We arrange the care, but we cannot authorise it.
If you had a seriously ill cadet who happened to be a jehovah’s witness, would/could/should you authorise a blood transfusion?
Morally, you would say yes, but legally, you will be a world of hurt. That is because we are not in loco parentis. We have no more right to authorise medical care, than passers-by applying first aid.
The hospital would ask for a care order through social services so that the child would be taken into ‘care’ and the trasfusion given unless the child was/is declared Gillick competant. In that case the child of whatever age could/would give or withold consent to treatment.
Topic.
Counterpoint - what is your fascination with making people be CIs?
So they can get a broader view of the organisation and observe who does what and how it fits together.
When I first started work we all did a spell doing different jobs on the section so that we knew how it fitted together and could cover during holidays and sickness. Also new boys and girls did a couple of weeks on sections they reported to or used the information from, so that they had a broad view of the whole, rather than come in and just do one job.
One failing in the ATC is that a lot of uniformed staff don’t have a broad appreciation of all staff groups by having dome them.
In the ATC spending time as a CI gives people the opportunity to observe and make an informed decision as to whether they want to go into uniform and if they do which side.
It seems far too easy with cadets to from quite an early point suggest they become staff and which way to go and then become like an ear worm, until the cadet “decides” to go down the suggested route. I see a lot of staff influencing cadets to go into uniform when their life as a cadet ends and as far as I’m concerned this is wrong in just about everyway possible, especially as they are adults and deserve more respect and be allowed to make their own decision in their own time and not by having adult staff who would probably tell people where to get off if subjected to the same. If someone suggests something to me I’m not happy about I decline and if they keep on I decline in a more emphatic manner.
The staff and staff cadets I’ve had on the squadron all comment that I don’t suggest or bang on about what they should do and let them decide, even if it’s not to, at the end of the day.
I do agree with the point about not being pushed down a SNCO/commission route if unsure, but there’s no reason that a PI-type position wouldn’t allow that.
In the ACF model,. PI is a uniformed position and a step towards being a fully-approved SNCO. If you don’t expect PI to work the same for us, I see no reason for there to be a PI position at all, as CI is a clearer status.
In my model, CI would be it’s original status - someone who wants to be a part of the organisation, but has no intention of going into uniform. If nothing else, it should help stop them being badgered about it.
The uniform should come from the individual not the OC or WSO.
But is that not being badgered afforded to our 18-20 year olds? It is quite creepy how a number of CFAV suggest and coerce Staff Cadets into an adult uniform, abusing their position over them. Which ends up with a number of enthusiastic 20 year olds becoming jaded before they are 30, as they have been put into situations they are not ready for. Some of these go looking for it and find that all that glisters is not gold.
Ironically if this badgering happened to anyone under 18, staff could be accused of all manner of things and be regarded as sinister.
So far only 331 of sqn cdrs have replied to the survey.
I did try to email all OCs on BADER before the E-mail from SO3 came out. For an OC to email everybody in the corps it has to be OKed by somebody. The exchange message was
Your message has expired without any moderator decision for the following recipients. All OC Sqns
Sort of sums up the corps.
I’ve done it. Let’s see if they take any notice!
Judiging by previous surveys I doubt it.
I’m still undecided whether or not respond or not.
I’ve looked at it and unimpressed with the questions.
Based upon the original answers (when you could see everyone’s responses). As a group OC’s have walked into the trap. To the Second question “would you support ending Cadet service at 18 and possibly introducing Adult Corporal” everyone was saying “yes” and then in the free text box were adding their “but”. All HQAC need to do is ignore the “buts” and say “however many percent said they were in favour of adult corporal”.
What should have been said was “no” and then in the free text box say all of the If’s and but’s.
I said no, without any buts!
Snap!
I remember being told after the fact that the Laser review group was originally told the upper age should drop to 18, but HQAC got cold feet. Just think by now we’d had have had 15 years of no over 18 cadets.
I think that ‘abuse’ is a wildly over-dramatic use of language.
Personally, I think that if you must have 25-year-old OCs then I’d rather that person has been an officer for 5 years, than 1. Given that stark choice appears to be the one that we actually have, I really don’t see the issue with going straight into uniform.
i would also argue that those who have been “justified” to stay n past their 18th birthday have “something” worth holding on to and so no surprise the Cadets are encouraged to stay on as Staff.
Since the restrictions on O18 Cadets I haven’t seen more than 2x per Squadron – with some making it clear they are heading off to uni and following a career.
Of those we see more often (ie not just for the holidays) some grow out of it, while others have a continued drive for the organisation – it is those I see encouraged into uniform and why wouldn’t we want those young, driven, experienced Cadets to join the Staff team?
I just hope the survey remains long enough for me to comment… holidays getting in the way 