They are aligned with the law!
Adding a level of requirement above and beyond that required by statute is hardly unusual, or are you suggesting that people should only be fired from their civilian employment if they actually do something illegal?
3 Likes
Even when using the law, there is confusion and wiggle room. Are you saying that RAFAC shouldnât have âClub rulesâ? How else do we run such an organisation?
1 Like
So what your calling for is that the organisations rules be changed so that any member of Staff or Cadet can have a relationship as long as they are both over the age of 16, as that is the law as it applies to the ATC?
Iâd suggest that the majority of staff and parents wouldnât be happy with that state of affairs. (Not to mention the press who would have a field day).
1 Like
I refer you all back to this (previously highlighted by me and others). Itâs clear that someone believes that if no crime is proven then someone should be allowed back - itâs in their own words!
In this very thread we have someone advocating something that the report that prompted this discussion lambasted us for. Teflon must surely be the only CFAV who still believes this and that makes them a danger - I suggest that in the interests of safeguarding, Teflon is removed from the corps, because after allâŚ
1 Like
Donât feed the troll everyone.
I think what he was alluding to, is that if someone is removed from the Corps and does not require DBS for their employment or lives then there is no consequences.
It would probably help everyone if the wiggle-room was reduced and the espoused standards of the organisation, were followed rigorously. Instead the secondary (internal) process is plagued by other pressures such as falling attendance, staff shortages, public exposure/embarrassment, and the old favourite of stringing it out long enough that no one can remember and then repost etc. (or maybe it becomes some one elseâs problem).
As helpful as these forum discussion always are, it must be generally a point of disappointment to me, that in an organisation so wrapped up in regulation that there are so many differing responses - not to what should happen (for that is fairly individual opinion) - but what must happen according to the rules drawn up in advance and for everybody to agree to and abide by.
In many breaches of rules there will be mitigating circumstances which might temper the outcome depending on said breach. But where there are laws and standards to which the organisation is required to operate, then surely the mark of an excellent organisation would be to exceed them rather than wallow in dark political manoeuvrings and repeatedly being the subject of suspicion and conspiracy?
3 Likes
Not necessarily a bad thing; and in fact a certain amount of âwiggle roomâ is important.
Consider different hypothetical situationsâŚ
Two cadets both 17 years old (or even 16 and 17) are in a sexual relationship. One of them turns 18 and becomes a Staff Cadet.
Itâs not breaking the law. In fact, even if we had a legal âposition of trustâ over cadets it would still not break the law - because where a sexual relationship pre-dates the position of trust it is not an offence to continue that relationship.
In the above case I would suggest that some common sense could be applied, though the rules say âitâs not allowedâ.
However. Consider a 50 year old instructor having a sexual relationship with a 16 year old cadet. That too would be perfectly âwithin the lawâ, but would probably be considered by most - likely including the parents of the cadet - to be unacceptable given our role in the organization.
Consider also that if that 50 year old who is already in a relationship was only just applying to join as staff it would not be a crime. If CFAVs were given legal âposition of trustâ status it would STILL not be a crime.
But would we have concerns about a 50 year old whoâs sexually engaging with a young person, actively seeking to join an organization where they will be working with lots of other young people?
I think most of us would⌠And if we didnât then we are clearly missing the potential for trouble!
It might be perfectly legitimate - Iâm sure we can all think of at least one happy couple with a large age gap - but it might also be signs of a someone with a questionable desire to be around young people.
We, as an organization, can not afford to take the risk of giving someone like that access to children - So the Corps says ânoâ.
âInconsequentialâ? How? Only in that the person doesnât suffer any legal ramifications. Well⌠Weâre not about delivering punishment, weâre about keeping children safe from harm. The point is that the person is no longer in a position to put our children at risk.
4 Likes
Some very good thoughts there and I think personally I agree with the conclusion of the first scenario.
One of the difficulties must be that in joining RAFAC various promises are made, but the organisation does not have anything like the level of control that one might expect of regular service personnel in the RAF.
If you have willingly agreed to the rules of the club then one might be expected to behave to the agreed standards. Yet the Human Rights Act prevents the organisation from restricting various individual rights, making it highly possible for inappropriate behaviour to continue outside ACO core hours. It may be that a member of staff is carrying on inappropriately with a non-ACO juvenile, which is not a scenario considered yet (I donât think?).
The ACO is limited in its ability to enforce situations which are outside its activities. Therefore, surely the police must be involved?
I agree.
My only intent in that post was to address Teflonâs comments regarding situations where the Police have already been involved but have decided either âno crimeâ or the CPS have not pursued it.
So if we take the example; they are in a legal and above board relationship with a 16 year old, not a cadet, and because someone thinks its a bit dodgy, they are refused. While we can say no to anyone, if they were to query it and not be happy and challenged it, unless the rationale is bulletproof there is very great potential for a lot of fuss and damaging the organisationâs policies. TBH I canât see anyone being that fussed about joining the Air Cadets as staff, as there are plenty of other organisations/groups out there, given we are not special.
I do however like the idea that 50 is used as an age. As I have gone through the decades; 30, 40 and 50 and getting closer to 60 which I thought were âoldâ, Iâve felt no different in myself to when I was an older teenager. God knows what old is, but I ainât there yet.
If someone has done wrong in the eyes of the law and not suffered a punishment of some sort, what is the point of making a point in law and where is the deterrent? The âpunishmentâ could in this instance going on the Sex Offenders Register or just going on a barred list, which prevents them having involvement.
The phrase âour childrenâ does that mean just those in the ATC or wider sense, as the way it reads is just the Air Cadets, which if that is what is meant is a dangerous line to take. If there is any suspicion, they should at the very least be referred to the DBS for consideration for barring, although in the instance mentioned I couldnât see being upheld.
I pulled â50â out of thin air⌠Donât take it personally fella.
No.
My hypothetical was that the 16 year old was a cadet⌠In which case the Corps has already made a decision. Itâs not against the law but we would not allow any adult who is in a relationship with a cadet to become an instructor.
But to be fair we can apply your version tooâŚ
Not âBecause someone thinks itâs a bit dodgy they are refusedâ⌠Itâs: âBecause someone thinks itâs a bit dodgy we have the freedom to look into it further and make our own decision based upon the information available.â
- If they have done wrong and the CPS prosecute then the punishment is dealt.
- If they have done wrong but the CPS donât have enough to convict, then there may be no punishment, but in that case itâs not up to the RAFAC to punish on their behalf.
- If they havenât donât wrong by the law, but on the balance of probability the RAFAC has reasonable grounds to consider them a risk then we ditch them - as is our duty of care.
I fail to see what it difficult about that concept?
Certainly if the RAFAC had legitimate concerns then those concerns would be referred to the DBS - as in fact they would in case 2 where the person is clearly on the legal radar but the CPS couldnât prosecute.
But in none of those cases is it the business of the RAFAC to âpunishâ anyone.
Back to my point perhaps about the difference between the rules and their application?
My own experience is that on balance, the attraction of not losing a member of uniformed staff weighs against the clean application of this approach ⌠and that is where the problems start with the ACO setting itself up beyond the police.
1 Like
Not sure how the RAFAC sees its position as judge and executioner, but surely the duty of care extends to every situation but sometimes it seems that the objective is to avoid public awareness, so we would not necessarily know what punishment is handed down - say move to another unit no questions asked.
One of the scenarios posted was similar to a recent case of Cheshire PC, who used his position to make contact with young girls. But surely the RAFAC by virtue of ACP1, should be lilly white - by training Cadets and preparing them for citizenship, it should enable them to know what is acceptable and what is not. And if you have people doing the training, who fall into the grey area, there is a danger it could drag the rest down with it, especially if the RAFAC is not seen to deliver on that duty of care.
The point is that only the courts hand down punishment - the RAFAC doesnât.
If someone is judged to be not suitable (but thereâs not enough evidence for a criminal prosecution) then the RAFACâs actions are not to punish, but simply to safeguard.
2 Likes
Just to clarify, who would refer a case the police - surely it is the parent, as guardian, who should make that step and not for the RAFAC.
It is not that clear, and if it negates might it then be seen to making a judgement solely within the parameters of operational necessity.
Absolutely not.
If you suspect a crime has been committed then you should inform the police - indeed, this is one of the issues highlighted in the report!
(Top of page 9)
2 Likes
So ⌠would you expect the same approach to be applied consistently across cadets, uniformed staff, CIs and Civillian Committee members?
People I know who work in social services have said if they become aware of a situation, as they are told, you canât necessarily tell parents/guardians as they may be complicit. Knocked me a bit, but they said it is a very, very strange world.