Historic Sexual Abuse Audit


On front page of my paper today is a story about kids apparently competing on how badly they can self-harm, of course all driven by the marvels :rolleyes: of social media.
I personally feel these are things we should be concentrating on and not just getting excited about sexual abuse, which seems to be our focus. There are many, many things where safeguarding comes into play that the age group which includes the cadets are exposed to.

As a thought what happens if an adult member of a squadron is being “abused” in someway, do we have a responsibility to safeguard them.


MoD safeguarding covers cadets, it doesn’t state which ones.

"The MOD SCB primarily focuses on those groups of service children and young people (aged 0-18 years old) living in service communities overseas and for whom it has mandated responsibility.

The board also undertakes a ‘champion of the advocate role’ in respect of the following groups:

children and young people, aged 0 to 18 years old, who belong to the service community but reside within the UK where the local authority (LA) has the statutory responsibility children and young people, aged 0 to 18 years old, who engage in youth and cadet activities provided by the MOD within the UK and who are not members of the service community!

" MOD Safeguarding Children’s Board (SCB) membership

Membership is based on the policy guidance set out in the Working together to safeguard children 2015 (WTSC 15) Department for Education (DfE) document, and interpreted to reflect the MOD context.

Membership includes:

  • Director of Directorate of Children and Young People
  • Assistant Head Safeguarding Directorate of Children and Young People
  • Surgeon Generals representative
  • Paediatric/Safeguarding
  • MOD Schools
  • Royal Military Police (RMP)
  • overseas commands (BFG, Fd Army, RC, JFC)
  • Army Legal Service (ALS)
  • Single Service Welfare representative
  • Cadets representative (able to represent all Cadet Forces)
  • Army Recruiting Initial Training Command (ARITC) representative
  • British Forces Social Work Service
  • Soldier Sailors Airmen and Families Association (SSAFA) social work service
  • Core Assets social work service "

Note the term “Cadets representative (able to represent all Cadet Forces)”

And the RMP involvement.

Has MoD SCB ever been mentioned or is the ACO wilfully blind.

And if you read the court martial data amazing how many sexual offences against minors are tried by CM.


IIRC “service children” refers to children with parents in the armed forces. It’s a specific policy defined group.

The bit the MSCB covers is for is…

“children and young people, aged 0 to 18 years old, who engage in youth and cadet activities provided by the MOD within the UK and who are not members of the service community”

So there is clearly a role for them in our context. It does look like an interesting group, with defined remit, none of which is investigative, and looks very much aligned with promotion of good practice.

I’d imagine they already set and inform our policies. It doesn’t look like they actually investigate though. That’s handled by LSCBs.


I think that our primary focus should be safeguarding cadets against abuse by members of our organisation - a sort of ‘first do no harm’ thing. Anything else we pick up on is a bonus.

I’m not sure we have any specific legal duty of care, but there is certainly a moral imperative and if you suspect a crime is occurring then you should take appropriate action.


The Royal Military Police are the police agency involved and they investigate rape sexual abuse, downloading of imagaes etc as shown by courts martials documents.

I count 86 cases from last year, who do you think investigated these cases.



Sorry - I wasnt clear there. I wasnt referring to the RMP (that is clearly their defined role), I was referring to the broader MSCB and the roles outlined as a Board - rather specific duties of its members.

If I’m in the UK and I suspect an issue, I’m phoning who my LSCB define (local plod, children’s services, childline) - just because they are a cadet (or even a service child (which we do have on sqn, but only through local knowledge - not because we actually record it anywhere or are told!)), I won’t be calling RMP first!!!

Infact, I’m pretty sure if RAFAC wanted RMPs involved as our first port of call, then they would be printed their numbers on our laminated white sheets of doom - rather than giving us space to write in our own LSCB defined numbers!


Maybe RAFAC don’t want MoD safeguarding involved. If a child has reported or is suspected of abeing abused etc outside the ambit of the RAFAC ie within the family etc, then it’s local authority, but within it looks to fall to the MoD, such as CFAV or cadet on cadet involvement.


RMP/RAF Police have zero jurisdiction over Cadets or CFAV’s unless that CFAV is a Service Helper, they wouldn’t even be able to investigate a suspected offence on MOD premises that involves a non-service person which is why they are not the people we are advised to contact. MDP Might have some jurisdiction if they believe that an offence is taking place on MOD property but even then they would likely pass any investigation over to the Home Office police service for the area as they would be the People best placed to conduct any investigation. (There are areas of the Children’s Act which specifically exclude specialist police forces such as MDP and insist that Home Office Police take primacy).


I’m not sure if you’re being intentionally obtuse, or if you really don’t get it?

That statement means absolutely nothing. You can’t make any deductions based upon those data.
It’s dead simple… Civcom members aren’t routinely permitted access to cadets - therefore it becomes very difficult for any of the dodgy persons amongst them to do any harm.

CivCom aren’t given unescorted access to cadets = CivCom don’t appear to have abused any cadets.

Pointing out that all the cases involve CFAVs is utterly pointless. One might as well point out that it’s always wet when it rains!
Trying to suggest that somehow this means that CFAVs can’t be trusted and that CivComs are the best people to ‘keep an eye on us all’ is not only twisting the facts to the extreme, it’s also incredibly insulting.


Actually, from direct experience, the position is that RAF police have complete jurisdiction over uniformed personnel representing the RAF. Even now a civilian organisation. Civvy police have the right over any MOD situation. What cannot happen is that civvy police and RAF police carry out their investigations at the same time. One must precede the other.


Not if the uniformed personnel aren’t subject to service law, which we’re not.


You don’t actually have to be uniformed for service police to have jurisdiction over you.


Civvy police would handle this kind of situation, no question.


Yes I agree these days it is more likely to be so.

But Bob is right. Both police forces have full jurisdiction over civilian and military.

See previous …


You have ATC units outside the UK, so would you hand people over to local civ pol, and within the UK , we’ve seen how very badly the civpol have handled sex abuse/grooming/rape in the past, mainly due to politial considerations and squeemishness about certain situations. In the former they have been very poor in resisting pressure from ‘a n others’. Service police don’t have this problem as they are accountable ‘centerally’ rather than to a local pollitically dependent PCC.


You don’t get to select who handles the case. The MOD have policies for this kind of thing, and civpol are to be informed in all such matters. Outside of the UK this may fall to service police, but I’m no legal beagle.


No, they don’t.

The MoD police are a full police force with statutory powers of arrest, but service police only have jurisdiction under certain circumstances.


MoD police have no jurisdiction outside the Uk. They can act at the governments behest as training teams in post conflict areas


IIRC unless they are investigating crimes within the military (or doing a similar but in a military only way or environment) then they have the same powers as civilians. They can perform arrests same as civilians can - cases might hold a bit tighter as they know the law but that’s about it.


We need to broaden our perspective. Safeguarding does not just revolve around sexual abuse.
I don’t think it’s a purely a moral imperative, I think we should act if staff are victimised / bullied, the same as we would for cadets.
If a cadet was ‘picked on’ the way some staff have there would be suspensions, investigations etc, but as they are staff they are deemed easy targets, by those who should know better. This group should be subject to the fullest extent of the system’s wrath, as if they had targeted cadets.
I also wonder what happens if a member of staff becomes subject to a cadet fantasy? Good looking member of staff of whom a cadet becomes infatuated, nothing reciprocated, but it is obvious and the member of staff is uneasy and makes a complaint, what would the organisation do? Everything we are “taught” is about kids being ‘hounded by adults, but not if the boot is on the other foot.