Sly!
[quote=“steve679” post=5934][quote=“ears” post=5922][quote=“the silverback” post=5906]CC forms are no more noe TG Forms 021, 022, and 023.
Same as before but only available as PDF.
And If a cadet is over 18 they must put their DBS/Disclosure Scotland/Access NI Clearance Number at the top.[/quote]
I do have a word version if anyone is wanting of it?[/quote]
as stated in my earlier post, the link i have followed off the sharepoint landing page takes me to three .docx files[/quote]
On sharepoint Monday evening thety were PDFs. Today they are Word Docs.
Perhaps HQAC does read this… :woohoo:
[quote=“wdimagineer2b” post=5931]I die even more when HQAC reinvent forms under their own damn names…Like when I look on sharepoint for an ID card application form. I know I’m looking for “MOD Form IDENT 1024C” - because that’s what it is…but HQAC in their morondom have decided to upload it with the name “Pers form 001”.
FGS HQAC!! Don’t invent brand-new, pulled-out-of-someones-BUM form numbers when the MOD have already given it a fecking form number.
Did I miss an email somewhere which stated the aims of BADER as:
“Make things harder”
“Reinvent the wheel”
“Adapt to a changing User Interface, whilst leaving the broken functionality broken”??
Would it be too much to expect that unimportant ‘jobs’ are ignored whilst important, required jobs are given to people who actually know how to do them?
I know that to the new eye on the forums I must appear synical, but the reality is that if I did business the way HQAC seem to (or contract out) I’d never work again.
It’s incredibly frustrating.[/quote]
Don’t sweeten the pill mate - tell us what you really think…
Maybe by Friday they’ll be called CC1 AL1 and CC4 AL4?
Waiting…
[quote]the fixer wrote:
I was told explicitly, at ATF, we don’t have the power of “loco parentis” over Cdts. If we don’t, why has this been included on both the CC and TG forms?
…OC ATF was admimant that we don’t have that “power” and that a trained medical professional should make any decisions.
In truth I don’t know the answer. Nobody can ever back up their position. Having googled it a few times I can understand why.
…we have a form saying one thing and courses run at ATF saying another.
There’s contradiction and I don’t know how to find out what is correct. If somebody can prove to me either way I’d be happy. [/quote]
Bosh.
[quote]ACP4 Child Protection Policy, Chapter 1 wrote:
- [color=#0000ff]The ACO does not act in loco parentis for cadets under the age of 18 and parental responsibility remains with cadets’ parents, guardian or carers [/color]in accordance with Section 2 of the Children Act 1989 (England and Wales), Sections 106 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 and Sections 5-7 of The Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. [color=#ff0000]The only exception to this is in the event of a cadet requiring urgent medical treatment, including any emergency operation, when parents, guardians or carers are unable to physically give consent and they have delegated this responsibility[/color] at Section 4 of RAF Form 3822A (Air Training Corps Consent Certificate) or on AC Form 13C (Cadet) (Consent Form and Certificate of Health). [/quote]
I had exactly the same quandrary when preparing to deliver my first BASIC course in my new WSO capacity.
Interestingly, this is what the HQAC-issued 2006 BASIC CD had to say…
[quote]HQAC 2006 BASIC CD wrote:
The Latin term “In loco parentis” means, in a UK legal context: “in place of the parent.”
Meaning –
For the time that the cadet is in the charge of the instructor, he/she owes a duty to take the same reasonable care of the cadet that a reasonable parent would in those circumstances.[/quote]
Completely confusing the legal concept of “duty of care” and “in loco parentis” …fortunately now remedied by ACP4, but not necessarily properly trained - it would seem. I have now modified our Wing’s BASIC accordingly (and correctly).
Everyone - staff and cadets - have a legal duty of care to each other, although this is skewed towards staff, as adult staff are acting in a supervisory capacity over cadets who - if under 18 - are children in the eyes of the law …which is where there is sometimes confusion with in loco parentis.
For example, if a member of adult staff exposes a cadet (or another member of staff for whom they were responsible) to a reasonably foreseeable danger, that would be a failure in their legal duty of care towards the person for whose safety they were responsible (whether a child or adult).
This is completely seperate and different to “in loco parentis” which is to do with acting “in place of the parent” and with the legal authority of a parent, and relates to making parental-type decisions about the safety and welfare of a child in situations over and above where the normal duty of care is owed.
For example, Schools, Police, and Social Services can all act (legally) “in loco parentis” to remove a child from danger when there is a possibility of harm in a safeguarding situation …whereas the ACO could not - it could only report the matter to the Police and/or Social Services, who would then act with lawful authority in loco parentis.
The ACO has no lawful authority to act “in loco parentis” other than as described in ACP4, i.e. in the event of a medical emergency and where the child’s legal parent/guardian has delegated responsibility for such a decision to the ACO (via F3822A and/or consent forms of whatever variety) …but everyone in the ACO has a general duty of care to one-another, however this is more pronounced when one is acting in a position of supervisory responsibility.
Beware those who confuse duty of care with in loco parentis!!
Cheers
BTI
PS) All of this is the reason why I am now firmly back in the “cadet service should end at 18” camp.
How can it be in today’s world that we could have a situation where - legally - an adult (i.e. an 18> Staff Cadet) could be under the direction/control/supervision of a child (e.g. a 16 or 17 year old cadet SNCO)? …how does an 18> Staff Cadet who may be a Cadet or JNCO exercise their legal duty of care in such a situation? …what does the 18> Cdt or Cpl do if the <18 SNCO in charge acts dangerously, or makes a decision which puts cadets at risk?
…in the eyes of the law - and in such a situation - could it be the 18> cadet who - as a legal adult - is held to be liable for failing to exercise their duty of care towards the children they were accompanying? …does an adult automatically owe a legal duty of care to children, and in such circumstances could they be found negligent by their action or by ommission of action?
The ACO itself certainly seems to suggest this might be the case!
[quote]ACP4 Foreword “definitions” wrote:
f. Duty of care. The responsibility which rests upon an individual or organisation to ensure that all reasonable steps are taken to ensure the safety of a child or young person involved in any activity or interaction for which that individual or organisation is responsible. [color=#ff0000]Any person [/color]in charge of, [color=#ff0000]or working with children and young people in any capacity is considered to owe them a duty of care[/color].[/quote]
Actually, this definition is only correct in the context of safeguarding children and young people, but since that’s what ACP4 is about hey-ho …but it doesn’t highlight (and where does?) the fact that the ACO has a duty of care towards its adult personnel, and that adult personnel can - where they have supervisory responsibility - have a duty of care towards other adults.
For example …does the ACP4 definition of duty of care mean that a CFAV does not have a duty of care towards an 18> Staff Cadet? (no it does not - but hopefully you take my point).
Where are you Perry Mason?!
The more I deliver BASIC training and the more I research the matter, the more I think that Staff Cadet service from 18-20 has the potential to be a legal minefield …and that the ATC should get in line with the SCC and ACF, end cadet service at 18 and drop the CFAV (or CI at least) entry age to 18.
That’s be the BASIC course which may only be delivered off Ultilearn for some reason to do with some sort of accreditation or other…
[quote=“bti” post=5959]get in line with the SCC and ACF, end cadet service at 18 and drop the CFAV (or CI at least) entry age to 18.[/quote]Unless it has changed recently, the ACF stop at 18 and 9 months. Surely this means that their adult cadets are less well prepared for their legal position as adults than our own?
I personally don’t see the conflict, as you say. EVERYONE, has a legal duty of care to look after their neighbours. Which means every cadet, as you say, has a duty of care to each-other. Which means that if any cadet, regardless of age, breaches that duty to another there is a problem.
At the end of the day, (here’s where I may get rusty law wise.) the civil claim which could arise is not made against an individual, it is made against the Corps or the MOD. And the legal responsibility comes down to the Officer in charge. So I don’t see how there is a difference between the duty owed by a newly appointed Sgt ATC and a CWO, both having done the same BASIC course.
I have to say that the legal authority for medical decisions confuses me, as I can’t see the point - if medical staff found a completely untraceable child they would simply act in the manner which was felt to be in his/her best interest, rather than letting him/her die because there was no one to give consent.
So in the case of a situation where the parents can’t be contacted for consent for whatever reason, why does a CFAV have to give permission for anything? Why can’t the doctors just get on with it?
Under the children act of 1989, young people aged 16 and 17 are presumed to have understanding and intelligence to be able to consent to medical treatment. Based on the idea whether they have capacity of not.
In critical situations with children and young people involving a life threatening emergency when parental responsibility is impossible or the people with the responsibility refuse consent despite the treatment being in the best interests, in these cases the courts favour the preservation of life and it is acceptable for clinician to undertake the treatment to preserve life or prevent serious damage to health.
This also applies to minors when no one assuming responsibility is available.
With people under the age of 16 and those who have sufficent understanding and intelligence to understand fully what is proposed also have the capacity to consent to treatment.
There isn’t an age when children are able to consent on their own.
Interestingly, if the young person gives valid informed consent the parent or guardian cannot over-ride that decision.
Source - JRCALC Guidelines 2013
So do we really have a duty of care when it comes to their own medical treatment in an emergency setting when they have capacity to make the decision for themselves?
Many a time I’ve been to a patient who clearly needs hospitalisation and medical treatment refuses. 4 hours later I’ve gone back to same address and am now jumping up and down on his chest ‘acting in his best interest’ despite knowing 4 hours ago he was happy to die.
I’m quite impressed that the forms are actually usable (well now they’re doc as opposed to pdf), all we need now are the whole lot on ONE document, rather than multiple.
Although I do agree that as with many things it is a change for the sake rather than need. But that’s what you get with career administrators … wheel reinvention ensures it looks like they are doing something inbetween nail filing and tea/coffee breaks and justifies them having a job.
I want to know why they can’t make a slight change to the cadet form so that it can be used by staff too. That would simplify things.
Or just bin the idea of a staff ‘consent’ form altogether?
I’m here, I drove myself! Of course I consent to be here. If there’s anything medically that needs to be known, it’ll be on the medical questionnaire.
[quote=“MattB” post=6030]Or just bin the idea of a staff ‘consent’ form altogether?
I’m here, I drove myself! Of course I consent to be here. If there’s anything medically that needs to be known, it’ll be on the medical questionnaire.[/quote]
So, change the forms so that we have:
[ol]
[li]Form A is a genuine “consent” form and applies only to cadets under the age of 18 (under 16 if they are in Scotland)[/li]
[li]Form B is a medical questionnaire for everybody which contains emergency contact details of NoK as well as the current medical declaration[/li]
[li]Form C is the medical details form to expand on key declared conditions (if any)[/li]
[/ol]
Form B - is this not F3822? Containing all contact details, NoK details, Doctors surgery etc?
So long as it is kept up to date, yes. (though I never put in doctor details in a 3822 - is there actually a place?)
I see the point in having a current copy and recent declaration to ensure that we do have the true picture, notwithstanding the fact that some people still fail to declare some conditions. I am more interested with limiting the use of consent forms to occasions where the cadets are away from base for an extended period of time and not for a daytime course at their local squadron or wing.
The problem there is that the 3822 doesn’t list the medical conditions; is rarely updated correctly; and may not be suitable for all occasions.
Perhaphs next of kin contact details might be different for that week. Parents away for example, where the 3822 lists the NOK details for home.
It does make sense to have a specific form raised for each occasion.
EDIT - Incubus beat me to it.
given that is all valid i take it back
it does grind my gears however that as i Cadet you needed a 3822 to do anything, without it not allowed on the bus to go to the event - end of.
that was your permission, your NoK details the lot
whereas now i have to print out the same document one weekend to the next with the only difference the event and dates typically working with the same staff weekend in weekend out, some of whom have my NoK details already in their phone and know me long enough to know what i suffer from!
I agree with Incubus - it makes much more sense for someone to come and tell us categorically when we should have them (and it shouldn’t be for everything). My wing insists on them for every course, no matter what the duration.
I’d prefer to say that if staying overnight we require them, if not then we’re covered by the details in the 3822. However, if a cadet develops a temporary medical issue (such as being on antibiotics) then we are told by means of a series of forms like the above for every event.
Agree with Incy and other comments above.
We are not the Admin Training Corps. An element of sensibility needs to be considered when faffing about with admin, forms etc.
I honestly don’t see why it is necessary for staff (and indeed to some degree for cadets over 18).
I thought we gave consent when we signed on the dotted line, and turned up, but heyho!