So there is a fully auditable record for safeguarding.
1 Like
Yes, thatâs what we keep being told, but James, why is a virtual parade night register, along with all the teams logs, and the recording, not considered a suitable level of auditable evidence for safeguarding purposes.
What do we actually gain over a virtual parade night register?
1 Like
Surely the video and audio recording, which we are required to do every time anyway, provides far more useful evidence for âsafeguardingâ.
I have to wonder what specifically does the SMS event provide which: A - is actually required, and B - the recording does not?
What if the OC doesnât get around to authorising the SMS event? Does that mean that the cadets are not safe?
What if I forget to create one at all and we just go straight to the teams meeting with recording?
Does that mean that cadets are not safe?
This isnât a safeguarding concern, despite what HQAC might be saying.
This seems to me to be a clear case of policy without thought.
SMS was a quick way to get things rolling with Teams. Then the need for two staff to be âpresentâ was introduced. Then the recording requirement was introduced, and the âvirtual parade nightâ register category.
Weâve now got a Heath Robinson style of approach where the various separate requirements make each other redundant.
If Iâve got an SMS event then why do I need an additional register entry?
If Iâve got a full recording of everything which goes on âfor audit purposesâ then why do I need an SMS event and why do I need two staff?
It has become a decidedly untidy and âuglyâ way of working.
1 Like
What if we, by default, invite all cadets and all staff to the event on SMS? There then is no âregisterâ, as SMS just believes the whole squadron is there.
Well, we are of course supposed to update the list of attendees before we close an SMS event, so it would then be an accurate register.
Though, we really could just use the normal register with the virtual category. Not using SMS to record each virtual night will also prevent the immense clutter which will result from all these âeventsâ in peopleâs service record.
We donât require an event for a real parade night so why do we need it for a virtual one? Itâs a trick question of course - the answer is âwe donâtâ. As a record it doesnât provide any benefit at all.
As a means to push details to Cadet Portal itâs fine. But then we should really be permitted to just create one for that sole purpose and change any pertinent details each week.
Creating a new event each time, getting your OC to log in and authorise it, updating the nominal roll and then closing it off afterwards once or twice a week, only to start all over in a few days is an incredible waste of everyoneâs time.
The logical solution is:
- Record attendance in the register as normal.
- Ditch the ârequirementâ for an SMS event as a record (use it only as an administrative tool for engaging with the cadets).
- Ditch the requirement for a second member of staff to be present - we rarely (if ever) have a spare CFAV in the room with us when we teach cadets in person, and nobody has ever said that a single CFAV with a room full of cadets was a âsafeguardingâ concern worth a second thought.
- Use the recording feature of MS Teams to satisfy any audit question which could possibly come up.
With Big Brother watching, the need for a âpapertrailâ audit record is null, as is the need for a second member of staff to âbear witnessâ.
Nobody is ever âaloneâ with cadets because after the fact there is a recording of everything which was said and done which can be viewed by anyone required. Itâs a better auditable record than we ever get in a real world situation.
2 Likes
I agree with all of the above, except the 2 staff requirement.
IMO Itâs useful for a number of reasons - If I was running a session solo, and my internet drops, then there is a second member of staff present to take over, or end the session. I donât think any of my cadets would misuse Teams without a staff member being present, but I also know that teenagers can sometimes have lapses of judgement. Also, Iâve found having a member of staff listening in is useful to do things like mute my microphone during the âbreakâ, and start talking to me daughter 
Having two staff may well be useful, but should it be a requirement?
2 Likes
Yes, if a) a CFAV losing their Internet connection is a possibility, and b) if cadets potentially having unsupervised access to each other on an official HQAC platform, should a) occur is unacceptable to HQAC.
Yes, we have the recording, but the recordings can be edited and trimmed.
What additional risks are there online over face-to-face that warrants all these extra controls?
But possibility A is a local issue and people should be considering. And B, well their access as a guest account is so locked down, Iâm not entirely sure what issues could arise if A happened.
My point was just because there may be local reasons why a squadron would want 2 or 10 volunteers sat in a meeting with cadets, doesnât necessarily make it something that should be mandated for all.
Youâre worried that cadets might have âunsupervised access to each otherâ?
Only in the same way that I wouldnât allow my cadets to meet in our Sqn building without CFAV being present.
TBH, If I was the safeguarding lead at HQAC, I would be trying to remove the risk of cadets being bullied or groomed whilst engaged on official cadet duties (either online or in person). Adequate supervision can discourage that behavior, so donât see an issue with having two adults online, in case one is disconnected. I do agree that the risk is low, however.
Itâs not really extra controls, though. Itâs just a different way of doing things. The 2 staff rule is no different to face to face meetings. Creating an event on CP is an auditable way of sharing access to Teams, and ensuring sqns arenât sharing the link through open channels. The virtual register is a way to monitor engagement I guess?
Itâs not just that, though. If you only have one member of staff online, as cadets log off, at some point you will be left with a CFAV and a single cadet online together. Now, that might last for a millisecond. Or it could be a few minutes. Being 1 on 1 with a cadet is not really a position we should be put in - either face to face, or online. The recording goes someway to prevent malicious claims - but it can be edited, or it could fail completely.
It is though? Cadets and staff canât be alone together but I see no issue with one member of staff being with several cadets.
Let me put this scenario to you - youâre sat at a computer/desk in a classroom at the end of a lesson and the cadets are packing up and leaving. One cadet takes a bit longer than everyone else so for a second or so youâre alone with them. Whatâs the difference? With online recordings you have a recording to protect the CFAV/Staff Cadet which you donât face-to-face. I appreciate recordings can be trimmed/replaced but surely thereâs a way to log whatâs done to the videos?
1 Like
Not really a written rule though, and is actually contrary to guidance issued regarding staff transporting cadets. Itâs common best-practice, but sometimes canât be helped.
Now, 1 staff and 1 cadet in a building for the night is a different matter. But in a room that others have access to or where others are nearby is different.
I agree with you on this wider point.
If itâs stored correctly on Stream then thereâs nothing to worry about. If a local copy was edited, the original is still available.
The risk is low, but the potential damage is high.
It is written down, ACP4 states:
It is not realistic to state that one-to-one situations should never take place. However, one-to-one situations have the potential to make a child or young person more vulnerable to harm by those who seek to exploit their position of trust. Consequently, individual CFAVs and adult cadets should not be alone with individual cadets under the age of 18.
For clarity though, when I said cadets I was referring to under 18 cadets. Itâs worth noting the first sentence that acknowledges it being unrealistic that one-to-one situations will happen, perhaps perfectly designed for a circumstance like this?
I do disagree with you saying being in a building is different though. The whole point of not being alone is to have someone there to say whether something did or did not happen; how can you do that if people are out of sight and out of hearing distance?
It can still be trimmed and thereâs a âreplace videoâ button, whatever that does. I was referring to @Moist_Van_Lipwigâs point on videos being unreliable sources at times.
You gave a perfectly feasible example yourself where all others walk out of the room. I gave an example which has been explicitly permitted.
That was my point. 1:1 with no others anywhere is asking for trouble.
Cadets always have unsupervised access to each other on the squadron unless you have them in one room with a member of staff âbaby-sittingâ. They need to be teenagers. If this is something that concerns HQAC or individuals maybe they should have thought about it before diving into an online solution that is frought with all the fragilities of anything done online. This and because we have crap internet in the village, I havenât dabbled in this and unless something drastic happens, wonât.
We very. very rarely have 2 staff in a room with cadets because we donât have the staff, so to expect it now is ridiculous on about every level.
I see the advice regarding being alone with cadets as more protection for staff. Given that if a child says something it is taken as gospel and the adult is branded and that can be potentially life-changing/career ending, even if the accusations are unfounded. We had a local teacher accused, suspended, dragged through the courts, only to have it thrown out as the dates he was supposed to have been with the girl, he was doing things with his wife, family and friends. But heâs no longer a teacher, given the way he was treated.
Nor, do I. However, at some point during the evening, there will be a period where a member of staff is alone online with a cadet. Either, at the start waiting for the VPN, or after all of the other cadets have logged off. That is not a situation anybody should be keen to get into, and it certainly should not be normalised by HQAC.
.
In a face to face situation, there would be at least one other member of staff in the building, plus cadets in the close vicinity. Itâs hard to avoid, but be aware that every time you allow that to happen, you are putting yourself at risk of an allegation. You can mitigate the risk - doors open, glass panels in doors, but there is still a risk. You canât do that so much online, hence why a second CFAV is a good idea.
Yes you can trim the videos, and yes there will be a record. What there wonât be is the original video. There are several legit reasons why you might want to trim a video - but without the content, you can neither prove or disprove your actions. With a second CFAV in the meeting, you can at least be assured that you have a credible witness.
Edited to add: As @Teflon says, itâs not just about protecting our young people, itâs about protecting our staff.
Indeed I would tend to agree here. The reality of course is that not being alone with a cadet doesnât actually protect against a malicious complaint. The only way to do that would be for staff to never be alone with themselves, ever, and to instead always have a buddy there to vouch for their every move⌠A ridiculous situation.
For example. If I am working alone in my office, the other staff are elsewhere in the building, and Cdt Bloggs decides to say that they were alone in the canteen and I came in and did [x,y,z], who is to say any different?
We cannot protect against every possibility and for HQAC to attempt to do so would be foolish.
I can think of any number of occasions when cadets are âunsupervisedâ with each other⌠At canteen break, when the staff are in the office. In a room before the staff arrive to instruct. Outside the building if the staff are late to arrive⌠Itâs a list of almost endless possibilities. Try to count all the times theyâre just with each other during a week at annual camp for exampleâŚ
Itâs simply not a problem.
So what?
We really mustnât fall for the often-bandied about but ultimately nonsense approach that says â1:1 is inherently bad and dangerousâ. Itâs not.
Thereâs so much more to it than that.
Safeguarding has really three main concerns.
- Issues between cadets.
- Staff being inappropriate with cadets, either intentionally - predatory staff; or unintentionally - staff says or does something which would be ill-advised, or which is interpreted differently by the cadet.
- Cadets making malicious allegations against staff.
In the virtual MS Teams world these are all covered by the fact that we have a full recording.
What are we worried about which might happen if staff and cadet are both âaloneâ in the Teams meeting?
A trail of box ticking and detail filling on SMS doesnât do a damned thing to affect safeguarding and having a second person present doesnât bring any additional benefits either. Weâve already got an accurate, auditable, video record.
Videos can be trimmed? Is there an admin option to remove that ability?
But really, if weâre worried about evidence tampering then we are concerning ourselves unnecessarily about something with which we donât concern ourselves in the real world.
There are far more easy opportunities for trouble in the course of our normal operation than their are in a virtual meeting.
We must not lose perspective and allow those who donât understand technology to force us all to fear it.