So, I’m going to prefix this by saying I’ll be deliberately vague to preserve anonymity for myself, the sqn/Wing/Region, and cadets involved.
We recently had cause to contact Safeguarding regarding a complaint against a Cdt SNCO who had been contacting at least one female cdt requesting pictures of a sexual nature.
The parties involved were all between 16 & 18 (but aged under 18)
Safeguarding’s response has been (paraphrased because I freely admit I can’t remember the exact wording); “they’re peers, nothing doing”.
Have to be honest and say I’m both surprised and disappointed by this, I thought our response to such things was to be much stricter? One of our staff is a teacher and they said that if this had come out at school the perpetrator would be suspended. Why do we work to a lesser standard? Is this really going to help female cadets feel safe, secure, respected and listened to?
Or am I over-reacting and, in the circumstances, it’s not that big a deal?
You’re not over reacting, and it is a big deal imo. If the asking of photos was part of a consenting relationship then yes, maybe it’s not for us to get involved with and to leave to parents. But if this is not that, and a cadet has made a complaint, that should be taken extremely seriously.
I am very surprised HQ safeguarding didn’t take an immediate interest in this. You are now obviously aware of one case, but who’s to say there isn’t more? And if it isn’t going to be properly recorded, then no one will ever know.
Speaking to a friend of mine who is plod and has worked on a CP unit…
Images of anyone under 18 are legally classed as CP.
If this SNCO is 18, then that’s incredibly iffy and if the safeguarding bods can’t see that, I worry about competence.
Regardless of safeguarding issues, this can be classed as CP or soliciting it… I think that involves outside input. Something of that regard, especially if it’s harrasment of the younger one… Well, this young SNCO is piled high in excrement.
This needs to be raised to plod. With safeguarding cc’d in as a “i am raising this, deal with it”. Shameful they decided to do nothing.
To me, the Squadron CO needs to ask the parents first and that he/herself will be going to go to the police, show them HQACs reply and the tell whoever from the WSO upwards that he/she will be going with them to the interview if necessary and to hell with any consequences, from HQAC downwards.
‘Do what is right, not what is easy’; terminological inexactitude for complete bovine effluent.
I used to be such a problem to middle management that I used to copy in the director of nursing and chief executive of my hospital trust. I also used to send a hard copy by mail, so management couldn’t get to it first.
If the CO is still being fobbed off or obstructed, then a copy to CRAFAC and OC 22 Group plus a local MP. The CO maybe forced out at that point but at least it would be with a clear conscience and if they hold a professional qualification no come back from their professional body. Also, keep hard copies in a safe place.
I would be asking the parents to discuss with the Police. This type of behaviour is often the tip of the iceberg and when investigated can show some concerning underlying issues.
While you are technically correct, plod will be reluctant to arrest someone under 18 for such, especially where the parties are 16 and 17 years old.
With regards to the OP, what I would ask is this: Is it a one off asking, or is it a persistent badgering, possibly using their position to try to get said images? This will make a difference. If said SNCO is making said female cadet uncomfortable, perhaps suggest the parents involve the police. They will be unlikely to slap charges on anyone but a chat from a police officer may make the SNCO see the error of their ways.
You could also invite the local plod down to the unit to talk about sexting and the like.
If you feel the SNCO is abusing their position, you can remove that position.
While this may be a safeguarding issue, would it necessarily come within the remit of the ACO? I’m not condoning this sort of behaviour at all but it is a prevalent ongoing issue with young people in society now. The impact can become serious on the victim. I think this should be investigated by the civilian authorities but I kind of get why the cadet on the receiving end reported it at Squadron rather than school or to parents. It’s indicative of the trust and confidence they have in the staff to open up like this. It’s a pity that the organisation seems to be a bit toothless in response.
But yes, it should come under the remit of the RAFAC.
It’s two people within our organisation. No different to two pupils at school, where there is an incident outside of school hours.
We have a duty of care to, in this case, the female cadet who’s made that complaint. We also have a duty of care to all the other cadets this cadet may come into contact with and try the same game with.
The big point being here is that it’s not been investigated yet, do who knows what else is going on. It’s a red flag that should be looked into.
I imagine that there’s more detail than we are being given, which would assist RAFAC HQ in their decisions. Speculating and adding elements to a story we don’t fully understand is likely unhelpful and will create a negative view and mistrust of the HQ work, as well as escalating a situation which in reality is unknown for all of us commenting. If the OP is concerned they should contact HQ safeguarding direct to talk through concerns and understand the rationale as someone else said.
Arresting people is always the last resort (something people can’t get their head around despite it having been the law since around 1986).
In this case the offence is made out and therefore the Police have a duty to record it under the National Crime Recording Standards. Now this might end up being no further actioned as not in the public interest, however their should still be a primary investigation to determine this.
Honestly, not a great deal and not enough that would dramatically change the nature of the argument from our end.
If there was more rationale for the answer, one would hope that explanation would be in the returned report and it wasn’t. Leaving it out has only had the effect of increasing the ambiguity and, frankly, distrust of the process.
I know it doesn’t mean much, but our WExO - who has been privy to all the details - agrees with us that more should have been done.
However, regardless of whether we have or are going to get back in touch with the team, it is notable that the general consensus from all we’ve spoken to is the surprise about the lack of reaction. The difference between us and the education sector is incredible.
But the point is you are now saying wexo agrees and openly writing that. So if wexo agrees with you they need to challenge it. There is likely more detail to the situation then everyone on here knows but it’s difficult for a clear response or advice to be given when there is only half a story which is creating lots of negative views. If the wexo has to full story and isn’t happy they should challenge that’s going to be more effective then posting anonymously on here ? Not trying to offend just observing
Again, I don’t know that they haven’t. Maybe you do…?
Yeah, this thread probably is creating some negative views and some noise. But you know what, sometimes that’s not a bad thing. It wasn’t, however, my intention to stir things up.
I wanted to talk to the hive mind and see whether I was alone in thinking a response didn’t quite match up to the situation, while (hopefully for very obvious reasons) keeping some details private.
The questions being asked by people here are valid and will help inform any response we may then have for HQ. After all, that’s the point of cadets and staff - we work together to try and improve things. Or at least, we’re supposed to.