No doubt versions 8 to 20 due in the next few days to correct any errors introduced whilst correcting the errors then WExO crying because using wrong version form because we don’t check sharepoint every 30 seconds. 
2 Likes
Not just version its not checking before releasing.
2 Likes
I don’t know why they can’t just leave it alone. The ease of e-fiddling means someone somewhere can make it look they are doing something. Whether it’s any good or useful is irrelevant, it means a tick in their appraisal.
Lord knows how we managed with the same form in the past for many years. Amazing that the organisation didn’t collapse in on itself.
1 Like
I really doubt this is why it’s been changed. Things need modifying. There’s no new IBN that has come out with this saying anything needs to be changed so this document makes no difference to any of us? We’re still just sending a link to parents of new cadets to fill it out. We don’t need to re-make all parents sign it again like last time.
2 Likes
Although not here, it has been confirmed already by OC VSDT that there’s no need to redo those done and new version is simply “from this day forward”.
There were some additional post-release queries raised that needed addressing, not tinkering for the sake of it.
1 Like
It was pointed out to me at the squadron tonight that consent for being transported by “parents of other cadets” is back…
Just seen this is now included:
“I consent to my child being accommodated in shared male/shared female/shared mixed/single occupancy
only (delete as appropriate) whilst attending authorised events and activities:”
If someone actually selects single occupancy only, are we effectively stopping cadets from attending the majority of activities? I can’t think of more than a handful of times we’ve ever been able to have accommodation anywhere that has single occupancy accommodation…
Also for this:
“I consent to the Officer in Charge, or their appointed representative, to act as the person responsible should my child have to
undergo medical treatment including any emergency operation to which I am unable to physically give consent:” Did we not work out a long time ago that we would never be asked to make those decisions and that a doctor would be making them in the best interests of the child, rather than us?
1 Like
Yeah. This is what ACP 4 has to say on the matter:
>The key policy position on which the Directive is based is that the RAFAC does not act in loco parentis for cadets under the age of 18 and parental responsibility remains with cadets’ parents, guardian or carers in accordance with Section 2 of the Children Act 1989 (England and Wales), Part 1 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 and Sections 5-7 of The Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995.
Ignore me, further down in ACP 4 it says something similar, but adds on the end about medical treatment. see here:
The RAFAC does not act in loco parentis for cadets under the age of 18 and parental responsibility remains with cadets’ parents, guardian or carers in accordance with Section 2 of the Children Act 1989 (England and Wales), Sections 106 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 and Sections 5-7 of The Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. The only exception to this is in the event of a cadet requiring urgent medical treatment, including any emergency operation, when parents, guardians or carers are unable to physically give consent and they have delegated this responsibility in the relevant section of the ATC/CCF(RAF) Consent Certificate or on TG Form 21 (Cadet Activities Consent and Health Form).
Yes it might say that, but is that based in reality? Or law?
Like if I go to A&E with a cadet, they need emergency surgery and parents can’t be contacted. Is me showing that piece of paper actually going to change anything or is a doctor just going to say “my decision is X because that is in the child’s best interests”, even if I disagree?
3 Likes
The latter. There’s no ‘decision’ to be made by us in theses cases. The doctors and nurses are making decisions. I’m just sitting in the waiting room on my phone…
Look at it this we, if I take a child into Police Protection I can’t override the decision of a Doctor in those circumstances
Precisely, so is this wording not misleading at best, or just plain wrong at worst?
“Check 6”
“6 Covered”
Sorry?
Metaphorically covering the figurative rear side, I think.
So although the consent is in in the “probably unnecessary” bin, further lowers risk of aggro.
Negative. Further shifts risk of aggro away from HQAC and to the volunteer.
1 Like
No it doesn’t.
“boom, there’s your consent”
End of.
Folks, the medical forms STILL list autism and ADHD as learning difficulties. Its 2024 and it has not imporved 
1 Like