Correct if allegation involved the family. Was involved in an incident many years ago on Summer Camp, female cadet made allegation about father. Bus stopped away from drop off point, Social Services collected her and her brother, father went down for 8 years for sexual abuse and ABH of both cadets. Very sad case, but true.
The way my mate told me was in all cases, as the family could be involved in some way so advising them could do more damage than good. As they said a very, very strange world. But then they are professionals and deal with things that we are highly unlikely to ever to come across and weāve all seen the press if social services get safeguarding wrong.
I appreciate that, but what I meant was where a parent might have concerns, suspicions or evidence of abuse (or even bullying) within the Corps
I am not clear on the extent of Social Services powers - a situation can be reported to them but do they absolute power to investigate or can this be mitigated by other agency assurances and they kept at bay. Obviously in the case mentioned by Brooke Bond the SS (excuse that abbreviation) people had reason to protect girl - hence the complicit comment because wives do tend to stick up for husbands - marriage vows and all that, but there had to be hard evidence for them to intervene - suggests the child was already on an at risk.
I have just attended a work related course on protecting against bullying - this identified that there are various individuals within a childās school existence who play a part in recognising the signs, and it did not even touch on Youth Organisations. So it seems that there are several levels which technically monitor a child, and if this āsurveillanceā applies to bullying, it can equally apply to abuse, but a failing in anyone of these, can cause delay and thereby harm.
The parent has as much responsibility as others, although some tend to restrict their degree of responsibility to the conception bit. However there is tendency to overlook the fact that a) parents constitute a major part of the Squadron Association, and b) by a process of election, they have a Chairman who has a remit to monitor Child Welfare.
Surely that Chairman has a major responsibility to the parents to ensure that the RAFAC does not fail?
Maybe so, but thatās really a poorly applied choice of wording. The book says that the civcom are concerned with ācadet welfareā but they are not routinely DBS checked; they are given no safeguarding training whatsoever; and they are totally detached from the routine activities of a Squadron.
Iād say that in the context of a CivCom the limit of their āwelfareā involvement is basically little more than to ensure that cadets arenāt missing out on activities through financial hardship or unfair selection processes.
Thatās not to say of course that if the CivCom were aware of an issue they shouldnāt report it but I certainly wouldnāt describe it as a āmajor responsibilityā.
It is totally unrealistic and unfair to place any sort of specific safeguarding responsibility onto people who arenāt present to execute that duty and who have received no training at all.
That role rests with the CFAVs who are at the coal face and who are given the training to approach it.
1 Like
So what you are saying is that as parents they are not trained to be alert to the matters of abuse or bullying and it is not their job!
It may have escaped attention that a significant number of the documented cases have involved people at the coal face as you put it! And what is more, those individuals were trained.
I am simply saying that the Civcom provides a totally impartial medium to protect the interests of the Cadets without the need for involvement in supervising activities.
Besides which many parents will have DBS checks as part of their professional life, and please do correct me, but is there not an initiative to have registered Civcom members with RAFAC sponsored DBS checks.
You are saying that the Uniform side of things can quite adequately handle the situation, when history suggests something different, especially if the BBC programme last year was to be believed.
1 Like
I think the point is that yes, history is showing that there were errors made by staff. These staff should have been trained.
Now you want to involve people who arenāt routinely trained and think that will make the situation better?
I fully accept some CivComs will have DBS checked staff, some will be proactive and trained or might have a profession that does that for them but in the main they donāt.
Please stop trying to make out that all CivComs are the solution to everything because they really arenāt. If youāre lucky enough to have a good one then well done but spare a thought for those of us who donāt.
4 Likes
Simply stating the obvious, but willing to listen. Shame you dont have a good Civcom - wonder how much the Cadets are missing? Want some volunteers?
That wasnāt exactly what I was saying but it appliesā¦ What ātrainingā does the average parent receive?
Not all CivCom personnel are parents.
It isnāt their job.
Some may well do. Many do not.
Either way that gives no assurance to the RAFAC because how the hell do we know which parents are DBS checked?
That Chairman who you seem to think has some grand role in protecting children could very well be a child molester for all we know - which is precisely why they are not permitted access to cadets without a cleared and trained CFAV present.
No, Thatās not what Iām saying. Youāre twisting my statement. I could do the same to yoursā¦ Lookā¦
āSo what youāre saying Aries is that CFAVs canāt be trusted and are all potential child molesters who need to be watched by the CivComs?ā
What I am saying is that it would be wholly unacceptable to place the burden of responsibility for the safeguarding of cadets - as your comment suggests is the case - onto people who have been given no training, no advice, no assistance, and no support for that role, and who are not present to execute it.
ā¦Which is pretty much exactly what I have already said above, but using slightly different words.
Hopefully itāll be clearer this time.
1 Like
Yes the program showed issues with uniformed sideā¦
Just recently there has been an ex CI (non uniform) jailed for historic sex abuse. Other organisations such as Football clubs have been found to of been found wanting too in this subject they are non uniform and out with the MOD sphere of influence
The common denominator it simpleā¦
Deviants in a position of trust and using the power they have to inflict themselves on others.
If you really think by having a CivComm is the answer to stop this, then not only are you delusional but also potentially part of the problem.
I donāt get the idea of trained and not trained.
Even though Iāve sat through several BASICs and read the booklets HQAC produce I do not regard myself in any way whatsoever trained in safeguarding, potentially slightly better informed, but not trained. However, I, with my nigh on 30 years of parenthood, regard myself as more than able to spot if things arenāt right and offer a word to the wise to cadets and some staff. What they do after is not in my control.
If a member of the CWC said they spotted something didnāt look right with a cadet, it would be churlish and stupid not to take notice. You donāt need a DBS or be trained to spot problems. Would a parent who came with a concern be ignored, as they didnāt have a DBS or have been trained?
I wonder how many cases anywhere, come to anyoneās attention from trained and or DBSd individuals?
If you were to ask anyone who has been involved somewhere in the Air Cadets where something of sexual nature has come to light, I would lay money that even with all the (so called) training they would have been largely unaware until there was a āknock on the doorā. From what you see in the press safeguarding seems to be after the case firefighting.
Iāve spoken in the past to those I know in social services when SCRs have hit the headlines and asked how it happens and what they said is
one the high caseloads experienced by social workers,
two the turnover of social workers where someone leaves and their cases get given to others who are already busy
three the fact many qualify and are working from a predominantly theoretical base and have little real world experience and the theory does always dovetail with reality.
four the families concerned have several agencies working with them.
Is it National āLetās not bother to read the words and instead just take up a contrary position for the sake of itā week or something?
10 Likes
No, it isnātā¦ 
3 Likes
Just those two thenā¦ Apparently nobody else got the memo.
Yes it isā¦
3 Likes
Iāve told you onceā¦
3 Likes
Is not being registered civ com that you have to have CP training, if not, why not.
Yes. Registered CivCom requires all the same processes as CI.
DBS, BPSS (I believe), AVIP, First Aidā¦
(I donāt really agree with the concept or see any point in it myself.)
I disagree
1 Like
I concur with your disagreement, however I do so contrary to your remark that you disagree, ergo I agree with the original remark in inverse countenance to your position.
2 Likes
One thing which I had forgotten, but reminded by a recent circular from the Charity Commission.
The Civcom are Charity Trustees, and the Commission continually remind Trustees that they have a duty of safeguarding, because of the negative impact any failure can have on their Charity, It is about Public perception, as surely donors would not want to association with anything untoward.
The Commission provides clear guidelines, so that even where the individuals may not benefit from an induction process, it still does not diminish any responsibilities under ACP4.
Various sources (even legal) now comment about the lack of external agency involvement in the reporting mechanism; as I said before the Civcom is external by virtue of not being members of the ACO, but the ACO appears to want to exclude them, or maybe encircle them within the institutional disciplinary control. I wonder why that might be?