Whilst the military is in some cases well versed in dealing with civil servant, it is often pretty bad at dealing with them. In too many cases the military tries to treat civilians as though they are ‘squaddies’, sadly, this doesn’t help their cause in what they are trying to achieve. Giving people like WExOs MSF status does give them some level of cover and recognition through the CoC.
You could say that for all of us who don a uniform. I don’t need to have a rank for what I do day to day in the Corps, just an appointment/title. But if I tried to arrange something without a rank, it would be awkward and more difficult and then there is accountability.
Ask the majority of CIs who try and interact with regulars, the fact that they don’t have a uniform ergo rank, trying to do anything with the regular forces is nigh on impossible. Let’s face it there are many CIs out there far better qualified/knowledgable to be in charge of activities at Wing and higher, than those in uniform who are in charge. But as they are CIs they aren’t allowed because the CoC would implode at the idea. A large number of CIs go for a uniform out of frustration to get recognition/acceptance by the greater organisation and to be allowed to do more.
Having someone with an identifiable rank is purely about accountablity and sod all to do with doing the job. I would say that it’s the same with our regular brothers and sisters.
Does anyone else think the questionnaire is incredibly leading?!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I wasn’t - I was referring to the transport and use of Section 5 prohibited weapon for something other than target shooting which SNCOs cannot legally do. I believe that this was discovered when Sqn started asking station armouries for LSWs, someone read the regulation and then open the pandoras box from there. However whilst this might have been the catalyst for looking at the matter you are right that the CoC would not make such a sweeping change to resolve a single issue (however it maybe the stop that prevents a cadet commission being introduced - we will see).
In answer your question on why so many young officers are unwilling to take command, if you have a bunch of SNCOs who only like to do things their way, you can’t get rid of and can’t be reason with would you take command? Several times on the forum we have heard about SNCOs going against regs with the Sqn Commanders not willing to confront [I’m thinking Ziggy here and the underage cadet playing the bugle cause they were the another Sgt’s child]
Would you take on responsibility for a team like that knowing that if it all went wrong you would be the one held liable with possibly little support from above? ditto for Camp Com on annual camp.
One thing that OASC for VR(T) has done is added a bit of professionalism to the Officer Corps. VR(T) are more accepting of having to move, and with less of them, more likely to.
So for those stayed on the sqn from being a cadet, who want to go into uniform but don’t want to get moved they go to SNCOs - they get to be the Cadet NCO (in their minds) again and get to stay with their friends.
What will happen if make SNCOs go VR(T) with an increased probability of moving - the cadets will go straight in as CIs as they won’t want to move. This could be a positive thing as in means that those who apply for the SNCO role are more likely to be better motivated and interested in working for the ACO as a whole rather than their own four walls.
[quote=“tango_lima” post=17488][quote=“Chief Tech” post=17485]
Now one big (hypothetical) question assuming SNCOs become VR(T) - when the VRT WO or FS throw their teddies out the pram when given a reasonable instruction - can they be put on a charge?[/quote]
Presumably not without jumping through all the same hoops as for charging anyone else…[/quote]
Presumably so - but there will be one jobsworth out there willing to go through it. I can also see some WO placing FS and Sgts on charges as well which does not lead to a happy team.
This is probably one factor, down IMO to inexperience in life and maybe an argument for making squadron command requiring a minimum age and or number of years commissioned. Many of the problems highlighted are probably down to young/inexperienced Officers being put into commands before they are ready. Doing a couple of courses at ATF is not enough and for those who come direct from cadet service, cadet service is not a proper preparation / precursor for adult service, even if you are a Staff Cadet.
I wonder if the unwillingness has more to do to the fact that it has become more of a second job and more demandng of people’s time than they are willing to give up. This is a bigger hurdle for the CoC to overcome.
Done that and with a CWC that were quite entrenched. They soon got their heads around the idea that I wasn’t taking any crap and the only effect was 2 CWC left. The staff stayed and got on with things changing.
It’s still too early to make any judgements like this. Those I’ve come across so far don’t look/act differently to those who did it the old way.
I don’t get this idea of wanting to make people move and the fact they move they are somehow more professional, than people who don’t. What is the motivation to move squadrons? I would say people who are willing and able get involved in things show more interest in the Corps, than people who move squadrons. Most people move squadrons because they get offered a command, OR, they move house, OR, go NEP or have extended LOA and go somewhere else when they return, OR, they want to team up with a mate, OR, don’t get on with people at the squadron. The latter will tend to move every couple of years. Not many move on a whim of fancying a change. A change of location when you volunteer has greater ramifications on you personally. I did it years ago as a developmental thing and it was fine for the period I did it, but it was a pita generally.
…is actually every bit as likely to happen the other way round, with an OC who thinks they know it all refusing to be told anything to the contrary. What hope do the staff have of getting rid of such an individual? 
From my perspective, this debate comes down to how much like the RAF is the ACO supposed to be? I guess the follow on for this forum is how much like the RAF do the RAF itself and our esteemed membership actually want it to be? I can guarantee several comments (and I can guess who they will be from) along the lines of ‘I’m not in the RAF anyway’. But, whether some of our commentators on here like it or not, the ACO IS part of the RAF, we wear their uniform and some of our staff have the privilege of holding commissions. To that end, the RAF has every right to dictate certain conditions to us. The bottom line is that, even though we are volunteers, we have all voluntarily joined a club which has certain rules, particularly so if you wear the Queen’s uniform. If you don’t want to play by those rules, then don’t join in the first place. So those who argue, for example, that being a little corpulent should not affect the way they do their job and that they are here to make a difference to the cadets are correct, just don’t expect to do it in an RAF’s uniform without adverse comment. If you want to make a difference to young people and remain overweight, then be an overweight CI or join the Air Scouts if you really want a uniform.
Should it also really matter if being in the VR(T) makes our SNCOs more accountable? No. Importantly, it will also afford them the protection of the Armed Forces Act and give them a properly recognised means to address any grievances or disputes rather than the unofficial process that currently exists. Will having our SNCOs in the VR(T) increase the number of cases going to the AFB? Possibly, but only if our CoC still fails to get its act together and continue to deal with disciplinary matters inapropriately. The increase in the number of cases going to the AFB for resolution has been a fairly recent thing. Now I cannot for certain say the two are linked, but since the demise of Spt Cmd, which pretty much left HQAC to do its own thing, HQ Air have taken greater interest in the way the ACO goes about its business. What I do know is that there have been some howling mistakes made by the ACO CoC, with inappropriate or indeed no punishments being meted out for what were very serious offences. Indeed, the Commandant has written to all of us to outline her concerns over the way things have been handled. Had many of these issues been disposed of effectively and properly from the outset, then individuals would probably not have had the option to go to the AFB.
For far too long, the ACO as a whole, from top to bottom, has looked after itself, ignored advice and policy from outside, and generally behaved in a blinkered, arrogant manner. What we are seeing now is HQ Air taking a stronger stance with the organisation, as HQ Spt Cmd should have done years ago, and the ACO is itself starting to take steps to make itself a more ‘professional’ organisation with the introduction of OASC. Bringing everyone in uniform into one body, so we are all truly ‘of one Company’ can only be a good thing and is long overdue.
Legally there should be no issue with SNCO transporting otherwise prohibited weapons or ammunition when they’re on duty. The law doesn’t differentiate between VR(T) Officers, SNCOs (ATC), CIs, or Cadets.
The Firearms Act 1968 (as amended) is pretty clear on this point.
[quote]
For the purposes of this section and any rule of law whereby any provision of this Act does not bind the Crown, the persons specified in subsection (5) of this section shall be deemed to be in the naval, military or air service of Her Majesty, insofar as they are not otherwise in, or treated as being in, any such service.
(5)The persons referred to in subsection (4) of this section are the following—
(a)…
(b)members of any cadet corps approved by the Secretary of State when—
(i)they are engaged as members of the corps in connection with, drill or target shooting; and
(ii)in the case of possession of prohibited weapons or prohibited ammunition when engaged in target shooting, they are on service premises; and
©persons providing instruction to any members of a cadet corps who fall within paragraph (b)… [/quote]
To simplify:
-
All ACO personnel are authorised to have in their possession a section 5 firearm when on duty in connection with drill or target shooting.
Moving weapons from armoury to range should certainly count as being “in connection with” target shooting. -
When actually firing a Section 5 firearm “engaged in target shooting” we are only exempt when on Service premises.
-
We are also exempt when providing instruction.
What occasions other than drill, target shooting, or instruction would we ever have weapons in our possession?
Re. the Service Complaint (SC) problem identified by DYER, as I have said before elsewhere, there is a fix which does not require tinkering with the status of commissions etc. (and would ease any ATC to VR(T) transition for the WO and SNCO cadre). However, I don’t know whether the CoC are considering it, or are even aware of its potential …the only reason I am is because of my research into and interest (sad, I know) in the subject.
Section 334(1) of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (AFA06) specifies who may make an SC
[quote]334 Redress of individual grievances: service complaints
(1) If—
(a) a person subject to service law thinks himself wronged in any matter relating to his service, or
(b) a person who has ceased to be subject to service law thinks himself wronged in any such matter which occurred while he was so subject,
he may make a complaint about the matter under this section (a “service complaint”).
(2) But a person may not make a service complaint about a matter of a description specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.[/quote]
s334(2) (above) also states that an SC cannot be made about matters specified by the SoS. These matters are specified in secondary legislation - The Armed Forces (Redress of Individual Grievances) Regulations 2007.
MOD regulations covering the making of SCs are contained in JSP831 (Redress of Individual Grievances: Service Complaints). Note that these regulations are largely about process, and are not regulations in the sense of secondary legislation …i.e. they are written by MOD.
In simple terms - currently - as a person subject to Service Law when on ACO duty, RAFVR(T) personnel (i.e. possibly including ORs in the future) have the right, both legally under AFA06 s33(1) and by MOD regulations IAW JSP831, to make an SC. RAFVR(T) Officers also have the right under AFA06 s337 to have an individual grievance referred to HMTQ once an SC has been staffed by the AFB:
[quote]337 Reference of individual grievance to Her Majesty
(1) This section applies if conditions A to C are met.
(2) Condition A is that a service complaint is made about a matter by—
(a) an officer; or
(b) a person who was an officer at the time the matter occurred.
(3) Condition B is that—
(a) a decision on the complaint is taken by the Defence Council under section 334; and
(b) the Defence Council’s function of taking that decision is not delegated to a service complaint panel to any extent.
(4) Condition C is that the complainant makes an application to the Defence Council stating why, in his view—
(a) he should be given redress; or
(b) he should be given different or additional redress.
(5) The Defence Council must make a report on the complaint to Her Majesty, in order to receive the directions of Her Majesty on the complaint.[/quote]
So - back to the fix.
If - by order of the SoS, and/or amendment of The Armed Forces (Redress of Individual Grievances) Regulations 2007 - Cadet Forces personnel were excluded from making an SC, or such a complaint were limited to 1* Level 1 (i.e. Comdt AC in the case of the ACO), then, automatically, the SC problem would either go away; or appeals to SCs from ACO personnel would be restricted to Comdt AC & HQAC (the “Commanding Officer”, within the meaning of JSP831 Chapter 3).
JSP831 and VR(T) T&COS in AP1919 could be amended accordingly under the authority of s4 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.
Boom.
No more Service Complaints, or they are limited to Level 1 (1* - i.e. Comdt AC).
Just a thought 
Cheers
BTI
So in theory a Gp Capt RAFVR(T) only has the right to complain to CAC? No appeal above that?
Most private sector grievance procedures will allow an appeal to at least 2 levels above you.
I know it’s not a wide ranging issue, but i think it supports the argument that RAFVR(T) is not the answer to everything.
[quote]wdimagineer2b wrote:
[quote]Chief Tech wrote:
I was referring to the transport and use of Section 5 prohibited weapon for something other than target shooting which SNCOs cannot legally do. I believe that this was discovered when Sqn started asking station armouries for LSWs, someone read the regulation and then open the pandoras box from there.[/quote]
Legally there should be no issue with SNCO transporting otherwise prohibited weapons or ammunition when they’re on duty. The law doesn’t differentiate between VR(T) Officers, SNCOs (ATC), CIs, or Cadets.
The Firearms Act 1968 (as amended) is pretty clear on this point.
For the purposes of this section and any rule of law whereby any provision of this Act does not bind the Crown, the persons specified in subsection (5) of this section shall be deemed to be in the naval, military or air service of Her Majesty, insofar as they are not otherwise in, or treated as being in, any such service.
(5)The persons referred to in subsection (4) of this section are the following—
(a)…
(b)members of any cadet corps approved by the Secretary of State when—
(i)they are engaged as members of the corps in connection with, drill or target shooting; and [color=#ff0000][this covers Air Rifle No8 & L81][/color]
(ii)in the case of possession of prohibited weapons or prohibited ammunition when engaged in target shooting, they are on service premises; and [color=#ff0000][covers the L98A2 & LSW][/color]
(c)persons providing instruction to any members of a cadet corps who fall within paragraph (b)…
[color=#ff0000][covers WI, SAAI & RCOs][/color]
To simplify:
-
All ACO personnel are authorised to have in their possession a section 5 firearm when on duty in connection with drill or target shooting.
Moving weapons from armoury to range should certainly count as being “in connection with” target shooting. -
When actually firing a Section 5 firearm “engaged in target shooting” we are only exempt when on Service premises.
-
We are also exempt when providing instruction.
What occasions other than drill, target shooting, or instruction would we ever have weapons in our possession?[/quote]
[color=#ff0000][my annotations above][/color]
Erm exactly that - most stations do not have a gallery range or ETR on site and even some barrack ranges requires use of the public highway to get the arms from the armoury to the range. Transport of weapons is regarded as “in connection with” not “engaged in” target shooting. So if you have to take L98A2s off base then you are not on service premises and so can’t benefit from the exemption as you are not regarded as crown servants.
VR(T) are regarded as reserve forces not members of a cadet corps. Also ACO policy states that we can only practice arms drill with the L98A2 - drill is not target shooting so arms drill cannot legally be done by ATC SNCO unless supervised by an officer/service helper/reservist. Notice that there is nothing in the act about SNCOs CI or Cadets being on duty purely when the circumstance take effect.
You’re right but ‘should’ is not the same as ‘is’. If you are an SNCO (member of a cadet corps) transporting L98s without an officer (member of a volunteer reserve) escort and you have a car accident (or pulled over) things could get very sticky for you very quickly. With drill, you’re less likely to run into trouble on station but if on unit you have a nosy neighbour who likes to complain to the police all the time again the issue is more likely to come up and it’s down to you to prove the exemption.
Solution? Make SNCOs VR(T)
[quote=“bti” post=17513]
If - by order of the SoS, and/or amendment of The Armed Forces (Redress of Individual Grievances) Regulations 2007 - Cadet Forces personnel were excluded from making an SC, or such a complaint were limited to 1* Level 1 (i.e. Comdt AC in the case of the ACO), then, automatically, the SC problem would either go away; or appeals to SCs from ACO personnel would be restricted to Comdt AC & HQAC (the “Commanding Officer”, within the meaning of JSP831 Chapter 3).
JSP831 and VR(T) T&COS in AP1919 could be amended accordingly under the authority of s4 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.
Boom.
No more Service Complaints, or they are limited to Level 1 (1* - i.e. Comdt AC).
Just a thought
Cheers
BTI[/quote]
I suspect the CoC are probably not aware of this issue as the amount of issues they have to deal with and projects that need researching probably mean that they haven’t got time to research it properly. I don’t know if there is an ACO suggestion box that things could be sent to but might be worth letting them know - better they know twice than not at all.
However why limit complaints to 1* ? - if you limit them to 2* that allows an impartial view by AOC 22 Group, making sure that the HQAC don’t keep everything in the family and allow a bit more oversight.
Now, I’m not a legal expert but I have some experience with criminal law and in understanding the way in which Acts are written. Perhaps Perry Mason will be able to help confirm but reading the Act with a legal head on it seems to me that there is a misunderstanding of the wording in Para 5(b)(ii).
Para 5(b)(ii) refers specifically to the firing (by nature of the phrase “engaged in target shooting”) of prohibited weapons i.e. Section 5 firearms, such as the L98, L85, L86, and GPMG.
It doesn’t say: “in the case of possession of prohibited weapons or prohibited ammunition they are on service premises”. If it did, then you would be right.
It says: “in the case of possession of prohibited weapons or prohibited ammunition when engaged in target shooting, they are on service premises”
Paras 5(b)(i) and 5(c) apply to all non-prohibited firearms covered by the act in all cases; and those prohibited under section 5 in all cases other than when engaged in target shooting.
This section of the Act allows members of a cadet Corps, when acting within the specific caveats, to be considered in the same blanket exemption as the military.
There is no mention of “supervision” for this to apply. The law is clear. If we’re involved in drill, target shooting, or instruction, ANY member of the ACO may have in their possession a firearm which they would otherwise be unable to hold as a civilian. We can only fire prohibited weapons on a Service range.
That’s exactly the point. As you say, transporting weapons on the public highway is not “engaged in target shooting”, it is “in connection with”.
As the “Service premises” caveat applies only and specifically “when engaged in shooting” with prohibited weapons it does not therefore apply to their transport. This means that movements are permitted under para 5(b)(i) as being “in connection with” target shooting.
[quote=“Chief Tech” post=17519]Also ACO policy states that we can only practice arms drill with the L98A2[/quote] That’s not actually correct. Extant policy permits the use of the L98A2, L103A2, or “Replica Weapons” for arms drill.
Though, I do understand that you were leading from that statement to this:
Also not true.
Here’s the quote again.
[quote]members of any cadet corps approved by the Secretary of State when—
(i)they are engaged as members of the corps in connection with, drill or target shooting;[/quote]
There’s the exemption right there.
Any member of the ACO involved in arms drill is not bound by the act as the Crown is not bound.
There is no requirement for “supervision”; we are all simply authorized under the law.
Not at all. You have a MOD90 which shows you to be a member of a Cadet force. You are demonstrably ‘on duty in connection with shooting or drill’ because you have a vehicle full of weapons and associated paperwork authorizing their movement.
The only time you might have some explaining to do is if you don’t have the paperwork or your ID, as you would then find it difficult to prove who you are or what you are doing (you would also deserve a hard time if you were stupid enough to transport weapons without those key documents 
).
I do believe that is a sensible option, though in this case only inasmuch that it might appease those who don’t actually know the law.
For example, it might smooth the way with those who mistakenly believe that SNCOs can’t legally transport weapons without an Officer, or can’t perform arms drill without supervision, etc.
Legally speaking there is no issue as things currently stand. If the Army or RAF are applying specific restrictions based upon misunderstanding, then it’s not a matter of law; it simply requires people to be properly informed as to the provisions of the Firearms Act and the exemptions which exist.
[quote=“cygnus maximus” post=17508]HQ Air have taken greater interest in the way the ACO goes about its business.
What we are seeing now is HQ Air taking a stronger stance with the organisation, [/quote]
The question here is why, why now and not for the last 76 years?
For my money it has very, very little to do with making the ACO more RAF and more to do with the RAF seeing itself shrinking and it’s role becoming more 1914 and less 2014 and looking to find ways to justify its existence. Of course this would never come to light as part of any official documentation. The ACO outnumbers the regular RAF in terms of total numbers, which is something I never thought I would see, like I imagine many senior RAF Officers.
Let’s not kid ourselves the introduction of the OASC process for VR(T) was proposed and came in at a time when the number of regular Officer recruits was starting to reduce and could have very easily seen OASC staff become part-timers. I wonder why VR(T) never went through OASC beforehand? Was it because OASC was too busy screening potential regular Officers and SNCO aircrew and wouldn’t have been able to fit them in. If the throughput of potential regulars started to increase would OASC struggle to fit VR(T) in? What then? I was told by fellow CO that one of their staff’s cohort (when attending OASC) had been told to encourage more people into the process as OASC needed the throughput.
As for the comments about people resigning from uniform positions to become a CI is IMO analogous to why a number of teachers give up full time teaching and become supply teachers, ie they turn up do what they enjoy with none or not as much of the crap.
[quote=“wdimagineer2b” post=17522]Now, I’m not a legal expert but I have some experience with criminal law and in understanding the way in which Acts are written. Perhaps Perry Mason will be able to help confirm but reading the Act with a legal head on it seems to me that there is a misunderstanding of the wording in Para 5(b)(ii).
Legally speaking there is no issue as things currently stand. If the Army or RAF are applying specific restrictions based upon misunderstanding, then it’s not a matter of law; it simply requires people to be properly informed as to the provisions of the Firearms Act and the exemptions which exist.[/quote]
W.r.t. to the Arms drill side I was under the impression that ACO specifically stated the L98A2to be used for drill -replicas would certainly be okay. The L103A2 would be a grey area as it is a not fully deactivated S5 firearm although as it was manufactured to be its current state (and not a modified S5) it could be argued it is a non-firing replica.
I think as both of us are in the category of being “not legal experts but have some experience with criminal law” we would both benefit from someone like Perry to give their assistance as we appear to be quoting the same exact words but are translating it differently which is just going to lead to a circular debate.
My experience is that when dealing with the acts you take them very literally and work from the basis that it is going to give the answer that you don’t want, removing the natural human tendency to look for loop holes and applying our own bias.
As I understand things the two subsections are read independantly from each other giving:-
[quote]
5)The persons referred to in subsection (4) of this section are the following—
b)members of any cadet corps approved by the Secretary of State when—
(i)they are engaged as members of the corps in connection with, drill or target shooting;[/quote]
[quote]
5)The persons referred to in subsection (4) of this section are the following—
b)members of any cadet corps approved by the Secretary of State when—
(ii)in the case of possession of prohibited weapons or prohibited ammunition when engaged in target shooting, they are on service premises;[/quote]
[quote]
5)The persons referred to in subsection (4) of this section are the following—
©persons providing instruction to any members of a cadet corps who fall within paragraph (b).[/quote]
Regardless however whether we are right or wrong, this can have serious repercussions for the organistion and we should have had something to clarify the situation. Ignorance is no excuse but having an official document advising does give a bit of mitigation and the ACO should obtain and provide that clarity.
[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=17528][quote=“cygnus maximus” post=17508]HQ Air have taken greater interest in the way the ACO goes about its business.
What we are seeing now is HQ Air taking a stronger stance with the organisation, [/quote]
The question here is why, why now and not for the last 76 years?[/quote]
It might be that with all the defence cuts we are going on someone from outside the organisation has taken a look and gone “why are they still doing this - we stopped that in the RAF decades ago?” I would also through in that with the internet its now a lot easier to send emails to the higher up where they are more likely to be read (less need for PAs now than there use to be) - with situations such as Thurston resulting in all manner or people being contacted AVM and ACM are not exactly thrilled to be get angry emails from parents and civilian committee chairmen. It may have taken 76 years to get stuck in but this is probably long overdue anyway. Society has moved on and unfortunately what worked 15 years ago doesnt work now.
Whist I have heard of this, why resign to become a CI if you no longer have control or influence of the situation? Most people when the get to this situation go “stuff it I’m off” rather than step back unless they are retiring.
A lot of what has been discussed in this thread has been around the training and management of the volunteers. Now if a SNCO become VR(T) would the organisation need to take greater notice of them and be constructive and forward thinking around their training? It might also open up certain training and development course not normally open.
Our organisation has three staff types - Officer, NCO & CI and we need to balance the needs of each of those staff types appropriately. If at the current moment we are not getting officers applying, taking command or staying then that would indicate that the officer morale is very low and we as an organisation are doing something wrong. Making SNCOs VR(T) might help this at it may help the officers feel more confident about challenging things and more supported in dealing with difficult staff. I may also help firm up to the SNCO where they stand in the organisation, that they are a part of it and the military mind set that is expected.
The only aspect of the Corps’ existence from 15 years ago that doesn’t work now is the modern societal viewpoint that anyone wanting to work with children is a kiddy fiddler. 15 years ago there were no such thoughts/restrictions on people.
What is on offer to Officers is at best sketchy, so not sure there is much that would open up. If I’m honest there seems to be more training / courses aimed at the SNCO cadre than Officer, so maybe some of the SNCO targeted courses would become available to Officers.
The question here is why start in the middle? CIs are the largest group and IMO that’s who should be made to feel that they are an important part of the organisation, empty rhetoric and platitudes aside. On the vast majority of squadrons CIs are much, much more than instruct. I know I was when I was CI nigh on 30 years ago. I don’t go for this line of “if they want to have more influence they should go into uniform”, slightly ironic when there is probably as many if not more civvies doing things in the RAF, that were once the preserve of those in uniform. The only time CIs get any attention is when they make noises about going into uniform. The first step would be a proper ID Card so that when they go somewhere, they aren’t or have to produce scraps of paper.
Again before worrying about SNCOs, there should be a much more work to look at why people aren’t applying for commissions and those that do don’t see taking a command as a natural step.
As a WO I never shied away from supporting my COs and as a CO I’ve never not had the support of WOs and later SNCOs. So quite how having them VR(T) will give me more confidence, is a mystery. The issue around confidence in Officers is IMO more to do with the lack of life experience among young Officers, who maybe in awe of some older WOs and SNCOs. As I said introduce a minimum service and or age to the role of Sqn Cdr and you may not get this effect, as too many Officers, through lack of options, are put into a command who are IMO too young and have too little adult service. There may even be some room to make the whole adult side of a the Corps developmental with all staff coming in as a CI, then those that want to go SNCO and those that want to, go for a Commission and remove the direct entry to Officer and SNCO for older candidates (say over 35), unless they fulfil specific criteria. Have a minimum 4 years as CI and SNCO, with a requirement to have been on camps and gained a broad experience of the Corps through participating and attending courses / activities. This would inject some of the militaty mindset in those with no previous experience AND give ex-cadets a buffer between cadet service and the rigours of squadron command. In this phase you could have them getting their heads around admin, supply and training, which for my money are the big three things, plus getting involved, if their CO has their wits about them, in resolving discip, dispute and conflict issues, from all quarters. My SNCOs are fully involved in these as I insist they carry out the initial investigations (unless it involve them) and look to resolve them, with my tuppence worth on offer if they feel it necessary. If they do sort it out they let me know, so that if it comes back, I know what’s been said/done.
When looking at why SNCOs might want to be VR(T) what are the benefits that those who are VR(T) currently enjoy, that they would not if they weren’t VR(T)?
The only “benefit” that some seem to think there is, is being able to take a redress of grievance all the way to the Monarch, but you would have to be ‘annoyed’ to such a level that you would have probably binned it any way, telling a few their fortunes as you go.
There is nothing tangible, such as a pension.
I didn’t take a commission as I thought there would be something in it. All uniformed staff get a few days pay each year, t’s not something linked solely to the VR(T) that SNCOs are missing out on.
Like many things I imagine there are a few hotheads sabre rattling, saying it would be a good thing and the vast majority, happy as they are or ambivalent. The CoC might like it as it would give them another accountable tranche of staff to use for sqn command positions, given that we are not over run with Officers and more so Officers willing to do it.
I wonder what will happen if the survey returns a significant thumbs down?
Extra leave from work. I wouldn’t get it as (ATC) but as “reserve forces” i do. In the “reserve forces” section, all variations are mentioned as applicable, including VR(T).
[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=17540][color=#ff0000]When looking at why SNCOs might want to be VR(T) what are the benefits that those who are VR(T) currently enjoy, that they would not if they weren’t VR(T)?
The only “benefit” that some seem to think there is, is being able to take a redress of grievance all the way to the Monarch, but you would have to be ‘annoyed’ to such a level that you would have probably binned it any way, telling a few their fortunes as you go.[/color]
There is nothing tangible, such as a pension.
I didn’t take a commission as I thought there would be something in it. All uniformed staff get a few days pay each year, t’s not something linked solely to the VR(T) that SNCOs are missing out on.
Like many things I imagine there are a few hotheads sabre rattling, saying it would be a good thing and the vast majority, happy as they are or ambivalent. The CoC might like it as it would give them another accountable tranche of staff to use for sqn command positions, given that we are not over run with Officers and more so Officers willing to do it.
I wonder what will happen if the survey returns a significant thumbs down?[/quote]
But isnt the point of the thread the discussion of SNCO VR(T)… the Redress to the Monarch Malarkey isnt a VR(T) thing its a Commisiion thing due to Officers Holding one of her Commissions, not because they are in the VR(T)