Looking at an AT application and wondering again why they make the bureaucracy as time consuming as possible!
I’m wondering why do we need to have MoD clearance to do AT in National Parks etc that are open to the public in any case.
Yes we are a military uniformed Youth organisation, parented by the RAF - but our cadets are not serving military personnel, they are civilians. We’re not going out in camouflage with weapons and pyros, we’re going out in civvies to walk on the same paths as the general public, so why do we need DE paperwork, clearance and delays?
A total waste of military resources, their time, and ours.
Why can’t the ACO have blanket clearance to do AT in civvies in the National Parks? Seems this would be far more sensible.
Also could they make DofE any more time consuming and complicated? Re-accreditation every 5 years, eDofE, and still numerous clearances from D of E panels just to be allowed to do the expeds. Is this another job creation exercise that will just hammer our volunteers with more and more paperwork?
I was DofE Officer at my old Sqn. When I moved I can’t deny it was a massive relief to find I wouldn’t be doing it at my new one.
I think it’s a real shame that such a carry on is made. Maybe it’s something to do with insurance, but it still makes sense for HQAC to have the blanket clearance you mentioned.
Why if we are using PUBLIC footpaths do we need to ask permission? The fact it’s in a national park is irrelevant. This is no doubt a hang up from donkey’s years ago and linked to our military affiliation. If I’m honest there are plenty of places to do expeds which don’t need national parks.
As for the reaccreditation etc although not a modern phenomena, the DofE IMO belatedly realised they were missing a trick, as it justifies non-jobs and what they charge individuals/organisations and perpetuates the myth things are done properly. Without creating a “need” to be “retrained”/accredited (normally every 3-5 years) there are a large number of jobs in businesses and civil service departments formed on the back of this that would be lost. Remember this is a multi-layered nonsense, with the trainers needing to be retrained and the trainers of the trainers needing to be retrained etc etc etc etc.
WRT the ABRT I can see them creating more admin in order to give the illusion of reducing admin. The problem with reducing administrative steps in an organisation built on admin, is that any reduction effectively means losing jobs. This example would be a very, very quick win but don’t hold your breath.
Land clearance is required because the Army deal with claims against the MoD arising from troops training on land in the UK.
Effectively, by notifying the Army that you are conducting an AT activity, you’re taking out “public liability insurance” …I.e. the MoD will pay out if there are any claims against your unit (e.g. Damage to fences/walls, crops, etc.)
Since the ACO is an MoD organisation, Land clearance (via army Bde HQs) is required.
If this procedure wasn’t in place, the ACO would need to take out its own insurance in this respect …not going to happen when there is an existing MoD process for exactly this situation!
Cheers
BTi
EDIT - it’s nothing to do with permission, it’s a notification process, so it doesn’t matter whether or not you are using public footpaths, common land, access land, private land, or national parks - it’s because of the “insurance” issue
Points notes, though the area does need to be reviewed and I can’t help but thing the whole insurance thing is a red herring. Our indemnity already comes from the same pot so basic notification to HQ Land where our personnel are identifiable as military-related would be a sensible courtesy.
Are DofE participants not already covered by insurance through membership of that scheme?
I’ve arranged and been involved in many expeds over the years and never have I been asked for land clearance. Admittedly not in National Parks, but the way some posts read is we need if for the average weekend or longer jobby.
Would someone from the MoD tell “farmer Giles” or local council that cadets from x are doing something and any damage is covered by the MoD. I can understand if you’ve got a load of “squaddies” doing an exercise with vehicles etc going over the area, but a few cadets with rucksacks and staff in cars driving around.
As the OP says this is an ott attitude/requiremnent wrt the 99.9% of cadet activities. I would imagine if you were doing anything vaguely along the lines of a military execise/activity it would have to be approved differently to a DEA style exped/activity and on a proper training area.
However this is the ATC and we can’t allow commonsense to get in the way.
Not quite, what it means is that we have/have had no one among our senior command prepared to challenge the stance on everyday activities. It would remain extant if if were taking cadets “off piste” to wander across open land ‘playing soldiers’ with vehicles etc.
It is intriguing that the expectation is that damage will/potentially be caused, because we have a military connection.
Not quite, what it means is that we have/have had no one among our senior command prepared to challenge the stance on everyday activities. It would remain extant if if were taking cadets “off piste” to wander across open land ‘playing soldiers’ with vehicles etc.
It is intriguing that the expectation is that damage will/potentially be caused, because we have a military connection.[/quote]
How can you say that?
You have no idea what goes on at senior level. The Army are the most obtuse bunch of people going sometimes.
[quote=“Operation Nimrod” post=11162]You have no idea what goes on at senior level. The Army are the most obtuse bunch of people going sometimes.[/quote]Even HQ Land can be put in their place with the correct leverage, especially with their resources now being adequately targeted. Shrugging the shoulders and saying “bloody army” is not an acceptable response
Maybe not, but I’m sure it would have filtered through if moves were being made, but any intimation of this has never been made apparent.
However if it suggested enough times then at some point someone starts to think they’ve got a point and change occurs regardless of how obtuse or obstructive they are. I’m sure HQ Land have got more important things to be worried about than a few cadets doing a 2-4 day hike.
Our senior command talk about reducing the “pain” for the average volunteer, but the processes never seem to get any easier, unless it suits them.
the TOPL (training on private land) dept for Wales and went region consists of 2 people. these poor people have to process all the requests for all the MoD training on their patch.
Remember Land in a national park my not be owned by one of the many Gov quango’s and in the case of the Brecon beacons national park most of the land is privately owned farm land. All these land owners need to be contacted and or paid for their land to be used.
Afterall what would you or your Mrs have to say if the british army pitched up in your garden, setup camp and turned your lawn into a mud bog ?
