I would regard ‘alone’ as being one on one, what you suggest is a small group (3) of cadets for a short period of time, that could constitute the time between someone opening up before the “official” time when cadets turn up early and others turn up. Our official time is 1900 and I’m normally at the sqn around 1830. As and when an NCO/senior cadet appears get them to crack on and if you are the lone member of staff adapt the evening to what can be done.
As to whether or not staff should find themselves in this sort of situation, welcome to the ATC. Staff get held up or unable to attend for all manner of reasons and I would suggest 90 minutes (although a hypothetical) is extreme and a few phone calls should be made.
I will say there are a few sqns (I had one for a while) around where there are 2/3 members of staff and the situation you describe (although not 1½ hours) are commonplace. As for regs around this, I’ve never seen anything and as I say there are a few sqns where this might not be unusual. Overall it has more to do with the member of staff’s confidence and panic threshold. More of a concern would be loads of staff and few cadets.
The other day I was informed that a male member of staff cant be left alone with a female Cadet and drive them to say wing for an NCO course yet a female member of staff can with a male Cadet now is this true or complete rubbish as I suspect?? If its true the whole place has gone mad
You arrive at the squadron, no other staff, you are a CI - male. Three female cadets arrive, no other cadets for 25 minutes. No staff for 90 minutes.
Other uniformed staff are at another site with other cadets, you make the uniformed staff, aware of the situation early.
What should the CI do? Continue in the spirit? Send the cadets home?
What are the regs regarding staff being alone like that?[/quote]
The current revision of ACP4 is vague on this. It cites the NSPCC recommendations for voluntary organisations, stating that for every 10 cadets there should be one member of staff supervising. If there are male and female cadets, there should be male and female staff. However, this is not always possible, and as long as there are male and female staff “on call” during ACO activities, this situation can be permitted. (I think in the scenario you’ve given, 90 minutes is a bit too excessive to argue that the member of staff is “on call”, though!)
It is worth noting that the same paragraph deals with cadets needing medical attention, stating that they should be accompanied by a member of staff but that no cadet should be alone with a member of staff of a different gender. If this is the case, someone of the same gender should be present as chaperone, but that this can be another cadet. Applying this to your admittedly-not-entirely-related-but-dealt-with-in-the-same-paragraph-in-ACP4 scenario would suggest that, as there is more than one female cadet with the male member of staff, there shouldn’t be too many problems on this front.
I (a male CI) had to arrive early one night and opened up the squadron. The first arrival was a female cadet, on her own. Her parents had already left. What should I do in that scenario? Abandon my duty of care and inform the cadet that she was not allowed on the premises until another cadet had arrived, leaving her alone and vulnerable in a town centre after dark (it was late winter)? Or break the letter of the law for the two minutes we were the only two people on the squadron before another cadet arrived, then report the fact to my Officer Commanding so that he was fully aware of the situation?
In my experience, a lot of squadron and wing personnel adopt a common sense approach to matters that would strictly be a violation of ACP4, but, due to the circumstances, are unavoidable. There are, of course, a minority who do not, but most have been squadron staff and have faced the same problems themselves before.
Not for 90 minutes, no. And ideally not at all. However, as GHE2 stated, welcome to the ATC! Things don’t always go according to plan, and we have to adapt. If we didn’t, the Corps would have fallen apart a long time ago!
The current revision of ACP4 states:
And:
There are certainly rules regarding transporting cadets alone, but no distinction is made on the basis of gender (staff or cadets). If we refer to the same medical theory above, it does not matter if the member of staff is male or female, they shouldn’t be alone with a cadet of the opposite gender.
I wonder how they expect the Corps to function if the only transport available to some squadrons is by private cars, with “good practice” requiring two members of staff in each - allowing room for only three cadets. By this logic, transporting a drill squad of 12 would require four cars and eight members of staff (good luck finding them!), yet most squadrons would do it in three cars with three members of staff.
Isn’t it a shame that we have to be in such a position where we deeply question what is and isn’t the right thing to do. Sadly, it only takes one incident and we are all concerned as to the end situation.
We all do this for what we think are the best of reasons. To be in a position of trust with children is a very noble attribute but one that can be shadowed by terrible incidents.
It is time that a clear and concise message comes from the ACO regarding these matters. Oh, I know we can spiel out the ACP’s etc, but that’s not the point. As we have seen in other threads within the Forum, ACP’s can be interpreted as Sqn’s see fit which clearly should not be the case here.
Please don’t get me wrong. I do not intend to make this the platform for arguement. We can re-post all the comments and quotes from ACP’s till we are blue in the face.
Yes we can discuss, heatedly if necessary, whether we can wear MTP or whether white tabs should or shouldn’t be worn prior to ATF. But ultimately, this subject, Child Safety (and indeed Staff Safety) should take precedence over all others. The very fabric of the ACO depends upon it…In my humble opinion.
“Never does a man stand so tall than when he stoops to guide a child” - Abraham Lincoln
if the female Cadet is in the rear seats while the male Staff drives this offers a “physical barrier” between the two parties
i cant claim that is policy or it is in a AP/ACP but i was asked this on a Wing board (and answered above) but seems a logical “common sense” approach
Steve, I have over the last few years sadly investigated incidents outside of the Cadets world where allegations of both rape and sexual assault have occurred where “the physical barrier” has meant nothing. I’m sure (sincerely hope)that this would not happen in such an incident as we are discussing here, but we ultimately would come down to a “your word against another”. Not an enviable situation.
It’s right and the most unfortunate thing is they are likely to accept the word of a hormonal teenager over that of an adult as it seems in all of these cases as the adult you are guilty until you are proved innocent and even if you are shown to be completely innocent you’re still knackered. With children, the younger they are the less likely they are to lie as with young children everything is black and white, anyone who has children will be aware of this.
As for the travelling in a car, an old work mate who has worked for the local council youth service says they are advised just that, ie you in the front and them in the back and he takes kids to all manner of things. When I was chatting to him he said he was amazed that our organisation is so jumpy about things, when he works with kids who are on a vulnerable in ways we probably wouldn’t encounter. He’s described some the situations and they’d seem unbelievable in a soap opera. He said that in the 14 years he’s worked there he’s not known an allegation of any kind, sexual impropiety or otherwise.
What would be interering is the data from Corps about allegations and outcomes.
I don’t think it matters - when it comes down to it, if it’s your word versus someone else and they are alleging abuse, you will be suspended. You could be a eunarch and still abuse someone. Your sexuality (or lack of) shouldn’t make a blind bit of difference.
Sorry. Not entirely clear. I didn’t mean in the case of an allegation being made against an openly gay member of staff, I meant how would someone who felt that no male member of staff could be left in charge of solely female cadets without a female member of staff present feel if said male member of staff was gay?
(Feel free to consider the question with all possible permutations of gender and sexuality…)
What about transgenered?
What about bisexuals? (would make it doubly akward!)
What about cadets with varied sexuality?
Oh won’t somebody pelase think of the children!
Simple answer to the general issue - is never unless it is absolutely unavoidable find yourself alone with a cadet (of any gender). 2 or more cadets however and you should be safe from allegations (unless they just don’t like you).
Not sure if these are as common in the UK yet (though I did read about some insurance companies offering discounts for people who have them fitted) but this is a great tool for these kind of situations.
Front and rear facing cameras continuosly record with audio. Just an extra layer of evidence that can be used to defend any such allegations.
[attachment=101]dashcam.jpg[/attachment]
[quote=“Operation Exile” post=11228]Not sure if these are as common in the UK yet (though I did read about some insurance companies offering discounts for people who have them fitted) but this is a great tool for these kind of situations.
Front and rear facing cameras continuosly record with audio. Just an extra layer of evidence that can be used to defend any such allegations.
[attachment=101]dashcam.jpg[/attachment][/quote]
So you’re advocating filming the female cadets? That could be misinterpreted…
OK I know they have a purpose in respect to accidents, but a camera would be a layer of paranoia too much if it was primarily installed to defend against allegations of ‘abuse’.