It would’ve made so much more sense for you to be granted honorary membership of the RAFVR in the same way they were the RNR / RMR.
Something along the lines of ‘Fg Off. (RAFAC) A.N. Other RAFVR’. It could’ve been extended to WOs and SNCOs at the same time.
We already were members of the RAFVR the (T) was just a branch within the RAFVR.
What would’ve made sense would’ve been not changing any of the identifiers, SCC Officers are the only ones who wear Wavy Navy these days and we were the only ones wearing VRT pins.
I do understand the desire to mark cadet forces staff out while reservists have gone the other way and have lost their identifiers.
It’s helpful to know, not least so people can temper expectations or offer support as required, which is essentially why reservists always used to be marked out.
It’s also useful marketing to potential volunteers who may see us.
The number in the CS who receive any formal award recognising their service is in the teeny tinyest minority, and usually in the upper echelons who’re riding on the efforts of others.
Should be a piece in the weekly brief about the honours system this week.
Its a great piece of comms. Proactive, Transparent and full of context. This should be the standard
I think Mark Leeming should be bestowed with the highest honour we can.
Namely we stand him a beer next time we’re in the mess with him.
Compare and contrast with the entry above it. “This activity is banned”.
Potatoes Potartoes,
You win the battles we can
I agree it’s transparent, and good context. Well written, and what we need more of. But it’s arguably the opposite of proactive. It took volunteers calling out a bad system to get any sort of response like this. That is by definition reactive.
I’ve manage volunteers in my day job for over a decade. One of the frustrating things is thing when you get a policy from up above which you know is a bad idea but it’s hard to argue against as you don’t have the evidence.
At the very least you need a bunch of volunteers kicking off so you can go to the the higher ups & go “see I told you it was a bad idea/we should have done it differently/etc”
I mean in regards to providing clear future guidance/next steps to take
Positive that people can now get the BEM, but very odd that officers are not eligible. Given they’re the most likely to get them for running squadrons, I don’t think this is a great step forward.
I always understood everyone but officers were always eligible for the BEM doesn’t the H&A ACP say that and has for many years or am I misremembering? So this isn’t a Change?
I also can’t really understand why that is the case, given the change to CFC. It would surely be an all or none situation you’d think?
They still argue that officers are only appointable in the military division (which isn’t the case by wording of the warrant for the order). Which means that the BEM is not possible as it wasn’t reintroduced.
They still pretend that the CFC is a military commission.
When it suits them