Having just read the latest IBN I have several concerns, I’m sure somebody somewhere has already thought about the possible implications of this policy but think it deserves discussion.
My interpretation is:
Everyone who instructs cadets now requires a certificate, the loophole of being supervised being removed. Cadets can only be checked at or approaching 18.
To become a staff cadet they need MoI, to get MoI they must instruct cadets, but now require clearance to instruct so cannot gain MoI so are ineligible for staff cadet. A vicious circle!
Additionally only staff cadets, because they are DBS checked, will be allowed to instruct so CFAVs will need to fill the gap, increasing our workload and possibly increasing exit rates.
I am fully aware I might be putting 2 and 2 together and getting 99, but to my simple logic it makes sense and could be another unintended way of lowering the age range to 18.
I was also concerned that trustees who get more heavily involved in sqn activities are expected to cease civcom activities and become CIs.
As previously discussed on this forum, we actually need to go the other way and offer a CFAV-lite option for those not ready for the commitment (although there is no 12-hour monthly minimum for CIs, in reality the expectations around mandatory training, AVIP, etc. represent a commitment that puts many off).
This supervised ‘loophole’ being removed, and the lack of a peer-exception surely implies that basically any NCO over 16 would now require an enhanced DBS?
Also, did this rule not change from the 1st of Sept? ergo if the organisation has not already implemented the changes, then they are surely at risk of being outside the law?
Having looked at this before I think that the instructing bit of cadets instructing cadets isn’t regulated activity because it forms within the organisation membership so it’s amongst their peers.
I didn’t think RAFAC met the criteria for the peer exemption? This was debated about over-18s needing a DBS. If the peer exemption existed, they wouldn’t need a DBS.
But also, did the peer exemption not rely on the supervision bit which is now being removed?
But this is exactly what is being removed, or has been removed. It now effectively doesn’t matter about the supervision, only the person doing the activity, as to whether that activity is regulated or not?
So if i have got a class going in 1 room been taught just by moi under 18 instructors is this not allowed now? I have got several age 16 moi instructors and a 17year old.
That’s talking about employers where the 16/17 is training a group that they are not part of off.
in our case the exemption is
“They instruct other members solely in connection with their own employment, aged 16 or 17”
“employment” in this instance being their volunteer role within their Sqn.
so a cadet teaching classifications to other cadet cadets from their Sqn is not regulated activity.
Sea cadets teaching sea cdt jnrs might be (not in the same school bracket of primary or secondary) as would explorer scouts teaching cubs or brownies (different memberships with different age restrictions).
Now the twist might be that CWOs as they are a wing appointment must be DBS even if they are 17.
