Having met the man that wrote it, I can confirm his view seemed fixed before even having the chance to fight the corner for those holding a VR(T) commission already. He didn’t really seem to want to be persuaded that it’s a good thing!
I’m not convinced that is is a good thing and the royal warrant can be changed again if need be.
There might a clue though as to his mindset … [size=4]Brigadier[/size].
Whenever you have a report or study if you look behind who sponsors it and why, will give a guide to the outcomes / direction before it’s issued.
[quote]Op Nimrod wrote:
A SoS instruction would be easier than legislation change, and much quicker. [/quote]
Exactly - although in the longer term, I think that relevant secondary legislation i.e. The Armed Forces (Redress of Individual Grievances) Regulations 2007 - would need to be amended in due course:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3353/contents/made
However, in the interim, an order from the SoS would have the same effect; and would allow the Defence Council (i.e. the Air Force Board) to modify ACO CFAV (and VR(T) especially) T&COS accordingly under the authority of Section 4(2) of RFA96…
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/14/section/4
…since an order from the SoS excludng CF personnel/Officers from making Service Complaints would also be - in the (current) case of VR(T) Officers made under the authority of Section 4(1) of RFA96 (in addition to Section 334(2) of AFA06).
Nice simple solution - no need for primary legislation, some possible future amendment of secondary legislation, and CF Officers continue to be commissioned. Life goes on (as it has for the past 70+ years).
[quote] pEp wrote:
[quote]bti wrote:
Personally speaking - having read the DYER Final Report in detail - my view is that the author(s) are firmly of the opinion that Cadet Forces officers should not hold the Queens Commission, that it should be removed and a “cadet commission” introduced; similar to SCC Officers, who are neither commissioned nor legally part of the Reserve Forces (DYER also strongly suggests that the ACO and ACF should become more like the SCC, and less directly connected to their parent services). However, this is not necessarily the MOD or single Service (i.e. Army & RAF) view. A report does not automatically reflect MOD or tri-service policy, however it may shape and influence it.
[/quote]
Having met the man that wrote it, I can confirm his view seemed fixed before even having the chance to fight the corner for those holding a VR(T) commission already. He didn’t really seem to want to be persuaded that it’s a good thing! [/quote]
My personal view is that the Service Complaints issue has very much been used as a lever by DYER to try and end the practice of ACF & CCF(Army) TA List B and ACO RAFVR(T) Officers being commissioned, on the grounds that it is proving an administrative nightmare for HQs and therefore detracting from their core business, and that it is hampering the CF’s ability to deal decisively with idiots who are abusing the system. Whilst there may be truth in that, I think the working assumption has always been “remove the commission”, rather than “how can we fix the problem”.
[quote]incubus wrote:
I’m not convinced that is is a good thing and the royal warrant can be changed again if need be.
[/quote]
Actually, the Royal Warrant is not that easily amended, since it requires the personal permission of the Sovereign to do so. As a form of “Letters Patent” (like the Queens Commission) a Royal Warrant is not subject to the same consitutional conventions as primary legislation (i.e. that the Monarch “rubber stamps” in granting Royal Assent - even though, technically and legally, this too can be withheld). Should HMTQ not wish to modify the Royal Warrant and/or agree to proposed modifications she is under no constitutional obligation to do so.
Cheers
BTI
[quote=“Leeroy” post=8159]Surely they can’t remove those currently commissioned and give them a new commission?
[/quote]
Yes, they can.
[quote=“talon” post=8200][quote=“Leeroy” post=8159]Surely they can’t remove those currently commissioned and give them a new commission?
[/quote]
Yes, they can.[/quote]
Reference?
[quote=“Gunner” post=8201][quote=“talon” post=8200][quote=“Leeroy” post=8159]Surely they can’t remove those currently commissioned and give them a new commission?
[/quote]
Yes, they can.[/quote]
Reference?[/quote]
Automatic enrollment on refresh of service.
I echo what Gunner says… Show us a reference
How many current VR(T) Officers would simply revert to the new “Commission”? How many would walk away feeling let down by the ACO having being “stripped” of their Queen’s Commission?
The ACF & The ACO Could learn a great deal from the SCC, where we might laud it over them in terms of numbers of cadets and units around the country, they have a vibrant, structured and successful organisation which could almost continue to operate its core business as normal if the MOD pulled the plug on its funding, support and leadership.
As time goes by and funding from the MOD becomes less and less the ACF & ACO (which are 90% and 85% funded by public money respectively) will feel the effects of the reduction in funding if we don’t have members of our organisations who are able to attract funds from different sources (and I mean funding for the whole organisation and its infrastructure - not a few thousand £s to fund equipment!)!
Perhaps that’s a discussion for another topic though!
Could it be that there is a “third way” hybrid for RAF Air Cadet Officer service?
Stage(1) On entry, completion of assessment and selection as at present followed by successful completion at the basic officer course leads to the award of an RAF Air Cadets Commandant’s Commission.
Stage(2) Following appropriate experience, selection as a candidate suitable for a post at a higher responsibility level and successful completion of the senior officer course, award of a VR(T) Commission on filling an appropriate post.
Devil as always in the detail but it allows time for proper development and a relatively easy “sifting out” process for those who do not make the grade??
If they stripped me of my commission simply because some farting Brigadier says so, I’d petition the Queen… :lol:
Completely agree - through work I attended a brief at SCC Southern Office in Portsmouth a few years ago, and was very very impressed with their military / civvy ways, and in particular their regional business managers and the work they did forging links with business and industry and raising the profile of the SCC.
Back to the commissioning issue, I think it would be a real kick in the teeth for those who have gone through OASC, and I quote HQAC, ‘to have kudos with regular RAF Officers having done the same selection and met the same standard’ to not have the same commission. Personally with everything going on at the moment and the demands being places upon us, I couldn’t really give two hoots - I’ll keep doing what I can for the Cadets, and when I’ve had enough or it becomes too much I’ll walk.
Regarding the access to the complaints board, should it not be ringing alarm bells high up in the ACO and indeed RAF / MOD that one of the biggest users are VR(T) Officers? Either this is symptomatic of VR(T) Officers being of poor quality, which to be honest few are, or more likely that the middle level management have badly treated them and handled an issue very very badly, and the VR(T) is using that route as a way to seek appropriate resolution? By removing access to the complaints board, you’ll solve the issue of VR(T)'s having access to it, but you won’t fix the problem that drives them to it in the first place.
It’s ringing bells alright! None of the cases are overturning the original decision, which in the eyes of the MoD/RAF is making us look pretty poor. Not because of the management styles but down to the fact that there are some right tools out there with an inflated sense of self worth. There are too many people who “bring in a solicitor” when they get canned because they don’t pass a third OIC or fail to attend/do their required hours etc etc.
1 Like
NooffenceNimrod but how many times have weheard this…and has anything ever come of it…I wouldnt hold your breath, howeron a different tangent would being VRT NCOs/WO would that open up the oppertunity for T&L WOs?
If they stripped me of my commission simply because some farting Brigadier says so, I’d petition the Queen… :lol:[/quote]
It’s funny but I seem to remember that the draft DYER proposed removing Commissions (it was FOI’ed IIRC), but by the time it was published it had been watered down to a TCOS review.
Perhaps that suggests the MoDs thinking? Keep Commissions but remove certain priviledges?
How many don’t pass the OIC as suggested and complain, is this anecdotal or empirical?
As for the hours, again anecdotal or empirical? How do you judge someone not doing their hours? We don’t clock in / out to record the hours.
I would suggest the majority of complaints are due to being treated like crap, or feeling that way, by the senior officers in the CoC / full time paper shufflers, who have no concept that we do what we do outside of normal working hours and expect us to play like regulars. CAC said as much in her article in the comic. Maybe the paper shufflers should read and inwardly digest her remarks, as she seems to have gasped this point, although why she didn’t know it already is another question. The points made about removing the commission as is, not solving the problem, is not I imagine understood by the author of DYER, aferall he’s a senior officer who’s lived in a cosetted world. Keeping as is, keeps the complaints ‘in house’, but severing the link, means it comes into the public arena and if people felt aggrieved enough, it could get very, very messy and some headlines for the services to defend and counter.
Frankly I don’t care if the RAF’s legal dept is tied up with ACO business, because it has to highlight, even to the least intelligent, that there must be something not quite right somewhere and not always with the one making the complaint. The fact this hasn’t been or isn’t addressed is something the RAF’s legal bods should be taking up with HQAC / 22Gp, to find out what is going on.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Cheers Gunner, you just made me spit my beer over my keyboard!!
But why bring the new commissioning process more in line with that of the RAF (OASC) and then strip people of a Queens Commission?
[quote=“ears” post=8234]But why bring the new commissioning process more in line with that of the RAF (OASC) and then strip people of a Queens Commission?[/quote]We want a better standard of hofficer, regardless of the source of their commission.
Its by no means a sure thing.
But - why do the RAF spend millions upgrading stations, then close them…?
Why spend nigh on a billion on MRA4, then bin it…?
Etc…