Cdt Bloggs goes to an Armed Forces families’ day entirely on his own time - he is not in uniform and nor is he on cadet duty.
While at said families’ day he is invited to dress up in warry kit and handle DCCT ‘weapons’. While pointing a pistol in a safe direction downrange his proud dad takes a photo. Said photo later turns up as the cadet’s FB profile photo. The photo is uncaptioned and the cadet does not claim that this depicts him on cadet duty.
On seeing Cdt Bloggs’ FB photo, the Sqn CWO gets a rush of blood to the unmentionables and immediately demands that the photo be removed, as it is ‘in breach of photographic policy’.
Cdt Bloggs has never been informed of any photographic policy, so does a little googling. He finds references to photographic policy in ACP 4 and ACP 50, but nothing is relevant.
He points this out politely to the CWO and asks precisely what policy he has broken. In the meantime he removes the FB profile photo as ordered.
The CWO, now indignant at being ‘challenged’, states that Cdt Bloggs has breached AP1358C and ACP26 and that the matter would now be raised to Sqn staff level…
[quote=“GOM” post=20363]
The CWO, now indignant at being ‘challenged’, states that Cdt Bloggs has breached AP1358C and ACP26 and that the matter would now be raised to Sqn staff level…
Thank goodness that this is only hypothetical…[/quote]
And in this hypothetical situation indignant CWO should be told by the Sqn staff to wind their neck in and stop spouting rubbish particularly when they are using the wrong regulations & ACPs.
Cdt Bloggs should be told rather than removing photo from facebook, he should remove CWO from his friends list.
In this hypothetical scenario, the FB profile photo would have been seen when he posted on the Sqn FB page.
As I said, thank goodness that this is purely hypothetical and that the CWO, if he existed, isn’t the OC’s son…
And if this weren’t hypothetical, it would be disgraceful if the OC backed the CWO to the hilt, spouting nonsense about ‘ACO Policy’ and ‘Bringing the Corps into disrepute’…
As an aside, as ACP 26 is marked as Restricted, I’m surprised that a CWO would have access to it…
I would say that although no direct link to the ACO, knowledge of other posts which do link this cadet to the ACO , combined with this current profile picture could potentially bring the ACO into Disrepute.
On the other hand the hypothetical CWO needs to get back into their box, and realise that they don’t run the unit, Daddy does!! Family allegiance can and will always cause conflict on a unit level.
I think that’s the crux of the matter: exactly what brings the ACO into disrepute is highly subjective. To my mind a ‘disreputable’ photo would have to show at least one of the following:
a. Illegality.
b. Immorality.
c. A dangerous act.
d. An image intended to cause hurt to others (e.g. an embarrassing photo of someone else)
e. Offensive language.
f. Sexual content.
g. Violent content.
h. Something disrespectful of their uniform, unit, staff, etc.
This list is by no means exhaustive, but you get the idea. I’m struggling to see how a photo of a 13 yo lad ‘playing soldiers’ while clearly not in ATC uniform, clearly not as part of a cadet activity and clearly not engaging in any dangerous practice with a weapon, could in any way be construed as ‘disreputable’.
I’ve also seen cadet FB profile photos showing airsofters, military re-enactors, cadets shooting/hillwalking/kayaking/rock-climbing/gliding outside the ACO and even cadets sitting in the cockpit of Tornados when they are a. not Tornado pilots and b. pointing their 27mm Mausers in an unsafe direction. Yet not at any time, have I ever heard of one of these being described as ‘bringing the Corps into disrepute’.
i’ll avoid repeating all the comments above, i do in general agree with them all…storm in a tea cup
i will however add the following:
the ONLY policy which would be broken/not adhered to would be one that hasn’t been mentioned…ACP50 which gives clear instructions on photos around weapons with regard to the dos and donts.
(ACP26 is about security of arms…ie stored and overseen by the right people in the right place in the right manner, nothing about photos…that is what ACP50 is for)
with reference to AP26 being “restricted” - why would that not permit a CWO to see it?
there may well be a copy on Sqn in the office for the CWO to use as reference.
as 18 yr old with DRS/CRB he will be of no “known” risk although arguably given the topic the ACP discusses a CTC would permit squeaky cleanness.
in short who is (and isnt) permitted to see “restricted” documents and how should they be controlled?
(does restricted just mean not for public distribution…ie dont place it on the internet?)
I would say that ACP 50 Does give the dos and don’t while ON ATC duty.
The crucial point of this post is that said cadet was not on duty, not in uniform and not identifiable as an Air Cadet.
If cadet is not on duty then ACP 50 does not apply. Simples…
Whilst it may not have been on ATC duty, a photograph of known cadet, dressed in ‘uniform’, holding a weapon is going to create a grey area by implication. The actual circumstances are not reflected in a simple photograph so it will always be open to the interpretation of those viewing it.
That’s just the way it is.
The hypothetical CWO in this case sounds like a bit of a tool though… Thank god he’s not real.
I would say that ACP 50 Does give the dos and don’t while ON ATC duty.
The crucial point of this post is that said cadet was not on duty, not in uniform and not identifiable as an Air Cadet.
If cadet is not on duty then ACP 50 does not apply. Simples…[/quote]
yes that is my point.
i am not questioning the validity of does it apply, simply correcting the imaginary CWO for trying to adopt the wrong regs…not that they can be employed, enforced or applied in this case
[quote=“wdimagineer2b” post=20577]Whilst it may not have been on ATC duty, a photograph of known cadet, dressed in ‘uniform’, holding a weapon is going to create a grey area by implication. The actual circumstances are not reflected in a simple photograph so it will always be open to the interpretation of those viewing it.
That’s just the way it is.
The hypothetical CWO in this case sounds like a bit of a tool though… Thank god he’s not real.[/quote]
GOM Stated in the original post, said cadet was not in uniform. There is not a grey area. There is no link to the ATC.
What constitutes ‘warry kit’? Possibly a DPM/MTP vest? Combat helmet maybe?
It could certainly been seen as a cadet in uniform by some.
There’s always a grey area; especially where other peoples interpretations are involved. To think otherwise is foolishness.
The mere fact that he’s a cadet is a link to the ATC.
I’m not saying that there’s anything wrong with the cadet hypothetically dressing up at Families day and having a photo taken with weapons. Clearly since we know the circumstances we know it’s fine. But equally clear is the possibility that others who don’t know will draw the wrong conclusions.
Sometimes we have to think about the implications rather than just the reality.
If I were to put up a picture of me at Glastonbury hanging out with my Rasta mates who’ve got several big joints on the go would that be a good image?
I’m not in uniform or on ATC duty and I don’t smoke weed… but perhaps people might think “Oh look! There’s WO Bloggs from ATC. He appears to be with a group smoking illegal drugs”.
As I say, always a grey area.
I’d say that what needs to happen in such a situation is for the CWO to be told to stop being a big-headed know it all; and for the cadet to be kindly told that, given the possibility for misunderstanding, that photo might be best kept for the personal collection.
When reading this I find it interesting that people are (hypothetically or in reality) unable to separate people’s jobs/hobbies/interests from what else they might do?
So what this hypothetical youngster goes to an armed forces event and like many hundred of other kids get dressed up in some kit by a stallholder maybe given a weapon and photos taken. In this day and age people, especially youngsters, put pictures online without understanding there are people out there who are petty-minded and lack the mental agility/ability to dissociate the picture from everything else, they might do in their lives. The example of being seen with people smoking a joint and people commenting adversely is atypical of the small minded and inability to dissociate the person from the rest of their lives. If this happened to me I’d be telling them where to get off.
The TA used to have a air rifle range at a local event in the late 70s/early 80s and a couple of us used to enjoy playing the other weaponry and striking poses, if the photos taken (which we showed at the squadron) were seen today they would be frowned upon in the context of this thread, but were and are harmless. The fact that some might not be able to dissociate the image from the person’s life, is something for them to get over and not whoever is the subject. It is sad that people can’t just do things anymore, have photos taken etc and show them to others via any media, without having to think what if “big brother” is watching.
what about those Cadets (and Staff) who do have other “warry” hobbies outside of the ATC?
I know a selection of Staff with private weapons used for hunting, reading “you know you’ve been an Air…etc” on FB it woudl seem every other Cadet takes part in airsoft or paintballing in more than a one a year birthday party.
if said persons had photos of their “non-ATC activity” would it be “irresponsible” of them to post them online given the linked notion to the ATC/mistaken identy of a ATC activity, or would this be just another hobby of theirs with photo evidence no different to taking part in motorsport or triathlons, attending music festivals/gigs like many other staff do?
i know i an OC who was pictured in one of the shooting mags with a very impressive post mortem stag and holding a distressingly expensive rifle. its possible he was wearing an old DPM smock.
should i report him?
i know a CI who does battlefield re-enactments - i’ve seen of pictures on the net of him in Yorkist regalia while carrying a 6ft Halberd.
should i report him - or should i just allow HQAC to concentrate their incompetance on their own business instead of cursing other peoples with it?
It strikes me that the internet and social media have spawned a whole new breed of what would have been called gossips.
We should have far more important things to worry about than a picture of someone enjoying a non ATC hobby/pastime/activity and be fully able to separate the two. Woe betide anyone who came to me saying that something they’d seen or heard brings the ATC into disrepute by association. Even on duty if it’s lighthearted it’s irrelevant.
[quote=“steve679” post=20616]what about those Cadets (and Staff) who do have other “warry” hobbies outside of the ATC?
if said persons had photos of their “non-ATC activity” would it be “irresponsible” of them to post them online [/quote]
I think some people are missing my point slighty.
Would it be “irresponsible” of them? Not necessarily (that would depend on the content of the photograph).
But, should they be surprised if they get a call from their Wing MCO or some other ‘concerned’ party? Probably not.
I build props and costumes for various theatrical work. This sometimes sees photographs of me with replica weaponry. Thanks to facebook’s various privacy settings I choose to keep those photos away from certain groups of eyes; lest I receive another “I’m not happy about the photo of you [in a clearly 1800’s western costume] holding a pistol” email.
My point is, if you post something that has the potential to be misunderstood, don’t be surprised if someone misunderstands it.
