That entire thing is just so incredibly alienating.
Thanks for uploading. Just read ACP 20 , it is the normal confusion, there is no direct instruction that cadets have to be enrolled, yet inst 404 implies how enrolment should be carried out. I am with Chief on that i do the enrolment and nonone is made to pray or pledge allegiance, they just need to promise to be good cadets etc, making cadet pledge towards GoDld, king etc i think is dated as rightfullyvwe want include those who dont believe in either, remembering not all cadets are UK or commonwealth nationalities so may not to pledge to king either.
Far simpler that the enrolment is an agreement between the cadet and the organisation concerning how both parties are going to behavior and deliver, god, king etc doesnt necessarily come into it. Converselysome may want pledge to God and Monarch so maybe leave a gap for them to “insert god/monarch” here.
Apologies if gone of subject of remembrance, may we need an inclusivity thread not specific to individual activities.
1 Like
I think a better phrase here overall would be a ‘secularization thread’? I feel we’re becoming positively inclusive in many ways already, it’s just the religious element that seems to be falling behind.
2 Likes
Ok this is turn into a publication rabbit hole.
Only ATC cadets are enrolled as it stems from AP1919 & this is where things are governed from.
Enrolment ceremony is per the promise in the record of service book & ACP23 - which is really inclusive & talks about omitting things!
I would interpret the section in AP1919 as only referring to the promise & nothing further.
No need to apologise at all — I’m all for logical consistency!
The point you raise is incredibly important. Should a cadet, who may not agree with having a monarch, be barred from a cadet organisation because the idea of serving that head of state seems disagreeable?
I have a Ukrainian cadet, so the point on HM is very valid.
I think that’s a very fair question to ask.
It probably wouldn’t be a bad idea for us to overhaul our concept of enrolling entirely.
4 Likes
I’m sure I can add an extra bit to the thread title!
1 Like
This is a different question as the monarch is head of state & all the armed forces make their oath to them - this strays into the political arena & it is not for us, especially those who hold a kings commission to undermine the sovereign.
If we have a referendum & parliament passes the law then fine we comply but until then we avoid politics & support the government of the day, parliamentary democracy & ergo the sovereign who is our living constitution.
2 Likes
Sorry but that’s rubbish. It is absolutely our role as youth leaders to champion their interests regardless of the personal cost. It is a hangover from a time gone by and regardless of your personal opinion, why would a voluntary youth club ever need to swear allegiance to monarch? What would you do if someone declined? Would you not let them join?
3 Likes
I agree it strays from the topic and is quite different, but I’d disagree that there’s any sort of conflict as a holder of HM’s commission and questioning whether pledging to them is appropriate for a child.
Edit: as @pEp says above. We have a duty to look out for them even at personal cost. I take my youth leadership role as seriously as my reservist role, different as they are in all but uniform.
Scouting still does & they have more children, & a wider spread of units & not as strong as link to the sovereign as the armed forces.
On my honour,
I promise that I will do my best
to uphold our Scout values, to do my duty to The King,
to help other people
and to keep the Scout Law.
Kind think the ATC founders plagiarised from scouting when first forming.
Scouting says that the promise to the king symbolises the country as a whole so yes it makes sense.
Oh & most importantly the enrolment should be discussed & explained with the cadets before the enrolment night so cadets have an understanding & are not just “saying the words”
1 Like
This is off topic but I don’t ascribe to this. Yes we must look after & development the young people but we are neither principle educator nor their parental guardian.
We volunteer our time to help & develop young people using the culture ethos of structure of the RAF & HM Armed Forces.
However this should never to be the detriment of own personal health & well being or that of our families or our work. Too many volunteers have done this & destroyed themselves in the process.
Safeguarding & threat to life yes but that not what we are talking about here.
Sorry - diverting massively off topic now 
3 Likes
Not at all. Very fair counter.
Perhaps “personal discomfort” is a better phrase. I’ve certainly had to endure personal discomfort in achieving this win for inclusion.
It’s the classic “do what’s right, not what’s easy”.
1 Like
Yes that is a better phrase 
& when a cadet comes to us saying they don’t want to do something due to their personal beliefs we should t just tell them no but see how we can adapt to include rather than exclude.
Seen it when too many people haven’t adapted to changes such as when females didn’t have to have hair in a bun, or (very long ago) vegetarian food in fieldcraft.
I always summarise this as that we do the right thing, for the right reasons in the right way & not what is the most convenient or least challenging
2 Likes
you must be new here?
just because one system is updated, doesn’t mean all connected systems, policy, procedures, documents and references follow suit.
just because one element has become secular, doesn’t mean the “ceremony” that element sits within has had the same treatment
1 Like
What’s the correct way to suggest an update to a policy like this? My poor sector commander will be a bit fed up with me by now I should think… 
Email direct the document owner according to sharepoint - it’s a paid staff matter rather than a volunteer.
Or just do what works locally for you
VoP? Might be a good place to start anyway.
3 Likes
I suppose there’s a clear link there.
From a CCF perspective all this on ATC Sunday and enrollment is interesting.
We don’t enrol cadets in the CCF - there’s no process. And we don’t ‘do’ padres: religious observance or not is a matter of school policy, as CCFs exist in religious schools (ours is CofE, some are RC, etc) and also in non-religious ones.
As I had recently to remind a Wg padre who approached us offering support. Sorry, but you are the ATC padre, not the RAFAC one.
Can someone tell me what ATC Sunday is about? (Given we were an ATC unit from 1941-1948 I’d be interested.)
ATC Sunday is placed on the Sunday closet to 5th February each year and is a “title” for that Sunday - in much the same was Remembrance Sunday is the Sunday closest to 11th November.
While the national format for Remembrance Sunday is well known, there is no known guidance for ATC Sunday other than a day set aside in the calendar to celebrate/recognise the ATC’s anniversary.
As I have indicated, some choose to hold a “parade” which typically includes blessing from a Padre/Rev in some form.
others, like me, choose to “celebrate” but doing something for the Cadets that they’ll enjoy - an aviation/military themed museum.
(this not only ticks off an aim of the ATC, but being placed in the winter month is a good way to show “engagement” with aviation in the winter when museums are best planned - with the summer alternative being visiting the local airshow.)
There has never been any guidance from HQ at least, how the event should be recognised and so is up to Squadrons how to achieve this. I have been in Wings, and Sectors where they have placed local policy that Squadrons should do X, or Y which is typically been a “parade” or some form of public engagement (recruitment drive/open day) which is a lot of effort which has limited benefit for the Cadets who attend.
on a previous Squadron we held an AT weekend, although the (wet) weather meant it wasn’t the camping out we had hoped.
1 Like