In a less than clear timescale, say 2026?
Somebody in HQAC told OC cadets of the Nijmegen Marches camp that all cadets were on duty for the duration of the camp and as such were not allowed to drink.
So presumably the same would apply to the staff?
When I di Nijmegen as a Cadet it was a drinking trip! I certainly wouldn’t have gone back multiple times if it were a dry camp!
Blimey every single camp I went on home and abroad we would drink and the staff knew and almost encouraged it. But the by-word was don’t get drunk. The staff would direct us to the ‘right’ pub, ie the one they wouldn’t be in, not That they went to a pub. We used to go to the pub before sqn socials and again the staff were more than aware and never said a thing. In later years when there were fewer 18 year olds at camp, we would take them out to a local pub, or buy them one if we were on a bowling night.
The only time we would really take the mick when we were over 18 cadets is when the staff blanket banned us from drinking. It seemed ridiculous to us as 19 year old cadet warrant officers that we weren’t allowed to have a solitary pint on camp when a 17 year old trainee gunner could easily go down the NAAFI and get off his face on the same base.
In my experience if you treat the over 18s like adults when it comes to drinking they overwhelmingly act like responsible adults. The only times I’ve seen incidents are when they have been banned from drinking outright and they then go down the local shop, buy the alcohol they are legally entitled to drink and drink it on the sly rather than under the supervision of the staff. The blanket ban from HQAC is an unnecessary fetter and the decision to limit drinking for over 18s should be left to the staff member in charge of the activity.
I’m fairly sure that TGs aren’t allowed to get bladdered, whether 17 or 27!
17 year olds can regularly get away with it on weekends if they’re with their over 18 mates. (It shouldn’t be happening, but it does.) Saying that, I got served once at 14.
BUT so does the teaching profession. UK law says that a teacher can date an ex-pupil over 18 if there is no longer position of trust - however teachers have been banned from the profession for dating pupils after they have left formal education - rules of the club.
I would lay money that not all do.
The regulations say that Cadet-staff relationships are forbidden. But this is about “letter of the law” versus “spirit of the law”.
The regulation is in place primarily for child protection reasons, and secondarily as protection to staff who might not realise they’re doing something silly.
If there is not a child protection concern - as in this example - then the new staff member in the relationship and indeed their OC/other staff may well choose to knowingly ignore the “rule” because in that case it would be farcical to apply it.
One of staff asked when we’ll get the exposure we see in the media as someone after 30-40 years decides it’s time to say something.
also says staff cadets and under 18 cadet relationships are forbidden…
So is wearing brown boots in DPM. Doesn’t mean it is against the law.
Certain rules shouldn’t be broken, unlike a new pair of brown boot.
I still don’t know how you stop people of similar ages not getting into a relationship, when they have a common interest? Many long term relationships / marriages start because of people have something in common, be it work, music, food, cinema, multitude of interests, membership/attendance of a group/organisation etc. The unalienable truth is that none of these respect ages or the people.
It is churlish to forbid it. I’ve never seen anything as to an IA should we be aware of it. Do we kick them out, so what, that’s no real loss to them, or, report them to the police and insist on criminal proceedings, can’t see that happening, especially if the parents of the “wronged” party say it’s OK.
The best thing is for our vastly life experienced sqn cdrs to offer advice and guidance on the matter, rather than running to an internal book/rule and quote chapter and verse, putting the fear of God into them that what they’ve done is morally and ethically wrong, when it isn’t. The single biggest problem is that everyone thinks that the relationships like this are always or going to be physical from day one, when like all relationships they will be largely platonic / just intimate for quite a while.
Don’t get me wrong if it was a 25+ taking up with a young lad or lass, that’s not right. Just from the POV of who in their right mind (other than celebs and wannabes) would want to be in a relationship with a moody/hormonal teen, when they are much older.
It’s often brought up, are the Corps willing to lose a possible brilliant member of staff (or two) for making one leave for six months. They could both end up leaving. If they can be professional about their relationship now, what’s going to change when the elder turns 20?
I’d say they need to be open with their OC and WC and those who need to know and agree with the comments about SNCO moving to another squadron.
I don’t agree with the comment about ‘this is the problem / issue with having over 18’, as if you reduce the age to 18 it’ll just move the problem down to 17 / 18 year oldsm
would you say a staff cadet or staff cadet NCO is in a position of trust? if so then yes it is against the law
I’m pretty sure that a ‘staff cadet’ whether they’re an NCO or not is not in law in ‘a position of trust’. That is unless there has been a change to the Child Protection Act.
The act does not apply to voluntry organizations or volunteers.