Not heard about this before (but I’m also not in Wales…) But looks interesting. A quick Google shows a lot of Welsh sports bodies suggesting such a form is required. None of them quote any legislation though.
Yeah, that’s as far as I got. I’m trying to pin down whether it’s required by law, or is government guidance, or just ‘best practice’ to inform the decision whether we should be doing it or not in our context. Personally I think it’s pointless, but if we need to do it then I guess we do.
NYA Guidance V4 - Takes affect from Midnight as we enter the Tiers of Doom
Amber for Under 18s
Red for Vulnerable Over 18s
In my mind we firmly sit in amber as all of our over 18s are leaders.
Wait out on updated RAFAC Guidance
That isn’t true though, because it is still possible to remain a staff cadet and not accept the responsibilities of a leader. So I guess they get excluded?
From what I can find I don’t think it’s a statutory requirement, nor is it government guidance, just something the sports bodies have come up with.
Yup, that’s my conclusion too. So waiting on clarification on whether we should be expecting reference to it for AT (and presumably sport) applications or not. Hopefully the answer is no and we can chin it off in short order.
Every staff cadet has signed to acknowledge their role and responsibilities as an over-18 leader. We may not always use staff cadets in that role but the paperwork says that they are leaders.
My view is that we should only retain cadets as staff cadets where they add value to the Sqn and can act as a member of staff, albeit not fully trained or all of the time but on occasions that will increase in that 2 year period.
With these rules you would need to justify their attendance at all times as a leader / staff training.
1 Like
No I know that, but was there not something that was released when they made the staff cadet agreement that said that over 18s didn’t have to accept that responsibility? I can’t find any reference to it on Sharepoint though.
Yes, and that is my view too. But I’m thinking of a specific issue that I think I can remember not the more general vision of how we use them.
I.e. There’s a staff cadet that you can trust to run a class and make sure they don’t like windows where as that same staff cadet you may not trust them to run a leadership ex?
That was definitely the case to some extent at least. I well recall having that exact discussion with my upcoming staff cadets at that time.
Now though it does appear that all have to sign. I don’t know when the change was made, but it may be that by now any who had been appointed under the old system have gone. It’s only a two year window.
1 Like
No, it was more that people that were appointed prior to giving them proper ability to run activities didn’t necessarily sign up to that when they agreed to become a staff cadet.
1 Like
Doesn’t signing the agreement simply remind the over 18 that they are now legally adults, and as such have the same legal and moral responsibilities as other adults. Not necessarily that they agree to run activities as the person in charge?
I had this discussion with my WSO about six months ago and she proved me wrong. I also thought it was optional and remember seeing something about it when it came out initially, but it appears that it has changed since. Pre-IBNs, of course
I’m glad someone else remembers it the way I do, actually thought I was going crazy.
1 Like
Yeah, it’s far less clear cut than the previous form which basically said “I do/do not agree to take on the additional responsibilities”.
Now the declaration they sign is just the standard “I’m not a criminal… You have permission to check… I’ll tell you if I become one… I won’t have a relationship with cadets” form.
The only mention of responsibility is implied in the opening paragraph:
“As an adult cadet in the RAFAC your normal duties include caring for, training, supervising or being in sole charge of children”. But the way the document is worded, they are not being asked to sign to accept that.
The wording in ACP 20 now really implies that they are “staff” but that the role and level in each activity is a matter to be decided between the staff cadet and the OC. ie it’s a case-by-case choice and not a blanket “I agree/don’t agree”.
With regards the NYA guidance I think we are squarely in the “leaders” field - whether that cadet is taking any particular leadership role in that lesson/activity. Just as we are with CFAVs… I could have a CFAV present at the unit who isn’t teaching that particular lesson… They could even be sitting in for their own learning… but their status is “leader”.
3 Likes
Reading the NYA guidance, it looks like we should be able to restart face to face, whic is very welcome.
As always, it depends on the extra hoops from HQAC and Region though. Anyone seen anything from them yet?
I don’t expect any additional hoops, this is very much a back to how we were pre lockdown 2.0 with exception of the 18+
To be fair to HQAC this was published to them the same time as us.
1 Like
Not only that but the MPs are as we speak still debating what is going on! Although it does look like it’ll pass, even though there will be a pretty strong rebellion.
MPs just passed the bill (although with a considerable rebellion) so I’m guessing we’ll get an update from HQAC soon? Just guessing they were waiting for the the bill to pass in case it somehow got rejected!