Exactly but washing linen in public on here in such a manner won’t help with any type of case against the OASC’s decision. And, even if the individual is allowed to go through the process a second time, comments made here if seen by OASC and/or HQAC staff won’t do the appliacnt any good.
I would have thought that the issues here are not for open forum, if the individual feels agreived, then there are correct methods of resolving; not plastering over the social media…
Might make an interesting group discussion topic at OASC.
[quote]noah claypole wrote:
It would be interesting to know whether the OP would still be allowed into VR(T) Uniform if they were in the CCF - them not having to do OASC and all…[/quote]
What?! Really?!
[quote]major chavez wrote:
BTI: I believe the exemption you mention is not a blanket ban as you state.
The wording is at Schedule 3, Part 1, para 4 of the Equality Act 2010, it makes specific reference to ‘combat effectiveness’ not ‘operational effectiveness’. I am unable to see how the MOD would ever be able to relate ‘combat effectiveness’ to any part of a CFAVs service.
As a caveat, there may be additional sections in the act that I am not aware of and you may be entirely correct.[/quote]
No, you are entirely correct. With an uncharacteristic lack of research, I thought the phrase used in the Act was “operational” effectiveness (open to interpretation) - not combat effectiveness:
[quote]Equality Act 2010 Schedule 3 Part 1 para 4 wrote:
Armed forces.
4(1) Section 29(6), so far as relating to relevant discrimination, does not apply to anything done for the purpose of ensuring the combat effectiveness of the armed forces.
(2) “Relevant discrimination” is—
(a)age discrimination;
(b)disability discrimination;
©gender reassignment discrimination;
(d)sex discrimination
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/3/enacted
[/quote]
Interesting… very interesting…
Cheers
BTI
It is all very well going around shouting things like “equality act” but it isn’t the best place to start. The OP hasn’t given much detail about the condition or feedback given.
Do you get some kind of course report with more detailed feedback?
The thread title is ‘OASC reject due to disability’, I think that discussing the Equality Act and it’s relevancy to service as a CFAV is a pretty good place to start.
I think the title is misleading, as the post says:
This to me sounds like they were rejected because they sounded non-confident. I doubt anyone said “you have a speech impediment - rejected”. This is why I wanted to establish whether or not they made their condition known as it implies that the speech impediment is not directly influenced by stress or confidence.
The discussion may well have to end with the equality act, but it should not start there.
It’s easily misunderstood. Thanks to a Parliamentary discussion on the matter, the position of CFAVs (from all perspectives) were that we were NOT employed in any traditional capacity. However since some roles received remuneration (or pay) then all income is taxable in some way, shape or form.
It is slightly ironic that the OP has probably been working on a squadron, talking to people, instructing cadets etc and no doubt sounded confident in doing this, however goes here into a false environment and is deemed not confident.
As for the Wing board eliciting any information, my understanding is, it is a tick box standard interview to get through to the next stage. Anyhow something like this, if it was a problem would have been highlighted in the narrative done by the sqn cdr under “strengths, weaknesses, peculiarities of nature”. If it doesn’t cause a problem at the squadron why it does at OASC?
[quote=“bti” post=16842][quote]noah claypole wrote:
It would be interesting to know whether the OP would still be allowed into VR(T) Uniform if they were in the CCF - them not having to do OASC and all…[/quote]
What?! Really?![/quote]
Yes really - I thought everyone knew this?
In my experience the member of staff either express some vague interest in aviation, or the CCF role is part of the T’s&C’s of the day job. They have a chat with the Head (aka an Interview), do some drill with the NCO attached to their school (who may or may not know RAF drill and in leiu of WWO sign off for ATC) and then promptly show up at OIC.
I will add that having encountered CCF Officers under training I did feel sorry for them in that they were not prepared for OIC and it wasn’t their fault - they simply had no idea what the whole thing involved.
Anything else to add from the OP before it is arbritrarily decided by proxy that the RAF/ACO are in breach?
:dry: