VR(T) Commission Change

Or the Court of Appeal and beyond? :innocent:

I thought someone already had gone to employment lawyers about this?

10 posts were split to a new topic: Volunteer Allowance

Back to the Commission change…

Personally I don’t give a rats about the change to my ‘status’, even though it may affect what I can do for the Corps. What has really ‘ground my gears’ is the way that this has been approached the CoC and what I would describe akin to contempt for the volunteer during the process.

The whole approach has been a fudge from start to finish and it would appear that the whole reason for the change in the first place was to obfuscate the inadequacies in the CoC (dealing with complaints from the volunteer) from those in 22 Group.

I won’t repeat what has been written above because the point was made, but when it gets to the point when we can’t even issue badges properly, then we are in big trouble. We are of course at that point now.



And I think every current OC who has been in post for more than 2 months, will be of the same opinion.

The change of status from VRT means nothing in terms of how we are regarded, it will still be the unwashed. HQAC need to really analyse why in particular OCs go NEP as soon as the opportunity arises, I heard of another one at the weekend (having a second child) and I was shocked as a more enthusiastic bloke you are unlikely to find. Apparently the rumour mill says he’s not coming back as he’s been harassed over what he’s not done, despite having a successful sqn.

I jacked after my first child OCship. Ain’t no way I’m putting the ATC - or babysitting other peoples kids - in front of my own child! I particularly detested the phone calls on non-parade nights and during my working day to deal with ATC BS. All credit to him for sticking with it through 1 child and into 2!

Christ I’ve got 3 and carried on, although they were older when I became OC. But the ATC was always and still is 3rd behind family and work. Even with grown up children, non cadet nights are mine to do with as I see fit.

The additional problem we in the Corps is social media and email, which didn’t exist for a large part of my time as OC, and seem to just to invade personal space. I make it quite clear that don’t call me at home or outside the squadron unless it is life or death. Ping me an email and I may look at it but don’t expect a response. I tend to ignore a lot of the chatter on the FB group as it is just parental noise because their kids don’t listen.

OR the parents!

Agreed, but only so long as it doesn’t change how we’re treated - if it gets in the way of doing business (oh, you need to be military to do that) then I will start to care…

We will be treated exactly the same … badly.
The lack of comprehending the people turning up during the week and at weekends to do things with cadets won’t change, be that wrt a change of status for Officers or organisation name.

Consider all the issues we had before with SNCO’s & CI’s not being allowed to move Ammunition or L98’s because they weren’t service personnel.

This is an issue now hopefully resolved, but the same could still happen again. It only takes 1 overly imaginative 1* in the Army to say “wait a minute why are we letting civvies in uniform sign out Section 5 Firearms” and we would be more knackered than last time.


So how come SNCOs I know in the ACF don’t have any problems? The quals are all the same so why is it a problem in the ATC? May be a question to the shooting punker wallahs.

We are staying off topic but the firearms act exemption are clear and wide ranging for cadet purposes.

Yes they were but it didn’t stop somebody getting a twitchy sphincter and stopping NCOs and CIs drawing arms and ammo.

And that “non-issue” - which, on paper, was quite straight forward - put a significant “pause” in shooting across some areas of the ATC. It generated a lot of ill feeling amongst a wide range of people - not just NCOs & CIs. It caused a degree of resentment amonst a few non-shooting VRTs I know who suddenly found themselves getting CTC checks and booked on SATT courses just to enable them to move A&A for Sqn/Wg - despite the fact they have no interest in the shooting. “For the greater good” was the line rolled out by those on high. Several months later they find they had literally wasted time because somebody up the food chain had a twitchy sphincter!

It boiled down to poor volunteer management and poor communications. Hmm… there could be a theme developing with those two terms?


Can we not mention that particular person’s sphincter please?


And let’s not forget the civilian armoury staff who could no longer deliver ammunition and service weapons!

Most of these things are historic and the folly and errors of their ways of the decision makers exposed for what they were. They acted in haste (default position) and didn’t attempt any sort of common sense evaluation of their decisions.

You would hope that in the future someone sees sense confronted with such a situation and correlates qualifications to need and not the bit of material you wear on your shoulder.

I would like to see what you really need to have a “uniform” in the Corps to do, given that the vast majority of uniformed staff can’t see anything in the current system, outside of Sqn Cdr or Wg Cdr. There are an increasing number of WExOs who have no military backgrounds and only seem to wear a uniform and have a pretend rank to avoid confusing idiots in the Forces, who supposedly can’t cope with civilians, despite the vast number of civilians running things in the Forces. If the WExO doesn’t need a ‘uniform’, why do we?

really??? why do we need a uniform??