the time, it’s a good job I’m not a malicious actor because there’s a lot of very juicy information stored in SharePoint that could cause some significant headaches should such an individual retain access beyond the time they need it.
@Farmerdan -I know you had a bit of a fun time late last year, earlier this year. I hope that everything is settling for you now in spite of the lack of caring from RAFAC about your mental wellbeing.
2 Likes
Never seen that published, mushrooms, darkness comes to mind
Are you still talking, you are like a petulant child who always wants the last word, we are not employed, you haven’t proved any different and not adding any value to the discussion so happy trolling
2 Likes
Only thing ive learnt is someone is upset that they are upset they arent a pretend officer anymore
1 Like
To be fair VR(T) /CFC commissioned officers are real officers.
It’s just in the same way that miniature/model railways are real railways….
Just because you’re a narrow gauge steam train doesn’t make you an intercity 125
6 Likes
To be fair, we’re much more pretend now than we were.
6 Likes
Similar to this, why go to the effort of bringing civilian committee members into the organisation to only give them a lesser DBS that prevents them offering any support to the unit in terms of staff numbers?
Because they’re responsible for fundraising, not for supervising cadets.
Just ignore the occasions where the cadets are assisting with fundraising, because that shouldn’t count and it makes total sense to take up CFAV time additional to committee member time.
And don’t consider that a prospective CFAV needs their level of DBS before even being in the building, but CWC can be in the building with cadets for their duties despite not having the same level of check.
10 years in for me and I feel exactly the same. I have now decided to stick to only sqn activities and things that I like. An attitude that I know some will disagree with, but my wing is so poorly led with a Wing Commander who is just a mirror of TK, I find it incredibly hard to engage outside of my unit. I hope that change at the top will mean positive change filters down, I have a small amount of optimism left, so lets see…
4 Likes
why would people disagree with it??
I am 20 years in and this has been my mantra from the start.
I support the events of the unit i am on, i attend the camps which interest me, and support the wing events i like and enjoy, which has included teaching at a “Wing level”
we are volunteers and not duty bound to do anything we don’t want to - of course some of those things like mandatory training (ACTO099) is not negotiable but the rest is up to the individual to consider.
4 Likes
30 years for me and i’ve always covered my Sqn activities, and others that interest me. With activities dropping faster than the SU-34 attrition rate, life was becoming quite peaceful, but now FC is back on table I’m being invited to things left, right, and centre…
This is really valid.
The organisation needs to appeal to its volunteer staff just as it needs to appeal to potential cadets.
Don’t do anything you don’t enjoy, or you’ll come to hate it and leave.
1 Like
My understanding is they only need the standard DBS check which acts as a background check IAW the Charity Commission requirements and that it is an offence to apply for a higher DBS level then is actually required for the role.
Indeed the .GOV website states:
An organisation is breaking the law if they submit an application for a Standard, Enhanced, or Enhanced with Barred List(s) DBS check if the role you have applied for is not eligible for that level of check.
Does this mean schools are breaking the law when they apply for Enhanced with Barred List(s) checks for school governors, to undertake a similar role to CWC members?
No it’s a bit of a red herring. If you are an organisation dealing regularly face to face with children & on the same premises then you need to be checked & DBS.
Civ com will often interact with cadets so an enhanced check is needed. Likewise anyone working in a school & may come into contact with the pupils will need EDBS.
But what would be lawful is applying for a DBS that allows working with children & adults as that wouldn’t be proportional.
Likewise wing admin staff or those at HQAC don’t need DBS as they don’t come into contact.
Well, two of my staff have resigned this week to move over to the ACF and one to the SCC with his wife.
All three of those staff have tried to encourage me to go with them, but my loyalty still lies with my cadets for now, and i dont feel I can leave just yet. However, I can not blame the staff. They have been outstanding CFAV at squadron level and have supported wing well, but the joy is no longer there. These are 3 experienced unifomed staff.
We have also just had 7 cadets move to the ACF because they are currently going on camp monthly (at least) as a whole unit. The ATC is nowhere near able to compete with that. So again I cannot blame them.
My unit has had no flying and no gliding for over a year. 1 place on summer camp (we have 53 cadets who regularly attend) with wing.
The ATC model is failing. It is outdated.
What is being done to support staff and lower admin burden?!
Being told that things are moving online is great, but that just changes the burden.
I don’t want to be so negative, but I am in a real death spiral currently with my level of engagment…every time i build myself back up, wing, region or corps seem to always have a gut punch at the ready!
2 Likes