Not for me … all depressingly recognisable.
2 Likes
Nope.
What I’ve said is that if someone faced with an allegation just says see you later, how can we as a volunteer who is no longer volunteering call them to account by attempting to keep it all in house which is the default setting.
Other than getting evidence from people willing to give it, we shouldn’t be investigating as we don’t have the physical time as volunteers to do it properly. Therefore we should hand amassed evidence to external authorities and let them do as they see fit. Which doesn’t fit HQAC’s MO, which is deal with it in house and then try to ensure the ATC isn’t mentioned in court. .
I have read all that, as I am sure has everyone else who has done CP induction. But who controls SO2, they are hardly external.
Of course you can. Someone could do something which amounts to gross misconduct which isn’t a crime. By your argument we let them resign and do nothing because we can’t pass it externally as it isn’t a crime. That person is then free to walk back in to the organisation later scot free.
You hold an investigation in their absence if they refuse to attend, decide the facts and then mark them as dismissed not as having resigned.
I know you’re pretending to be dumb for effect and to troll people but as has already been explained to you above it’s not rocket science.
Very little of that sounds right, but much of it doesn’t make sense. I’m going to get a coffee and try again later.
We’ve had the independent review, hopefully the deficiencies highlighted are being worked on. But then what? Commission another report? Or rely of volunteers to highlight if something isn’t correct.
If you do encounter an issue, how do you know it isn’t a local issue? Or because someone higher up hasn’t been given the correct training? Discussing policy in forums such as these can be very useful. How many people would be aware of the FOI request at all if it wasn’t for ACC?
So … to re-trace a bit … isn’t this related to the welfare element of a Civcom?
Not that they should be judge and jury, more that they provide a friendly ear to help and hopefully assist in such unfortunate circumstances. If you like, a parallel but independent arbiter.
For years that was a valued function, but I think more recent times - and certainly under the current CAC, an attitude of control at all costs has removed this as a resource.
Yes - it simply groups all the issues into “historical”, whereas it would be a lot more useful to split things via time period so that we can see when the issues lie, and whether changes in policy and training are having an effect.
1 Like
Why is their not a tri-organisational approach so X can’t leave the ACO and go to the ACF unchallenged, are any databases linked? Do people talk to each other or is it an example of empire building and protection leading to ‘silo thinking and approach’.
I think that’s one of the key reasons why the “allowed to resign” thing is bad
1 Like
If some is dismissed it should go on their DBS
Only for things that would be relevant.
You can do what you like. If they’ve resigned and something gets done by the Air Cadets alone, in their absence like dismissal means nothing. it doesn’t negatively affect their job or life.
Gross misconduct has to be something which should be taken outside the organisation to be dealt with as the external authorities see fit, which has the very real potential to affect their job or life. When it comes to sexual abuse, the “Air Cadets” nor any organisation, should be doing investigations and just taking in-house decisions and imposing meaningless internal sanctions. It has to be in the public domain, to ensure that there is transparency.
Absolutely right, and isnt that what the report is about. The BBC programme looked at coverup in the Cadet forces and now there is something called the Trust Project which Is a Statutory inquiry, So somebody is taking this subject seriously.
There is a suggestion that the ACO offers resignation as an option, which then discontinues any investigation, with the intention of their being nothing on record to prevent a return - such decisions I suspect might be influenced by OC Wing, Regional Commandant or higher, but there is essentially no independent mechanism, so it could be quite easy to avoid instances getting out to the wider public, but as things are, if the early signs are ignored or not acted upon, It may be some time before other agencies are involved, by which time the damage has been done.
There is a record of an ex Officer parent, who had made a complaint about bullying of his off spring, but got nowhere with the ACO. I am sure someone might say that cannot happen now, but how can you be sure.
Rumpole referenced the independent position of the Civcom, and dont forget most Civcom members are parents, with a prime focus of protecting their own children. So there is a duty of care, but which could compromise their position if they are perceived to be poking their noses into things which are outside of their jurisdiction, especially if there is a slight flexibility in the application of the written procedures.
Dismissal over a safeguarding issue means a lot. Especially if followed up with the correct procedure:
" Employers must refer someone to DBS if they:
- sacked them because they harmed someone
- sacked them or changed their role because they might have harmed someone
- were planning to sack them for either of these reasons, but they resigned first."
Note the “might have” - so through application of the balance of probabilities (that the police won’t apply) there is still cause for referral. You can only do that by assessing the case.
If we don’t review the case then we can’t make a legitimate judgement on referral to DBS.
To split hairs, CFAVs are not employees
I looked at this a couple of years ago out of curiosity and on the form it says volunteer, so not just employee, plus IIRC there were boxes for resigned and even retired.
1 Like
I’m not sure that distinction would hold up if you get a slap for not reporting someone 
Or make sure that you don’t lose sleep over not reporting someone who later goes on to harm somebody…
1 Like
But RAFAC is not an employer. It has been careful to avoid that position re pensions and other employment rights.
You can only do that by assessing the case.
Of course. But the emphasis is to asses whether there is doubt and if so, then refer externally. Not try to make pre-judgements over the possibility of the judgements of others. Who knows it may be that the perpetrator is on a watch list which ATC-HQ are unaware of (or worse still aware of).
Between the trained people at ATC-HQ and squadron there are layers of people who have something to lose and no real idea how to deal (despite ACP guidance). Why is RAFAC a special case when other professional organisation and bodies would refer a suspect for independent scrutiny. If nothing else this can happen during a period of enforced leave and if innocent, the individual can return unblemished (save perhaps for inevitable rumour).
2 Likes