Form TG21 & 23

You shouldn’t draw parallels between schools and a voluntary activity like ours. No matter how senior your senior friend says he is.

And your reason for saying this is?

I think the legal case for either would be the same.

Legally two different worlds

You can’t just say that, you need to say why you think that. I am not subject to the Air Force Act and neither are the cadets. I am pretty sure VR(T) officers are not either, so where does the legal position differ?

The question that needs to be asked is why do schools operate like they do and we don’t? I very much doubt it’s down solely to legal position / situation of the organisations.

There is far too much confusion as mentioned about when we use the forms.

From HQAC perspective it’s all too easy for them to say use one for everything as it saves anyone up there putting their tea/coffee down or not going to the golf club/spa or whatever they do all day long, and actually thinking seriously about what their decisions / policies mean in the real ATC and not the make believe Air Cadet / RAF world they inhabit.

People often use the phrase “loco parentis” when in fact it’s only case referenced from Teacher/pupil situations and NOT voluntary organisations. Since 1893 there haven’t been any cases which change this stance although it does get modified to only de teachers rather than headmaster, and moved from just discipline to overall welfare. However we like to use it because it sounds sexy and no one argues with Latin. Common Law. Tort law.

VRT are not subject to the Air Force Act. It’s the Armed Forces Act now.

Technically yes. But The Children Act applies to us:

Section 3(5)

A person who—
(a) does not have parental responsibility for a particular child; but
(b)has care of the child, may (subject to the provisions of this Act) do what is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case for the purpose of safeguarding or promoting the child’s welfare.

That’s essentially the same thing as Loco Parentis. (The Loco Parentis principle refers to necessity, but what is necessary is usually what is reasonable.)

You might want to check out the word “care” and see what it defines as “care”. Legal custody care, care associated with a statutory provision (such as an emergency care order), care as in babysitting or some other care.

Notwithstanding this, you are selectively removing parts of the act from your quote. The children act 1989 part 1 section 3 is talking about how the children act applies to areas where the phrase parental responsibility is used in the rest of the act. It’s NOT giving loco parentis. It doesn’t place a statutory obligation on someone, it gives a reasonable actions clause to them.

You are crossing your streams and as we know from ghostbusters, that’s a bad thing to do.

Considering it’s in Part 1 of the act, not Part 3 or 4 I would say it means care more widely.

And yes, I removed all of the parts in Section 3 which refer to Parental Responsibility. Which staff don’t have. (Well some do.) So they aren’t relevant

S.3(5) Doesn’t give an obligation to do anything I accept, (But omissions can give rise to liability in crime and negligence.)

In terms of guidance from the Court of Appeal: (Re S (A Minor) (Abduction: European and Hague Conventions) - [1997] 1 FCR 588)

“The assumption of the care of the child under s 3(5) for the purpose of safeguarding or promoting his welfare does not clothe the carers with control over the child other than the minimum necessary to provide for the day-to-day welfare of the child.”

What it most importantly gives us is the power to make decisions when we need to and the shield to say we had the power to do so. Coupled with the common law duty of care, (and other statutory duties of care we may have from time to time), that’s quite a potent mix.

What it most importantly gives us is the power to make decisions when we need to and the shield to say we had the power to do so. Coupled with the common law duty of care, (and other statutory duties of care we may have from time to time), that’s quite a potent mix.
[/quote]

Which I think is what I said somewhat less eloquently. If you can avoid putting a cadet in danger that must come before blind obedience of rules.

I presume you mean taking the cadet on the activity without a consent form, and not calling the parent back to collect little johnny? If this is the case, and forgive me if i’m wrong, then questions should be asked about how you manage your activities and your suitability to do so. Sorry to be blunt.

You really think I wouldn’t have tried that first.

Yes, you are blunt, I might use a different word. I suspect there is little real experience in your background, so I won’t be rude.

Well, I have had parents go home to get the forms or take little Johnny home if all my spares had already been filled out while waiting to go. I don’t see what the problem would be with this. Before you question my experience, I have well over 20 experience.

I have had parents drop cadets at the end of the road and drive off.

As adjutant of a VGS, I have had parents drop cadets at the airfield gate and set off on holiday not to be contactable for a week.

Even if a form is presented (and especially if there are more than one), I still don’t have time to check them all fully, whilst controlling twelve cadets, before the parents are gone.

To those that say “get it all in advance”, I would point out that we have just been offered flying on Monday; how do I get the forms in advance before Monday? (OK Form Med 1, not TG21, before the pedants jump on me)

Let’s face it, we are sometimes a type of baby sitting for busy parents. However, thus far I have not had a major problem. The Gods have been kind to me.

I only asked the question that given a cadet with no TG21 and no contactable parent, which is the better child protection stance? Cast the 12 year old adrift for the day, or take them anyway? Either way I potentially have a problem, but if he/she is with me I think they stand a better chance of avoiding trouble and even if I get into trouble, my conscience is clear that I did my best for the child.

If you remember, my original point, which seems to have got lost, was, that a separate parent’s permission form without all the stuff about religion and doctor’s names would make checking much easier. The other stuff could and should be on a form (folded in the 3822?) to be updated as required.

My comment on experience was not about how long anyone had been a CFAV at a squadron, but how much experience of life had been acquired. I have long since ceased to be impressed by those who claim loudly and often “Thirty-five years of uniformed service!” as justification.

We might also remember Douglas Bader’s words “Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.”

If you challenge people to what their expeirience is, dont get humpy if someone dares to briefly suggest that they might have some level of experience - would you rather a CV? I didn’t think that I was loudly declaiming anything…
I don’t mean top sound rude, but a good few of your posts come across as long and a little bit of a rant, maybe a little more brevity might help sometimes? And yes, your original point has become very lost in some of the ‘disagreements’ fueled in the thread.

You aren’t responsible for a cadet until they commence the activity. If any parent gets shirty, maybe they should return the form, or be contactable in an emergency. You shouldn’t be forced into a position like you explain.

OK, accepted. The comment on experience wasn’t really aimed at you.

I think what upset me was people quoting rules at me when I was asking about a situation not covered by the rules.

That may be your thinking. Perhaps I take child protection a little more seriously.

I agree, “they should”, but back in the real World sometimes they don’t. Sometimes they are not very good parents. I agree that a CFAV shouldn’t be forced into that situation, but sometimes they are and they either step up to the plate, or run away from the problem and quote rules.

OK, if too long don’t bother to read them. I can’t think of a better place to rant than here!