Email from Brigade today containing a briefing paper on the proposed changes. No mention of the RAF - but that’s the Army for you… 1 Apr 17 still described as ‘intended’…
For those who think that CEP is snake oil this will be interesting. I found this from July this year on a lazy day on the school system.
Lines like this are interesting
The Ministry of Defence (MOD) said, despite not being able to tell Schools Week how many schools signed up for cadet units in the past year, it still was “on track” to meet its target of 500 in state schools by 2020.
the Combined Cadet Force (CCF) would not provide figures for the number of units in state schools set up in the past 12 months. Its website says there are 300 units in schools, but this includes independent schools, which make up the vast majority of units. This time last year, the figure on the website was 275.
Keep on track please. Make a new thread or find the old one about the CEP…
As far as I can recall the biggest change over the years was WOs losing Tate & Lyles after 8 years, but that was in my cadet years. But that wasn’t the comprehensive game changer to the extent this will be, this as a total package will change the cadet forces completely. The fact this has been allowed to be driven by the Army is disgraceful. It has to make you wonder what on earth the ACMB members do all day long to justify their salaries. I’m not suggesting that the similar roles in the Army are any better, but they do seem to have been getting their act together.
I can’t disagree with you there.
This is why we the cadet forces volunteer staff cadre, need to be fully involved in the process, unless the unwritten 2020 plan is as I suggest to lose ‘open units’ and just have a few here today gone after 5 years (based on the minimum time to keep one) state school units. The latter will provide jobs for a few ex-servicemen/women in Test roles whereas the open unit system doesn’t use or need them.
Quite an interesting read above as there is little evidence of these units forming, despite the rhetoric and assertions of its success. As said in the article the amount £50 million is a lot of money to have sloshing around with no requirement to account for it being used for its proper purpose, but then again this is the MOD which managed to create a multi thousand million black hole through financial and project mismanagement, so £50,000,000 is back of the sofa loose change. We only have to look at the £15 million intended for doing up the gliders which got ‘lost’ in admin exercises and nest feathering, to see how loosely the people charged with using this operate. It’s like watching an episode of Blackadder II.
Back in the days of old, snail mail & 'phone calls were the only real methods of communication = consultation was very difficult. Now, with the inter-web, consultation can easily be achieved with a mass audience. Failure to use modern options is no excuse - they are certainly used when it suits the higher echelons for many other (brain-draining) ideas or provision of policies, etc.
For example, why should we be considering best things to spend money on for the 100th anniversary celebrations (use of the inter-web when it suits them!) when the ACO hasn’t got any gliding…
While that addresses the immediate issue of badging for the revised commission (I can’t see how retaining VR(T) pins can be an option),. the scope is too narrow as this needs to encompass SNCO/WO (possibly with the same designation) as well as cadets.
I hope they remember that No1/No5 will also need a solution.
Can’t access it, but this idea does seem to be a bit of a pointless scraps under the table exercise.
I do suppose that a consultation process is a waste of time thinking about the questionnaire put out for SNCO VRT, which was written by an illiterate, chubby crayon user. Q1 something like do you want SNCO to be VRT yes/no and then all the other questions were directed by Q1, pointless rubbish.
“Any other suggestion not shown here”
Er… how about just having ATC embroidered on the slides? (And CCF, VGS and AEF as required).
We could have “ACO” embroidered on the slides in gold thread and have a single stock item that would work for the different branches. Gilt ACO pins would be needed for No1/no5 dress
Taking that to the tri-service realm we could use “CF” instead - it is a cadet forces commission after all.
I doubt it - we don’t have rank slides that say “Army Reserve” or anything like that. All ACF instructors wear “ACF” and all CCF (Army) wear “CCF”. I wouldn’t be surprised if you end up with “ATC” and “CCF” respectively.
Less work for me in that case 
How about CFAV for everyone?
Given one of reasons for a cadet commission is to display how much the MOD and Royal Family (supposedly) ‘value’ the cadet forces, why not just badge us as CF rather than individual units.
But then again ACF wear the cap badge of their sponsoring regt, so would this change in time to a cadet forces cap badge?
Or CFAV, which seems to be the general abbreivation for such things.
Or how about no designators?
1 Like
Minor point but…
Where will this sit with precedent of commissions?
Retired Sqn Ldr RAF becomes Fg Off VRT and therefore dresses as Fg Off VRT whenever in uniform regardless of if it is an ATC activity or one where he is entitled to wear uniform.
On relinquishing VRT commission reverts to Sqn Ldr RAF(ret) and can turn up to parades etc in Sqn Ldr uniform if so wishes.
So if CF commission is not a Royal service commission how will this link? Can you wear uniform dependent on what or whom you are representing?
What an email from RC N consulting the entire ACO on this change were we are able to 
FYI RC N has taken the ACO Lead on DYER picking up from the previous RC W&W