Unlawful Regulations CFC

There has been an interesting point raised on ask the team on SharePoint regarding the regulations concerning political activity and uniformed members of the RAFAC.
The point has been raised is essentially now that we are not covered by the armed forces act and are civilians any restrictions will be a restriction on the freedom of speech.

Issues of this nature should have been realised ling before one of our colleagues in the volunteer cadre raised the issues after implementation. If they had published draft regulations before the implementation date issues like this could have been raised and have avoided the embarrassment of publishing possibly illegal rules terms and conditions.

The arguments put forward are flimsy at best and falling back on the mantra that it is our club and our rules could get the RAFAC and the MoD into hot water. It is in the hands of our lawyers so wait an see.

The law of unintended consequences and all that.

Could be worth a call to Amnesty international. We are being oppressed by HQAC. :wink:

1 Like

If they wanted that degree of control over us they should have kept us under the Armed Forces Act


I think, without checking, that this is the case for all CFAV including SNCOs (always civilians in uniform) & CIs

It would most likely need someone to stand, and then challenge…

The ACP also says we are disqualified from standing for parliament until we resign our commission. Disqualification is covered by the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. No mention at all of us being disqualified. Members of the regular armed forces are but reserves are not (isn’t there a minister in the Naval Reserve?) so I struggle to see that uniformed youth workers would be disqualified under the act. In fact I don’t think the old VR(T) officers were disqualified.
Unless they think we’re civil servants then we are not disqualified from parliamentary candidature. (Their rules may prohibit it- and they would be doubtful on both vires and legality) but that doesn’t mean we are disqualified which has a specific legal meaning in this sense. This really should have been run by the lawyers (mind you, bearing in mind the previous legal errors in this process it may have been cleared by them).

Imagine MPs who were active in the cadet forces and able to actively query things … they’d never allow it. Imagine MPs during the CFC fiasco, being able to ask parliamentary questions, who were active on cadet force units, they would be under pressure for different things by their cadet force HQs and be forced to leave.

The right to freedom of thought, conscience & Religion as well of those of Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Association and Assembly (Articles 9,10 & 11 of the ECHR) are not absolute rights they are qualified and can be breached to an extent and in certain circumstances.

As such you can quite lawfully be banned from making poitical statements when on duty by any employer not just the MOD.

However you also have a right under Article 8 of the ECHR to a private life and what you do in that private life as long as it is lawful is nothing to do with the ATC or your normal employer. (I have previously made this point when the Wing Facebook Police attempted to tell me what photos of me not on Cadet duty I could put on my private Facebook page!)


Sea Cadets has always advised volunteers that because of the close relationship with the Royal Navy, political activity must be impartial. It’s in the Sea Cadet Regulations and assume by joining the Sea Cadets volunteers accept this as one of the many rules they agree to abide by in order to volunteer. Don’t think individuals are suppressed their right to free speech, but are asked to respect the need for impartially when ‘on duty’.

1 Like

Interesting that reading the ACP020 it changes all reference of VRT to CFC but all the NCO references of (ATC) have not changed – reads like HQAC are still not seeing Officers and NCOs are part of the same team!

1 Like

Nothing changed then.

Reading the new ACP20, the restrictions imposed on the NCO cadre are very similar to those on officers. Its not just freedom to speak. Uniform staff are banned from all active participation in any political party, have to resign if they want to be on the Parish Council, are told they are ineligible to stand for Parliament etc. Presumably there was some justification for this a some time, but it is difficult to what it is now.

I think somebody from noth of the border has just upset RC(N) on ask the team. I think there will be a hats on no coffee chat with the RC (S&NI) soon.

He dose though bring up some questions that have not been answered on the implementation of the CFC


Only applies to FTRS or ADC - which are reservists who are in either a full time or part time Army post. Doesn’t apply to a member of the Army Reserve who is just doing the standard one night a week, and one weekend a month AR contract.

1 Like

Yep, shots fired…

1 Like

There are a number of things that people have been unhappy about over the years but not bothered to take too much action. What I feel is going to happen with this new commission is that some people are going to turn to the courts to determine our status and challenge the regs. That thread on Ask The Team looks to be going that way.
I post on here about the (il)legality of various actions of MOD/HQAC but as long as I can deliver a good experience to the cadets I don’t care enough about it to challenge them but those people are out there and ultimately the only loser in any litigation will be the cadets themselves

They may do, but that particular except relates specifically to AR Officers who are serving in FTRS or ADC roles.

Oh dear

Someone is deffo in for a ‘re-alignment’

I’m hoping it isn’t the person most may think it is.

There is quite a large disconnect between the understanding of this organisation across the rank divide and I am not sure that the information fed to our new tranche of commandants from above necessarily matches the complex truth.

I agree but some of this would mot of happened if we were fully involved in the process in the first place rather than being told to accept it. We can all say things in the heat of things and I’m sure its not been easy for the lead, but wording such as " Our Club our Rules " was bound to have someone biting back. In respect of not paying the VA if they don’t have funds comment that’s fine until folks say I need it to off set the loss of wages I suffer when I go to camp or someone says, ok I will do the min I have to do so don’t expect me to do more than the 12 hours a month or heres your RAFAC stick it

1 Like

I know people who have been delivered the “club rules” not in those words but in essence and told them to poke it. One walked out there and then, gave them their rank slides, ID card and squadron keys to the OC, the OC was fuming and apparently had to be talked out of not doing the same.

Given how a number of people feel things are being done in the wider organisation, get too hard nosed and it could be an eye-opener for some of our senior commanders as people vote with their feet, as has been happening.

Well done that man.