It is a job!


#41

it is naïve to think that this sort of thing isn’t already known, by those who might like to know.

The idea that the take away delivery rider or driver is cleared, creates all manner of problems and costs.


#42

The point is that the knowledge and access extends beyond those cleared and named officials. I stated it’s a slim risk - the point was that I’m surprised that (given the current climate and more stringent vetting that’s been put in place) someone hasn’t gone “SC for everybody!”.


#43

And if the SC check was free, I would certainly expect that. Personally, I don’t feel that the potential threat justifies that kind of action - there are better ways to spend the defence pound IMO!


#44

And I agree on the better budget point.


#45

One reason… Cost over need!!
Do we need it? If we do, where are the funds coming from?


#46

I don’t think I ever said it was a good idea. Only that with the way those above (inside and outside the organisation) have been thinking… Yaddah yaddah.


#47

So can anyone fully explain why we need this? (Not a gripe, an honest question!)


#48

From the top of the form:
“It is a package of pre-appointment/access checks designed to give uncontrolled access to, or knowledge or custody of, Government assets and information.
The BPSS forms part of the MOD’s system of protection against risks from terrorism, espionage and crime by providing assurance about the identity and integrity of individuals who have access to MOD assets and Establishments.”


#49

I still think the questioning will make some baulk and a the requirements to be someone of standing will create problems for cadets.
Most ‘people of standing’ mentioned won’t know you well enough, with the exception of a teacher, but then there is their employer.


#50

By this logic surely all of the Cadets need this level of vetting too? They get to go inside RAF Stations, they know when and where we are going Shooting etc

The fact that you can walk the streets as an Armed Police Officer with less than SC makes me think that requiring it for running an ATC unit is excessive.


#51

Those on FTRS have to justify their existance and salaries.


#52

I think people are over-thinking the security from a purely military side rather than the criminal side. Whilst the cadets forces are unlikely to be targeted by terrorists or russian secret agents, there is a far greater threat from criminality, particularly County lines and Organised Crime Groups.

Considering the number of vulnerable cadets we have in the organsiation and the potential for some of them become adult staff the need for checking of intelligence systems for background checks becomes greater. This is why you don’t need SC as an Armed Police Officer as all the intel systems are checked (EDBS only looks at specific child related intelligence).

Trouble is the need to make the process volunteer friendly and push back to the vetting people rather than jump through a hoop they are insisting on.

http://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/publications/832-county-lines-violence-exploitation-and-drug-supply-2017/file


#53

The problem with that - and I agree with you by the way - is that my accountant, or chairman of NFUW branch, or wife’s headteacher, or my feed supplier isn’t going to know that I’m a nonce, or that I use my regular trips to livestock markets as a cover of moving drugs, or trafficked CSE victims, or that the ‘apprenteces’ I sometimes have around my very remote farm are runaways/abductees from the care system.

I’m afraid this is no more a defence against that than ensuring that a chap went to the right college at Cambridge was a defence against NKVD agents - defending against the kind of stuff takes training, close observation, and trusting people’s judgement that there’s something just not quite right about a situation or someone within that situation. This is a tick box solution - it isn’t about defending the ATC against CSE, it’s about standing up in court and saying that all the boxes were ticked and that therefore it’s not our fault.

I’m astonished, astonished I say, that an adminer thought that the best defence against a hidden enemy was a longer form…


#54

Comes down to a very simple single point that was made earlier; in an organisation that’s struggling to recruit the number of adult volunteers that it needs, you don’t make it harder for people to volunteer.


#55

Still, really?!


#56

For the love of God can someone please explain to HQAC that there’s no such thing as a counterpart driving licence and hasn’t been for over three years!


#57

Careful- if you’re talking in the context of F/MT600 renewal, what may be getting requested (or referenced) could be your Driver Licence Personal Information & Status Summary (see https://www.gov.uk/view-driving-licence to confirm how to produce one for yourself)


#58

Unless it’s in a colouring book or put on Twitter they won’t understand


#59

There Is in Nortern Ireland lol


#60

I’m not. It has zero relevance as a peice of ID