It is a job!


#21

Failed To Resettle Satisfactorily…


#22

Yes, shock horror that a government organisation would act decisively if they had reason to believe that someone was breaking the law :roll_eyes:

Fair point, although it is colloquially known as such! But my point stands that it’s a bit like signing a document stating that you won’t murder anyone, it’s the law whether you sign or not!


#23

Hmm wasnt a big deal made in the text of this piece of rubbish that it wasnt to be a"contract" at all.Seems my initial fears are being born out as the hierarchy push their agenda forward.Now having to sign documents relating to the Official Secrets Act.I wasnt aware that any CFAV had clearance to view classified material or even needed or required it.The cadets is now a job in just about every facet.


#24

Can anyone tell me why we need to sign the official secrets act? :joy:

Are we suddenly part of a new cold war that I know nothing about or?


#25

No. It was always a contract. Any formalised agreement between people /organisations is a contract. What they said is that it wasn’t a contract for employment. And whether they would hold up is a debate that’s been hashed over lots on here


#26

Firstly how many folks in the RAFAC don’t have any security vetting in first place. To many I’m sure. I once went to camp and asked why staff had escorted pass to find the only thing they had undergone was a CRB check. All RAF undergo SC vetting and that the level all RAFAC staff CI or uniform must have in NI . I don’t see an issue ensuring staff have vetting. In respect of signing the OSA . Sign it or not you are bound by it as I’m sure there’s something in the act about not disclosing things you’ve seen hear etc


#27

Totally agree Solo12002. How many staff have SC because of their roles in RAFAC? Why the big thing against; or are people trying to hide something!


#28

All staff on application are vetted to the old BSVC it’s one of the many forms we used to fill in this has now been replaced with a higher check the (BPSS) i believe.


#29

That’s slightly incorrect. The minimum criteria was the old version of BPSS - everyone joining had to prove their identity by providing at least 2 forms of official ID - so passport to prove ID, and a less than 6 month old bill to prove their address was what they said it was, and IIRC, names of 2 referees. So at least those joining were know to be who they say they are, and 2 independent referees would vouch for their character.

The CRB was added later, for safeguarding reasons, rather than security concerns.


#30

I’m not trying to hide anything (I willingly and successfully applied for a SC several years ago), but I would question why the RAFAC needs to know my employment history, and references, for the last 3 years. What will it do with that information? What relevance to my role as an OC is that information? The answer is: It isn’t.


#31

independent referees would vouch for their character. Would that be two the person picked checking you are who you said you are is one thing it does not check your involvement in terrorism or groups etc. All RAFAC staff uniform or non uniform going into RAF bases should be checked to their level which is SC full stop.


#32

When I was commissioned, it was the norm for VR(T) to sign the OSA and Confidential orders. Somewhere along the way, that seems to have stopped…


#33

I disagree.

Are contractors all cleared to SC level? Are people who work on camp all cleared - spar workers, cleaners, the kebab man? What about deliver drivers? What about dependants that live inside the wire? Mates of servicemen and women invited on camp for a party? Ex servicemen invited to dining in nights?

The sad truth is that if some wants access to an RAF Base, it’s a lot quicker and less hassle to jump the fence and break into whatever building you want access to, rather than join a youth organisation, wait for x months for your paperwork to clear, apply for annual camp, hope your selected, and then go on section visits that are escorted and sanitised anyway.


#34

Beyond the baseline check, very few have anything. Those coming in now will have the slightly upgraded version.

There’s probably a handful around with CTC, but the only ones with SC will be those who wished to have or maintain contact with weapons and ammo (beyond IWT and firing) - after the CTC requirement was upgraded a couple of years ago.

While unlikely to cause an issue, this is potentially problematic. I’ve been in discussions and briefings with regulars which have begun with, “are you all - ah yeah you’ve all got clearance”. The RAF expect us to be cleared to their minimum.

With all this concern that rages (any time it kicks off somewhere) for us being a soft target for attack, where is the concern for infiltration?

Could be worth it for a couple dozen weapons and a thousand rounds of ammo. Don’t need SC to get yourself to a location where you’re guaranteed to be able to hijack the relevant vehicles.

With the way things have been going with admin and other requirements, I’m surprised no one hasn’t already turned their pants brown at the slimmest of possibilities.


#35

Before anyone is allowed access to weapons, they need to have an SC. Access to weapons from RAF armouries is always pre-authorised, and proof of qualifications always demanded. So very limited risk.

Knowledge of what is stored and where is potentially more problematic, but I would hazard that the type of group that would have the resources to plant “sleeper agents” onto a unit, also have the resources to get weapons on the black market, and have no interest in the type of weapons we hold.


#36

Thank you for clearing that up! :blush:


#37

The concern is that this goes far above any questioning you could make for a paid job like the vast majority of us do. For what end?

I’ve been on many RAF stations for visits as a cadet saw things which you could guess were fairly hush hush, this was in the 70s and 80s when the Cold War was on and we still had a proper Air Force. But I was always under the impression they weren’t showing us anything that wasn’t already known by those who might want to know.

When are we going to vet cadets and their families? Surely they pose as much if not greater security risk than staff.


#38

Yes, as a rule. It can cause some issues if they need to replace someone in a hurry.


#39

The kebab man is SC cleared? Well, I live and learn…


#40

I don’t know to what level personnel are cleared (and probably best not to go into too much detail of such things for OPSEC reasons), but yes - personnel of that type who are allowed un-escorted access to stations have some sort of vetting in place.