[quote=“themajor” post=14489][quote=“noah claypole” post=14486][quote=“themajor” post=14485][quote=“noah claypole” post=14483]
I personally beleive CI’s service should be eligible for the CFM.
There is very little other recognition for CI’s.
The current system ‘suggests’ that time spent as a CI if you are eventually going to go Uniform is a ‘waste’, as none of it counts. It encourages people to get into uniform perhaps a bit sooner than they really ought to imo.
If somebody is putting in the same time and effort as their Uniformed counterparts (which has a specified minimum number of hours) then I don’t see why not. I accept that those who perhaps only come in to deliver 1 subject infrequently would not qualify, but it would have to be on a case by case basis - something is better than nothing!
By recognising CI service it all counts and even ‘out and out’ CI’s will be recognised.[/quote]
CI Long Service Certificate anybody?[/quote]
Well done - read my post again and ask the question why CI’s shouldn’t get a Medal vs their Uniformed Colleagues?[/quote]
They have no uniform to wear it with. And its not a campaign medal that you would pass down to children etc. MBE etc is completely different.[/quote]
It’s a medal for being somewhere for a certain amount of time. Over twelve years the average CI easily equals or exceeds the amount of work done by the average civil servant or contractor in ‘5, 21 or 30 days continuous service’.
Flippancy aside, not having a uniform is generally not a bar to being awarded a medal. In fact, the CFM is the only medal I’ve ever come across where that seems to be the case.
[quote=“tango_lima” post=14490][quote=“themajor” post=14489][quote=“noah claypole” post=14486][quote=“themajor” post=14485][quote=“noah claypole” post=14483]
I personally beleive CI’s service should be eligible for the CFM.
There is very little other recognition for CI’s.
The current system ‘suggests’ that time spent as a CI if you are eventually going to go Uniform is a ‘waste’, as none of it counts. It encourages people to get into uniform perhaps a bit sooner than they really ought to imo.
If somebody is putting in the same time and effort as their Uniformed counterparts (which has a specified minimum number of hours) then I don’t see why not. I accept that those who perhaps only come in to deliver 1 subject infrequently would not qualify, but it would have to be on a case by case basis - something is better than nothing!
By recognising CI service it all counts and even ‘out and out’ CI’s will be recognised.[/quote]
CI Long Service Certificate anybody?[/quote]
Well done - read my post again and ask the question why CI’s shouldn’t get a Medal vs their Uniformed Colleagues?[/quote]
They have no uniform to wear it with. And its not a campaign medal that you would pass down to children etc. MBE etc is completely different.[/quote]
It’s a medal for being somewhere for a certain amount of time. Over twelve years the average CI easily equals or exceeds the amount of work done by the average civil servant or contractor in ‘5, 21 or 30 days continuous service’.
Flippancy aside, not having a uniform is generally not a bar to being awarded a medal. In fact, the CFM is the only medal I’ve ever come across where that seems to be the case.[/quote]
But then the average CI will not have been at risk/have been IDF’d/IED’d or under DF. (well unless in Luton…)
The difference is that the 5, 21 or 30 days are in ‘dangerous’ areas. Hang on, I know some Sqns where that would be the case!
[quote=]
Flippancy aside, not having a uniform is generally not a bar to being awarded a medal. In fact, the CFM is the only medal I’ve ever come across where that seems to be the case.[/quote]
I don’t think that the GSM62 was generally awarded to Civil Servants or contractors like the OSM and other more recent campaign medals are and have been; but I stand ready to be advised otherwise.
GSM isn’t awarded to civil servants, only the OSM/campaign medal for the tour that they complete as long as they have a continuous 30 days (minimum) in theatre.
[quote=“papa november” post=14493][quote=“tango_lima” post=14490][quote=“themajor” post=14489][quote=“noah claypole” post=14486][quote=“themajor” post=14485][quote=“noah claypole” post=14483]
I personally beleive CI’s service should be eligible for the CFM.
There is very little other recognition for CI’s.
The current system ‘suggests’ that time spent as a CI if you are eventually going to go Uniform is a ‘waste’, as none of it counts. It encourages people to get into uniform perhaps a bit sooner than they really ought to imo.
If somebody is putting in the same time and effort as their Uniformed counterparts (which has a specified minimum number of hours) then I don’t see why not. I accept that those who perhaps only come in to deliver 1 subject infrequently would not qualify, but it would have to be on a case by case basis - something is better than nothing!
By recognising CI service it all counts and even ‘out and out’ CI’s will be recognised.[/quote]
CI Long Service Certificate anybody?[/quote]
Well done - read my post again and ask the question why CI’s shouldn’t get a Medal vs their Uniformed Colleagues?[/quote]
They have no uniform to wear it with. And its not a campaign medal that you would pass down to children etc. MBE etc is completely different.[/quote]
It’s a medal for being somewhere for a certain amount of time. Over twelve years the average CI easily equals or exceeds the amount of work done by the average civil servant or contractor in ‘5, 21 or 30 days continuous service’.
Flippancy aside, not having a uniform is generally not a bar to being awarded a medal. In fact, the CFM is the only medal I’ve ever come across where that seems to be the case.[/quote]
But then the average CI will not have been at risk/have been IDF’d/IED’d or under DF. (well unless in Luton…)[/quote]
And neither will the uniformed staff while qualifying for their CFMs.
My point was, like I said, people without uniforms get awarded medals all the time, because they qualify. So why should a CI who qualifies not be awarded the CFM?
For goodness sake, not everyone is trying to get into a urinating contest on here. Attempt at humour obviously missed, whilst drawing attention to the difference between a medal awarded for an operational tour and a time served type award. Actually I do agree with you about CIs should get some sort of better recognition ie CFM
Simply put, the recipients have to provide service as governed in the organisation rules (12 hours). CIs don’t and, in theory turn up once a month if they wish. We all know the majority don’t and put in much more but it would take a change in regulations to stipulate a minimum hours for CIs in order for “service” to be reckoned.
That’s a very interesting read Plt Off Prune, thanks for posting the link. Pretty much explains and confirms a lot of things that we’ve been discussing and making assumptions on.
The statistics are rather telling, for the period NYHL 98 - NYHL 07 there were on average 0.22 successful awards per 1000 volunteers for the ATC compared with 1.09 per 1000 volunteers for the SCC; they appear to do very well in the civil list. I may appear cynical, but I also doubt that the current statistics are very much different. The ATC received less than half of the overall average for all cadet forces which is pretty poor and I cannot believe that our volunteers were considerably less worthy of recognition compared with our SCC and ACF colleagues.
Is it a case of our Sqn Cdrs or others at the start of the ‘reporting chain’ just not bothering to write people up? Are the citations not good enough? Are our Wgs/Regions over zealous in their sifting? As far as I can remember, in my Wg we only ever see a short ‘reminder’ in Routine Orders that nominations are required for suitable candidates; should our HQs push harder for citations to be raised?
Some may see the writing of a citation as yet another admin burden, but it should be a job we undertake willingly to ensure our people get the recognition they deserve.
It does pose the question - why is the ACO so poor at recognising the service our staff (of all flavours) in compasion to other organisations? What can we do to ensure that staff are recognised for their service and commitment?
I have seen a BEM awarded to a CI recently (for very very very long service) but the overall number of proper awards to all staff is shockingly low.
particularly when we are told we produce the best Cadets, which later turn into the best recruits…i have heard there are more ATC Cadets who join up than any other Cadet force and also heard there are more ATC Cadets applying to non RAF service than the respective Cadet force (ie more ATC into the Army than ACF/Navy than SCC)
even more worrying when you consider the “cost per Cadet” - i have heard, that the “cost per Cadet” for the ATC is something like £20/head/year while the ACF is £50/head/year
(those numbers are probably wrong but the ratio is about right, the ACF costs a little over double)
with that “cost” in mind surely that it is worth recognising the work that the ATC does…
I wouldn’t say the BEM isn’t ‘proper’ Perry. Before they got rid of it several years ago, it was very much seen by the juniors (FS and below cadre) as similar recognition to the MBE etc that WOs and above received. I think the BEM is still a quasi-part of the Order.
What aggrieves me and it would appear others, is the massive disparity across the CFs and I’d really like to know why there is such a huge difference especially, as steve679 says, we apparently have a better ‘product’ (to use HQ management BS).
What may also not help is that the initiators for awards (Sqn Cdrs?) may not be skilled enough in the writing of an effective citation. I know that that’s what WExO’s are there for but how many of THEM know how to write one?
Then of course, as someone has mentioned there may well be an over-zealous sift at Corps level with many nominees worthy of an honour getting binned, possibly, because the citation isn’t up to speed. Also, most nominees don’t get an award first time round so persistence is the key. How many citation writers have that persistence? How many give up when their nominee is rejected for the first or second time?
Actually, I got the impression that it was you missing my joke, rather than the other way around. Constraints of the medium, I suppose.
[quote]particularly when we are told we produce the best Cadets, which later turn into the best recruits…i have heard there are more ATC Cadets who join up than any other Cadet force and also heard there are more ATC Cadets applying to non RAF service than the respective Cadet force (ie more ATC into the Army than ACF/Navy than SCC)
[/quote]
I don’t think this should have anything to do with anything, really. The ATC is not a recruiting organisation and its job isn’t to provide good quality recruits to the Armed Forces.
i don’t think that the point was ‘we provide loads of recruits - give us some gongs’, it was just one of several wider points indicating that the ACO is a superb organisation for the cadets, and that its interesting that the people who make it such a superb organisation for the cadets seem to recieve a lower rate of reward than members of staff of other comparable organisations who, apparently, are not able to produce quite such excellent results.
Perhaps because the cadets we work with are generally excellent (and therefore sought after by the services) we actually get an easy ride compared to the others and are therefore less deserving of the recognition.
:evil: